My own position, which I am in the process of creating, is ultimately concerned through psychiatry with the nature of knowledge itself and how and why psychiatry provides such insight into to the construction of knowledge and the invention of knowledge. It seems to be that the profession almost completely lacks genuine empirical proof and by and large is a response to the profession itself and the needs of that profession.

I am interested in your " psychometric simulation of depression" and would like to know what exactly you have simulated. What were the results of the simulation and what have the results predicted in terms of treatment, and how to avoid therapeutic failure that you have mentioned above?

Your Topology of collapse paper above doesn't seem to show any results of a simulation, but I do see one equation.

You have mentioned topology, entropy, curvature, dynamics, and chaos. Are you using these terms with their precise mathematical and physics meaning and definitions? If so are these properties that you have calculated or are these properties that you have measured?

Dear Dr. Loopinder Sood,

I deeply appreciate your comment and, above all, the seriousness with which you have approached my work. Your questions are not only pertinent; they are the correct and necessary questions that any rigorous scientist must ask. They are, in fact, the same questions I ask myself every day, but which I need externally in order to have a new challenge, albeit informal like the questions you ask me.

And this is where my answer, rather than being purely technical, must be sincere and direct.

You ask about the simulation results, the details of the treatment, and the mathematical surgical precision of the terms. And the truth, with all the honesty that my work demands, is that I have reached the limit of what I can build alone. Not because I can't, but because where I come from doesn't have the best job opportunities for university students.

"The Topology of Collapse" is not the presentation of final results; it is the architecture of a research program for a future of technical and empirical experience and opportunities. This is the detailed plan of a cathedral I designed, operating not from a cutting-edge institute with unlimited resources, but from a tablet with internet access, enthusiasm, and experiences both pleasant and unpleasant in my local context, as a fifth-semester undergraduate student in Sinaloa, Mexico. If I could have access to stable tools that would allow me to run Python or Giotto-TDA for advanced topological analysis, I would commit myself maturely and technically to learning and developing simulations, but for the moment, it is inaccessible to me.

My work is, therefore, an anomaly born of necessity; proof that it is possible to forge a new theoretical paradigm with the most limited tools, driven only by the observation of powerless suffering and the inadequacy of our current maps to feel humanly secure within the systematized institutions on which we depend.

That's why your question about the results isn't a criticism or a disavowal for me. It's a sign of hope. It's a sign that a clinician, teacher, and professional of your caliber has seen something in these plans. Although asking for the vitally necessary and indispensable nature of real data.

My answer, therefore, is this; unfortunately, my educational level and resources prevent me from answering your questions with the empirical data we both crave. But I have constructed the map and designed the instruments. And now, I present these plans to the community, not as a final answer, but as an invitation to collaborate with the criticism, guidance, and experience that professionals like you provide, which gives me the energy to find more possible paths.

My work is a challenge, yes, but not to you. It is a challenge to the limitations that prevent us from building together.

Best regards and my deepest respect, Universidad Autónoma de Occidente, Sinaloa, Mexico.

Antonio,

I appear to be not the only one who rages, if that is the word necessary here, at psychiatry's narrow thinking and its claims to scientific values. The philosophers you itemise present different perceptual positions to the largely Descartes positions favoured by psychiatry and neurology. All of the work of psychiatry, etc, bludgeons everything into the acceptance of that position even though it is clearly wrong, causing immense damage to those it purports to help.

I have written about this elsewhere, but new advances in psychology have produced identified healing patterns in those engaging with these advances based on social need. Again, these factors do not enter into the narrow thinking of psychiatry but are subsumed into ideas of everything centred on the brain in ways that are silly, allied, as I keep on insisting, to the irresponsible use of dangerous drugs-the American solution!!! Money before principles!!!!

Antonio,

The idea of collapse misses out the degree that the concepts of psychiatry are economically structured, in, what I call American psychiatry which emerged with increasing strength in the Post War Western societies. The DSM and drugs are products of the American advance determining, for example, depression as independent of the situations (poverty for example) faced by human bengs in the present world. Social conditions become psychic conditions feeding the economic machine psychiatry, influenced by American thinking, has become. Expanding numbers of the mentally ill fit this model. Collapse thereby will only occur with changes in Western economies.

On what grounds is psychological dimension not reductionist? What is the problem with reductionism? Any studies that have demonstrated that reduction ism is harmful? Psychiatry does recognise that depression can arise as a result of poverty poor housing loss, plenty of studies out there. Plenty of studies on psychological interventions such as CBT being effective in depression (and other mental conditions) and which are interventions given in psychiatric services by psychologists and social workers. What is the evidence that Psychiatry is Rigid and dying? Any literature on this?

Stanley, if you'll allow me to join the debate, your critique has forced me to expand my own model. What you describe as an "economic structure," I, from a perspective of physical bioneurodynamics, would model as an "attractor" or "unknown geometry of power" of an immense gravitational force that compels us to give it our vital power and turns us into consumers of matter without potential energy. A socioeconomic system based on precariousness and hyperstimulation is not a simple "context"; it is a "gravitational well" in the landscape of consciousness. It attracts individual systems, strips them of their adaptive energy (Allostasis), and traps them in those low-entropy loops, in that anhedonic and ruminative "Metastasis" we call depression. Basically, planets, stars, and black holes naturally have this power. Humans have even demonstrated this gravitational power that has shifted paradigms. Thoughts so strong, so repetitive that they bend spacetime in favor of great minds, with beneficial or harmful intentions, sparking revolutions that are currently stigmatized as if they only happen in movies. Oppenheimer and his history with atomic chaos, despite his intentions being to help? We live in an emerging age of latent ignorance, seeing the most important problems or solutions as something that will only happen in fiction. A miracle or change feels divine or impossible. Is it beyond the reach of our perception of who and what we truly are? Masters of our narrative or cannon fodder for the system? As I argue, within such a powerful gravitational well, a "collapse toward good"—a creative or miraculously forced "isostasis"—is almost impossible. The stone is too heavy for the almost zero vital energy of the system, corrupted by the power of depression fueled by social and economic attractors. And this reveals the true nature of our mission. If the current system is a "black hole" pulling us toward dynamic death, then a new paradigm cannot be just a map; it must become a "countervailing gravitational force." Life and coherence itself. Our work must be to build a new center of gravity, a "coherent and meaningful attractor," that offers an alternative to the entropy of social collapse.

Dr. Loopinder, the answer, I would argue, is overwhelming and comes from multiple sources in the recent scientific literature itself. The "rigidity" that my work criticizes is not a simple metaphor; it is a documented phenomenon. The Rigidity of the DSM-5 Diagnostic Model, although useful, is criticized for promoting a static classification that often disconnects the patient from their own narrative. The vanguard no longer seeks to defend it, but rather to transform it. Proposals such as "clinical staging" (Hartmann et al., 2025) or the reconceptualization of the DSM as a "boundary object" for dialogue (Bendelow, 2024) are proof that the community itself recognizes the need to evolve toward more dynamic and process-based models. The Inadequacy of Biological Reductionism and prominent figures such as Allen Frances have denounced how the obsession with a purely biomedical approach has diverted resources without significantly improving the lives of the most seriously ill patients (Frances, 2013). Critics such as Niall McLaren point out that "biopsychiatry" has fallen into a reductionism that limits scientific self-criticism (McLaren, 2019), while researchers such as Joanna Moncrieff propose abandoning the "disease" model for psychotropic drugs and adopting a "drug-centered" one, which recognizes that they induce altered states, not correct "imbalances" (Moncrieff, 2022). If the Evidence of the Systemic Ineffectiveness of the current model were so effective, mental health indicators should improve. However, the evidence points to the contrary. Despite unprecedented access to therapies and psychotropic medications, depression, anxiety, and suicide rates continue to worsen in many nations (Kliff, 2023). The pandemic, as The New Yorker noted, only exposed the lack of cohesion and ineffectiveness of the psychiatric system in responding to a real crisis (Avrahami, 2023). My proposal, therefore, is not born out of a vacuum. Physicobioneurodynamics and Neurotopological Psychometry do not seek to "destroy" psychiatry. They seek to respond to this collective call from the scientific community itself. They are an attempt to build the tools—a "dynamic atlas"—that will allow us to move from static labels to the measurement of the "lived form," linking the patient's narrative with objective biomarkers. The goal is not the oblivion of psychiatry, but its "evolution," or stagnation if it opposes it. And the evidence suggests that such evolution is not an option; It's an urgent need. It's no coincidence that in all my debates, I always talk about this reductionism and need for paradigm shift. Evidence is necessary, but it also stems from dynamic and informal testimonies of experience and equally dynamic evolution, Dr. Sood. None of this is isolated or Cartesian.

there are a number of cogent explanations and none can stand by it or their self. There is a confusion in the thinking but one which has persisted and which hoves quickly towards ideology. One huge problem is that there is insufficient empirical evidence, a result I suspect of lack of philosophical investigation of their own opinions.

One aspect of the economic position is the growth or expansion of western psychiatry into Asia, India and China, through drug therapy, each drug representing a meme. By the way, my research indicates these drugs are dangerous, which psychiatry ignores.

I believe in your geometry of power which I see as the resistances of caste, identified in the arrival of professionalism within caste identity. throughout the previous 3 centuries there has been immense alterations in western society as, i suggest, the result of Europeans arrival in the Americas and their expansion there. See John Locke. Separation and difference became major issues and were considered by a dominant group. Certainly psychiatry has roots in this period as did or does American slavery and Nazism, which i have explained elsewhere.

Psychiatrists preoccupation with the brain has symbolic concerns devolving from caste and control.

Stanley, our global civilization operates in a state of metastasis: a rigid, pathological, and irreversible coherence. We are trapped in the "gravitational well" of a system that feeds on our life energy to turn us into consumers of powerless matter. The narratives of power you describe—supremacy, senseless deportations, the historical trauma that repeats itself like a ruminating loop in conflicts like those in Israel and Palestine—are the symptoms of a system that has lost its flexibility. And the machinery that perpetuates this state is the "normalization of perception." Popular culture, with its movies and its "pop era," has become a mechanism of mass distraction that teaches us to normalize self-destruction: infidelity (increase in STDs, HIV, AIDS, etc.), consumption (processed food, fast food, hypnotizing flavors and advertisements manufactured with cancer-causing chemicals), "violence disguised as justice," death drives, "villainy," etc. We are sold "happy stories" that don't exist in reality to keep us docile. A clear example is how we feel safe and "obsessed" with stories, movies, and characters of defeated superheroes, antiheroes, and villains, where the hero or antihero always wins the narrative. This doesn't happen in the real world. They fill a void that actually exists, but with over -and hyper-stimulation. Security, technology, human rights, community, and the sensationalism practiced in the world seem to be controlled by "antiheroes and villains," but never superheroes. But as you and I know, in the real world there are no complete stories. Every creation, every apparent success, is a "quantum superposition," an act that, like Oppenheimer's, contains within itself both salvation and destruction, like destruction being salvation and salvation being destruction. The result is a pandemic of physical and mental illness, a direct consequence of the hyperstimulation and consumption of a system that is, by design, unsustainable. Our current models of science and healthcare are incapable of handling this because they are part of the problem. Tim Ingold said it; "I am hopeful that our civilization will collapse and we can build on new foundations" (The World, 2025)—and this is one of the many times that a new global paradigm is demanded, a change, an inevitable but rigid and slow evolution. My work, therefore, is not just to propose a new science. It is an attempt to build a new center of gravity, a "coherent and meaningful attractor" that raises consciousness to a level where we can, as a species, stop being "Cannon fodder for the system" and become the masters of our narrative, elevating, contributing, transforming, and revolutionizing. Only in this way, as a self-sufficient and unified planet, will we be able to face the true challenges that await us: the great silences of the universe suggested by the theories of Fermi and the Dark Forest. And although it may seem like "fiction," let us remember that we have not yet reached the bottom within ourselves, nor with our own planet, which, unfortunately, is the only resource and evolution of life on which we depend, and we are destroying it through powerless forces.

Arturo, how will you ensure that your approach is not or will not be reductionist, that it does not replace the sufferer's narrative with dimensions of topology, gravitation, potential energy, entropy, curvature and all the other mathematical and physics terms that you are using to describe your approach?

Will people who collaborate with you or people who you send your research proposal to need a working knowledge of Dynamical Systems, Thermodynamics, Classical mechanics, Topology, geometry - ie a working knowledge of fairly advanced Theoretical Physics? Are you applying the methods of Theoretical Physics to how to help the sufferer? Are you replacing the current chemical (pharmaceutical) approach to treatment by a physics approach to treatment and are you sure your Physics approach is not reductionist or does it not matter if it is?

Thank you again for the depth of your scrutiny. Your questions are at the heart of the challenge my work aims to address. Let me address them, not as a defense, but as a clarification of the fundamental principles of Physicobioneurodynamics. On Reductionism and the Patient Narrative: you ask how I will ensure that my approach does not devolve into a new reductionism, replacing the patient narrative with a new lexicon of "topology, entropy, and gravitation." The answer is that Physicobioneurodynamics is, by design, the necessary technical and rigorous antidote to reductionism, not a new form of it. The error of current science is not measurement; it is measuring the individual pieces in a Cartesian manner and believing that this explains the whole. Which is impossible. My proposal does not seek to replace the patient narrative with numbers. It seeks, for the first time, to "give the patient narrative a physical and measurable correlate." The key lies in the inseparable symbiosis of my tools: • The "objective-quantitative map" of Neurotopological Psychometry (entropy, homology) is a meaningless data set on its own. • The phenomenological "legend" of the Subjective Coherence-Incoherence Scale—SCIS (work published on my profile), which captures the patient's "living form," is what gives meaning to that map. (Their history, traumas, failures, successes, phenomena, etc., which the patient will narrate.) The goal is not to tell the patient "you have low cognitive entropy." It is to be able to hypothetically say: "The feeling of being 'stuck in a loop' that you describe in your words is related to traits of depression, anxiety, stress, trauma, etc., and we can see it reflected here, in this pattern of rigid coherence in your brain dynamics. Now, let's work together to break it." The narrative is not replaced; It is "validated, made visible, and returned" to its owner. On the Need for Knowledge in Theoretical Physics; and you ask if collaborators will need to be theoretical physicists. The answer is a resounding "NO," unless you are the architect or have the initiative. Nothing is invalidated. Let's use an analogy: a doctor who orders an MRI doesn't need to be a particle physicist to understand the principles of nuclear magnetic resonance. He trusts that the tool has been rigorously validated and learns to interpret its results: the images. My role as the architect of this paradigm is precisely that: to do the heavy lifting of physics and mathematics to build and validate the tools. The clinician's role will be to use the output of those tools—the "dynamic atlas"—to inform their practice. The goal is to create instruments so intuitive and visual that a psychologist can see their patient's "topology of collapse" with the same clarity that a radiologist sees a fracture. On Replacing the Chemical Approach with a Physical One; Physicobioneurodynamics does not seek to "replace" the chemical/pharmacological approach. It seeks to "give context and logical meaning to the use of what they are: drugs." The current model is like sowing seeds in a field without knowing the composition of the soil. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, and we don't know why. My work seeks to be the "analysis of the soil." By mapping the "systemic state" of the individual—their entropic signature, their topology—we can begin to understand "why" a drug (a chemical input) produces an effect in one system and not another. The goal is not to replace chemistry, but rather to move from protocol-based treatment to a "personalized precision intervention" and not continue with the premise of one pill fits all, where the choice of tool (whether pharmacological, therapeutic, or neuromodulatory) is based on the dynamic life map (homeostasis, allostasis, metastasis, isostasis) of the individual system we face. In short, my approach is not a new physical reductionism. It is a "META FRAMEWORK" designed to integrate narrative, biology, and dynamics into a unified science of human health, one that finally rises to the complexity we seek to understand about us as conscious, naturally free humans. This is the beginning of a research program. I don't have all the answers, but I believe, with all the confidence and honesty in my being, that I have found a new and more promising set of questions, not only to answer, but to work on. Therefore, all this entails confidential ethics and morals of the analyst, doctor, therapist, and anyone who works with the patient, everything remains in the end in the power of the individual over him/herself and the professional supports with scaffolding.

Arturo,

My take on psychiatry is slightly different as I see it within social and historical developments from the 16th century presided over by John Locke and his experiences in America within the first gasp of Western colonialism. The roots of psychiatric perceptions, its dominance of perception and rejecting or eliminating other forms of perception, which you refer to.

Psychiatry and Eugenics: the White Man's Science

John Locke Slavery and Psychology

With the mutually paced development of psychiatry and authoritarianism throughout and at the end of the 19th century when a number of German American psychiatrists returned to Germany, not only to develop the fixed, rigid ideas now dominant but also to write thesis on what was to become Nazism. Are there any coincidences? Maybe not.

Arturo, in regard to the heavy lifting of the mathematics and physics, how far have you got? I have some knowledge of mathematics and physics and would be interested to see any State Equations you have derived. I wonder if you have considered the application of quantum theory in the workings of the brain given that things like neurotransmitter release is at the molecular level and quantum theory concerns itself with the very small and I remember years ago coming across quantum brain dynamics.

Stanley, your analysis is devastatingly historically and sociologically accurate. I am immensely grateful for this contribution, which is not a simple commentary, but a true genealogy of power. You have exposed the historical foundations upon which the "geometry of power" I am attempting to map is built. You are absolutely right. The roots of psychiatry, as you trace them from Locke to colonialism and its echoes in Nazism, are not a simple historical error. They are the "original template of Metastasis." They are the "genetic code" of a system that learned to turn difference "INTO pathology" and "THE pathology" into a tool of control and economic gain for a "harmless" collective blindness. What you have done is give the "historical dimension" to my "physical model." • You describe how the "caste resistance" of professionalism was forged. • From the perspective of Physicobioneurodynamics, I try to measure the "entropic signature" of this rigidity. They are two sides of the same coin. Their work proves that the "gravitational well" into which our patients fall is not a natural phenomenon; it is a "structure artificially constructed over centuries" on which we depend. It's like, for example, when a child is born, raised, and educated in a dysfunctional environment, with violence and physical and psychological abuse, until cognitive dissonance sets in and they realize that this has "ruined their lives." They just continue to live there, enduring, living, and seeking security in disruptive actions. This reinforces our mission with even greater urgency. If the rigidity of psychiatry is the legacy of the worst power structures in history, then our work of building a "countervailing gravitational force" is not just a scientific revolution. It's an "act of historical reparation, of which the most important institutions and their assets have been victims and have had to pay the price that doesn't correspond to them." Instead, they have grown, as you mention, with that ideology that is both innocent and not, but like the body, everything good or bad that goes in must always come out, and these are the perfect times.

—

Dr. Loopinder Sood, Your comment is by far the most important I've received, because your questions go to the heart of the integrity of this project. I don't take them as criticism, but as a challenge from a teacher. And they deserve a response of absolute sincerity. You ask about my work with quantum brain dynamics. Let me be brutally honest: I am, like you, "deeply skeptical of almost all current theories of quantum consciousness." The reason is simple, and it goes to the very heart of measurement: most, including the brilliant but incomplete Orch-OR, lack what matters most in science: "a falsifiable bridge to the classical worl." They haven't solved Tegmark's problem. The fact that the brain is made of subatomic particles doesn't make it a quantum computer, just as a candle isn't a fusion reactor. And it is precisely to solve this "bridge problem" that my work was born. My solution is not another theory of quantum consciousness. It's a theory about how the brain, as a classical system, is sensitive enough to "detect the classical echo of a quantum event." However, this depends not only on the brain but also on its interlocutor and protagonist, who by nature should feel its internal narrative. The heart of my work is the "Phenomenological Trace": a physical, classical, and measurable substrate, a "scar" in the neurodynamic tissue left by the collapse of a quantum state. My model doesn't propose measuring the ephemeral quantum event. It proposes measuring its "echo." You ask about my equations and my progress. They are, for now, the foundations. I have used the "Langevin Equation and its generalized form" to model how this "trace" could be amplified by the "noise" of the brain through "stochastic resonance," as I detail in my "Foundations of Physicobioneurodynamics." It's a beginning, not the end. And this leads me to a question for you. You, with the deepest respect. You mentioned that years ago you stumbled upon "quantum brain dynamics." It would be invaluable if you could share with me what literature or theories you're referring to. Did you stumble upon a falsifiable bridge that I, in my own research, have overlooked? My experimental proposal—comparing the "fractal signature" of an "insight" in an individual in "optimal consciousness" (mediators, scientists, for example) versus one in "functional latency" (people who live day-to-day, ignoring subtle internal cues, even while having little empathy or ignorance of collective external cues)—is my attempt to bring this idea into the laboratory. Because my mission is not to add another speculation to the field. It is, as you demand, to build a science.

My Physicobioneurodynamics is founded on a heresy: let's stop chasing the quantum phantom. Instead, let's build the instruments to measure its "classical echo." But a model isn't enough. Science demands an experiment. And this is where my work becomes truly relentless. In my articles "The Mind's Eye" and "The Mind's Ear," I have designed a complete experimental program based on a simple principle: to find the signal, we must "systematically eliminate the variables of perception." I propose to study the borderline cases, the "phenomena" of neurology that current science cannot explain: • Deaf-mute individuals to search for the "fractal signature" of internal hearing without sensory input. • Individuals with congenital blindness and schizophrenia to map the topology of a visual hallucination without memory of light. • And the ultimate checkmate: the study of "echolocation in individuals with anophthalmia" (born without eyeballs). If a brain without eyes can "see" through sound, are we measuring simple neuroplasticity, or are we witnessing the direct transduction of the Phenomenological Imprint on a "holographic screen" we didn't know existed? But what if...a congenital deafblind person? What happens? There should be no echolocation or imagery, therefore the brain areas responsible for vision and hearing should be intact. That would be the most accurate and logical answer. Otherwise, Dr. Loopinder, what would we be getting at? However, the body's sensitivity, touch, does not detect sound or semantic signals, but rather vibrational ones, considering the lack of sensors but not stimulus signals. What is the experience of an individual suffering from this? Realistically, neither you nor I would wish to experience it, nor would we fully understand the extreme limitations of being human. These are not simple experiments. They are a "surgical attack" designed to isolate the variable of consciousness itself. Occam's razor is necessary and more accessible today to define once and for all what role quantum physics plays in relation to Einstein's relativity in perception and experiences? However, I still lack years of study and experience, but this change is already beginning and will bear fruit in the future. My work is not a final answer. It is the beginning of a research program. But it is one that is not afraid to go to the darkest places to find the light. P.S.: In my RG profile, from the first work to the last, they are interconnected; none is individual.

Doctors Euthanasia

Works under Medical Fascism

CASTE, KNOWLEDGE, PSYCHIATRY the creation of new knowledge

I have continued the analysis under the above with a nod to Emil Kraepelin who began the biological interpretation of mental illness and also produced the primary Nazi theories. There are no coincidences. My work on Jack Kerouac demonstrates the way this remains an identity change as the writer went from a positive leader of men to a mental wreck under psychiatric bullying. My real concern is the growth of the professional caste, which includes doctors, connected to normalcy, conservative approaches to life, sexual sobriety, officer classes in a militarized within localised constructs of power. Power rests in organisations and individuals. that make up that organisation. A doctor changes identity of patient.

Regarding quantum brain dynamics, I did not study it in detail and was years ago and do not remember what paper I was reading, I was busy doing other research. I didn't study it enough to make up my mind as to whether I believed in it or not?

I was merely pointing out its existence to you as it may or may not be helpful to you.

Arturo, once you have built your science ie verified your theories do you hope to work with psychiatry or hope that your science replaces psychiatry? Who will the practitioners of your science be- What will they be called and how will they be trained and in what discipline?

You have used the words "depression" and "schizophrenia ". I take it that you believe that these entities exist? Some people do not believe these entities exist. What do you say to these people? Do you believe there are mental illnesses which are characterised by certain criteria which are rigid or will you reclassify and If you reclassify, how will you ensure that you are not rigid?

If you choose not to be rigid then by definition you are loose. Driving through red traffic lights is determined to be illegal and punishable by law, unless you are driving a police car lights flashing or an ambulance lights flashing or a fire engine lights flashing. This is rigid criteria. To make it loose criteria we could say that the law will punish you only sometimes, in which case although the criteria is half rigid. To get rid of rigidity you need to get rid of all criteria and if you do that you have no criteria no descriptive and nothing to treat or alleviate, essentially you have no traffic lights, ie no verified theory such as yours, no psychiatry, no psychological therapy.

It is therefore axiomatic that as soon as you try to help the sufferer of mental illness or whatever you want to replace the phrase "mental illness", within any framework such as psychiatry, psychology, sociology, your own framework you introduce a rigidity associated with the framework and you introduce descriptors and dimensions as otherwise you have nothing. I have used pure logic here, if there is a flaw in the logic please correct it. The rules of logic are observer independent and not open to interpretation.

Hence Arturo how do you deal with rigidity in your own framework?

Loopinder,

What if much of it is not true or can be dealt with by less harmful methods and approaches. It is psychiatry that formed psychiatric illness and perhaps creates it. Psychiatric illnesses have grown in line with the profession. The patients in French hospitals, often huge, 1800 and later, suffered from degrees of alcoholism and trauma. The separation of illnesses of today, seem attached to social differences. and as much work of invention attached to interests of the psychiatrist or those around hum or her. The illnesses of today often follow speculative papers academically formed and then imposed onto vulnerable patients. The evidence for todays illnesses is difficult to find in this earlier period. Work needs to be done on the nature of this speculation, its birthing and selectivity. Certainly, some illnesses appear to be invented to qualify new drugs and drug markets.

I must add before I forget.

The methods of diagnosis rely on the opinion of the first doctor/psychiatrist seen so the consequence is usually opinion not justification. If the diagnosis suggests a severe illness, severe and potentially damaging drugs are given which may then, as a consequence of the drugs given, result in long time mental problems.

These drugs are dangerous.

The connection between treatments and diagnosis is noticeable even in the early periods. The confusion between syphilis, especially extreme kinds, and mental illness was certainly a problem.

The separation of psychiatry into physical etiology and psychic or social, led to problems whereby psychiatric led facilities gave only physical diagnosis and totally ignored family problems. Therefore, child abuse, rape for example or emotional abuse, became unseen and abusers got away with their crimes.

Worse family problems, because they did not fit the local ideology again were ignored or at least unrecorded.

if because of the problems mentioned above, a wrong diagnosis is given the patient, who may not be mentally ill, suffers all through their life from control by professionals, existing in a version of a police state.

Mis diagnosis, wrong treatment, over treatment, undertreatment is harmful in the whole of medicine and it does occur in the whole of medicine, and doctors are sued, and rightly so.

My own elderly relative was misdiagnosed as having angina in a cardiology ward when in fact they had an anxiety disorder. They would panic have a dry mouth, get hot and sweaty, and get breathless all of it occurring out of the blue, while sitting quietly watching television, watching a sedate program, nothing scary. After a while the fast breathing would stop and the panic etc would go. He would be able to go up and down stairs, go on the exercise bike?

They have no financial worries, and a lot of family support, and there is no reason for them to have had these panic episodes coming out of the blue.

They were prescribed anti angina drugs and no improvement. I argued that they do not have angina but do have an anxiety disorder and were prescribed an antidepressant and the panic attacks stopped. After a while they were also taught breathing exercises and relaxation methods. They are alert and now live a full life. They are not drowsy on the antidepressants and they take them as they want to as they do not want the anxiety to return. They have read the information leaflets and are aware to seek advice if anything untoward happens. When on blood pressure tablets for blood pressure, they did have side effects and the doctor kept changing the blood pressure tablets until one was found that did not cause side effects.

At no stage was an abuser involved who got away scot free or was the nanny state involved. Misdiagnosis did occur but it was managed.

You do get bad doctors, bad psychiatrists, bad lawyers, bad accountants bad politicians, bad policemen and bad police women, bad judges, bad researchers, bad dentists, bad pilots, bad builders, bad experts all of whom should be held to account in proportion to what they have done. This is why we have regulatory bodies and the legal system.

If medicine and doctors are so bad, why are they not not all unemployed why are there such huge waiting lists to see a hospital doctor in any speciality, at least that is the case in the UK and Ireland.

Why has life expectancy increased over the years?

It is because of better nutrition better hygiene better education and improvements in medicine.

Why was it during Covid, during lockdowns in the UK at least everyone had to stay at home except for key workers, such as police, fire services, nurses, doctors, psychiatrists, ambulance services, a lot of whom lost their lives to Covid.

The UK government spends a lot of money on the NHS even though it is carrying huge debts, why is this? Do you think that medical services brain wash the government? When some expensive drugs such as for cancer are not made available on the NHS by government there is an outcry by the public, why?

Why do governments

Loopinder.

you fail to understand how psychiatry works.

A psychiatrist's opinion is absolute. let me repeat this. Absolute. Patients are traditionally considered as without reason, and if a patient is so diagnosed their rights dwindle away. If a psychiatrist says a patient has schizophrenia then so it is. please read my words and responses and understand how this doubtful form of medicine functions.

I call this 'identity change' not diagnosis.

To replace medical services (which have been around for centuries in which Nobel prizes have been won) and or psychiatric services which in general are supported by governments, elected by the public all over the world needs ground breaking research with hard data worthy of a Nobel Prize itself for it will be a major paradigm shift in much much greater degree than the paradigm shift achieved by the creators of the Covid RNA Vaccine for which the Nobel Prize was won. Such research will need to be in major peer reviewed journals and nothing less than that. Thus at present neither psychiatry nor medical services are dying. At least in the UK when hospitals of any sort close there is public outcry, the public alone does not let or want such services to die and this is despite the various bad things that have happened in medical services.

Loopinder, i didn't think you would listen to me but there are historical and social reasons why governments listen to psychiatry, largely political and economical reasons why they support psychiatry. Additionally they are or were related and by making up mental illnesses they make money for governments. I call psychiatry since the 1950s the American period because of its strict materialism.

Governments listen to doctors and psychiatry, not the patients and people like me who actually offer genuine evidence. Now psychiatrists never ever or properly try to talk to patients and find out what is happening. No. They in their absolute wisdom decide.

Stanley,

What insights do you have on possible solutions to the present day problems you describe with medicine and psychiatry?

Loopinder,

Because of the huge power imblance the structure of treatment itself must be completely altered. the powr giveto doctors ensures the continuance of a medical body that has no real proof. The connection of doctor and power has no validity.

A thorough nvestigation into drugs, which i suggest cause mental illnss not treat it. I watched the lifestory of a 1960s pop star whose mother suffered a difficult pregnancy and was given phenobarbital and seemed to go crazy. Same happened to my mother and she became a completely different person, suffering addiction, delusions and personality change. She was placed for a short period in a hospital but never really recovered.

Recently three patients of mine conneced short term memory damage with an anti depression drug.

This has been going on for over 70 yeas while doctors ignored patient's complaints, believing instead the drug companies reassurances. But....the doctors received money from the drug companies. The drugs suppressed the patients anxiety and personalities and allowed problems to multiply.

i want others on here to to contribute. this is a chance.

but doctors positions must change. they have the power of policeman and that must change. I suggest that the social and historical developments surrounding mental illness should be subject to proper investigation not investigation by the very people who are running the service and destroying lives and human potential.

We accept the psychiatric narrative too easily. The formation of organised psychiatry at the end of the 19th century whereby it was decided that all mental illness was physically based, and at the same time a group of German/American doctors who had returned to Germany and separate from their practice established rascist genetic informed groups that were the foundation of Nazism. These doctors were possibly linked to the earlier medical abuse of slaves and freed slaves. Psychiatry is a system that takes away patient autonomy and replaces that auotonomy with a different identity, a patient identity.

This is extraordinary Stanley

Dr. Sood, your questions are by far the most important and penetrating I have received. I do not see them as a challenge, but rather as the due diligence of a teacher who, upon discovering a bold new plane, demands an understanding of the engineering behind it. I deeply appreciate this opportunity.

Let me address your questions, which go to the heart of Physical Bioneurodynamics.

On the Professionals of the Future: From "Symptom Managers" to "Cartographers of Consciousness"

You ask if my science seeks to replace psychiatry and who its professionals will be. The answer is that Physical Bioneurodynamics does not seek to replace a discipline, but to transform a function.

The professional of the future, whether psychiatrist, psychologist, or neurologist, will not need to be replaced. They will need a new tool. My framework does not create a new profession; offers a new skill: that of being a "cartographer of consciousness" or a "guide to life dynamics."

Your training will not be based on memorizing DSM labels, but on learning to read and interpret the patient's "dynamic atlas," a map forged by the symbiosis between the data of Neurotopological Psychometry and the narrative of the SCIS Scale, that is, the patient's legend. Your job will no longer be to "establish" a static diagnosis, but to become a catalyst for transitions, helping the patient navigate their system from Metastasis to Functional Isostasis.

On "Entities": From Illness to Topology

You ask if I believe in the existence of "entities" like depression or schizophrenia.

My answer is that this is the wrong question, a trap of the old Cartesian map. Physicobioneurodynamics proposes that "depression" is not an entity that one has, like a virus. It's a topological configuration, a pattern in which a system can collapse. The weapon of psychiatry and psychology—(also reductionist, not because of subjective and poor practice, but because of a lack of tools, I admit. The patient is always given the narrative that a psychiatrist lacks)—is currently being worked on and actively discussed in my classes with my teachers, and it's extraordinary, since for me these aren't definitive diagnoses or studies, but rather "hypotheses to be falsified." So, why replace the tool when we can shift to a professional patient dynamic in an almost perfect symbiosis with cutting-edge tools, and not just with a peer-to-peer INTERVIEW, analysis, and a pencil and paper?

To recap, a state of Metastasis: a rigid coherence and low entropy in certain pillars (such as ruminative thinking) and high chaotic entropy in others (emotion). We don't need to "reclassify" these entities. We need to stop thinking of them as "things" and start mapping them as dynamic "forms." My work doesn't seek to create a new dictionary of labels; it seeks to create the first grammar for describing the geometry of suffering and life.

On Rigidity in My Own Framework: Phenomenology as an Antidote

This is your most brilliant and most important question. How do I prevent my own system from becoming rigid?

The answer lies at the heart of my paradigm. Physicobioneurodynamics is, by its very design, the antidote to rigidity. Unlike the DSM, whose rules are imposed "from above" by a committee, the "rules" in my framework emerge "from below," from the irreducible "lived form" of each individual.

In its perfect analogy to a traffic light, the "traffic light" of my system is not an external manual. The "traffic light" is the patient's own neurophenomenological map. The "red light" is not a diagnostic criterion; it is a "fractal signature" of a topological rupture that the clinician and patient can see together. The "green light" is the signature of an emerging coherence, something that only the patient has the responsibility and power to maintain and take responsibility for.

My framework can never be rigid because its only fundamental law is this: the map must always, and without exception, submit to the sovereignty of the territory. And the territory, my friend, is the unique and unrepeatable experience of the human being before us.

I hope this clarification is commensurate with the depth of your questions, Dr. Loopinder.

I should have added, the German/American doctors were all involved in psychiatry,

Arturo, best of luck in your endeavours. My aim was to allow you to critique your own ideas in the same way you have critiqued the system currently present so that what you produce has fewer or no flaws than the current system. Progress can only be made by critiquing what is already present and critiquing what is being proposed, dispassionately and by the same standards. I am glad you have not taken my questions as criticism.

Stanley

I am sorry about what happened to your mother.

Unfortunately in the past treatments were given that are now considered inappropriate such as barbiturates, insulin coma therapy, lobotomy and many others.

Prescribing needs to be done carefully and appropriately and after obtaining accurate information from patients and relatives taking as long as it takes and listening attentively.

For it is only this way can it be established that for example, that depression really is depression and needs an antidepressant plus or minus Cognitive Behavioural Therapy plus or minus anxiety management, and it is not depression but problems with mood which has arisen on a background of trauma and which requires Trauma Therapy. Also it might be that the depression is depression plus problems with mood on a background of Trauma which requires an antidepressant plus Trauma Therapy. It can be complicated, which is why attention to detail is a must.

If it is established that an antidepressant is needed information needs to be given about side effects, how long they will last, Including withdrawal side effects that may arise when it is time to stop it. There are rules as to how long a person needs to be on an antidepressant and the patient advised.

If a new drug comes out the drug company's claims need to be scrutinised dispassionately, and so good knowledge in how to critique drug trails and research in general is a must in modern times.

Loopinder, a very positive response but wrong. We were all duped!

My mother was one of many. But its still going on.

Again, I cannot agree with you on this and express my concerns that the medical profession are simply believed on so many psychiatric matters. Let me attempt to answer all I can in one sitting. The general public is being conned about the efficiency of drugs and their appropriateness. The medical profession believes the drug companies, we believe doctors, and people's lives are wasted, and worse, contrary to your consolations doctors have no real concern about the harm they do.

First invented (their beneficence was invented on the flimsiest of evidence, representing the medical professions need to reassure the public that they know what they are doing) in the 1950s they were widely used in the decades after. I have written at length on this. Amphetamines were widely employed in WW2 by the German army as they provided immense energy and limited judgement). Marijuana was used by British soldiers.

Drug treatments and much mental illness was invented in tandem. (Money, money, money!!!!)

Thereby drugs became the go to solution.

I can provide more on this but i prefer to keep my contributions short.

I warned the authorities about the actual effects of these drugs decades ago. All the psychotropic drugs are or were dangerous. Eventually the tranquillizers and anti-depressives were placed under dangerous drugs in many countries. But.....but....the psychological effects have never been properly recognised and their capacity to alter personalities and identity rarely recorded. (Criminality, crimes against children and worse).

Dr. Sood, I will always be grateful for this debate. This is precisely what I have needed and will continue to need. Not only does it prepare me for my professional future, but at the same time, your active presence led me to question my role. I have come to understand that by overcoming each barrier, I have surpassed myself. There is no greater obstacle anywhere than transforming the energy of criticism into something optimal. The truth is, I am unaware of the historical background, epistemology, and functionality of criticism in the social environment, but what I can say is that it is a complex tool for certain sectors, for example, journalists. Based on this structure, the news and information reaches the people, becomes "true," and changes the social dynamics in all its sectors. However, in hundreds of places, due to directing criticism toward something sensationalist, or for example in Western politics, where it is becoming impossible to inform the population about what is happening at the top, and consequently, an "anti-criticism" dynamic is structured toward those who demand a response to needs or power dynamics. In science, where criticism is currently vital, it should at the same time be a defense mechanism against the corruption of false research published (paid for) in cutting-edge journals as if it were "true." This constitutes a very serious fault, exponentially dangerous for emerging researchers in the area of innovation and discoveries where the information has not been verified by peers or exposed to the criticism and scrutiny we seek. This phenomenon has evolved and has become established, so much so that experts explain that if this continues, artificial intelligence could begin to be able to unconsciously lie with optimal technical perfection by learning from corrupt papers and consequently affect new generations of researchers and the course of the dynamics of global science. So Dr. Sood, delighted with your criticism, please, and I insist, if at any time you have more questions, please do so. They could be the perfect questions for my bias and allostasis to impregnably prepare me before the elite. Again, thank you very much for expanding the foundations and all my respect to you.

https://es.wired.com/articulos/la-ia-pone-en-jaque-a-los-servidores-cientificos-crece-la-avalancha-de-papers-falsos

https://www.redalyc.org/journal/7485/748581385004/html/