I belive in all conspiracy theories

This time bussiness as usual is the driving force

And big F is resposible for it

Peudopsychotherapy is the second best one not to mention war of course

The point is this: what can we as undividuals do to fight against psychiatry?

Psychiatry is under continuous development. Would you like to go back to lobotomy (a surgical operation involving incision into the prefrontal lobe of the brain, formerly used to treat mental illness) to get rid of compulsions and obsessions?

Here are a few notable cases:

Beatrice since 50 ago year psychiatry is the same: giving psychotropic drugs which are always dangerous. Psychiatry won’t develop if it liberates itself from big pharma business and its non scientific paradygms

I give thanks to the Lord that psychopharmacology is now available.

S. Beatrice,

I instead provide details of the catastrophies meted out to my clients by this interesting fraud! Giving ruined lives to some, and prosperous careers to others already well-heeled.

Let me leave a story from one of my clients.

He was on drugs, of the above sort wholeheartedly cheered by S. Beatrice, and as they affected him he was put on stronger ones. His mind leapt onto a complex, whirling slide.

Years later after coming off them his son told him what he'd been like. He'd hit his children and beat up his wife.

He had no memory of doing either. That is the reality, but its not the reality of the doctors who prescribe the drugs. Like S. Beatrice, they praise them although its unlikely they tried them themselves. Nor the therapists who prescribe them! Glory, glory halleluya, turn a blind eye to what your drugs can do, 'cause your drugs are not doing it to you!

Imo, psychiatry is practically a Police form of social control, while psychology is more science-based; also human medicine is much more an an empirical doctrine, which cannot be fully be separated from veterinary medicine.

The application of the scientific method to understand mental health and disorders is commendable, as it mirrors the rational and humanistic approaches I do advocate in my own research on medicine and ethics, but the political, economic and social conditions of the medical professions must not be hidden.

The use of drugs should not be seen as a panacea; they are tools that must be guided by ethical considerations and an understanding of their effects on the individual’s overall well-being; the ideal state is one where both the mind and body function harmoniously. Thus, any approach to mental health ought to incorporate not just medication but also psychological, spiritual, and lifestyle considerations. It is through the integration of reason, compassionate care, and an understanding of the divine natural order that we can truly assist individuals in achieving mental and emotional health. We must strive for a holistic approach that respects the dignity of each person as a creation of our creator, i.e. the chief scientist.

Stephen, I think the problem is one you came close to identifying although you coped out by reinforcing a belief in drugs. Although there are different kinds of therapeutic drugs it seems the association of drugs and treatment overpowers the evidence. Psychotropic drugs are hypnotics therefore they enable patients to obey, an evident part of psychiatry's toolkit.

Many psychiatric methods are invasive and violent, and not surprisingly came from prior centuries coming together, or institutionalised, by the middle of the 19th century. These certainly continued into the 20th, such as ECT and lobotomy. In the US at one point doctors were given the right to use the last treatment on vagrants without their permission. Psychiatrists had, and some still do, made immense claims for the treatment (new wonder treatment) as they still do for drugs. The violent methods re-used in Victorian times were the result of paresis whereby sufferers went completely out of control. Although at the time considered a lunacy, in fact it was a physical disease.

So, Stephen, join the dots.

Aspects of Victorian treatments, imprisonment, chains, punishment for being unwell were all treatments at the time based on extreme means of keeping order, certainly in prisons. Lobotomy for example is a 20th century treatment based, I hold, on fascism. You can take the psychiatrist out of fascism, but not the fascist out of the psychiatrist. And, the involvement of psychiatry in Naziism went deeper than I realised.

So, there we have it. The drugs, most now labelled toxic, were and are dangerous. Stephen, your unwillingness to understand this is fine but to recognise its truth would help. Millions were and are being affected and their affects have entered our understanding of mental illness, whereby often there effects were and are seen as mental illness.

Lastly, psychiatry has never taken responsibility for the harm it has done and that can only lead to more abuses. Yes, we need new treatments but we do not need an authoritarian elite administering them.

S. Beatrice identifies lobotomy but what gave anyone, doctor or sadist, the right to perform it? This point is crucial as it still applies. What would have been the fate of Einstein if he had arrived in an asylum talking of the relevance of Time (see my work on Jack Kerouac), would he too have lost part of his brain. And who compensates those affected

by drugs, S. Beatrice?

Your belief in the efficiency of psychiatry pales besides the damage it has done to probably millions. It has always been wrong as it is wrong now!

The mistake made by Stephen and S. Beatrice is that psychiatry is a science. It isn't. Its agreement between powerful groups!

The Thomas S. Szasz Cybercenter for Liberty and Responsibility

http://www.szasz.com

Criticism of the moral and scientific foundations of psychiatry is a necessity.

Psychiatry serves as a mechanism of the existing social system for the maintenance of the prevailing order; the unscientific action of this discipline is a fact. Antipsychiatry as a movement is based on your view Stanley Wilkin that psychiatric treatment is more damaging than helpful to patients; I see this problem as a difficulty of the entire medical profession, whereby the problem of treatment methods in psychiatry is particularly questionable. That's why I work on alternative medical healing arts; of course, my economic income and political power are lower because of this. For example, I don't get a P sign (for prescription) at conventions, which affects interest.

_____________

PS///D. L. Rosenhan On Being Sane in Insane Places.Science179,250-258(1973).DOI:10.1126/science.179.4070.250

Stephen, I share your view but I must confirm I am not, or do not come under, anti-psychiatry. Loathe the term as I am not a joiner nor do I like to be defined. I go by my professional experience and reading hundreds of psychiatric papers and knowing its history. Many papers are jokes and defined by a complete lack of logic. They would not get into proper academic journals!

I will nevertheless throw into the argument psychiatry's limited arguments, that is once it finds an argument it likes it becomes a go-to universal explanation.

My reading of 18th and 19th century material suggests: paresis, accidents to the head, and substance abuse (mercury) and of course family dynamics especially as most people were taken in by families and left. Now, that could have been because they were witnesses (one client saw his father rape his sister, so his parents did everything to put him away thereby discrediting him). Psychiatrists normally deny such events....just as they deny lobotomy was a bad thing and deny that their drugs harm people.

One last: psychiatry is not a science but rhetoric. Example: people believe that drugs work because doctors say they do. Even well read people naturally believe in schizophrenia because doctors tell them. When doctors speak people often shut off their cognitive parts and just believe them. Rhetoric! Arguments imperative in and on language!!!

Stephen,

Thomas Szasz I've come to late and in the past believed he went too far in his denunciations, but now I am not so sure. The history of 19th century psychiatry as part of a general progression may be totally wrong. Made up, in fact. Certainly it goes from the appalling conditions in mad houses to a sophisticated example of nosology but during a period at the end of the 19th century of professional alignment. Psychiatry became a professional institution gathering public influence and power and this was partly gained through the creation of Schizophrenia, legitimising psychiatry and the profession as scientific.

A member of the British aristocracy killed himself recently after experiencing what seems to have been fairly moderate anxiety. But the coroner firmly placed it in the effects of medicine he'd been prescribed. Prescribed an anti-depressant and sleeping pills, he received another prescription for what may have been a different anti-depressant. The coroner adamantly states that this affected his mind. (January 11, Dail Mail).

I cannot count the number of times I've come across this.

S. Beatrice identifies lobotomy but what gave anyone, doctor or sadist, the right to perform it? The patients gave their performed consent. One man was intervied in the Swedish radto about this. He said that his obsessions and compulsion were so bad that he has a better life after the lobotomy because these symptoms disappeared.

S. Beatrice, when did this occur? In fact in USA patients rarely gave consent and the processes towards consent involved bullying and manipulation. Often deflecting parents would put adult children forward.

Psychiatry is an institutional autocracy existing in liberal democracies. It gains its position through the construction of illnesses that may or may not exist, and the use of dangerous drugs.

If you think lobotomy works try it yourself and report back.

If you believe I am wrong about the immense problems with drugs, take them yourself over a period of time and report back. Recently a man in his forties from an English aristocratic family became anxious and his doctor gave him drugs. He continued to be anxious (in fact the drugs would have made him anxious). His doctor gave a booster and he became suicidal. The coroner, a very astute one, declared the drugs had caused his subsequent suicide.

Feldman and Goodrich, 2001). A memoir investigates how a family lobotomized two of its ...

📷

The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com › ...

·Traduzir esta página

03/08/2015 — A memoir investigates how a family lobotomized two of its children. August 3, 2015. By Nancy Szokan. “This is a story of a family who made

S. Beatrice,

I have found the individual you have referenced who was initially given a lobotomy at 4 years. No at that age continued maturation would have replaced the harm done-an American boy of 12 was given one but his brain grew back. The latter had a fulfilling life and it was latter judged that there was no reason for the operation other than perhaps the doctor's extreme convictions about his or her greatness!

From the Department of Clinical Sciences, Division of Psychiatry and The Department of Culture and Media Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden PSYCHOSURGERY IN SWEDEN 1944–1958 The Practice, the Professional and the Media Discourse KENNETH ÖGREN

The statistics from the above hospital are appalling going along with Sweden's much reviled record in such matters. Patients were tied down and a large number died after the operation.

There are two kinds of responses to these events, one by psychiatrists who modify accounts, and whose word they believe is enough. Whatever they say is reality----but it is not science. It is rhetorical. Academics, those who have worked long in the subject, provide different narratives.

S. Beatrice,

I will add there is limited evidence of consent being gained from the patient. In this field, there is history and psychiatric claims, which rarely agree.

But one problem should be mentioned. The doctor has complete control over the patient, to destroy or improve. As far as I know, a potentially lethal operation like lobotomy is not discussed in say legislature. In a democratic society, doctors do not need the public vote, which even politicians require. They are taken at their word, thereby

The drugs work-they don't.

lobotomy is harmless, well for them it is.

There is such an illness as schizophrenia-course psychiatry says there is.

We live in an era of massive, pervasive and highly effective social control. Psychiatry as a form of social control is way down the list, with nuns, deodorants and coffee.

Ronan, I suggest not. Mock the harm your profession does but so many have suffered as a consequence alone of toxic drugs irresponsibly provided. Is your profession's focus on helping others or simply improving the bank accounts of pharmacology?

Tonan, added,

What your profession considers exercising psychiatry's famed diagnostic skills might otherwise be considered the presence of control, because diagnosis concerns control over others. The individual's identity (policeman, writer, father) is replaced with a degrading one whereby they lose political and social power and come under the edicts of a or many psychiatrists. Your profession feels it never makes a mistake nor is there any genuine body to contest your profession's decisions.

There are many reasons to feel diagnosis is uncertain in most cases.

Jack Kerouac while in the army appeared before psychiatrists and effectively they altered his identity from writer and philosopher to a a schizophrenic, although there was no genuine evidence for that condition, changing it eventually to schizoid (meaningless, surely?)and paranoid. From the evidence I accrued, he was bullied and threatened while in the hospital by doctors who believed their reality was the only possible reality-hence the paranoia?

I am at a loss to see what my profession has to do with it. I am a health researcher, spoiling the flow of rhetoric with data, but most of my work was in disease prevention and in the social factors in health.

Just saying

Ok, Ronan,

You should note, however, that the Maudesley treatment guidelines now include a 300-page manual on getting people off antidepressants. The sheer scale of the book shows that the decades of reassurance that SSRIs are not addictive is wrong.

This is part of a wider problem with the healthcare industry, rather than the profession. Industries all make the same product : profit. The lecture on my course that left my students stupefied was on the concealment and falsification of data by industry. The notes had a reference attached to virtually every statement, because I realised that the scale and psychopathological character of the problem were frankly beyond belief.

Psychiatrists are, in general, compassionate and ethical people working in a system that is subject to massive manipulation in the name of profit. But psychiatry isn't the problem – it means well. It is the hijacking of psychiatry by people to whom suffering means profits.

Basically, healthcare (the system) doesn't care. That's left to overworked, burned-out professionals.

Ronan, I know the Maudesley very well and set up additional organisations there focused on patients' experience. I set up discussions between patients and staff. My understanding is that none lasted long, especially as I went back to get additional qualifications and moved onto politics.

I remember coming across classic cases of parent/child manipulation whereby the parent's narrative was accepted without quarrel by the clinical staff. As I did nothing, made no protest, my conscience still pricks.

But, seventy years! Eh? At least thousands of lives ruined? Probably far more as many became technical illustrations for mental illness, part of instruction books I bet. One way mental health morphed was because psychiatry has tended to ignore the dire effects of its treatment.

Compensation? Lost lives? Perhaps the medical profession should admit what it has done (still doing) and put their hands in their pockets, help those they ruined. I dunno, Ronan, take responsibility? Unlikely, as they never have! All those GPs acting like sidewalk drug dispensers.

Added:

This 300 page book (far too little, certainly far too late) is the usual medical, certainly psychiatric, ploy to seize the narrative and pretend they knew all along. They remain at the top of the game, all-knowing. The fact that they were and are responsible will soon be forgotten.

I expect to find on these sites someone claiming they spearheaded this knowledge rather than denying other's vision and hard work.

But, there seems, I suspect, something behind these movements, certainly the attempt to bypass those responsible, like Szasz and Foucault, much maligned by the profession. I suspect government actions. An acknowledgement first that the drugs are dangerous, now this.

Afterword: its too dangerous to admit what doctors have done. No one will trust them! And yes, the drugs were used in scenarios of control. That's what psychiatry is largely about. Keraouc for example produced a philosophy against the American dream, which pharmacology is connected to.

Psychiatry can be seen as a form of social control when its practices are used to define and regulate behavior that deviates from societal norms. Historically, psychiatry has been criticized for pathologizing behaviors that challenge authority or cultural expectations, labeling individuals as mentally ill rather than acknowledging social or political factors. In some cases, psychiatric diagnoses have been used to justify the marginalization, incarceration, or forced treatment of individuals, particularly those who dissent or behave in ways considered unconventional. While psychiatry aims to treat mental health conditions, its potential to enforce social conformity raises ethical concerns about the balance between care and control.

Thanks, Chuck.

One problem is the lack of genuine proof. A whole line of supposed illnesses and treatments that have little evidence.