While psychotropic drugs do still have a place in the treatment of mental health conditions, their effectiveness can vary widely among individuals, and there are valid concerns regarding the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. A multi-faceted approach to mental health treatment, incorporating both medication and non-medication strategies, is generally considered the most beneficial. It's essential for patients to have open discussions with their healthcare providers about treatment options, preferences, and any concerns regarding medications.

I would add to Stephen I. Ternyik 's excellent reply that the idea of "totally sane" is a straw man. All of us have to get through life with whatever mental and physical abilities we have, and there are many good-enough ways of doing this. Freud, in his Studies on Hysteria, pointed this out in an imaginary conversation with a patient.

It would be easier for destiny than for me to effect a cure. he says. All I can offer is to replace your hysterical misery with ordinary everyday unhappiness.

I think that the aim in treatment of any illness is to allow the person to life a good enough life. But then, I'm not totally sane by any means, so i would say that!

Full agreement Ronán Michael Conroy . Our lives may be fraught with difficulties, yet every moment offers a chance to seek wisdom, foster compassion, and fulfill our purpose. Therefore, although our minds may not always feel entirely sound, we can still pursue the good life with intention and faith.

Stephen, you are wrong about the positive effects of these drugs and it seems merely regurgitating medical propaganda. As I have said in the past, most of the Wonder Drugs from c 1960 are now placed on dangerous drugs lists. They harmed people and ruined lives.

Let me start (and perhaps at this point finish) with the now accepted effect on clients, that is of removing them from experience, or reality, with disastrous effects. Such people, once addicted, struggle thereby with daily pressures and there is evidence of resorting to violence out of frustration.

What about my clients on more recent depressives, their short term memories damaged?

Short histories:

Pinel introduced humanitarianism into the treatment of the mentally ill, which halted due to the evidence of psychosis which did not respond to kid glove, respectful treatments, and reintroduced through Freud, etc. Now the psychosis being treated was probably paresis (GPI) so there was no reason to reintroduce harsh methods. Psychiatric methods became increasing harsh and authoritarian with invasive brutal treatments (Szasz says due to the response to paresis and the inclusion by doctors within the psychiatric spectrum), followed by drugs within a business setting.

Schizophrenia is a package deal so more easy to employ nosology, created under the impress of such a business mindset. It isn't true Stephen. Be brave!

Nicolo,

You'll see if you go on my site here how much I have done on this matter, so have a look. I'd like to know how much research you've done. How far you've got.

Stanley send me a message so that we can discuss

I’m an indipendent researcher and I have written a theory about mental illness etiology (you can find it in my papers) which is considered by the psychiatrists of my town (which have clear conlifct of interests) a psychosis so that they diagnosed me with schizophrenia and abuse me with antipsychotics

As far as I can see there is no distinct proof in the medical descriptions and certainly not on the effect of drugs. I deal with people damaged by psychiatric drugs, an area denied by psychiatry.

The nature of schizophrenia allows it to be used as a reference to and for a large range of behaviours, forcing people into often very harmful treatments. Effectively, it concerns some five or six symptom based illnesses structured into one that was first used to propagate psychiatric efficiency and the legitimacy if its scientific claims from the late 19th century. In fact, it mirrors paresis within the initial claims!

Many medical papers now stress differences between paresis and schizophrenia but its possible the differences reflect lifestyle and changes within the disease or initial components within the symptom base. There is a loud desire to stress those differences and thereby claim the autonomy of schizophrenia, a lynchpin for modern psychiatry on which psychiatric scientific legitimacy is based. The validity of drug treatments has a basis in the treatment of schizophrenia.

In other words, psychiatry as a science is based on the above, which may have no justification. From there the chemical aetiology is found, which again has little justification. The notion was to find a physical basis for mental illness and frame a madness type to base this on, drawing on a number of unalligned causes and problems.

@stanley wilkin follow my updates so that I can send you a message

The history of mental health treatment Stanley Wilkin is indeed marked by shifts between more humane and often more coercive approaches. As you mention, figures like Philippe Pinel advocated for more compassionate treatment, while other historical trends have introduced harsh methods and authoritarian practices. The evolution of these treatments reflects broader societal attitudes towards mental illness, which can oscillate between empathy and fear, understanding and misunderstanding.

Furthermore, the exploration of conditions like schizophrenia, and the nosological frameworks used to categorize mental illnesses, raises questions about the validity and utility of diagnoses. Critics argue that the medicalization of mental health can sometimes overlook the cultural, social, and personal dimensions of mental distress.

While there is a significant body of evidence supporting the use of psychiatric medications for some conditions, it is equally essential to engage in critical discussions about their limitations, risks, and the importance of holistic, individualized treatment approaches. It is imperative for mental health care systems to consider the lived experiences of those they aim to help Nicola Petrogalli , balancing any intervention with psychotherapy, social support, and other forms of care!

Stephen

I dispute the help accorded by psychiatric methods, as for a considerable length of time that system has traded chemicals for conscience, pharma money for science. The only reason people believe the system works is because it tells us it does. This is a science that deals with human suffering that has never communicated with those doing the so-called suffering.

I deal with those affected and afflicted by psychiatry and thereby suggest that mental illness is in measure a product of psychiatry, that without its crude thinking, and absurd overestimation of that thinking based on privilege, and use of drugs, there would be less 'illness' and more examination of the experience of simply living.

Stephen, your reflection on the oscillation of viewpoints misses the point that it involves changes within psychiatry not necessarily society. Paresis was considered mental illness in the 19th century and understanding of psychosis and how to deal with it was therefore based on a physical illness transmitted sexually. There was no way to deal with what was a form of syphilis whereby patients became violent than to lock them up. What if this was not the first time it happened? If you look at the writings of John Perceval in the early 19th century, he suffered from substance abuse and his fellow patients from likely paresis.

The present epidemic of mental illness evolved from the drugs given from the 1960s and the power of doctors in misdiagnosing, then imprisoning otherwise harmless characters, and the growing belief in the necessity of their views turning dodderers into experts. Many patients were diagnosed under the toxic effects of psychiatric drugs. Recently, a client of mine was given drugs by her psychotherapist who when informed by my client that her short-term memory was deteriorating because of the drugs was told,'oh, well, keep on taking them'. Drugs are dangerous! Any drug and all drugs!

Stephen, my point is the problem is complex, with roots in everyday living and physical illness, and is handled with simplicity-or perhaps, more accurately, arrogance and simplemindedness. Finally, my point about schizophrenia is that as understood by psychiatry, it represents a point in its professional development, a time when the professions were getting more organised and powerful. When it needed a scientific template and argument. Power curls through psychiatry like bloodlust curls through Putin.

Stephen,

You are absolutely wrong about the effects of the drugs as they function on different levels including the beneficial, or apparently beneficial. Imagine walking around in a separate dimension, without drive, ability to complete tasks, understand or respond to the ones you love. OK, that is the so called beneficial side!

Your point about the potential negative effects of psychiatric medications is well-taken. While some individuals may experience relief from certain symptoms through medication, others may encounter significant side effects that impact their ability to function, connect with others, and experience life fully. The challenge lies in finding a balance between managing symptoms and preserving the individuality and subjective experience of each person. Critics of psychiatry often argue that it can pathologize normal human experiences, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. This is an important conversation to have, as it invites a reevaluation of how we understand mental health and the human experience. Additionally, there is growing recognition of the importance of alternative approaches, such as psychotherapy, social support, lifestyle changes, and holistic practices, which can address the roots of distress without relying on medications.

Dear Stephen,

Being an apologist for psychiatry is not a good look. Surely they have had plenty of time.

Many of my clients have had their lives ruined by psychiatry. Of course, psychiatrists deny this and that such events have ever happened. Perhaps they use your excuses but one thing they all agree on, without experiencing the drugs, they know better. The smoke and mirrors reality they've invented has protected them well, and stopped them from taking any responsibility and admitting to any, any mistakes. Stephen, your reasoning is caught between the smoke and the mirrors.

As they make no mistakes, there is nothing to improve, no compensation to whinging patients. The faces of lobotomy patients haunt me, prior to the operation, bright with laughter, after-nothing. Nothing Stephen. I guess you might consider that simply a mistake! Not at all, it was murder! The sheer arrogance of psychiatrists reminds me of only one other group, in which modern psychiatry was birthed....Fascism and Nazisism. Read my papers on this, and ones to come.

I could continue with this diatribe but you appear to believe, accept, psychiatry's views without realising its all, at best, half truths. My papers go through the history of this group without finding the slightest provable rationale. The group is fixed and cannot change. If any group or individual does not accept responsibility it cannot change!

One last important point. Huge amounts of money goes on researching onto drugs, which by your words you must agree on, and no new treatments have been considered for seventy years. No money left. Nevertheless, the pharmaceutical companies made and make billions. In this discussion I have given other possibilities, but, of course, you have ignored them accepting instead a viewpoint without proof and after so long neutralised!

I read a paper of a doctor talking about brain surgery on young children. His view, I'd do it again! What did the children think, if they can after his intervention? The Nazis did shameful things through ideology. And psychiatry, doesn't it do the same?

Yes psychiatry is authoritarian as the nazis

Stephen explain me why in fifty years the treatment for mental disorders hs remained the same, i.e. Drugs, without any alternative advance in mainstream public psychiatry despite the fact that there are plenty of private doctors which apply alternative treatments which are not studied because money flows only in drug research due to the control of big pharma on research throught money funding

Nicola, I mentioned that but it is a very serious matter. People like Stephen should stop repeating their claims. This is a profession focused on itself.

I have called it identity psychiatry or psychology where identities are changed into degraded ones based on mental illness whereby the people involved or patients can be manipulated and controlled for the benefit of the profession.

I agree so I wanns ask you: when and how people will rebel to change this situation? It is and authoritarian profession and psychiatrists behave as the nazis saying that they follow scientific findings that are untrue because based on papers funded by big pharma in which datas are read in order to confirm the efficacy of psychotropic drugs

Nicola,

A matter I have discussed with an academic who had terrible dealings with psychiatry, which shocked him but not me, gave this insight, and this can be explored in my essay on Caste, that elite groups back it but not necessarily other groups. So this seems perhaps a matter of social control and benefits accrued with pharmacology financial rewards.

Stanley, I also think that is a matter of social control and that we only will liberate us from that will be when these groups like world economic forum and bilderberg club will fade. And I think this will happen when a lot of people will awake against those groups

Nicola,

The groups employ a specific form of knowledge that appears to have a logical base but which is based on institutional power. It is very interesting. I found it in psychology groups and social work. Each group adheres to a method of understanding which they decide the integrity of, but which is shared. Humankind has been remodelled, but not by researchers, philosophers, etc, but through professional training and is based on institutional group and individual power. The social worker has truth which is dependent on their position, so with the psychiatrist.

This is not about deep knowledge as they have no knowledge of their own group functioning. Power is the thing within their own small world.

I totally agree they have power which is given by their profession and the decision to give some kind of power to different professions is decided by elite groups. Look at my comment under my paper on LSD and nitric oxide please

I want to leave here the business functions of psychiatry in order to convince.

Usually, research is mainly funded if it contains the use of laboratory research because then it will be well funded by the pharmaceutical companies. Researchers make money and their name will be passed into every magazine or advertising source under pharmaceutical control. A drug gets known, a view point prominence. So don't research into the therapeutic values of psychotherapies as the researcher will receive little money and the results will be remaindered. Even though some practices of this therapy are well known to work!

Nicola.

I did read your paper.

I call it also power over reality- I have gone into this regularly. Not of course what is normal and justified but what morality is. See my work on Jack Kerouac. The doctors decide what is philosophy and what is not, what to think and what not.

This goes to therapy as well, one of my areas, A client went to family court and discovered that they controlled reality, that is truth. They knew the kind of person his ex wife was and who he was. They knew what had happened in private situations. Giving power to others, invariably elite groups. Psychiatrists know what reality is, it is their reality.

Have a look at Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. First details the beginning of professionals based on middle class elitism. formation of powerful politically inclined groups like solicitors and medicine, and the development of 'normal', middle class professional behaviour.

Thank you Stanley for your work!

Dementia Praecox. later schizophrenia, occurred at the point above as described in Jekyll and Hyde and I do not believe in coincidence, but in connections. No accidents in thinking! Schizophrenia was a means of strengthening the profession by constructing a physical mental illness.

Psychiatrists see the physical as concrete, speculation (Freud) etc as mish mash and thereby eliminate the human mind.

I think that mental illness is physical (myofascial) and that the right way to interpret it was the one pursued by Wilhelm Reich (Freud pupil)

I think that mental illness arises only as a reaction by the mind about a stressed (biomechanically) body

Nicola,

Your view may be correct but eliminates the mind as psychiatry did and does. Let's say that human beings are not one dimensional or even two dimensional but they consist of many levels, internal and external. We do not operate so simply. Language, culture, relationships. We are not one but myriad!

Your claim, although it could, as with everything, be right but this view comes from psychiatry. A psychiatrist several years ago told me its all about bacteria. Its bacteria that makes our personalities There is nothing else.

Let's put psychiatry aside as a dangerous simplification and regain our souls. Its the front of a business solution fooling everyone because people desire simplification. Complexity is difficult.

Ok but how can we do that in practise? How can mental illness be treated?

In many societies, where it exists at all, it is often cared for and contained. The son of a friend of mine, a tall, very good looking young man, cannot relate to others very well. If a doctor got him, he'd be sanctioned as mentally ill. He is very sensitive and confused by life. But he holds down a job, not unfortunately a demanding one. He has insight, but once put on drugs he'd be finished. Unfortunately, psychiatry sucks all potential out of people they decide are mentally ill. Maybe we all are in our selective ways. Is Trump sane? Is Putin? Within their own worlds, yes. This young man has a different beautiful girlfriend on his arm every week! Who are we to place our own standards onto him?

There are no solutions ...

A PHD student in anthropology I have recently got to know is studying the psychological similarities of animals and human beings, which I told her is correct....Much needed.

Dogs become anxious and depressed. But they do so within the pack and the social position of each dog. The top dog emerges naturally. We persist in seeing mental illness as just the one but also part of a nosology, but why cannot it be a similar group expression. The person who stands out is subjected to greater stress.

An ex-student of mine who has the need to stand out and do well is pestered by anxiety and depression, but I pointed out that's the other side of high accomplishments, the enormous stresses on herself, and she must simply accept this. (Giving her drugs would destroy her drive-her drive ensures her destabilisation).

I think that stress relief is the key to solve mental illness

Going back to what causes it, much myth has been created about mental illness in the present and past, but it is mainly myth.

In the present, mental illness has reached epidemic proportions since the 1960s, as a result I suggest of the pharmaceutical companies and psychiatry. These are the two principal agents. The evidence supports this!

Dear Doctor

Go To

Upadhaya, N., Jordans, M.J.D., Gurung, D. et al. Psychotropic drugs in Nepal: perceptions on use and supply chain management. Global Health 14, 10 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-018-0322-4

[Abstract

Background

Psychotropic drugs play an important role in the treatment of mental, neurological and substance use disorders. Despite the advancement of the use of psycho-pharmaceuticals in the developed countries, the psychotropic drug production and supply chain management in low- and middle- income countries are still poorly developed. This study aims to explore the perceptions of stakeholders involved in all stages of the psychotropic drug supply chain about the need, quality, availability and effectiveness of psychotropic drugs, as well as barriers to their supply chain management.

The study was conducted among 65 respondents from the Kathmandu, Chitwan and Pyuthan districts, grouped into four categories: producers, promoters and distributors (N = 22), policy makers and government actors (N = 8), service providers (N = 21) and service users/family members (N = 14).

Results

The respondents reported that psychotropic drugs, despite having side effects, are 1) needed, 2) available in major regional centers and 3) are effective for treating mental health problems. The stigma associated with mental illness, however, forces patients and family members to hide their use of psychotropic drugs. The study found that the process of psychotropic drug supply chain management is similar to other general drugs, with the exceptions of strict pre-approval process, quantity restriction (for production and import), and mandatory record keeping. Despite these regulatory provisions, respondents believed that the misuse of psychotropic drugs is widespread and companies are providing incentives to prescribers and retailers to retain their brand in the market.

Conclusions

The production and supply chain management of psychotropic drugs is influenced by the vested interests of pharmaceutical companies, prescribers and pharmacists. In the context of the government of Nepal’s policy of integrating mental health into primary health care and increased consumption of psychotropic drugs in Nepal, there is a need for massive education and awareness as well as strict monitoring and supervision to avoid the misuse of psychotropic drugs.]

Viewing Constructions of Insanity and Mental Health through a Critical Lens by Laura Russell. Can be viewed on Academia.edu

The argument that psychiatry has a rhetorical base, and has more in common with the social sciences, is indicated above and is a view I have routinely expressed. The above author reminded me of the early connection with the law, and its part within that connection with constructing normality. In its early days this was connected to property ownership. The author frames modern psychiatry within the 19th century and the manufacture of illnesses as a means of ordering society. Again, points I have made. She has yet to mention the syphilis connection.

In fact, it concerned the creation and confirmation of its own scientific legitimacy -----thereby dementia praecox, schizophrenia, becoming its point of legitimacy as part of the physical sciences.

I read a few legitimising papers on this over the last few days, and walked away with the idea I usually do, where is the proof? They present definitions and designations but genuine proof? The above author agrees with me, construction over time is evident.

Sundas,

These drugs are new to the East and as such require legitimation, and this has occurred with your presentation. That a business model is presented is not or hardly surprising. The pharmaceutical companies identified the East as its new market, worth untold billions.

As a means of civil control, it is second to none. Bet China goes for it too. It is a phenomenon of the big states!

Actually, the East has better ways to deal with these matters, developed with more insight in some two thousand years.

The only drugs that CURE diseases are antibiotics. The rest of drugs just decreases symptoms of diseases making life comfortable and longer even with disease.

Yes and this is because the scientific community is corrupted by tye money of big pharma. Cronic illness is a mine of gold for big pharma since people have to use drugs for the rest of their lifes

There will always be bad actors in the business of mental health and pharma. But I don't think you can discount all the good that psychedelics can do for depression, alcoholism, and PTSD. The good outweighs the bad in this case. Just search on this site for all the great research that is being done with them.

Jeff infact psychedelics will be indered because are not life long therapies and only one submibistration can solve a lot of problems. For this reason big pharma is against psychedelics

I should be against psychedelics because people may just go to these drugs and say they are cured. My business of therapy will become obsolete. But I would not want to hold back a medicine that could help mental illness and so much more. You have to weigh the pros and the cons Nicola. I think the pros list wins in the end.

I am pro psychedelic is big pharma that is against them

While psychotropic drugs have been shown to help many individuals with mental health conditions, there is growing concern about their effectiveness, over-prescription, and the influence of pharmaceutical companies. Critics argue that these drugs are often marketed aggressively by big pharma, sometimes with limited evidence of long-term efficacy and a focus on profit rather than patient well-being. For some individuals, these medications may not work as expected, or their side effects may outweigh the benefits, leading to skepticism about their role in mental health treatment. This has fueled the debate about the balance between the legitimate need for medical treatment and the commercialization of mental health care by pharmaceutical companies.

@ste