Absolutely yes

Freud was neurologist his theories are based on experimental evidence

Thats it

It seems you are comparing two approaches to mental health treatment, one of which is likely a reference to a modern, perhaps pharmaceutical-based approach, and the other to Freud's psychoanalytic theory. Your critique emphasizes the potential harm and profit-driven motives associated with the contemporary medical model, while also acknowledging the limitations and debated efficacy of Freud’s theories.

You argue that Freud's psychoanalysis offers a level of understanding and dignity to human suffering that the more contemporary model lacks, particularly in its reliance on unproven conclusions and technical thinking. This perspective highlights the importance of recognizing the human experience behind mental health issues rather than solely focusing on symptoms and medication.

Am in support of your views Stanley Wilkin Jerzy Zbigniew Achimowicz

Stephen, my ideas are developing and am now looking at Caste behaviour.

I hope you have seen my remarks on the Wonder Drugs, once hailed but now under Dangerous Drugs, and what have they done to patients? Psychiatry takes no responsibility. Millions were given Ativan alone.

It sounds Stanley Wilkin like you have strong concerns about the use of certain psychiatric medications, particularly benzodiazepines like Ativan (lorazepam). Many individuals have experienced adverse effects or dependency issues related to these medications, and there is ongoing debate within the medical community regarding their long-term use and the responsibilities of prescribers.

Benzodiazepines can be effective for short-term management of anxiety and other conditions, but they are associated with risks, including tolerance, dependence, and withdrawal symptoms. Some patients have reported significant difficulties when trying to discontinue these medications, leading to calls for more cautious prescribing practices and better patient education about the risks involved.

There is also increasing recognition of the need for comprehensive psychiatric care that includes responsibility for long-term patient outcomes. These concerns underline the importance of informed consent, regular monitoring, and alternative treatment options in psychiatric care. It’s crucial for patients to engage in open conversations with their healthcare providers about their treatment options and any concerns they may have.

Stephen

I have been dealing with this matter a long time and was probably one of the first to argue against Ativan as it caused changes in peoples thinking, making them dangerous. This drug was employed on millions and maybe increased crime rates. Maybe.

Incidentally many anti depressants and tranquillisers can be used in date rapes to increase the willingness of victims particularly Benzodiazepines. Another drug recently claimed to work in anxiety and depression is another date rape drug Ketamine. A new form of treatment from US employs Ketamine and advises it to be used.

Now Stephen why do you think these drugs are used criminally and extensively by psychiatry? Anyone can answer. Think of the worst of reasons!

Well they make patients compliant, one of the initial reasons why these drugs were introduced, The rest is physician projection.

Fostering a patient-centered approach that emphasizes informed consent and respects autonomy is crucial. Patients should be involved in decisions about their treatment, including understanding the risks and benefits of any medications prescribed. The conversation surrounding psychiatric medications should focus on ensuring safe, effective, and ethical use of these treatments while remaining vigilant against abuse and ensuring comprehensive care. It's important to approach discussions about psychiatric medications with sensitivity and a critical understanding of the complexities involved. While it's true that certain medications, including benzodiazepines and ketamine, can be misused and have been associated with criminal activities like date rape, it’s vital to differentiate between misuse and legitimate medical use.

Stephen,

Because patients are completely ignored in the construction of this finance/money based American concept, entire papers reference drugs but do not reference patients, we have an artificial science based on psychiatrists' ruminations. An imagined process not a real one. One psychiatrist writes about the imagined effects of a drug, and it is picked up by another. No enquiry is made of patients nor work done to see if their notions are valid. (checks are done on the drugs but without reference to patients)

Psychotherapy in the 1980 DSM was rejected, its ideas and proposals. In the earlier DSMs, before this year, a valid understanding of the processes of mental illness (sic) was produced seeing processes of repression etc. The 1980 DSM dismissed this as not genuine proof, while apparently imaginative bouncing around of chemicals is? Proof needed to be physical as it is in well physical illnesses, the mind dismissed (what arrogance!)and mental illness made to fit a disease based form, squeezed in like a fat man into a corset. But while psychiatry pandered to a physical form of evidence it made up another form which cannot be genuinely seen or measured. It was and is purely subjective.

Yes, psychiatry has removed the patient from its deliberations, not silenced the patient but removed them entirely. My view? A calamity to patients, but also a nod to the lack of genuine intelligence in the profession allied to arrogance of entitlement.

The history of psychiatric drugs should be given in brief. The first important one was produced for psychotic patients turning them into zombies, this way patients were controlled and not a nuisance to staff. In the1960s tranquillisers were given to lonely wives in highrises because of boredom and frustration where clearly the problem was social and political. Since a wave of drugs have appeared, certainly after 1980 and the new DSM pushed out psychotherapy for drug therapy in cahoots with pharmacology. All those drugs from that period are now on dangerous drug lists....Toxic. As is psychiatry.

The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) underwent revisions that increasingly emphasized pharmacological treatments over psychotherapy. The introduction of new classes of psychiatric medications, including SSRIs (like Prozac) and atypical antipsychotics, became prominent in the 1980s and beyond. While these drugs provided relief for some, concerns about over-prescribing, dependency, and the effects on patients' quality of life grew.

Many of the drugs introduced during this period are now scrutinized for their potential long-term impacts, toxicity, and side effects, often prompting discussions about the ethics of psychiatric treatment and the role of the pharmaceutical industry. Critics argue for a more holistic approach to mental health care that includes psychotherapy and social interventions, recognizing the importance of addressing underlying social issues rather than solely relying on medication.

Stephen,

Well done, but while the medical profession runs this, there will always be problems. It is not just the drugs, the drug companies but also, and more importantly, psychiatry. It refuses to take responsibility and therefore refuses to learn. It bullies patients, overrides them and others and claims justification no matter how it behaves.

Jerzy

I agree with you. Psychiatry has misrepresented Freud in order to plug drugs.

Your concerns Stanley Wilkin highlight significant issues within the mental health system, particularly regarding the intersection of psychiatry, medication, and patient autonomy. The relationship between patients and mental health professionals can be complex and, at times, fraught with power dynamics. Many people feel that their experiences and voices are often overlooked in favor of established protocols or the interests of pharmaceutical companies.

Psychiatry, like any field, has its strengths and weaknesses. On one hand, it provides valuable treatments and support for many individuals; on the other hand, systemic issues such as stigma, a lack of comprehensive understanding of mental health conditions, and the influence of the pharmaceutical industry can lead to challenges in patient care. Efforts to improve transparency, foster collaboration between patients and professionals, and hold practitioners accountable are crucial for advancing the field.

It's important to advocate for a system that prioritizes informed consent, respect for patient autonomy, and a holistic understanding of mental health. Open dialogue about these issues is essential for promoting change and improving outcomes for individuals seeking help.

Am also in agreement with Jerzy Zbigniew Achimowicz

cc Stanley Wilkin

My thoughts:

Freud's contributions to psychology are undeniable. His ideas about the unconscious mind, defense mechanisms, and the importance of early childhood experiences were groundbreaking at the time and have opened doors to new ways of thinking about human behavior. The rise of biological or neurobiological perspectives in psychology and psychiatry has sometimes led to a reductionist view, focusing primarily on genetic, neurochemical, or physiological explanations for mental health issues. Critics argue that this approach can overlook the social, environmental, and psychological factors that contribute to mental health, an area where Freud's theories offer valuable insights. While Freud's work was based on his clinical observations and case studies, modern science places a strong emphasis on empirical evidence and reproducibility. While some of Freud's ideas have been challenged or disproven, certain aspects—like the influence of early relationships and unconscious processes—have found support in modern psychological research. Rather than a complete retreat from biological psychology, a more integrative approach that considers both biological factors and psychodynamic theories could provide a more comprehensive understanding of mental health. This biopsychosocial model recognizes the interplay between biological, psychological, and social factors. Contemporary psychology and psychiatry are increasingly incorporating findings from neuroscience, genetics, and other biological sciences while also recognizing the value of psychological and sociocultural factors. There is growing interest in mindfulness, emotional regulation, and therapeutic practices that draw on psychodynamic principles. Rethinking Freud does not necessarily mean abandoning the insights he provided. Instead, it involves critically assessing which of his ideas remain relevant and beneficial to modern practice while integrating new knowledge from various fields.

The goal Stanley Wilkin Jerzy Zbigniew Achimowicz should not be to fully retreat from biological psychology or psychiatry, but to foster a more nuanced understanding that incorporates multiple perspectives, including those offered by Freud, to enhance the care and treatment of individuals experiencing mental health issues.

Stephen, let me add to Jerzy, a quote from DSM I when Freud remained dominant:

Instead of being experienced consciously.......the impulse causing the anxiety is converted into functional symptoms in organs or parts of the body, usually those under voluntary control.

the symptoms serve to lessen conscious (felt) anxiety and ordinarily are symbolic if the underlying mental conflicts. Such reactions usually meet immediate needs of the patient and are therefore more or less associated with secondary gain....

Let me add, we have here the involvement of mind which psychiatry dismisses putting in place of mind the doctor. But what is singularly missing is the patient, any and all involvement is doctor involvement. The patient is reduced to a chemical jive and in fact is eliminated by psychiatry. Take away the mind and you take away the patient.

Stephen,

Psychiatry sees it all in negative terms and projects this out to the general public for the sake of industry control. Viewing it in positive terms is in my next paper.

Still, you take psychiatry more seriously than I do.

I think we have to chuck out the nonsense and begin again, but not with one self-involved group alone but proper thinking, proper science and without the lure of money-

Stephen,

I read the rest of your words above, but you're wrong.

Why?

Lobotomy, ECT, diagnosis that ruins lives, drugs that destroys lives.

No, no. No responsibility, no attempt to accept fault.

Stephen

I have written on the role of psychiatry in NAzis development and it was in a hospital run by a psychiatrist that extermination practices were first carried out. But I was recently sent an essay through Academia.edu on the above matter, and more, that indites the profession even more deeply in this ghoulish past.

While this occurred in the past, it is not that long ago, and indicated then aspects of psychiatry not since confronted. Certainly, its attachment to ideology which it passes off as science.

It was psychiatry alone that decided to drug people not states. It was psychiatry alone that effected lobotomy not the states they did it in. It was psychiatry alone that tried brain surgery on children for cures for illnesses it had invented.

Stephen,

Just to add, brain surgery fir mental illness was first encouraged with oodles of money by the Rockefeller Foundation in USA, another private body, in 1930s, funding it in Europe and America without government involvement. No debate. No science! They decided! Such activities may have already begun in Nazis Germany, with of course encouragement by the state. One impacted on the other!

You Stanley Wilkin have brought up an important historical perspective on the roots of psychosurgery and its funding during the early 20th century. The Rockefeller Foundation played a significant role in promoting advancements in medical research, including psychiatric treatments. While their influence did contribute to the proliferation of various medical practices, including psychosurgery, it also points to broader societal and ethical implications of how mental health treatments were pursued during that era.

It's true that some of these practices, including lobotomies, gained traction in the U.S. and Europe without sufficient scientific validation and often with significant ethical concerns. The context of Nazi Germany, where eugenics and forced sterilization were also prominent, underscores the ethical dilemmas and the intersection of medicine and state ideology during that time.

This history serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of rigorous scientific inquiry and ethical considerations in medical practices, especially in fields like psychiatry, where the impacts directly affect individual lives and society as a whole.

Stephen,

While you correctly express the concerns, I will add further problems.

The present psychiatry, although having embraced pharmaceutical solutions with a superficial scientific approach, as usual leaving out the human beings affected, is an extension of asylum psychiatry whereby the doctor was and is lord of the manor and king of the hill, and his or her word and reality goes, which is seen in physician judgement of drugs not the effects on patients, and lobotomies et al.

A challenge. Stephen, indicate any idea or action that was and is scientifically sound. Something independently proved outside of psychiatry.

Your critique of psychiatric practices, particularly with respect to the historical context of asylum psychiatry and the power dynamics involved, raises important questions about the field. However, there are several elements Stanley Wilkin within the realm of psychiatry and mental health that are scientifically sound and have been independently validated outside traditional psychiatric frameworks. CBT is a well-researched psychotherapeutic approach that focuses on changing negative thought patterns. Numerous studies and meta-analyses have shown its efficacy in treating various mental health disorders, including depression, anxiety, and PTSD, and its principles are often supported by findings in psychology and neuroscience. The recognition of the impact of trauma on mental health is rooted in both psychological and medical research. This approach emphasizes understanding and addressing trauma in treatment, leading to better outcomes for individuals experiencing mental health issues. Models such as the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) team and peer-support programs have shown that community-based support systems can lead to better outcomes for individuals with serious mental illnesses. These models prioritize the individual's experience and context, contrasting with more traditional, hierarchical treatment modalities. Research in psychology and neuroscience has shown the benefits of mindfulness practices in reducing stress, anxiety, and depression. Techniques derived from mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) have been shown to be effective and are rooted in traditional practices that have been studied scientifically.

Each of these points represents practices or ideas that have gained empirical support through independent research, reflecting a growing recognition of the need for a more holistic and evidence-based approach to mental health that honors the experiences of individuals.

Stephen,

I have no present problem with CBT and that is not within the categories I am discussing, and anyway how many psychiatrists use it or know how to use it? The distinction I make is to do with the physical approach, diagnosis and the categories and methods of treating within the DSM. The methods you indicate are not within the methodology of the Asylum Psychiatry I identify but within psychology which I have little reason to worry other.

Nevertheless, this requires more research. I have had hypnotherapy for my needle phobia and quite honestly the gentleman knew far less than me, it had absolutely no effect and cost a lot of money. Nevertheless, it confirmed to me the effects of brainwashing on all psychological and psychiatric treatment methods. The 'treater' presents a view or idea and confirms, or can confirm, its connection-you suffer from this or that syndrome, blah, blah. Look at my work on Jack Kerouac and the cases I have otherwise presented.

Scientifically, the conclusion is present before any investigation indicating a subjective origin.

But I think you moved sideways here. Psychology, which I teach, is interpretative not invasive. It does not prescribe dangerous drugs. And unlike psychiatry, there is some evidence that it works, or some of it does, and the claims for its beneficence is not just rhetoric, like psychiatry. Why does it? Well, unlike psychiatry it includes the patient and is not this top down affair, an imposition of one person on another. This is the transactional approach of psychotherapy, although that does not mean it is always any more efficient.

The landscape of mental health treatment is complex, with individual experiences differing vastly based on a multitude of factors, including the nature of the disorder, the type of treatment, and the therapeutic relationship. Your perspective highlights the need for ongoing dialogue about the effectiveness and ethical implications of different treatment modalities, as well as the importance of patient agency and informed choice in mental health care.

Your critique raises important points about the efficacy and methodologies of both hypnotherapy and broader psychological versus psychiatric practices. It's clear that your Stanley Wilkin experiences have shaped a critical view of treatment approaches !

The effectiveness of hypnotherapy can vary widely and is often heavily reliant on the rapport between the therapist and the patient. Your experience suggests that a lack of expertise or understanding of your specific issue can lead to disappointing outcomes, but this could be reflective of individual differences in receptiveness to such techniques as much as the underlying methods themselves.

The distinction you've drawn between psychology and psychiatry is crucial. Psychiatry, with its medical model, often relies on pharmacological interventions, which can indeed feel more top-down and less inclusive of the patient’s agency. Psychology, particularly therapeutic modalities that emphasize collaboration (like humanistic or person-centered approaches), seeks to empower patients, giving them a voice in their treatment.

The transactional or relational approach in psychotherapy holds merit as it fosters an alliance, which is often cited as a significant predictor of therapeutic success. This partnership can enhance engagement and investment in the treatment process, potentially leading to more positive outcomes.

Stephen, I will attempt to answer a number of your points but I first must note your broad strokes and that all can be mutually understood. This miscomprehension represents part of the problem.

Let me start again with methods, as this can be most extensive where differences are concerned and bring in my concern with brainwashing and diagnosis. Read my work on Jack Kerouac on this because I fear part of your understanding relies on medical propaganda, which is extensive. Remember though that psychology has no connection to drug giving, which represents a non-transactional approach.

A few decades ago it was common for new patients to be given one of the talking therapies to aid before further consideration. This was and remains a justified approach even for those who appear deeply disturbed, at least to a psychiatrist. (Their range is wide as swearing is enough for them to place a frustrated individual in the psychotic range) Because this approach takes time and is not cost effective, all new patients received drugs and thereby began exhibited more instances of mental disturbance, due to the drugs. The number of people suffering from mental illness rose dramatically at this point.

The use of drugs offers economic value. More money for the pharmacological company involved, and thereby more money for universities and medical schools employing and backing the drug treatments approach. More money for drug research in hospitals and universities. There is practically no research into other treatment methods and psychotherapy research is underfunded unless it includes research into drugs as well.

We can view the present American model of psychiatric care through drugs as legitimate or part of an economic desire involving the pharmaceutical companies. Many are pushing back against these illnesses believing they have (through the DSM and ABA) unusual control of psychiatry (not psychology-they are separate) and are effectively leading it by the nose into the halls of mammon with drug dependency of millions the result.

Stephen,

In my recent paper, It Ain't Necessarily So, and the paper on psychiatry prior to that you will find evidence for pharmaceutical corruption, indeed the APA, the American Psychology Association, is continually up in arms on the subject, claiming that the pharmaceutical companies continually misrepresent the efficiency and effects of their drugs. And that psychiatry knows this misrepresentation but allows it as they gain funding and power through their connection with these companies.

Pharmacology grew wealthy at the same time as psychiatry grew powerful. Who'd have thought it?

Stephen,

Re. your claim that the remedies work for some but not for others is possible but lets say instead that the transactions are different. If a doctor attempts to brainwash a patient, and many do, and the patient accedes to the brainwashing (again see my work in Jack Kerouac) then that will be seen by both doctor and patient as a success.

The drugs employed by doctors, at least some, are hypnotics, thereby the patient on these drugs becomes easily persuaded. They are known to be employed in date rape cases to persuade, or help persuade, the victim to have sex. What connection is there I wonder between malleable victims and malleable patients?

Lastly, the new, brand new, new, new, treatments dreamed up in the US (where else?) using psychedelic drugs and Ketamine, a date rape drug which forms dissociative states and memory loss.) Wow, kill or cure?

Challenging the globalisation of biomedical psychiatryPhilip Thomas, Patrick Bracken, Paul Cutler, Robert Hayward, Rufus May, Salma Yasmeen Journal of Public Mental Health . ISSN: 1746-5729 Article publication date: 1 September 2005)

(Angell, Marcia. Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption: On the take: how medicine's complicity with big business can endanger your health JP Kassirer - 2004)

Stephen,

Hypnosis is not a psychology but a means of reaching a specific end and of course stage act. it does not involve a psychic interpretation. Hypnosis can achieve nothing if the client cannot, like me, be hypnotised.

Your comments reminded me of Freud's place in Charcot's mesmerism acts and how it informed Freud of there being more than one consciousness. That Charcot was demonstrating hypnosis in a mental hospital as a treatment was contradicted by the loose clothing of the female patient and the salacious nature of the demonstration.

There is evidence of couplings within the hospital between patients and staff.

Stephen,

Part of what I am doing here is to demonstrate this profession and its practices are not as scientific and virtuous as people believe. The connection with business practices, the very core of present day psychiatry which informs its ideas, continues in Asia but if the drugs worked none of this would matter, but they don't.

This is not about bad people but just, well, people, the way knowledge is constructed to convince rather than express genuine values. The connection with Nazis is genuine but although that does not mean the present group acts out the same tropes. But these things must be understood. The fact that people simply accept what they are told worries me but again this constitutes part of knowledge construction and how careful we need to be.

Medicine is traditionally the art of interacting with life for the purpose of restoring wholeness. Science has come to an understanding of the (metaphysical) nature of wholeness (field theory; and the sub-atomic phase space).What it still lacks is the understanding of the role of our involvement! This is what the experience of health care can offer.

By integrating the understanding of health care into science we can bring science to life. It does however require that we first heal health care. Because the form of medicine that is based on the model of dead matter of classical science is deadly.

Our learning/immune system, our (neuronal/hormonal) regulatory system, the functioning of our organs, and the integrity of our living body cells together reflect the same relationship and interplay as that of the gate proteins, sensor proteins, linking proteins and DNA coating proteins in the living cells. It is this principle that determines the integration of information in matter. This is the intelligence/mechanism by which our cells (dis)identify and (dis)integrate within their context. This is the principle which both determines our state of vitality and health, and our state of consciousness and integrity.We are integral part of our context. When this is no longer realised the organic system responds by a change of state from health to adaptation to disease and death. The essence of life is that we are integral part of our context, and that we have a choice as to how we yes/no/maybe/don’t-know relate to it.

This is my reader response to your research engagement, with respect to medicine, treatment and healing Stanley Wilkin ; in this sense, profiteering from disease is no future model for health (medical) professionals.

________

The wise man should consider that health is the greatest of human blessings.

Hippocrates

Ref/

Gesundheit B. Maimonides' appreciation for medicine. Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2011 Jan 31;2(1):e0018. doi: 10.5041/RMMJ.10018. PMID: 23908790; PMCID: PMC3678790.

Stephen,

While I do understand unfortunately I have instead attempted to show the undiminished reality. the pain being caused by psychiatry through its determination to be the big guy as individuals and as a whole, to prActice authoritarianism rather than wisdom.

To create reality from their own malign projections in the strange belief they represent science. Which isn't a single note but many notes together.

But, practice must be understood for what it is not imagined it is something else.

Why use drugs that are used to subdue and control and say these defeat or cure depression and anxiety? The old wonder drugs that bore statements such 'these will cause anxiety and depression' and nobody says anything. When the general public takes a more realistic view of the profession, which they seem afraid to do, takes them off the pedestal they are too inadequate to inhabit, realise they are entitled and, the average IQ of doctors is 120, not really that bright and note (see above) the contradictions then everyone can move ahead.

The sharp difference between Freudian psychology and modern drug-based psychology is the thinking. There appears very little in psychiatry directly, apart from its ideology, the claims also for its nosology are exaggerated, based on dubious premises primarily the activity of drugs and chemicals.

What thinking occurs is outside the professional body, in business, organisational development and politics. Apart from: 'its the chemicals that did it', it has nothing. The connection of chemical processes and science has distracted observers from its emptiness, its intellectual vacuity.

The influence of corporate and political interests on models of illness in the evolution of the DSM

📷

Brian Pilecki

Added to above.

Psychiatry is an industry, a point of view, a way of life but not, not a science,

Industry’s colonization of psychiatry: Ethical and practical implications of financial conflicts of interest in the DSM-5

📷

Lisa Cosgrove

I had just discussed with my students this problem

50 % of them criticize commercialized psychiatry

time to get back to Pawlow and Froud

Have you heard about Prof Strelau Theory of Tempperament Traits and the need for stimulation ??

Jerry,

The situation is worse than your students may realise. It is now accepted that the drugs used over the last 7 decades are toxic, very, very dangerous. The Wonder Drugs. the magic pills. While I have been claiming this for several decades, with evidence, plenty of evidence, economic needs have been put first.

Has anyone seen evidence in the media about the dangers of these drugs? No. As the media has also been hand in glove with the pharmaceutical companies. Has any help been offered to people damaged by these drugs? No. Of course not!!!

During my research into psychiatry, I've noticed two trends.

At the end of the 18th century, Pinel, who released lunatics from their chains (a humanitarian trend) , then with paresis and syphilitic madness, a return to lunatic captivity and institutionalisation, until the advent of Freud, like Pinel, with talking cures, then with the introduction of the present nosology, which I reject, back to institutionalisation and the imprisonment of drugs. One humanitarian, the other institutionalisation and seeing human beings as fodder.

objects to be projected onto.