Mental Health On the 'History and Philosophy of Contemporary Psychiatry;' and a 'Defense of Mental Freedom.'

[Beware...Be AWARE.]

Introduction RE:
'History and Philosophy of Contemporary Psychiatry;' and a 'Defense of Mental Freedom:'

Hello Bluelight! I haven't posted in over a decade, but I've been here the whole time, "lurking" as they say. I've been here for over 15 years, and it's been a hell of a ride. Allow me to "make-up" for my absence. In January of 2019, I was "kidnapped" by psychiatry, "sold-out" by a family that didn't know any better and refused to listen to my pleas for understanding. My wife left me, I lost my children, my family, my freedom, my home, my money, my possessions, my mind. I was a hard-working, dedicated husband and father, the primary caregiver for my two lovely children. I slaved away for my family and was happy to do so, until they threw me in the "trash," when after a bout of serious sleep-deprivation, (taking care of my family when there was no one else to help me,) I fell "over the edge" and was 'hospitalized' and poisoned against my will for "severe psychosis." I have a "story" to tell, and it is one hell of a doozy - but I'll save that for another post. One (million) things at a time I suppose, have to start somewhere.

THIS post is an attempt to "concisely" describe how the 'tumor' of psychiatry has been allowed to infect the public consciousness; what its failings in reasoning are, and why WE, its victims should be listened to and taken more seriously. I was brought to the depths of near "brain-dead" vegetism 18 months ago -- and have been attempting to crawl back into life ever since. I attempt within this wall of text, (sorry if it's "too long!") to offer a logical defense for my fellow victims, (see: "Witch Trial" section,) in addition to my overview of the philosophy and history of contemporary psychiatry. This is in the hopes of illuminating my own family to my reasonings and plight, as well as in the hopes of helping others in similar situations do the same.

I feel like I have been silenced with chemical castration, and know that many others feel the same way. Unable to speak, unable to think. "Locked in a hell," that is largely "underwater," in a place where "the others" cannot see, cannot hear -- WE look on in horror and disgust, while THEY convince themselves that they are "helping." This is only the beginning; a VERY rough draft, (references are currently NOT posted, though for those interested - most references can be found via "psychrights.org," much of which is also available through the excellent book, "Mad in America," by Robert Whitaker.)

I post this here first; in the hopes that I might get some useful feedback from you all while I continue my research and writing -- and in the hopes that some of you might be able to utilize this for yourselves: To bring these insights and arguments to your own families, your own loved ones, your own "doctors." The quest for freedom lives on-- DON'T GIVE UP! We can do this - I believe that 'recovery' is possible, and that we can move the 'needle' of discourse in the mission to overcome this abominable discipline for ourselves and for the potential future victims that have no idea what horrors await them in their future if they find themselves at the mercy of psychiatry's grasp. One day at a time; the mind is a powerful thing -- we got this!!

Please, feel free to share this, use it for yourself if it helps in any way. I do ask that you please do not twist and manipulate my words for an ulterior motive that they are clearly not here to represent, and do appreciate it if you don't just "copy and paste" the work as your own without proper citation. It remains right now, partly out of my own fear - 'pseudonymous,' although I do intend to include an updated version of it as part of a 'book' that I am working on. I'm entering the "field" of peer advocacy for people such as ourselves and hope to use much of this as a foundation for my current and future work. I wished to hold off on ANY publication in any form until I had enough to go on, but I didn't want to get "too ahead of myself" before presenting some of this to others for analysis and review.

If nothing else, I hope some might find the text herein 'entertaining,' perhaps a brief distraction from the horror you might find yourself in -- however, if it helps even just a SINGLE one of you to bring forth the words and ideas you may find yourself struggling to cogently present to your "captors," family, etc. - then that is 'success' enough. Keep the good fight going my friends! If the moderation team wishes for me to move or remove this, just let me know - I thought that it might be 'most appreciated' here; my goal is certainly not to 'clutter' the forum with spam or off-topic material. I WILL be on the lookout for any feedback, and apologize if I am unable for any reason to directly respond to any individuals on the matter. Thank you.

This entire "book" is being written on the cellphone of a homeless person, please bear with me a bit. It SHOULD be mostly free of errors, grammatical, spelling and otherwise - but it IS a work in progress, I know it is far from perfect. I dedicate this to you all, my brothers and sisters in 'arms' in the fight for mental freedom; and to my children, I hope one day they can understand what happened, and that I can reconnect with them -- your father loves you! I'm not giving up!!

So crack a cold one, (or not -- seroiusly, please be careful fucking around with these "mood stabilizers" and "antipsychotics,") and 'enjoy:' ...

===

The Con of the Century:

The roots of contemporary psychiatry stretch much further back than the past few decades. Much of what has been 'canonized' in its "teachings" can be traced to the reductionistic dream of the post-enlightenment quest for the domination and dissection of the physical world. The desire to objectively label and know all things down to the finest point. There was, (and still is) a belief held by many that everything could be stripped down to a simple, fundamental set of building blocks, or perhaps a singular unit - that would hold the answers to the myriad forms and mechanics of our universe. And what a tantalizing thought... If one could find the prime 'lego' if you will, it would be the "skeleton key" that would allow you to craft anything. You would understand it all; you could become a "master of the Universe." A chance to be perhaps, God himself. 'Twas the realm of many a 'mad' scientist's wildest fantasies...become reality? The search was on. Of course this was a tale one would assume to be as old as humanity itself. Countless souls of the past had dreamed this dream themselves, over and over. Kings could rise and fall in their unquenchable lust for the ultimate power, the "holy grail," the key to immortality... the meaning of life?

Undeniably, the rapid race to spread our tendrils of curiosity resulted in countless discoveries and applications. And yet, as we peered into the deepest depths with our newfound microscopic and telescopic powers of observation -- alas; a problem. The realm of quantum physics had begun to rear itself into our scientific endeavor. It seemed undeniable; many claimed that this "counter-intuitive" explanation was surely just a place-holder. That we would move closer to the target, and it would reveal itself to be a nice, orderly structure-- definitely there, 'solid' as it were. Something had to "exist" to exist... right? Einstein himself, one of the first to elucidate this "spooky" action and attempt to disentangle the enigma - couldn't believe it. "God does not play dice," he had famously been quoted. The closer we looked, the more the picture of reality we saw suggested something far more complex, so much more simple, so elegant and so esoteric all the same.

Could it be true? It appeared as if the 'truth' was one of chaos. That all things were actually united at all 'points,' inseparable, and yet always in a state of differentiation. Nothing was the same, or else it wouldn't be there; but everything that was there wasn't really there. If you tried to 'pin' anything down, it would vanish and scatter, suggesting that the "things" we were seeing were merely illusions... apparitions! Spooky indeed... Time and again, the experiments, as well as the theoretical mathematics for modeling our understanding of the world around us were telling us -- "it is; and it is not... It is both, but must 'collapse' or else it cannot be observed." The moment of observation, discovery, creation - is the moment of determination. There is no truth but truth in chaos, and all determinations are illusions subject to further differentiation. So on, ad infinitum...

And so, systems of points became systems of curvatures. "Probability trajectories." Nothing could be determined, and yet because things appeared to exist, we could track their areas of 'probably' existing; the places where things were more or less likely to be, when they were "spotted." Nothing was certain, but because a system of "perfect" chaos was impossible, ("perfect chaos is a 'flat' trajectory, and therefore unobservable, ie: 'nonexistent,') this dictated that all things must be in a flux between "1" and "0;" existent vs. non. Everything in relation to everything else would have to be closer or further with regard to any other frame of reference. All values were just "approximations," as a pixel on your screen represents a binary choice - and yet never reveals the deeper resolution under the surface. One can intuit the action underneath that is implied by the observation - it is the only explanation that makes any sense. Said probabilities could only of course be hypothesized when a data set was already available. There had to be relation, reference. The picture of the universe was like a puzzle with missing pieces being filled in by mapping the closest and furthest "connections" possible between the 'gaps,' and calculating the path of "least" to "most" resistance. It was assumed that discounting outside influence, the path of least differentiation would arise. This was because it was observed that all things were connected, as stated above, a "ripple" effect would echo out as a function of proximity across the dimensions of measurement.

So there you go, a crash-course if there ever was one in quantum mechanics; (you can send your donations in now, no need to spend years and thousands of your hard-earned cash to attend an overpriced, overhyped institution... right?) The world is your lab, your teacher.

Strange Love:

Over the years, as the 20th century marched on, a world was brought to its knees when it could no longer be denied. Well, it could, but the science was there - and nothing else made any sense. The defining moment finally came, that day in July, 1945. "I have become death... destroyer of worlds..." Oppenheimer knew then and there, Pandora's Box had been opened -- there was no going back now. What only a few years before, what would have been dismissed as the ravings of lunatics - was undeniable, at least in its power, even if you refused to believe or failed to understand its inner-workings. But unlike the theories of religion, which dictate worlds for those who follow, and seem to be ignorable otherwise regarding real-world, or objective world concerns -- this WAS real, and it didn't care what a bunch of glorified apes had to say about it.

Science had won the war. And science had doomed us all. For when will the clock strike midnight? When will the bell toll for us all? Can humanity last even a century beyond this pivotal moment? -- time will tell... Perhaps telling (or 'Teller' indeed? --the 'father himself of the thermonuclear device; the descendent of Trinity that truly sealed the fate of the world, for now Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nothing but mere child's play,) indeed, that we have managed to checker the globe with space-faring hydrogen bombs so that the release of a single microscopic impulse, delivered from anywhere to anywhere in the blink of an eye, whether by accident or by design - will almost assure our complete destruction. 'MAD' they call it - of course, and that we are -- how could anyone expect otherwise? Tick-tock...

The Soviet Union and the United States contented themselves with their "space race." A clear front for a theatre that was actually about one-upping each other on the thermonuclear-supremacy stage. Along with the promise of "nuclear energy" and other applications coming down the pipeline: more fronts and genuine "applications" dreamed of by people like Teller himself -- 'nuclear toothbrushes' anyone?? The possibilities were endless. But of course, so too the potential for annihilation, (who needs dynamite when you've got nukes? Just swallow your iodine pills and get ready to take your family on the vacation of their dreams. 'Operation Plowshare' is here to make the world of tomorrow... today! Just think, you could carve-out canals, harbors-- greater than the Panama or the Suez, what a time to be alive!) -- these were the perfect excuses to carry on a dangerous dicksizing-contest after even these two superpowers realized that their open-air threats in the form of the poetic back-and-forth, tit-for-tat dance of bomb testing were edging this apocalyptic orgasm far too close to its climax. The disastrous culminations of 'Castle Bravo,' (which accidentally ended up exploding over two times larger than initially planned, a few more hundred Hiroshimas than they expected thanks to a calculation error... whoops!) and finally, the 'Tsar Bomba,' (a single explosion the equivalent of about four Castle Bravos, or 3,000 Hiroshimas) were perhaps the last wake-up call for these maniacal nations. At last, de escalation began to take hold - and the world could breathe a bit easier, (fun fact: the fallout from all of these 'tests' in the 50's and 60's has left a significant enough 'trace' that the radioactive isotopes have caused all of US, right NOW - to have our own bodies permanently contaminated with far beyond 'normal' isotope signatures, carved into our bones and flesh for as long as we'll be. These will be passed on for generations to our children, our childrens' children...)

Around the same time, in the mid 20th century - psychiatry was busy at work, seeking to establish its place of prestige amongst the physical sciences. Long the 'laughing stock' of the medical sciences, the discipline would - in its own way - discover its 'atomic bomb.' Psychiatry wanted too - to bask in the glory that the other physical sciences were achieving. Development was accelerating at a rapid pace across the board. The world was changing-- we would soon land men on the moon, electronic computers were now a reality.

The "Cool" Kids:

But psychiatry wasn't enjoying this same progress. It had taken the classical physical approach of mechanistic reduction, stopped there - and had spent decades hell-bent on an obsession to simplify the mind as nothing more than a metaphorical set of binary 'levers' to be pushed and pulled; turning the circuitry of the brain on and off within the folds of its flesh. They believed that they could act as puppet-masters, pulling the strings of the brain from the outside to control the contents of human consciousness. An alluring idea, no doubt -- and it certainly attracted a fair amount of attention-- such an exciting prospect, no?

But there was a problem... a big problem. Unlike their brethren in the physical sciences; the results just weren't there. Despite all of their hypothesizing and tinkering, the mind continued to elude their grasp. They believed themselves to still be right -- surely, it was just that the brain was so complex, right? Like trying to jam a square peg into a circular slot; or using a sledgehammer in the absence of an eyeglass repair-kit; many remained steadfastly determined, "collateral" damage be damned -- there was work to be done, glory to be had... Who knew, perhaps somewhere in there the patient might actually benefit? It was all so simple, neat and tidy in many of their minds. The brain was an engine, they were mechanics, and all they had to do was keep ripping their "test" subjects apart until they could complete their "map." 'Happiness' was "here," 'sadness' there, so on and so on - all they had to do was find the spot and they could ease all woes of the mind. The only reason it wasn't "working" yet was because the brain was a fine-tuned machine, it just required a more "delicate" touch. If only they could get 'inside' for a better look.

It wasn't that they hadn't tried that already of course. As a matter of fact, brain surgery had been happening throughout recorded history, going back thousands of years. "Trepanation" was an ancient practice, often utilized to relieve intracranial pressure as a result of head trauma. Once more, it seems that it was a surprisingly "successful" procedure all things considered. One could potentially receive the procedure, and continue to live for years afterward. Of course the extent of "brain" manipulation was minimal, it was really only meant to "drill" a hole in the skull, not really to manipulate the actual brain matter within.

But going INto the brain itself? Almost unheard of without killing the subject. Mostly infeasible until the early-mid 20th century; with sporadic references to its practice in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Lack of sterilization procedures or knowledge of such a thing's importance, lack of prior experience from anyone attempting brain surgery, primitive tools for the job, minimal pharmacological methods for reliable anesthesia, blood-clotting, oxygen flow -- all great impediments to expanding knowledge and practice in this domain. Beyond sparse reports of accidents and war survivors, only a small handful of people had attempted such a thing; surely fewer still who truly imagined that they could be "successful" with their operation. Many had speculated for millennia that the other side of the walls of the skull, particularly the 'enlarged' (compared to other specimens,) frontal lobes, were the "seat of the soul," and it was no surprise that some were so willing and downright salivating at the chance to 'get in there,' and see what would happen if they mucked about.

Their track record up to this point hadn't exactly been promising. A history of failures, one right after the other; embarrassing reasonings that never held up under scrutiny, let alone under practice, (especially under practice...) If this discipline wanted to survive and be taken seriously, if its practitioners wanted to keep their jobs, their titles and their social 'worth;' they were going to have to start delivering on their promises sooner rather than later. Generations of imprisonment in sub-humane conditions for their "patients" were leaving many in doubt, fed up with the costs to run these 'sanitariums' and the blemishes they represented on their respective communities. They were known to generally be places of filth and squalor. Places where men 'lived' like animals, restrained, beaten, tortured, drugged, shocked and experimented on with little regard for any semblance of safety or care. The prisoners of the asylums were often expected to remain in these institutions for the rest of their lives. Oversight was often minimal or nonexistent. This is where people came to die, and to many - they were already 'dead' on arrival, what did it matter?

The atmosphere was perfect to find any way to close these monstrosities. In the 'olden' days, these "patients" were typically cared for within their home communities if it was required - in many cases, particularly for the more severe ones, they would largely be confined, or even hidden in the homes of their families. Some cultures were more tolerant and or respectful; realizing that just because these people might have been "different" or even "disabled" in some way - that this did not necessarily mean that they were of less value to society. Where one community might condemn and outcast a person of this nature, another would hold them up - perhaps as an artist, a creator, a thinker, philosopher, shaman or mystic of some sort. They weren't necessarily seen as dangerous or burdensome. We all have our comparative strengths and weaknesses after all. And does this not contribute to the pool of diversity to draw from for the greater advancement and enrichment of humanity as a whole? Research has shown that these people fare far better on average in societies that take this more holistic and positive approach. Perhaps "western" culture will see in time that this avenue is, at the very least - very worth looking into; dedicating more research into it and helping people instead of locking them up and torturing them like prisoners. Is it any wonder why so many treated in this manner seem to only "get worse?"

On the Origin of Hubris:

Of course depending on the time and the place, there were plenty who did not necessarily see things in such a positive light. Humanity's history is after all -- one of war, of hate; constant fear of our fellow man; our differences often viewed as threatening, rather than enlightening. "Shoot first -- ask questions later;" "kill or be killed;" "survival of the fittest." ...And that last one caused quite the uproar, as it still does to this day. Charles Darwin turned the world upside-down with his landmark observation regarding the evolutionary process. Unfortunately for some, it was the perfect text to twist ideology into -- creating "scientific" observations for human behavior, where no evidence for such a thing existed. Psychiatrists, eager for their "scientific" validation, were quick to jump on board the eugenics train. The idea was that humanity had unlocked the key to artificial selection; they now had the power to pick and choose traits for intelligence, assertiveness, beauty, perseverance, creativity, etc. It seemed to fit so neatly into what so many of them had already been looking for; a simple, mechanistic reduction of mind into brain - ripe for the "picking." Little did we know, for tens of thousands -- just how literal that "picking" would soon become...

But they were jumping the gun to say the least. All of this would assume that these things were in fact tied to genetics in the first place; yet -- no such link existed then - nor does it now. And even if it did, can any objective measure be applied to such things in the first place? How tied to other traits would such things be? Would it be wise to play 'God' to widdle the stock of humanity down to a point - and wipe out our diversity, and thus potentially our chances for survival in an unpredictable, constantly shifting environment? Today's favor could be tomorrow's hardship - and vice-versa after all. Did we really have the hubris to think that we could control our fates with such rudimentary understanding and conceptualization? "Eugenics" is today of course, a vilified and discredited concept. But that really only applies to the WORD. The idea of it still permeates the collective consciousness far and wide. It is at the heart for justifications of racism, sexism, and all sorts of dehumanization and squashing of the "other." So easy to sway one to believe -- if you just say that it's all in the name of "science." It was in many ways just a replacement for the concept of "God." Before it was, "because God commanded," and now it was, "because physics said so."

After the atrocities of the Nazis became unignorable and inexcusable, (to most anyway, sadly this is slipping more and more as the years go by,) for eugenics had been applied to its logical end - mass genocide -- eugenics as a term was largely cast aside. No one who wished to be taken seriously could be caught referencing this horrific idea... and yet, if you just didn't call it that, and perhaps didn't reference its ideas SO directly... it was clearly still heavily influencing all sorts of ideology. Like religion, the science wasn't there; but people were hellbent on seeing what they wanted to see, or what they already thought they did; or of course what they just thought would help them get ahead in life - regardless of any truth. Repackaged and resold - the mass incarceration, sterilization, torture, lobotomization, poisoning and killing of "mental patients" soldiered on. You could stop an army, but could you stop an idea?

These echoes still haunt us to this day, ebbing and flowing with the times. It behooves us as a society to remain vigilant for the myriad forms that they take. Focus not on the words, but on the ideology behind them. What is the logic? Is the logic valid and sound? What is the agenda? These are of course running rampant in the present: homophobia and other hatred and misunderstanding of sexual preferences, characterizations of deviations from "acceptable" or "normal" behaviors as "degenerate," or "dangerous." Characterizing such things as "medical" issues without any evidence to back it up. American psychiatry until very recently for example, characterized being 'gay' as a medical illness. Now that is seen by most as an archaic embarrassment -- but where were these people when this was the popular theory of its day? What brought them to think such things? Would you trust these people with your mind... with your brain? 'Here, take this pill, don't mind the people begging for their lives in the background, just take your "medicine" and we'll cure you of your "disease..." We're "doctors" after all...'

Picking the Brain:

The obsessive focus on 'reverse engineering' the brain, as if it was a "Model T," combined with the belief that their 'patients' were basically fodder for whatever the "doctors" could come up with led them to extensively implement -- and vigorously defend - the "treatments" of the day. Drugging and poisoning their victims into extended periods of unconsciousness, inducing comas, inducing seizures, inducing fevers and hypothermia. Before their "miracle" arrived, (their neuroleptic 'saviors,') "insulin coma therapy" and "electroshock" were two of the preferred 'treatments' of the day, as well as the unforgettable, (or was that unmemorable?) "lobotomy" procedure that had begun to gain traction and favor, to the point of becoming a mainstream treatment, "delivered" in outpatient settings by people who weren't even doctors, (or even using sterilized equipment or settings for that matter.)

In and out, like a routine trip to the dentist; a jolt to the head, (a 'grand mal seizure' as they say,) to knock you out by inducing a coma, with no anesthesia, (the operation was performed within a few minutes, while the coma was still in effect - if the procedure took longer than expected, more "shocks" would be administered to prolong the 'coma-phase,') followed by an 'ice pick'-like tool to fracture the skull behind the eyeballs, (the eyes themselves would be 'shoved' to the side, rather violently; recipients of the procedure would appear afterward with gigantic, swollen "black-eyes,") - where it would be "swirled" through the frontal lobes of the brain to destroy the neural tissue within, permanently severing its connections and often leading to very severe lifelong disability, or death. The "target" was the "seat of consciousness," as it was sometimes referred, (its destruction leading progressively into the 'classic' "zombification," so often associated in popular culture's horror-depictions of the practice... Destruction of consciousness itself.) The lack of anaesthetic drugs such as the ones commonly utilized today for the very same "electroshock" procedure, (presently-- barbiturates and similar drugs in particular,) could frequently cause convulsions severe enough to break joints and bones as the body seized uncontrollably in the initial phase after administration of the electric-current.

'Shock' and Awe:

"Electroshock" itself, (re-stylized as 'ECT,' Electro-Convulsive "Therapy" in the modern era -- sounds so much more humane, no?) came into being shortly before the lobotomy, and is still used relatively - (though far less than in the earlier and middle portion of the 20th century,) frequently. The first recipient was a 'hobo' picked off the street and forced to undergo a series of shocks to the head, pleading for mercy while morally reprehensible researchers performed a completely uninformed experiment on him, not knowing if it would severely injure or kill the man, knowing nothing of what a proper "dose," if any might be, and getting the idea from seeing animals that had been stunned with electricity in preparation for their slaughter. It is largely the same procedure, with largely the same understanding now as was had all those years ago when it was first implemented. There are many claims that it is more "safe" now, though the evidence is lacking to say the least; reasoning for this claim tends to revolve around "argument that the current is not as strong or as long lasting as it used to be, with more 'control' over the discharge into the brain," "argument that the 'shape' of the current isn't as 'sharp,' as it used to be, and is therefore less 'jarring' and potentially damaging to the recipient," and, "argument that it is administered less frequently than it used to be, and more commonly in conjunction with 'sedative' drugs, such as barbiturates, benzodiazepines, other anaesthetic drugs and restraints to avoid higher incidence of injuries."

The entire point of the "treatment" is to purposefully induce massive seizures in the brain, essentially "frying" it out, and then "resetting" it if you will. (Okay then...) There is no well established explanation with any physical evidence to support that this is efficacious for treating "mental illness." There is of course undeniable evidence that it IS damaging however. (The most frequent problems reported from people who've experienced it appear to be significant memory loss, along with general impairment in concentration and cognition overall.) Hemmingway famously killed himself after he was exposed to the "treatment," reportedly remarking before his suicide: "It was a brilliant cure, but we lost the patient..."

In many ways ECT was similar to "ICT," or insulin coma therapy, as well as other less common "shock" therapies aimed at purposefully causing seizures and comas as a form of "treatment." Of course serious impairment, permanent disability, and other severe/life threatening reactions are similar concerns for all of these procedures. As the middle of the 20th century moved on, only ECT remained for the most part. It was cheaper and less "apocalyptic" you could say than other "shock" treatments of the time. Psychiatrists may have believed and often argued similarly for all of these types of treatments. They were destroying "pathological" elements in the brain in their own minds, and thus - the "treatments" were justifiable. Of course, there is to date - no evidence for this "cure," and plenty of evidence that it's (obviously, just about as surely as you could be about anything one would think,) harmful. Studies and publications were (and still are) continuously twisted. Psychiatrists were off to the races, attempting to 'one-up' each other on their quest to summit the 'mount everest' of psychological science. Raping and pillaging the mind as they carelessly plundered their way "to the top;" bringing their subjects to the "bottom" as they went along. They would describe their 'patients' as being "cured" or "improved," essentially as long as they weren't dead after the "treatment." Who would know anyway? There was no way to measure. People often couldn't really ask the subjects if they had experienced any betterment in light of said 'treatments;' and if they protested otherwise, were often silenced, ridiculed, ignored or worse. (Just like today.)

Logos of the Lobos:

Lobotomy's primary proponent himself, a "mad scientist" of perhaps the uppermost-echelon, -Walter Freeman.- He was a "showman" for the technique, bragging of its ease, refusing to follow basic protocol or safety measures, he wouldn't even wash his hands. He wasn't a surgeon; and yet, was allowed to personally perform thousands of the operations, (including on children... personally,) over his lifetime between the 1930's and the 60's under the guise of "outpatient treatment." He killed patients on multiple occasions, once while trying to pull off a "stunt" for a photo-op-- his grip slipped and he drove a stake through his victim's brain, (not like that wasn't what he was always doing anyway!) Even his most prominent partner, 'James Watts,' along with many of his colleagues, openly disparaged the mad "doctor's" methods and attempted to distance themselves from him and stop him from carrying out his experiments. His evidence for the practice had come from viewing the results of similar procedures performed on primates, and then seeing and meeting with his "mentor," a man named 'Moniz' who ended up receiving the NOBEL Prize for his work in this field applied to human brains-- yes - for this... a 'lobotomy' Nobel...

Freeman- performing in front of live audiences, present in the 'operating theatre,' and his onlookers-- as if gathered for a dinner party; smoking and gawking, some fainting at the sight when the mad doctor would strike his hammer into the center of the brain. Freeman performed thousands of these surgeries, and killed people on the operating "table." If you were "seriously" depressed, manic, psychotic or otherwise "disturbed" or "deviant," the "prescription" called for a "double-dose," each eye-socket would be penetrated so that both the right and left hemisphere could be destroyed. Children were not immune either. Is your child "acting up?" With the miracle of modern science, just bring him on in for a quick nip and a tuck. There, good as new -- hell, maybe even better! (Thank the Lord - that doesn't exist; this mass-murderer died in 1972. May he burn in Hell for all eternity, even though I'm sure he won't -- because he's dead, and Hell is here on earth, in our minds.) Rest in pieces you motherfucker. Surely, few things could ever be so awful...

The "tool" varied from an actual icepick, an earlier version essentially only by its hollow core, though in its earlier form a hole would be carved out of the side of the skull itself - which allowed the "doctor" to 'scoop' the pieces of brain matter out of the skull, like excavating the interior of a melon-fruit. Freeman viewed this earlier iteration as far too cumbersome - he wanted to find a way "inside" that would allow him to operate on 'patients' in a more "revolving-door" friendly manner -- more "economical," if you will. You have to hand it to the man - he was nothing if not... 'determined.' Again, more "serious" 'disturbances' would call for more "scoops" to be removed. People would often be led to believe that the procedure was safe, effective, and that furthermore - they would be back on their feet in no time; just a simple, revolutionary, advanced medical procedure -- easier than pulling a tooth.

Of course the reality was often months of vegetable-like existence before any 'recovery' from the procedure took place, if it was achieved at all. And recovery sure meant reduction in "symptoms" alright. After all, it's hard to present symptoms when you can't present much, if anything. Freeman viewed the procedure as a sort of "surgically induced 'childhood.' That's one way to "cure" a subject, I suppose. What do you think? Thankfully, the man's own recordings documented these horrors in gruesome detail, absolute nightmare fuel. The cold, clinical descriptions penned by his own hand offer a fascinating insight into his deluded psyche. He really did seem convinced of his own power... (I urge anyone with the 'stomach' to handle it to view the video documentation of the procedure -- it's gripping stuff; my heart truly goes out for his victims.)

It would be wrong to assume that these practitioners were unaware of the damage they were causing. Many seemed to know full-well that what they were doing amounted to little, if any- more than purposely destroying the brain, "brain damage therapeutics" it was even referred to as. Many of them genuinely believed their patients were in desperate need of "healing," and that killing the brain was their "cure." For many, if the "patient" was merely 'alive' after their 'treatment,' then the procedure was declared a success. It very often didn't matter if the recipient could no longer move, no longer speak, no longer feel or think, if they had to be permanently bedridden and taken care of around-the-clock lest they die because their mind has literally been, as far as anyone else could see -- erased. Many of these practitioners believed they were doing the "humane" thing, even if it meant death.

And of course, many of these "patients," were not here voluntarily. For any of this. Nor were they voluntary recipients of these supposed "treatments." The professionals had massive leeway in determining their subjects' fates. Lies, coercion, restraint and force were commonly viewed as "necessary," and justifiable for the "benefit" of the subject. Stripped of their rights to autonomy, they were at the mercy of their "doctors." An environment ripe for the seeds of abuse to flourish; unchecked power, lack of oversight, no legal protection, no recourse for the potential victim. How many were merely misunderstood, or victims of familial or other social disputes, tossed in the "bin" for someone else's gain -- sacrificial lambs for the slaughter? Sadly, in many ways, this is a legacy that remains with us to this day.

"Psychosurgery" is the modern term to describe the 'descendents' of this embarrassing procedure, (coined by Moniz himself -- remember him, the Nobel Prize winner for the lobotomy?) Far less utilized than the lobotomy of yesterday, it is little more than a slightly more "specialized, ie: "localized" version of the same procedure. Small holes are "burned" into parts of the brain; essentially variations on the older lobotomy procedure - with the overall principle much the same as it always was. Less invasive procedures are also being currently investigated. Contemporary procedures include "deep brain stimulation," and "transcranial magnetic stimulation." These latter two procedures are perhaps most akin to the "electroshock" procedure, though generally less "intense," and with greater ability for localization - whereas "ECT" itself is limited to 'unilateral' or 'bilateral' seizure-induction, ("half" and "full" brain-seizures, respectively,) although - like other "psychosurgeries," "DBS" does require surgery for "pacemaker-like" implants to be placed into the brain; whereas the magnetic-stimulation does not.

In many ways, it seemed that psychiatry's hubris had gotten the best of it. It was no longer about uncovering the truth or knowledge through the scientific method -- rather, it had become a practice more akin to that of a religious order. Reverse-science at play. Coming up with a conclusion first, and fitting the evidence to conform to the previously-held belief -- twisting the results so that no matter what happened, it would "confirm" their hypotheses. A discipline sunk into the depths of delusion itself, and "seeing things" where there were none; leaping in logic to arrive at the predetermined answer. One could say that psychiatry itself had succumbed to its own "psychosis;" an "institutional schizophrenia."

The search for "biological 'markers'" for these "mental illnesses" is ongoing to this day. This attitude of biocentrism continues into the present. And to this day, there exists no solid evidence for a biological origin for these supposed "illnesses." No doubt many see their own conditions or others' in this light - as 'physical' "brain-diseases," to be "cured" as one would a virus or a tumor. It would be reasonable to think that there could indeed be many factors to contribute to these states, including biological ones. It does seem however, presumptuous and dismissive to assume that this is the only cause, or the primary one -- we don't know, the evidence isn't there. "Mental illness" is classified purely on the basis of symptomatology, with no respect to what any underlying mechanism may be. An example could be "I have a headache." This is a symptom; it does not shine light on the cause of the headache, it is merely an acknowledgement of a subjective experience. It COULD be brain cancer... It COULD be purely psychosomatic. The same symptom, two radically different mechanisms for its action. One 'harmless,' the other fatal.

Burned at the Stake:

If one is to be exposed to a "treatment," particularly against their will -- should not the onus of 'reasonable cause' be placed upon the feet of the "accuser?" 'Innocent until 'proven' "guilty,"' if you will - with reasonable evidence provided from the side of the accuser? Let us assume for the sake of argument, that the reverse should be true; that is "guilty, until 'proven' otherwise." In this case, the defendant is being accused of a "disease" that eludes a solid definition beyond symptomatology. There is NO evidence to defend against, other than the word of the accuser. There is nothing to measure or test with any sense of objectivity. We have been reduced to justification through opinion only. This is, I hope one understands - a VERY dangerous line of reasoning to be held against a defense team. It would be akin to the following example:

"I, the accuser, put it upon the defendant, to prove to this court that you are NOT "infected" by ghosts; I accuse you of this affliction. Furthermore, I accuse you of being mentally incompetent due to your "possession." It is the opinion of the plaintiff, that you should be forced to undergo lobotomization for your condition - to rid you of your possession. Unless you can provide evidence that you are NOT infected with said "evil spirits," it is the duty of this court to force this "treatment" upon you -- for your own good, of course. Now, being the fair people we are, we shall open the floor so that you may offer up your counterargument, before judgement is laid upon you. I represent the opinion of the profession of 'ghost-hunters;' we are an established, professionally recognized discipline; and more than one of mine has deemed this so upon you. Obviously, these ghosts within you may be tricking you into thinking that they are not so -- but believe ME... they are; evidence is not needed. Do you not see? I am a professional. My colleagues are professionals -- we have deemed this to be true beyond reasonable doubt, and have set the precedent by doing so countless times in the past. Surely, my colleagues and I must be in the right."

Obviously, "mental illness," ie: 'schizophrenia,' could easily replace the "ghosts" listed above; functionally - nothing is changed with regard to the argument. However, I hope that by replacing "spirits" with "psychosis," the reader may be more likely to see the cracks in the accuser's argument. Again, the "accuser," can clearly be seen as a stand in for the "psychiatrist," in the same fashion. How much of what you see to be a reasonable argument, may be a deferment through "appeal to authority, appeal to precedent?" Are you perhaps colored by your own bias to be more inclined to believe the words "psychiatrist" and "schizophrenia," over "possession" and "accuser?" Is this reasonable, and if so - why? Women were denied the vote in this country for generations, shall they be denied again due to precedent?

The defendant is now placed into "the box." Unless he can convince the "jury/judge" to see that the argument is logically invalid, there is no way "out" of the box. It's a logic trap, and an easy one to fall prey to. Even if you understand what it is, it can be difficult to effectively communicate your reasoning. (And if they've already incapacitated one's ability to reason -- good luck!) The system's rigged, you're fucked. Have fun. -- killing yourself...

People think you're dangerous, you can't be trusted. You're not "like them," they don't "understand" you anymore. They pull themselves away fearing their association with you, or what others in their social-circles might think if they knew that they were associated with what has become, a "social leper." An invisible disease that they've bestowed upon you, of social origin with no marks. A 'scarlet letter' with little hope for redemption, for even when you're "fine," cogent, intelligent-- it matters not. You've been 'branded.' You have "it;" "it" could 'strike' at any time, any place, it could kill us all. You must be put down. "For 'YOUR' own good." Disgusting. Pathetic. Weak. Fools.

"I, the defendant, submit that the accuser's argument is not valid. In addition, the burden of proof has been laid upon my feet, and yet I am not the one here making the claim for submission of judgement against the opposing party. Since the "ghosts" I am accused of harboring have no link for objective evidence to possibly draw from, it is impossible for me to "prove" the accuser 'wrong.' Their stance is one that cannot be refuted by its own definition. It has no objective definable terms. It is the accuser's "job" to prove that I am afflicted with "ghosts," not the other way around. They may believe this to be unfair, and ultimately, this would be because if they ARE the ones who have to prove that I have this affliction, they probably know as well as I do that this is by definition, NOT possible. Due to the lack of any objective measure for this argument, I submit that this case should be thrown out, and that I should not be subject to lobotomization."

My argument in this case, (the defendant,) is the only valid and sound reasoning that can be drawn. If the accuser wishes to "win," then they must appeal to "subjective" logic. Their argument is then allowed to be valid and sound within its own "ruleset," however now, by definition - it is only valid as their subjective viewpoint; it can only be argued to be "true" to a reasonable degree for their own separate reality. It is an opinion, with no objective basis. Relying on this type of reasoning completely undermines the entire point of arguing on equal footing. "Objectivism" is required so that both sides are "playing by the same rules," ie: that we "share" a reality, because if we don't -- none of this matters, and should be thrown out on those grounds alone.

This above example is nothing less than a "witch trial." You're 'guilty' if they want you to be, and unless they can see the flaws of their reasoning, there's no way out of "the box." This is the plight of those accused of "mental illness" and associated incompetence. Do you see? If you disagree, a psychiatrist feeling the other way might just tell you, "you're lacking insight; you have 'anosognosia.'" Give it a "science-y" sounding label, from a so-called "professional" -- people will eat that shit right up. How many people do YOU know, (you yourself perhaps?) who actually bother to fact-check anything? Do they even have a metric for what a 'fact' is in the first place? If a majority of the people around them believe a thing, or enforce a certain behavior-set regardless of any consistent logic behind it; how many people will just go-along with it, defend it even, with no critical thought or little to justify it? It's easier to not think, right? (Try telling that to all of the people who've been forced to undergo "brain damaging 'therapeutics;'" I don't know if it makes life easier for them -- but if anything, the statistics sure seem to suggest that it makes suicide easier.)

'Arbeit Macht Frei':

Many of the other physical sciences of the time period had fallen prey to some of these very same leaps in logic. "Eugenics" was a popular opinion of the day, presented as fact. The idea that subsets of genotypes could predict intelligence, ethics and an objective "worth" for society-at-large was of course a primary defense for the torments perpetrated on "patients" of the day. Rather than viewing the mind as a social or psychological and personal, subjective construct - separated from the boundaries of biology, many just assumed this viewpoint to be unquestionably true. It was an 'a-priori' matter; taken for granted as "reality," with little consideration for differing viewpoints. Science is not infallible -- ever; not now, and not then. Eugenics and the reductionist view of the mind as function of the brain in this manner WAS the "science" of the day. To question could lead to ridicule, ostracization, or worse for any "psychiatrist" of the day. To stand against the popular opinion could lead to loss of jobs, loss of opportunity, and loss of social inclusion on all 'professional' and 'academic' fronts.

Of course it is well known that eugenics was used as a "screen" of sorts for certain people and organizations to push their own agendas; using a "science" based framework, (in idea, not reality) and knowing or suspecting it to be true - or merely claiming its truth. A stage had been set. Psychiatry was desperate for validation, desperate for results, desperate for money; and there was no shortage of people on all sides desperate in their own minds for new forms of social control. Ever since this "enlightenment" phase had taken off, and with the march of the industrial revolution - 'God' just wasn't selling like he used to. A lot of people just weren't 'buying' it anymore. Too many questions, too much individuality, too many 'radical ideas' that weren't exactly helping the elite of the day maintain their grip on power. If the Rockaffelers of the world were to maintain their 'elite' status and riches, the railroad tycoons and the oil barons; they would have to find new ways to convince people to listen to someone else who would want to control them; new justifications for dividing humanity into "privileged" and "undeserving" classes. People believed science. Science had results. If one could just frame their wishes and views of the world with the window-dressing of science, surely many would eat it right up - as they had with their previous dogmas. The ideology, and hubris of things like eugenics were perfect to take advantage of.

Many "students" of the discipline didn't know any better. This is what they were taught to believe, to believe otherwise was 'foolish.' They lacked education in other disciplines, and lacked a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying logic and philosophy for their field. It is likely that many just "didn't want to see it;" for to question their 'life's work' was to endanger themselves, their careers, their finances and their social-circles. Even for many who knew there were gaping holes in the foundations of their "science," to speak out was to commit "suicide," yet another reinforcing factor perpetuating the silence, the ignorance, and the oppurtunism at play. Consciously or otherwise, no doubt easier for many to "look the other way," or "take someone's 'word' for it."

Out of Sight... Out of Mind:

"It" came in the 50's... the neuroleptic drugs. More and more had begun speaking out on the atrocities being committed in the name of psychiatry. It was becoming more difficult to justify the tortures of the asylum halls. The papers that had been published over the years speaking of promising results and "cures" were being exposed for their faults, their blindspots, their outright lies. The best justification they had was that - 'yes, they were hurting people; causing brain damage... but it was for their own good... right?' How long could this facade stand? A new class of drugs had just been discovered. When researchers noted that its effects caused massive reduction in 'higher-brain' functioning, much as the lobotomy and shock 'therapies' of the day-- this new wave of "major" tranquilizers was rolled out, and even referred to then by its practitioners as a "chemical" lobotomy. Again, the psychiatrists noted that this form of treatment absolutely appeared to cause brain damage as well - and yet again, as they had done before, many endeavored to sweep this "inconvenience" under the rug. But this time, it was a lot easier to "sell" their new 'treatment' to the public.

It lacked the more overtly gruesome nature of the 'shock' therapies and certainly the lobotomy. These drugs tended not to cause the outright, violent convulsions of many of the former drugs, and required no obvious surgical invasion. "Silent" carriers of death, injected or swallowed -- humane to the public as long as they didn't have to look any closer and see the dark truth underneath the surface. And now, in "triumphant" victory, the psychiatrists could administer their poisons indefinitely in an outpatient setting. Hold the victims in their "hospitals" for long enough to allow the "patient" to gain just-enough of a tolerance to the effects so that they could technically stand and give basic responses if required - and then boot them out with a "prescription" that they would be doomed to take for the rest of their life. Permanently altering the victim's neurochemistry and brain structure so that if they DID get off the drugs - violent reactions could result that would cause all manner of withdrawal, rebound-effects, convulsions, more damage and death. And yet this drug-induced terror was conveniently justified as being, 'why - not an effect of the drugs, of course,' to the public at least, (even though it was absolutely internally acknowledged by many that the drugs were certainly causing these types of damages.)

It "worked," in many ways -- for the psychiatrists at least. These drugs had arrived at just the right time to help their discipline 'save-face' in the public eye. The wool could be pulled over again - psychiatry was going to keep its "prestige" dammit, nothing could stand in the way. There was already too much momentum, too much to be lost, too much money. Of course, politicians were quick to jump on the bandwagon. At last - they could begin to shut-down large portions of their institutions, and claim "victory" in the process. It didn't really matter to many, (and many believed it,) -- that there was no, or little - "cure" to be found here, (or of course that many people weren't in need of a "cure" to begin with-- the psychiatrists were often just 'killing' people, and deeming them 'cured,' - for no reason.) To many, all that really mattered was that money could be "saved," on the surface anyway -- even if in the long run, all they were doing was prolonging their victims' suffering, making people worse, releasing them to the streets - and if they were "lucky," they might end up in the "care" of their families' homes; if they weren't as fortunate - they would be left to crowd the streets, homeless and dying, picked off by the police, jailed, killed. Left as statistics for a different count, something for another time...

To those who protested, they were deemed as "lacking insight;" 'of course the drugs weren't hurting them... it was surely their "disorder" that was to blame.' And so, curiously, the myriad negative effects of the drugs became more and more synonymous with "symptoms" of the 'disorders' that were being branded onto the victims. This charade went on for a few decades more. Eventually, psychiatry's 'skeletons' began to creep up toward the surface again. It was time to shift tactics once more, kick the can down the road another time - another lie. How long could they ride this wave until the whole thing came crashing down? Would they be able to ride this out until they really found an approach for their discipline that could work?

'Atypical' Reasoning:

Things were changing. The pharmaceutical industry had realized just how far they could really start pushing things. Lax regulation, lax oversight, and good old fashioned greed helped to solidify a strong, "special" relationship between psychiatry and "big pharma." The drugs were cheap to manufacture, but favorable patent laws and monopolization had contributed to an atmosphere that had allowed things to start spinning out of control. The big-bucks were really starting to roll in; it was the 80's baby-- cocaine-fueled Reaganomics had brought the stock market high, regulation was on the downswing. A golden age... for the already gilded, (and anyone lucky enough to join them from below.) The age of the "magic pill" in the eyes of the public was here. Advertisements of the day would nary bat an eye at making bold, shocking, unbelievable and flat-out untrue claims. They were of course heavily targeted to the psychiatrists; the studies researching their effectiveness and dangers were heavily paid for by the drug companies - again, little oversight or regulation in place to stop clear conflicts of interests from sabotaging and distorting the information presented, the information searched for, the presentation of the information, proper disclosures, methodologies for determining things like efficacy and safety...

The ads would openly reference things like 'new formulations,' that would be harder to detect if clandestinely "slipped" into subjects' food or drink; and giving elderly people the drugs to "calm them down." (Newer advertisements boast the 'positives' of "catching 'them' early," targeting their drugs to adolescents who 'might be' "at risk" for developing "severe disorders.") All under the guise of "helping people" of course, but how much of this was really about just keeping people chemically castrated so that they could be controlled easier? Easier for nursing home staff, easier for families, easier for the staff of the mental wards?-- And now, easier for schools, easier for parents, etc.?

In a century, we'd come full circle: the 'hysterical' housewives of yore, being deemed "certifiably insane" by the wishes of their husbands, so that they could be rid of their old flings and move on; "troubled" youth whose parents wanted their children to be molded to their desires; "annoying" old people with dementia who 'needed' to be silenced and ignored. Political enemies, criminals, vagrants, immigrants -- anyone who was in a position to have someone else who could easily swoop in and take away their freedom, their right to exist even if they had done nothing wrong. If you were "in the way," psychiatry was happy to answer the call of society's elite... and the people were buying it again and again; hook, line and sinker. It was the best of times... it was the worst of times...

Once you were "insane," it was all downhill from there -- and this was no 'accident.' These people had mastered the art of selling snake oil to the gullible masses; the pinnacle of pseudoscience; a legacy of a century's worth of eugenics, repackaged and resold every few years -- always a new, revolutionary "cure" on the horizon, for a goalpost that could always be shifted a little further. For there was nowhere to pin the goal. The game was rigged. Only they could apparently "see" the goal-line - the public, of course - just had to trust psychiatry... just "take their word for it." The self-ordained, high-priests on their high-horses. And this was only the beginning... the BIG bucks were really about to get rollin', and there were plenty of folks in this industry who wanted to make damn sure this gravy train wouldn't be coming back to the station any time soon. The more momentum it has, the harder it is to stop; like a snowball -- it just keeps piling and piling more investors. More folks who wanna see: just how far can this thing go?

These companies had it made. They were legalized drug cartels. The past decade had seen an enormous, largely politically motivated movement to outlaw all kinds of drugs from the public. A chance to corner the market. Anything illegal was demonized, buried, and their possession and use harshly punished. And yet, this new 'War on Drugs' had given the pharmaceutical industry the perfect chance to sweep in, patent all kinds of new drugs - and make a killing in the emerging market. Many of the newer drugs being rolled out seemed to be largely motivated in the interest of retaining exclusivity rights for drug patents - so that higher prices could be charged, competitors 'choked' out of certain market niches. The 'typical' neuroleptics, as they would soon be retroactively referred to, these "old-school" "'major' tranquilizers," were old-hat, and more importantly - many had lapsed into "generically" viable territory; they just weren't making the big bucks they used to. Staple drugs like chlorpromazine and and its super-potent 'sister' drug, haloperidol, ('Thorazine' and 'Haldol' respectively,) had lost their previous profitability -- the drug companies began to expand their market focus in this arena and pump out "new" drugs, typically slight modifications of their older ones with slightly different binding profiles and subsequent effects.

The timing for this maneuver couldn't have come at a better time for other reasons as well. More and more studies were being released, people were opening their damn mouths, the truth was rearing its 'ugly' head again. These drugs had been marketed as "safe," "miraculous," "calming and soothing for their 'patients.'" It was 'inconvenient' for psychiatry that they were now being seen as "dangerous," "permanently disabling," "zombie drugs," but it was getting harder and harder for them to deny. Those pills had done a pretty good job of keeping their 'dirty little secret' hidden from the public-en-masse for quite a while. But you can only keep the jig up for so long... or can you? Now was the 'age' of the NEW "antipsychotic," as they so 'adorably' referred to these drugs as. What wordsmithery: "antipsychotics," "mood-stabilizers," "antidepressants." George Orwell would have been 'proud.' Pretty simple -- just call the drug what you want people to associate with it, advertise it as such, put on a "doctor" coat -- bam! print that money, yo! Give your fellow 'influencers' a slice of the pie and laugh your way to the bank -- suckers... You could package these peoples' shit and sell it back to them for a premium, the gullible fucks...

The "plan" was the same as before. "New" drugs, "better" effects, hide behind the lies, deny the truth, and when the studies contradicting your claims come in -- on to the next one. And just in time, the patent was running out anyway. A methyl chain here, a fluoridated modifier there - voila! Alchemy! Magic! This time, this drug... this was "the one." The "new" drugs would come to be called the "atypical" antipsychotics. If anything -- they seemed even worse, or at best - just as bad, but a little different. On 'paper,' most of them appeared to differ by having a 'broader' targeting mechanism than their predecessors, mainly differing by also blocking out the action of serotonin mediated neurochemistry, in addition to the "usual" dopamine and histamine channels that were the 'primary' targets of the 'typicals.' To this day, these drugs are their "go to," newer iterations, (for copyright, ahem - I mean 'advancement' purposes,) still largely the same, though they have broadened their scope to include "reuptake inhibitors" in combination with the "antagonists" of the 'older' generations. Essentially, (in theory - for some anyway,) having additional "reuptake inhibition" properties in addition to the other properties MIGHT make them 'not AS bad...' for some anyway. Of course they could be worse for some too. And of course -- that's just the way a lot of them probably want it. Nice and ambiguous. Nice and "new," ripe for propaganda -- because YOU don't know what these drugs do, THEY don't know what these drugs do, and that suits their wallets just fine. And they'll be happy to pay-out all the lawsuit money they have to after the fact - because by then it won't matter. They'll have made their money and taken it to the bank. It doesn't really matter. And if a few million people or more had to suffer and die along the way -- tough shit.

In addition, old drugs have now been repurposed through marketing efforts for new uses; their usage indications expanded; their off-label promotion broadened. New age-groups, new symptoms lumped into "disorder" classes, new "disorders" and "sub-disorders," NEW everything - so exciting! Anticonvulsant drugs being repurposed as "mood stabilizers" have become all the rage. Tired of boring old lithium? Not to worry, valproate is here to melt all your synapses away! Is your patient "making a scene," again? Try lamotrigine and give them all the "calming and soothing" they can handle! Don't mind the yelling and screaming, they'll thank you later!

What other "medical treatments" routinely require prison-settings, with people screaming, begging and crying for their lives? When no crime has been committed? Pissing and shitting themselves while they get beaten, drugged and tied down in rooms with no cameras or microphones after they've had their cell-phones or any recording devices removed? Where no matter what they say, it doesn't matter what they say? Where their "treatment" is justified through a five-minute interview-- after they've been kidnapped and threatened and potentially already drugged into a delirious stupor? Where they are forced to sign documents in said delirious stupor when they clearly have NO idea what's going on? Where they are allowed no call or contact with the outside while they are tortured and threatened? Allowed no second opinion? Their children ripped from their custody? Their rights stripped away from them? Where their "symptoms" aren't verifiable through ANY objective measure whatsoever? Where it's totally okay for the "doctors" to completely lie, not only through omission, but outright, blatant lies? Where it's okay to threaten people with physical torture and other punishments if they don't "submit?" Does this sound right? Does this sound okay? Am -I- the "crazy" one here?? Psychiatry is out of control, IT is crazy, and it needs to be stopped. Not all of its treatments entirely; I do realize that some people - for whatever reason-- DO benefit according to themselves from these 'treatments.' If they want these treatments for themselves -- fine. Good for them, that's great! But what about everyone else? Is this really justifiable?

What if it was YOU? What then? Would your answer be any different?

===

[Ed. #001; July 30, 2020.]