Most people suffer from mental issues, how severe it is varies between humans.

Psychiatry is supposed to help people with mental illness but unfortunately there is several issues with the so-called help they are offering

0. They cannot accurately diagnose people
There isn't any proper science behind psychiatric labels, these labels have been voted into existance and this was not based on any good evidence, then based on mere symptoms people are diagnosed on very loose grounds and often stigmatized for life, they might also lose rights they though they had.

1. They may start treating you against your will "for your own good"
So what if you do not want to take drugs, cannot you just say no? unfortunatily not everyone is legally allowed to do that, sure you can try to free but that can just make it worse. The legal systems in most countries will usually side with the psychiatrists over some 'mentally ill' patient, especially if the patient has already been drugged so badly he/she cannot function properly anymore.

2. Severe side effects from psychiatric drugs
Psychiatric drugs can ruin your entire life, many people end up killing themselves since there isn't any hope for them, other live lives that are barely worth living after having been ruined by psychiatry.

3. Long term outcomes are clearly bad
Drugs may sometimes seem to be helpful but that's only short term, over time the negative iotrogenic effects will add up to the point where you would have been better off never having started the drug, this is assuming it even helps you at all even short term.

Harrow found the drugs cause a 40% decline in cognitive functioning, a 66% fall in employment rates, 250% more psychotic symptoms, triple the anxiety and worse outcomes on every measure.

4. The medication they offer is addictive or will create dependence.
Over time your brain will adapt to the drug and then if you try to stop you will suffer from withdrawal symptoms, this can be very severe, potentially even life-treatening, doing off a drug can be just as dangerous as getting on a drug.

There is no denying that the drugs they offer can feel good and a lot of people want to get their hands on the addictive drugs they are offering, people on drug will often think they are being helped by the drug when in reality they are just spiralling into an addiction

There is no denying that the drugs they offer can feel good and a lot of people want to get their hands on the addictive drugs they are offering, Many people have a religious faith in psychiatrists and therapists and expect them to magically solve their problem, in reality these people are just humans and you might get more out of chatting with people online about your specific issue. In the case of gender dysphoria they just gave up and decided just to offer hormones and surgery since they are clueless about how to actually cure the disorder.

It's natural to be depressed when your life is bad and the solution is to take action to improve your life, psychiatry will instead give people drugs and electroshocks to archive short term improvement at any cost, as if grand mal seizures would be good for you. They simply turn what could have been a temporary issue (psychosis, depression, etc) into a chronic problem via extended usage of psychiatric drugs and other brain-damaging treatments.

Mental illness can be due to biological factors such as diet psychiatry will not fix that, nor will they be able to fix any of your genetic issues. YouTube

Psychiatric drug studies are often rigged and when that fails often the results are not published at all

It's unclear if there are any situations where you benefit from drugging yourself unless you await a certain death that will come to you soon, in that case the long term consequences don't matter and you may as well numb yourself so you will feel less bad about your horrible situation assuming there is nothing to be done about it.

Psychiatry is very useful if you want to control a population, label people opposing the system as mentally ill, when they are diagnosed as mentally ill they can be locked up at institutions "for their own good" and they might never get out.

Due to the risk of being treated by these quacks against your will you should not talk about mental health issues such as suicide thoughts or hallucinations with anyone who can find out your real identity, do not even talk to a psychiatrist and by avoiding them you will be mostly safe. If you need to went about something use tor or safer to hide your ip address and you will be more free to talk about hearing voices or whatever mental health issue you struggle from.

If you end up in a psychiatric ward it's recommended that you pretend to take the medications they prescribe and make them think the pill got you better 96 only take it to court as a last resort since there isn't any actual due process anyway (expect to lose).


Talk therapy cannot beat placebo
The mental health industry often offer talk therapy as an alternative or supplement to drug, this may seem good but the issue is that it simply doesn't work, at least no better than placebo.

theoretically good therapy could exist that theoretically could help some people, but this is about CBT/DBT. And YSK the largest CBT study ever showed it had no benefits: said:
At six-month follow-up, patients who received CBT were no better than those in the control group... One hundred percent of the patients were clinically depressed after completing treatment.

Cambridge said:
Counselling is associated with modest improvement in short-term outcome compared with usual general practitioner care, and thus may be a useful addition to mental health services in primary care.

Similarly, a psychiatry professor fact-checked claims (made by the APA) that therapy works:

Psychiatry professor Jon Shedler said:

Let’s fact-check this by seeing how it aligns with the findings of the largest and arguably best randomized controlled trial behind the guidelines.
The RCT was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Patients received [either] - a “highly recommended” form of CBT (prolonged exposure therapy) or a placebo treatment.

Here is what the study found:

Nearly 40 percent of patients who started CBT dropped out. They voted with their feet about its value.

Sixty percent of the patients still had PTSD after completing treatment.

One hundred percent of the patients were clinically depressed after completing treatment.

At six-month follow-up, patients who received CBT were no better than those in the control group.

Nineteen serious “adverse events” (suicide attempts, psychiatric hospitalizations) occurred over the course of the study...

I did not choose this study as an example because it is a poor study. I chose it because it is arguably the best.

For clarity, the author isn't saying good therapy can't exist, or doesn't exist. He believes insurers don't want to pay for quality long-term therapy, so they fund cheap forms of therapy that don't work and customers quit the therapy. (Which saves insurance companies money.)

He also believes that good therapy (if you can find it) takes months to show benefits.

Study: Therapists are in denial.

The BPS (British Psychological Society) recommends therapists actually listen to clients, eg asking whether they like a particular therapy or not.

Why why don't therapists ask this? It's because many therapists don't even listen to clients:

Clinicians generally react with resistance to client feedback systems. Lambert quips: ‘‘If you think you’re a superior clinician, as all clinicians do, then why would you feel you need it? Why collect data that can only bring you down?

While the BPS recommends recording patient feedback and changing forms of therapy based on it:

The principle is simple – before each session, ask clients a few brief questions about how they are feeling and how they feel the course of therapy is going. These days, it can even be done on a palm top at reception while they are waiting to see their therapist. By comparing a client’s answers to the average progress made by similar clients at that stage – that is, clients who had similar problems, of similar severity, at treatment outset – Lambert’s algorithms are able to say whether a client is ‘on track’ or ‘off track’.

Harm of therapy
The BPS explained how many therapists are totally unaware of the harm clients report from therapy:

Brown University Medical School surveyed 181 practising psychologists across America, they found that a significant portion (28 per cent) were unaware of negative effects in psychotherapy.

The form of therapy is irrelevant
Studies show what really matters is who is doing the therapy (ie their social skills) and not the form of therap

Therapy should be a great thing for some people. But really:
  • There are many people who can not be helped by any amount of words because they have real life problems that aren't going away.
  • Many clients do not want blame-based therapy that assumes the individual is defective.
  • Many clients don't want to relive trauma.


Electroconvulsive therapy
Another barbaric treatments psychiatrists push for is giving people grand-mal seizures, this is of course often given without consent. Of course this causes brain-damage and some people are never able to recover from that.

Animal studies (now old) show it causes brain-damage

Studies show it at best only work short term



Well-known member
there is this lie that shrinks have some special ability to cure negative emotions using their bullshit diplomas.
basically the victim pays some dude or cunt to talk to him, and he only gets more depressed due to it.

I think study in fields of interests is plenty therapy.


Regarding "autism"
The reason more and more people get diagnosed with it is becuase the criteras are very vague where people get discarded as autistic just for being different even though there isn't actually anything wrong with them, it's not because of vaccines, stop being stupid.

First let's look into the dsm 5 definition:

Diagnostic Criteria for 299.00 Autism Spectrum Disorder
To meet diagnostic criteria for ASD according to DSM-5, a child must have persistent deficits in each of three areas of social communication and interaction (see A.1. through A.3. below) plus at least two of four types of restricted, repetitive behaviors (see B.1. through B.4. below).

A Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts, as manifested by the following, currently or by history (examples are illustrative, not exhaustive; see text):
  1. Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, ranging, for example, from abnormal social approach and failure of normal back-and-fortconversation; to reduced sharing of interests, emotions, or affect; to failure to initiate or respond to social interactions.
  2. Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, ranging, for example, from poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communication; to abnormalities in eye contact and body
  3. language or deficits in understanding and use of gestures; to a total lack of facial expressions and nonverbal communication.
  4. Deficits in developing, maintaining, and understand relationships, ranging, for example, from difficulties adjusting behavior to suit various social contexts; to difficulties in sharing imaginative play or in making friends; to absence of interest in peers.
Specify current severity:

Severity is based on social communication impairments and restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior.
Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities, as manifested by at least two of the following, currently or by history (examples are illustrative, not exhaustive; see text):
  1. Stereotyped or repetitive motor movements, use of objects, or speech (e.g., simple motor stereotypes, lining up toys or flipping objects, echolalia, idiosyncratic phrases).
  2. Insistence on sameness, inflexible adherence to routines, or ritualized patterns of verbal or nonverbal behavior (e.g., extreme distress at small changes, difficulties with transitions, rigid thinking patterns, greeting rituals, need to take same route or eat same food every day).
  3. Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus (e.g., strong attachment to or preoccupation with unusual objects, excessively circumscribed or perseverative interests).
  4. Hyper- or hyporeactivity to sensory input or unusual interest in sensory aspects of the environment (e.g. apparent indifference to pain/temperature, adverse response to specific sounds or textures, excessive smelling or touching of objects, visual fascination with lights or movement).
Why this is nonsense
A1 to A3 are vague and these things are not innate things you are born with, it can be due to you not being compatible with the individual you are trying to talk to and being unwilling to fake your personality to get along.

Being good at faking a personality and other social skills is something you can easily learn, being unable to do these things is not something fixed you cannot cure.

Social interactions also depend on factors such as looks and status.

B3 is actually normal human behavior, a lot of people are have highly focused interests like about being very much into a subset of cars or being obsessed with star wars.

B2 is also fairly common, it's just a matter of degree.

What is the actual disability?
Some people diagnosed with autism do suffer from things like sensory overload and mentdows
This is clearly an actual disability but you can get diagnosed with autism even if that doesn't apply to you and this is why i reject the autism label as it's being used today. The issue is lumping together people who are socially nonconformative with people who suffer real disabilities in the same group.
So what's going on here is that when someone struggle socially it is assumed that the individual is mentally ill and then the individual is discarded.
People get labeled as "autistic" by psychiatrist from early age and then they get stigmatized even though there isn't actually anything wrong with them mentally, then they get stigmatized, put in special education and then end up in group homes. It's the act of diagnosing people that causes the harm and not some invisible disorder.


Trying to make sense of the dsm-5 definition of gender dysphoria
In adolescents and adults gender dysphoria diagnosis involves a difference between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, and significant distress or problems functioning. It lasts at least six months and is shown by at least two of the following:
  1. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics
  2. A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics
  3. A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
  4. A strong desire to be of the other gender
  5. A strong desire to be treated as the other gender
  6. A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender
Here however it's not very clear what they mean by "a difference between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender and significant distress or problems functioning", is it just satisfying the 2 of six criteria listed or do you also have to satisfy something else?

Gender dysphoria involves a conflict between a person's physical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/they identify
So you need to identify as female to have gender dysphoria? that doesn't actually make any sense. Is this just an attempt at describing or or is it a requirement?
I wonder, what percentage of therapist will require you to have to not identify as male to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria?

Now let's look at the six criteria, an incel transmaxxer will typically satisfy 3,4,5

1: what does that even mean?
2: Unless you have surgery you will keep your dick and it's actually better not to have genital dysphoria since then you will probably not need to have SRS.
3: HRT will only change your secundary sexual characteristics, hormones will not change your chromosomes, SRS is still rather limited. The later you start the less effect you will get from HRT.
4: will you really get that from HRT? this will depend on what you mean by "female" it's unclear if you will ever be able to give birth if you transition today so if you want that aspect of being female transition will not satisfy that and thus you wanting to get pregnant and give birth isn't a valid reason to transition.
5: for this you pretty much have to pass and this will depend on the characteristics of your body.
6: so you need to be delusional and think you will be like a female psychologically despite male socialization and male hormones?

Does any of this matter?
Most therapists will probably not even follow this nonsense anyway, instead they will use their own criteria where people need to meet their view of what it means to have gender dysphoria, thus if you need an official GD diagnosis you end up having to guess what the therapist wants to hear and then you might have to maximize the probability of you getting officially diagnosed.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


Psychiatrist doesn't protect you from dangerous people
They do the exact opposite, it's common that mass-shooters were on psychiatric drugs


Veteran suicides increases with psychiatric Screening & Drugs
Robert Whitaker: (Harvard Medical School director of publications.)

The prescribing of antidepressants has increased steadily since 2000. Yet, since 2000, the age-adjusted suicide rate for the American population, rather than decrease, has risen steadily, from 10.4 per 100,000 to 14.0 per 100,000 in 2017.​
The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention was a non-profit that was funded, to a significant extent, by pharmaceutical companies, which understood that a “suicide prevention” campaign would boost sales of their drugs...​
Its advisory board and presidents touted antidepressants as “anti-suicide” pills.​
“Use of antidepressants to treat major depressive episode is the single most effective suicide prevention measure in Western Countries,” said Columbia University psychiatrist John Mann, on the Foundation’s scientific advisory board.​


The highest recovery rates for "schizophrenia" mental breakdowns are from drug-free therapy & economic help.
In Finland they started an open-dialogue approach (instead of drugs) which has almost eliminated schizophrenia among people in the region:

Robert Whitaker: (Harvard Medical School director of publications.)
They're down to 2 cases per 100,000. A 90% decline in schizophrenia. Their first episode cases aren't chronic.

Similarly, in Europe there's a therapy (without drugs) where 80% of people called "schizophrenic" recover as long as those people have resources.

But if they're drugged (without therapy and help) the recovery rate drops to 5%.:

In contrast, American psychiatrists try to blame everything on genes. But this is baseless. eg consider how the Nazis attempted to kill all "schizophrenics", & a few years later there were about the same amount.

Why? "Schizophrenia" is mostly just mental breakdowns from various things like trauma, stress, unhealthy food that causes inflammation, sleep loss, etc. (Sources below.)

Robert Whitaker: * "You can have a breakdown, but you can recover from that with the right environment. Shelter, exercise, good food, meaning in life, socialization, Once we think of what we need, then we can think 'how do we make these available to people in very difficult moments?...' How do we build a healthier society?"

Gene myths. We always hear how schizophrenia is linked to genes, but really almost every behavioral issue can be linked to genes, eg poverty, stress, musical tastes, political views, etc.

(It doesn't mean genes cause them.)

Many traumas:

There's a wide variety of people called 'schizophrenic' who in reality have a wide variety of traumas. And if someone's been that way for many years they may be hard to help, but early 'schizophrenia' should be seen more like a response to forms of mental stress. And people can almost always recover as long as they have enough help:

John Read: (Professor of psychology) said:
When people hear voices they need to be able to talk about that with somebody who doesn't tell them there's something seriously wrong with their brain, their genes, & that they'll never recover from this supposed illness.
Similarly, Abram Hoffer M.D. said there was a 90% recovery from first stage schizophrenia if people had shelter, were treated with respect, and had basic nutrition.



"ADHD" is labelled on the youngest kids in class, debunking studies linking "ADHD" to having a smaller brain.
Many clients of psychiatry are told "ADHD is linked to having a smaller brain," & they become convinced that some biological flaw causes their kid's brains to shrink.

Studies show the youngest kids in class are more likely to be labelled "ADHD," ie teachers are assuming that normal childhood youth/immaturity is a brain disease to justify drugging them.

Similarly, studies show an ADHD "diagnosis" is associated with an August birthday. (In schools where the youngest kids have an August birthday.)

It's just drugging the youngest into silence. It's not just the state drugging kids (sometimes forcefully), but they're drugging them into silent obedient to the state workers instructing them on what to think.


"psychopaths" don't exist. Uncaring people have the ability to empathize but don’t like to.
Psychiatrists should admit there is not a "genetically evil" race of subhuman monsters, as psychiatrists have simply made-up and imagined. The people they are depersoning & abusing are often nothing more than victims of gossip & rumors.

Frankly the concept of the "genetically evil" monster is very similar to how the Nazis described Jewish people. But in reality there is no crime- there's just prejudice used to judge a law-abiding citizen, quickly making wild assumptions about people's character, as if they're a wild animal seconds away from leaping into murder.

Society lacks empathy.
  • Ignoring the homeless
  • child laborers who make everyone's cloth and phones,
  • or their war atrocities.
eg when a nation drops bombs on another nation they're not labelled a "psychopath." (By their own side anyways.)

Similarly, racist police commonly prey on black people, poor people, protestors, etc and a significant percent of society doesn't care- they infact side with the police. Yet these police (and their supporters) are not deemed "psychopaths" by the state.

The point is that accusations of being evil are:
  1. A matter of perspective
  2. And political. It depends what side you're on.
Serial killers.
When you think of serial killers you should think of war-mongers & politicians. eg politicians who deny people affordable health care. Yet via the media people are trained to think *not* of people who kills millions, but someone who killed like 10 or 20 people.
When it comes to famous serial killers:
  1. "Psychopath" isn't a label for criminals. (eg there's no requirement of committing some extreme crime.)
    A totally law abiding citizen can be labelled purely because a psychiatrist's assumptions about their future. eg a psychiatrist who assumes they're about the attack- seconds away from murder.
  2. A huge percent of famous serial killers had their brains modified/damaged by psychiatric drugs.
A psychiatrist's ability to predict future crimes, suicides, etc have been studied. They do not have psychic magical powers- they can not predict these things and the highest courts have declared this to be true. And yet psychiatrists still have the legal power to pretend they can to torture & humiliate law-abiding citizens they dislike.

eg they heard someone was a mean bad person so they punish them with X amount of years (or decades) of imprisonment in a "mental hospital". But it's just gossip.


Psychiatric drugs have killed over 10 million people
The Danish psychiatry professor (P. Gotzsche M.D.) explained that psychiatric drugs kill over 500,000 people a year, just in the west, and have barely any evidence of positive effects.

This is especially alarming when you consider who is being killed people who were deemed inferior ("mentally ill") and essentially as being undesirable people with inferior genes that cause them to be undesirable.

And survivors of psychiatric drugs have commonly reported that they were told the drugs had no negative side-effects, and were "medicine" for some biological flaw that could not be fixed in any way but taking the drugs for life.


Study: "diagnosis" does NOT help people, it only increases discrimination & stigma.
Being labeles as mentally ill will cause stigma, discrimination and also severely damage the self-esteem of the individuals being diagnosed. It can also result in people being locked up and being subjected to dangerous quack treatments against their will (electroshocks, harmful drugs, etc).

University of Liverpool:
Almost all diagnoses mask the role of trauma and adverse events, & diagnoses tell us little about the individual patient and what treatment they need. The authors conclude that diagnostic labeling represents ‘a disingenuous categorical system’.
Lead researcher Dr. Kate Allsopp, University of Liverpool, said “Although diagnostic labels create the illusion of an explanation they are scientifically meaningless and can create stigma and prejudice. I hope these findings will encourage mental health professionals to think beyond diagnoses and consider other explanations of mental distress, such as trauma and other adverse life experiences."[/INDENT]
John Read, a professor of clinical psychology at the University of East London, reviewed the literature a decade ago to determine the effect of this approach on the perception of schizophrenia and those who have it. Mr. Read and his co-authors found that, in fact, a belief in "bio-genetic" explanations for schizophrenia and the necessity of pharmaceutical management for it leads to increased pessimism in the chances of recovery and a greater desire to avoid contact with persons so labeled.
These points have been replicated in study after study regarding a host of mental illnesses in at least 16 different countries. The first meta-analysis on the subject, by researchers at the University of Melbourne, demonstrated in 2013 that acceptance of bio-genetic explanations for mental illness was positively correlated with a greater perception of dangerousness regarding the mentally ill.

The United Nations said similar:
The focus on treating individual conditions inevitably leads to policy arrangements, systems and services that create narrow, ineffective and potentially harmful outcomes. It paves the way for further medicalization of global mental health, distracting policymakers from addressing the main risk and protective factors affecting mental health for everyone.

And this all matches what Psychologist David Rosenhan said long ago:

The facts of the matter are that we have known for a long time that diagnoses are often not useful or reliable, but we have nevertheless continued to use them. We now know that we cannot distinguish insanity from sanity.

The real topic is generally trauma. Terms like anxiety, depression, etc in reality people's attempts to deal with trauma such as abusive/oppressive living conditions. Similarly 83% of those who report a "psychotic experience" also reported childhood trauma.

The Guardian:
Psychiatric Patients are being shunned in the mistaken belief they have biological defects. In fact the evidence shows that most have endured traumas.[


Lithium is the most dangerous & unnatural way to increase autophagy (brain repair). Exercise & diet are superior
Many of psychiatrist's customers believe they need lithium to be mentally stable, but their customers should know about autophagy & that there's much healthier ways to get it.

Exercise induces autophagy in peripheral tissues and in the brain

Short-term fasting induces profound neuronal autophagy

The psychiatrists that are selling lithium would like you to believe the benefits of the drug aren't autophagy since it can be achieved naturally. They'd like to assume the "help" of this drug is from the tranquilizer-like effects. But is that really healing any damaged brain cell? Does sedating people count as a long-term recovery plan?

Yes lithium can induce some autophagy:

Lithium induces autophagy by inhibiting inositol monophosphatase

But is it really healthy and rational to use lab chemicals to replicate the benefits of exercise & good diet?


Real insanity: psych cocktails often block the same brain chemicals they increase.
Stimulants increase the release of dopamine, while antipsychotics block dopamine receptors that will receive the dopamine or serotonin message. The purported mechanism of action of antidepressants is increasing the availability of serotonin, which will be countered by the action of the atypical antipsychotic, which block serotonin receptor (Loy et al., 2012). Again, it makes no sense to increase a neurotransmitter and then block its action.


Psychiatric “diagnosis” & a psychic's cold reading are both just noticing key words from a quick chat to guess your personality & future.
Cold reading is a set of techniques used by mentalists, psychics, fortune-tellers, mediums, illusionists (readers), and scam artists to imply that the reader knows much more about the person than the reader actually does.

Similarly, a psychiatrist's interviews aren't about them taking the time to seriously understand you, your history, or your goals. They're just listening for keywords. eg if you say something about 'stalkers' they write down you have symptoms of 'paranoid schizophrenia.' And you could make a list of keywords for every "mental illness."

Fit-all labels:
Another part of the cold-reading (and also psychiatric 'diagnosis') is they say things that could describe practically anyone, eg "you are thinking about travel." That's similar to the vague "symptoms of ADHD" (or bipolar, etc) which could apply to practically anyone.
Scientific illness vs moral "illness."

With a scientific illness they can verify it with lab tests or some physical experiment (eg for biological damage or germs.) If they sometimes guess because it's cheaper & easier that doesn't change that these are lab verified illnesses.
In contrast, all "mental illness" theories are based on moral judgements that a behavior is right or wrong. eg:
Sexual "illness".
And all of these are also crimes.
"Medicalizing" sexual fetishes:
sexual sadism
"Transvestic fetishism."
Depending on what country you're in homosexuality can be considered "mental illness" by psychiatrists. eg in many Islamic & fundamentalist nations (eg Russia) gays are treated as "mentally ill" or there is a movement to reclassify gays as "mentally ill."


Here's some of the "symptoms" (unacceptable behaviors) of ADHD:
Fidgit with your hands - squirm in your seat.
playing loudly
talking excessively
not listening when spoken to.
to run or climb in when it's inappropriate
blurting out answers before the questions have been completed
interrupting others
lacking attention to detail
All morality, not scientific experiments.


The Gene Illusion. Debunking the false assumptions of twin studies.

Jay Joseph M.D.:

People diagnosed with schizophrenia usually do have a higher rate than would be expected than the population, about 4%, which doesn't prove anything about genetics because it could be caused by the environment.But also, most People who are diagnosed with schizophrenia have no family history of schizophrenia. This is even stated in the dsm-5 this is even verbatim have no family members diagnosed with schizophrenia let alone bipolar 90% of the people in America diagnosed with their parents aren’t diagnosed with it 65% people diagnosed have absolutely zero history of any mental illness going all the way down to grandparents parents​

Jay Joseph M.D.:

Mainstream publications usually endorse genetic interpretations of psychiatric twin studies uncritically, there is a fatal flaw underlying these studies: identical twin pairs grow up experiencing mThumb: Book cover.uch more similar environments than experienced by same-sex fraternal pairs, meaning that the equal environment assumption — upon which all conclusions in favor of genetics are based — is false.​
Therefore, many critics have argued that it is likely that identical-fraternal comparisons capture nothing more than identical pairs’ more similar treatment, greater environmental similarity, stronger attachment and emotional bond, and greater levels of identity confusion (feeling like they are two halves of the same whole).​
Remarkably, since the 1960s most leading twin researchers have conceded the point that identicals experience more similar environments than fraternals. However, instead of relegating the twin method to a place alongside other discarded pseudosciences, twin researchers have attempted to validate the twin method by subtly redefining the equal environment assumption (EEA). The main way they have done this has been to argue that although identicals do indeed experience more similar environments than fraternals, identical pairs “create” or “elicit” more similar environments for themselves because they are more similar genetically.[1] However, this “twins create their own environment” argument is a circular one, because twin researchers’ conclusion that identical pairs behave more similarly because they are more similar genetically is based on the assumption that identical pairs behave more similarly because they are more similar genetically.​

This means that twin researchers’ position that genetic factors explain the greater behavioral resemblance of identical twin pairs is, illogically, both a conclusion and a premise of the twin method. In defending the validity of the twin method, modern twin researchers refer to the premise in support of the conclusion, and then refer back to the conclusion in support of the premise, in a continuously circular loop of faulty reasoning.​

Recently a growing amount of people have seen he was correct. eg:
The Journal of Psychiatry Research:

“Schizophrenia as a pseudogenetic disease: A call for more gene-environmental studies.”

They wrote "The heritability of schizophrenia has been over-estimated." (They said it's around 30%, not 85%, which implies it's not a genetic disease.) They say it appears to be "infectious." (Which could be all sorts of things, like infection created auto-immune disease.)

Imagine having the symptoms of an auto-immune disease (like your brain was destroying itself) and you couldn't go to a doctor for help because they'd simply labelled you "schizophrenic" & ordered you to take tranquilizers. (Aka "antipsychotics.") The cruelty of labeling such people "schizophrenic" is unspeakable.


About the "neurodiversity" movement
Instead of actually opposing psychiatry on scientific grounds the neurodiversity movement tend to identify with their diagnosis and get offended if anyone questions it. Often they are also in favour of psychiatric drugs and get very upset if someone question the usage of psychiatric drugs, they may also support involuntary psychiatry.

So clearly there isn't anything good coming out of this neurodiversity movement, they are denying science even harder than typical psychiatry and does not in any meaningful way oppose the current system.

The reality is different from their beliefs

0. There isn't any reliable way to diagnose yourself or someone else (mental disorders).
1. Some brains are better in terms of survival and reproduction than others, evolution will favour some brains over others making them more common over time.
2. Mental issues may not actually be innate, it could be due to factors such as poor diet and thus you might actually be able to find a real fix outside psychiatry.

What people believing in psychiatry do is to think that they are inherently different and that this cannot be changed, because psychiatry cannot really help them they try to cope with "my brain dysfunction is just a difference". It also means that when psychiatry harms people we wouldn't be able to clearly point out how it's bad since the mutilated brain would just be different.

I got a lobotomy but it just means i am different
So it actually enables psychiatrist to do harm to people like with antipsychotics, when psychiatry makes what would have been a temporary issue into a chronic conditions these people will identify with the disorder.

Often if someone isn't given harmful drugs he or she will recover just fine and not become a life-time patient, psychiatry turns what would have been a temporary problem into a permanent issue and then the victims cope with "i just have a different brain".


Massive study: (620k people) debunks "depression genes."
A new University of Colorado Boulder study assessing genetic and survey data from 620,000 individuals found that the 18 most highly-studied candidate genes for depression are actually no more associated with it than randomly chosen genes.

The previous studies were incorrect or “false positives” and the scientific community should abandon what are known as “candidate gene hypotheses,” the authors conclude.

“This study confirms that efforts to find a single gene or handful of genes which determine depression are doomed to fail,” said lead author Richard Border, a graduate student and researcher at the Institute for Behavioral Genetics

“Any time someone claims to have identified the gene that ‘causes’ a complex trait is a time to be skeptical,” said lead author Richard Border.

Depression is a natural thing that everyone experiences.
Everyone experiences some unhappiness, often as a result of a change, either in the form of a setback or a loss, or simply, as Freud said, "everyday misery." The painful feelings that accompany these events are usually appropriate, necessary, and transitory, and can even present an opportunity for personal growth.


Study: depression linked to living in dense cities.
Higher levels of neighborhood green space correspond to better mental health outcomes, when controlling for a wide range of confounding factors. The associations between green space and mental health are significant and sizeable and persist with different measurement techniques.

Furthermore, the estimated effect of environmental green space is similar in magnitude to that of other well-known and studied contributors to symptomology for depression, anxiety and stress. For example, results indicate that the difference in depressive symptoms between an individual living in an environment with no tree canopy and an environment with 100% tree canopy is larger than the difference in symptoms associated with an individual who is uninsured compared to an individual with private insurance.
Green space is now widely viewed as a health-promoting characteristic of residential environments, and has been linked to mental health benefits such as recovery from mental fatigue and reduced stress.

Long lasting benefits:
After the assessment phase of seven days, these participants were additionally examined by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). This method is used to represent certain brain functions. The results of the second group were found to be in agreement with those of the first run.

Further, since exercise is linked to reduced depression (and people living in more beautiful places hike more) there is even more reason to associate depression with a lack of access to a natural setting.[/INDENT]


Physical Restraints Have Lasting & Harmful Psychological Impact
In recalling the experience of restraint, patients described a loss of freedom and personal dignity associated with dehumanization, loss of self-determination, and even mistreatment,” wrote the researchers.

One patient said, ‘You took all my clothes off, you had me laying on the bed strapped down with no clothes, no cover, no nothing. My privates are wide open, people just walking by, and you won’t give me any clothes or shut the curtain.’ The patient experience of restraint ranged from descriptions of being treated like an animal to being handled roughly both physically and verbally by staff, even including displays of overt antagonism and profanities.


Addiction vs dependence
Psychiatrist often claim their drugs doesn't cause addiction, is this true?

Addiction is defined as you wanting to comsume more of it "dose escalation" while dependence is you having a hard time stopping it, with this strict definition of addiction a lot of drugs only cause dependence since nobody wants to take any more of it due to bad short term effects.


"Lack of Insight": A Term Used When People Disagree & Ask For Evidence (there isn't any)
I've noticed that the use of term "lack of insight" seems to be trending among mental health staff, with them utilizing it whenever a client disagrees with mental health staff and/or asks for evidence that mental health imperfections exist.

It's kind of a way to get around psychiatric staff exposing themselves as the irrational ones, because instead of being required to provide evidence and a chain of thought demonstrating that a client has mental illness, they can just make up jump to conclusions and then reinforce those thought with false quotes and attribute them to the client in question. The "lack of insight" seems to be thrown down anytime a client says "no" to a suggested thought process. This demonstrates a diagnosticians inability accept that their presumptions may be incorrect, and they use this phrase "lack of insight" as a was to mow right over the client's objections and inquiries.

It's actually extremely abusive, because if someone is perfectly sane and are being falsely accused, and mental health staff abuse their position to write down a self-serving narrative ("saints need sinners" after all), and then declare the person as having a "lack of insight", then they become dismissed by every system from that point, their complaints will always be ignored, and their legitimate legacy as a rainroaded victim is paved over.
It's a horrific misuse of a term.


The most dangerous thing you will ever do is see a psychiatrist.

Why? Because there is a near certainty you will be given a neurotoxic psychiatric drug or even electroshock; and because the information given to you will totally mislead you about your real problems and how to overcome them. Without realizing what is happening, you will be seriously at risk of becoming a lifelong prisoner of psychiatric drugs and the demoralizing misinformation provided by your doctor.

I am a psychiatrist and I have been watching my profession deteriorate for many decades. This is my most direct written statement about the dangers of stepping inside a modern psychiatrist’s office. My conclusions are the culmination of mountains of research authored by me and by an increasing number of other psychiatrists, scientists and journalists.1

How Psychiatric Drugs Take Your Mind Prisoner
When the brain is harmed by almost any widespread intrusion—multiple concussions and traumatic brain injury (TBI), severe infections (encephalitis), lightning strikes or electroshock treatment, and psychiatric drugs—the ultimate result is generalized harm to mental functioning. These global injuries always include harm to the frontal lobes, the seat of consciousness, rationality, the ability to love and all our other highest human capacities.

Injury to the frontal lobes, whose functions also include self-insight or self-awareness, renders victims unable to personally assess the degree of harm being done to them. I have called this effect medication spellbinding—how psychiatric drugs render us unable to fully grasp the harm they are doing to us.2

All psychiatric drugs are potent neurotoxins that so disrupt higher mental functioning and emotional regulation that people taking them almost never have adequate awareness of how much harm the drugs are doing to their body, brain and mind, their energy and will power, and their overall quality of life.

Practicing psychiatry and psychotherapy in a university town, I have frequently found these impairments in otherwise very high functioning people. College and graduate students with high academic achievements, university professors, mathematicians, and scientists often barely suspect, or do not suspect at all, that they are not nearly functioning at their best. Their neurotoxins (erroneously called antidepressants, stimulants, antianxiety drugs, mood stabilizers or antipsychotic drugs) are wearing down their cognitive abilities, motivation, and emotional sensitivity.

With help they can identify the decline in their overall performance and quality of life; and if they have not been bombarded with multiple drugs for years at a time, they typically achieve complete recovery after withdrawing from the drugs. When drug-free, they can see the improvement in their mental functioning and quality of life. Tragically, this is not so for tens of millions of people who never realize how they are being harmed by their psychiatric drugs.

Withdrawal Symptoms Make Escape from the Drugs Extremely Difficult
When stopping psychiatric drugs on their own, people can experience dangerous, frightening withdrawal symptoms, such as anxiety, agitation, depression and suicidal feelings, mistakenly leading them to believe that they need the drugs to stay sane.3

Misled by their doctors in countless ways, believing they need medical help, unaware of the dangers in abruptly stopping the drugs, convinced they are “mentally ill” when they are mentally impaired by neurotoxins—these unfortunate people understandably cannot break free of the psychiatric prison system in which they are unwittingly trapped.

The more drugs these victims are prescribed, the more difficult it becomes for them to appreciate what is happening to them or to muster the will power to protest. Even though they are slurring their words and walking like zombies, some will cling to their medication. Their brains are too impaired by neurotoxins for them to know what it is happening to them and they feel too intimidated to try living without the very chemicals that are destroying them.

Meanwhile, psychiatrists will frequently cover up what is happening by telling their patients and their families that the drugs are needed and that the obvious symptoms of brain injury are instead products of the patient’s supposed mental illness. In my experience, the worst psychiatrists are often the most prestigious with positions at places like the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and at university medical schools. Why? Because they are among the most on the take from the drug companies.

Psychiatry Itself Is a Prisoner of Sorts
Psychiatry itself has become a willing, thriving prisoner of the pharmaceutical empire. Along with the fallacies of its medical orientation and medical treatments, being indentured to the drug companies has caused much of psychiatry’s drastic decline in recent decades.4

To begin remedying the prevalent drug-company driven psychopharmacology, I have offered what I call “principles of rational psychopharmacology.”5 It is based on the brain-disabling principle,6 that all psychoactive substances, including psychiatric drugs, can only produce their sought-after effects by harming the function of the brain and mind, usually by blunting emotional responsiveness and engagement with life. The same, of course, is true of shock treatment.

Are Psychiatrists More Informed than Primary Care Physicians?
Since most psychiatric drugs are prescribed by primary care doctors and other non-psychiatrists—including family docs, internists, Ob-Gyns, pediatricians and nurse practitioners—some people are more wary of them than they are of psychiatrists. They think the psychiatrists know more about the drugs and will prescribe them more safely. This commonly held belief is dangerously false.

As a group, psychiatrists are by far the most arrogant and cavalier prescribers in the field of medicine. They commonly do things that your family doctor would feel is beyond his or her skill level and even unwise, such as starting patients on several drugs at once, giving multiple drugs at maximum doses or higher, changing and stopping drugs without a taper, and getting very angry when their patients complain or want help in lowering doses or getting off the drugs.

Less commonly, but at least as harrowing, many psychiatrists still refer people for electroshock or administer it themselves at the local psychiatric unit, where shock treatment makes tons of easy money for the shock doc, the anesthesiologist, and the hospital.

This is no exaggeration. Going to a psychiatrist is the most dangerous thing most people will ever routinely do. And as a psychiatrist, I advise against it, unless you have proof positive that the psychiatrist will talk with you instead of drugging or shocking you—which is highly unlikely.

Most psychiatrists have not been adequately trained and have little interest in talking with people about their lives and how to live more effectively and happily. They do not know how to do psychotherapy and are constitutionally unsuited for it because of their authoritarianism and their lack of empathy. In addition, they have false beliefs about genetic and biological causes, and the usefulness of drugs, that trash their own brains and undermine their patient’s self-confidence, self-reliance and understanding of their problems.

Psychiatrists Are Extremely Ignorant About Life
Few psychiatrists have any awareness that a positive relationship is the safest and most effective way of helping someone who is suffering emotionally, regardless of the severity of their psychiatric diagnosis. For anyone to genuinely help another human being with emotional problems or “psychiatric disorders,” they must first understand the power of empathy and love. They must understand and address the trauma and neglect in childhood that underlies so much seemingly intractable adult suffering and incapacity. They must understand how social factors impact the experiences of children and adults, and how difficult it can then be to create egalitarian and loving relationships between men and women.

In other words, to know what they were doing, psychiatrists would need a broad education, an understanding of child development and attachment psychology, insights into family life and society, an understanding of abuse and trauma, and other knowledge of why and how people need help with their emotional and psychological life, sometimes falling into despair or psychosis. Almost none of this is taught in a college premedical curriculum, medical school, and psychiatric residency—making many psychiatrists less informed about life than most of their patients who have some curiosity about psychology and who have not been rigorously indoctrinated and inducted into the inner sanctum of biological psychiatry.

Because they know so little and have so little to offer, psychiatrists must dumb down and misguide both themselves and their patients about what really makes people suffer and what really helps them recover and lead good lives. Instead of wisdom and understanding they rely on cookie-cutter diagnoses and drugs. The great majority of psychiatrists know no other way to make a living than to act as medication dispensing machines, cramming multiple patients into an hour for “med checks,” and collecting a steady stream of reimbursements from the insurance companies and government programs.

In addition to their ignorance, there is another powerful reason why psychiatrists know so little about their patients and what they need. People who control and abuse other people are always unwilling to have understanding, empathy and concern for them. That was nowhere more grossly obvious than in psychiatry’s organized, systematic murder of tens of thousands of mental patients in Germany in what has been called “the entering wedge” or prototype for the Holocaust.7 Even if today’s psychiatrists were caring and empathic in their youth, their years of training and the abuse they have heaped on their patients has rendered them incapable of offering informed, empathic, caring and even loving human services.

How Shock Doctors Make Escape Totally Impossible
Even when the brains and minds of patients are being obliterated by continuous electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), usually along with multiple drugs, shock doctors regularly lie by saying that the massive memory loss and cognitive dysfunction is a result of their “mental illness.”8 The patients become so befuddled and helpless that it usually requires an outraged family member to intervene to stop the electroshock and the drugs.

As a medical expert against psychiatrists who perform ECT, I have seen this dismaying situation documented many times in medical records and in the depositions of the doctors. Fortunately, my scientific report in a 2018 case against a shock manufacturer recently contributed to forcing a settlement and an acknowledgment from the drug manufacturer that ECT can cause brain damage and widespread memory loss.9 But we have a long way to go before stopping this atrocity.

The Risk of Getting Physically Locked Up
Everywhere in America, and probably elsewhere in a world, any psychiatrist on an emergency basis can fill out a form that will require police authorities to lock you up.10 Sometimes it may require a second professional signature as well, but that is rarely hard to find. The technical basis for this unconstitutional and inhumane process is usually that the psychiatrist guesses that you are a “danger to self or others,” although there is no evidence that psychiatrists are particularly good at making this guess.

Once you are locked up, you become fair game for being involuntary committed by a rubber-stamp judge for a much longer time. The patient/defendants are almost always too drugged and too distressed to defend themselves or to look normal when being evaluated in these hearings, which are probably the nearest thing to a genuine kangaroo court in the Western World.11

Psychiatry Is an Alternative Reality
Psychiatry has created an alternative reality or extreme state for itself,12 based on drug company marketing slogans, false science, fake medicine, and fabricated claims of superior knowledge. Psychiatry has created for itself an alternative reality or extreme state that is more bizarre and unreal than those of most of the patients they claim to help. In psychiatry’s worldview, people are nearly inanimate and devoid all higher human qualities—at least when in respect to why they are unhappy or suffering. Instead of being understood as struggling human beings, in essence no different than any other person trying to make their way through life, psychiatrists see their “patients” as afflicted by diseases comparable to malignancies of the brain that need to be wiped out or subdued.

Like cancer patients being given highly toxic drugs or radiation, the “collateral damage” is largely ignored or denied in the effort to wipe out the malignancy and to maintain the doctor’s status. Unlike cancer patients, the neurotoxins are aimed at and inflicted upon entirely normal brain tissue, making it even harder for people who are already having a difficult time struggling to manage their lives.

It is a profoundly tragic irony: The personal realities of most people who see psychiatrists are not nearly as alternative, extreme or dangerous to others as the alternative realities of the vast majority of psychiatrists who live within a web of self-deceptions to justify poisoning and shocking the brains of the people who come to them for help.

Comparing the Good and the Bad
On February 19, 2020 Mary Neal Vieten, PhD, retired Navy Commander and founder and director of Warfighter Advance, was my guest on my weekly radio/TV hour. Warfighter Advance is the best program I have found for helping returning soldiers who are suffering from the emotional scars of war, along with the neurotoxic effects of multiple psychiatric drugs. Military doctors have given a dozen or more psychiatric drugs at a time to many of these soldiers and yet Warfighter Advance training and education helps almost every single one of them leave their drugs behind while building better lives for themselves.

With intensive seminars, including a primary role for one of my books,13 Commander Vieten educates her military colleagues about the dangers of psychiatric drugs and how to safely withdraw from them. Her Warfighter Advance program also teaches its clients how medical concepts like “mental illness” and biochemical imbalances are both false and demoralizing.

Her stunning work and her presentation on my radio/TV hour inspired me to say it outright on the air: As a group, psychiatrists are the most stupid people on Earth about human beings. They have to be stupid about people in order to go on harming them without experiencing guilt, shame and anxiety over what they do.


About delusions
One of the symptoms of schizophrenia is delusions. The issue is that delusions is very common and it's actually part of normal brain-functioning to be delusional, out brains are poorly adapted for independent rational thought and it may not even be ideal in terms of sruvival and reproduction.

This means that the psychiatrist evaluating someone will also be delusional and this likely view someone not delusional as schizophrenic thinking the patient (with an accurate view of reality) is the insane one.

We do however live in a society where being delusional can end very badly for you, it can cause you to go economically bankrupt and even end up in jail, in order to function in our modern society we need to be.

If there was a drug that would actually be safe and effective when it comes to making people more rational forcing people to take that drug could be justified, the issue however is that antipsychotics do the exact opposite, it's chemical lobotomy, over time it will schrink the brain to the point where recovery isn't even possible.

Of course often when someone is delusional the individual will lack insight in his/her beliefs potentially being wrong. Hallucinations however (another schizophrenia symptom) are very noticeable and it's difficult to be in denial about that, you might however be delusional about what the voices you hear actually mean. A lot of people can function just fine while hearing voices but talking openly about hearing voices can end very badly.


Covert medication
You do not only have to worry about psychiatrists pressuring or outright forcing you to take harmful drugs, retarded relatives may medicate you without you knowing thinking it's good for you (or knowing it's bad for you).

he had persecutory delusions that his mother wanted to harm him
The only issue here is that this can potentially be true, there are many instances of a mothers harming children intentionally or unintentionally.

The rational resolution to this is him moving away from his mother if possible since clearly this relationship isn't working.
One day, Y’s mother came to the clinic alone, and told Dr W that Y refused to take the antipsychotics and to come for follow up. He had thrown away all his medication 3 weeks earlier and as a result had become actively psychotic again.
This could be withdrawal symptoms, it will go away over time.

He had also heard voices talking about him in an abusive way.
It's unclear if this was real voices or symptoms of schizophrenia, still no evidence of him having been psychotic. It's very possible that he wasn't hallucinating at all.

Since the mother had always been the main carer actively involved in Y’s psychiatric care, and bearing in mind the threat of violence to her, a prescription was given to her.
This was clearly without court order and should be illegal. This just keep getting worse.
She had failed to persuade Y to take the antipsychotics, or to attend for psychiatric follow up. In desperation, she had started to mix Y’s medication covertly in his soup. This had had a good effect. He had got better and was no longer psychotic and hostile to her.
That just illustrated that he was correct in being suspicious regarding his mother, she gave him drugs shrinking his brain without him knowing in order to chemically lobotimize him to make him dossile, this is severe abuse and not something we should tolerate at all.

Maybe he had experienced very unpleasant side effects to the medication which is why he didn't want to take it.

It may be argued that because Y was acutely psychotic he was mentally incapable of making a decision about his treatment
No proof of acute psychosis and he did make the correct decision which was to stop the medication.

In Hong Kong, any medical and dental treatment of mentally incapacitated adults is legally governed by the common law and the Mental Health Ordinance,8 which states that the legal guardian of a mentally incapacitated adult may be given the power to consent to treatment. If no guardian is appointed, the medical practitioners in charge are given the power to give both urgent and non-urgent treatments to the mentally incapacitated adult without his consent, provided that the treatment is given in his best interest
Maybe them becoming a part of china wouldn't be bad after all?

It was not in his best interest

If antipsychotics actually improved long term mental functioning it could maybe be argued it actually increased autonomy by allowing people to make their own decisions better, this however isn't the case, the reality is the exact opposite, antipsychotics work by disabling the higher faculties in the brain making the individual dossile, this is why his mother liked the effect, he became easier to manage, at least short term.



Studies show 'diagnosis' is based heavily on racism
This further illustrates how unscientific psychiatry is which is why we should oppose it, this does not depend on whether or not racism is a good thing.


Black people are being failed by the UK's mental health services because of "institutional racism"... Statistics suggest a black man in the UK is 17 times more likely than a white man to be diagnosed with a serious mental health condition such as schizophrenia or bipolar. Black people are also four times more likely to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act.​

[Blacks] are diagnosed with schizophrenia at a much higher rate than whites, despite research showing no actual differences in rates of occurrence, but they receive mood disorder diagnoses less often.​

Fernando (2017) noted the racist tendencies embedded in the (psychiatric) diagnoses process, in the “color-blindness that often results with Blacks in the UK being diagnosed with schizophrenia more than other groups” (94).​

Blacks continue to be prescribed higher doses of medication and are more likely to be exposed to polypharmacy, leading to greater toxicity​

Paula Caplan: (Harvard psychology Professor & DSM-IV taskforce member.)

There's a study showing if a black man and a white man go to see the same psychiatrist, and don't make eye contact with the therapist, the white guy gets told 'what you're going through is normal' and the black guy is called schizophrenic.​ YouTube

Paula Caplan:

It's a myth that there's no biases of any kind that enter into psychiatric diagnosis- no sexism, racism, classism, homophobia, ageism, or transphobia.​ YouTube

The DSM-V, a respected medical resource within the biomedical model of health on which diagnoses of mental health issues are based, is a Western, White-dominant construct (Ussher, 2010).​

Racial disparities in diagnosing conditions such as schizophrenia are sometimes presented as an effect of biology, but they are not. Instead, they are the direct result of racist thinking about African American psychology that dates to at least the 18th century. Slave owners and their apologist physicians invented psychiatric “disorders” such as “draeptomania” to explain the urge to run away. In the lead-up to the Civil War, they distorted statistics to argue that freedom would drive the ex-enslaved crazy. They also propagated the idea that African Americans were more childlike and simplistic, incapable of feeling pain or sorrow, to justify experimentation and exploitation.​
Is psychiatry required for social control?
Psychiatry can of course be weaponized against individuals viewed as politically problematic. This however does not seem to be the preferred method, instead most countries have legislation limiting speech where people are fined/jailed if they violate these laws. It is also possible to use legal harassment against unwanted individuals, you can always find some crime to pin on an individual.

The main form of social control today is actually via media (traditional media and sites like facebook) and the educational system.

Victims of political psychiatry will become often burden to society if they are not euthanized. A better approach is to reduce problematic individuals to property so they can provide entertainment value for the one owning them, prominent female dissidents can be used as breeding slaves.

A randomized trial shall can be done to determine whether or not involuntary HRT would be effective in the case of males causing trouble. The overwhelming majority of nazis are male and it's possible the issue is them not functioning well on male hormones.


Illustrating how brutal ECT is
the dose was increased from 90Millicoumbs to 700
0.7 coulomb is an enormous charge. Two 0.7 C charges that are 1 m apart exert a force of 4.4 x 10^9 newtons (see Coulomb's law). That's over one million tonnes, ~360x as much as the thrust of a space shuttle solid rocket booster during liftoff.

This of course completely destroyed her life 1

Now let's calculate the energy in joules, to do this we need to multiply with the voltage.

220v: 154 J (equivalent to dropping 16kg from 1 meters)

450v: 315J (equivalent to dropping 16kg from 2 meters).

gravity is 9.8m/s² on the surface of earth.


What psychiatry means by the drug is effective
We know there are cherry picked corporate clinical trials that claim antidepressants are “effective”. For now I’ll ignore all the bias and flaws in these studies and instead focus on what “effective” actually means. Looking at what “effective” means in this context will, I believe make for a good discussion.

The corporate clinical trials find antidepressants in the very short term cause a 1.5-2 point change in the 54 point HAMD symptom scale. Only about 15% of people taking the drugs experience a benefit over the “placebo” group.

Here are some examples of something that would produce a 2 point change in the HAMD scale. These 2 point changes would be a larger improvement compared to the total short term drug effect.

A person going from saying they are NOT ill to saying they are ill.

A person who goes from losing weight to not losing weight.

A person having frequent complains and asking for help changing to “self absorption”

A persons facial expressions going from apprehensive to them being subjectively irritable.

For studies on antipsychotics the scale is almost entirely a purely subjective opinion of the psychiatrist. According to this subjective scale if the psychiatrist feels the person is very suspicious, hostile, and grandiose, they are considered to be having a psychotic relapse. A person is considered psychotic if their only “symptom” is adamantly disagreeing with the psychiatrist.

As the mad in America article reports studies that test the blinding in psych drug research find around 80% of psychiatrists and users find out who is taking the drugs. In practice these studies are the opposite of double blind studies. Almost everyone is unblinded.

Short version: According to Psychiatrists someone agreeing with psychiatry means addicting deadly drugs are effective at improving people’s health.


Psychiatry is cancer in the judiciary system and society a as a whole
Psychiatry is like a cancer tumor infecting and taking over more and more of society slowly killing the host in the process, it's a dangerous and parasitic system harming vulnerable and important individuals of our society (women, children, etc). It has seriously eroded rule of law meaning whether or not you actually did something illegal is becoming irrelevant.

u/back2schoolcel wrote:

My country (New Zealand) is realistically about 5-10 years away from the judiciary system entirely replaced by social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists
I have known a lot of former prisoners, worked with a lot of inmates on work release, have family in the prison system at the moment. Basically every long term prisoner, through a process of carrot and stick, has been goaded into getting on "Pakeha pills". Pakeha pills ("White mans' pills, the maori slang for antidepressants/antipsychotics) are being taken by basically all prisoners in there. The prisoners themselves happily get a diagnosis to get a lighter sentence and to please the social workers, and a lot think they're 150IQ geniuses gaming the system by lying about having depression or bi-polar. Not realizing at all that that's what the psychiatrists and social workers want, to rack up the numbers so they can go to the government and say "see, see, crime is caused by mental illness, give us a larger prerogative"

I've seen it first hand, judges are more and more stepping back and letting the social workers and psychiatrists handle things. And considering the speed this is taking place, I could see all violent, property and public order crimes being managed by the social workers within the next five years at the current pace things are changing. Why the judges are relinquishing this power, I'm not really in a position to say. You see a few old guard judges comment on the "revolving door" that's forming, because really, despite the posting here, the social workers are letting absolute horrific violent murderers out after a few years.

It's getting to the point where if the police are sent on a call out to handle a meth-head acting manic, threatening to kill people and actually presenting a clear and present danger, the social workers will prevent the police from taking him in. People everywhere are commenting more and more about how the cops are just not enforcing the law anymore for these people, if you're in the good books with the mental health system you have a lot of leeway, (of course, it's arbitrary and they can do the opposite and fuck with you at any moment).

So yeah, your right to a jury, to stand before a judge, will soon be gone for a wide range of crimes if this trend continues.


Psychiatry is a very dangerous cult
Psychiatry is a dangerous cancer that has spread all around the world seriously harming the body it's supporting, similar to canser nothing is safe from it, not even pregnant women or important individuals for society.

While smaller cult also can do damage most cults will not engage in overly destructive behaviour since that would harm them, heavens gate more or less died after most members committed suicide but they were unable to take the rest of the society with them.

Instead of the christian bible psychiatrist uses the dsm as their bible, no meaningful change is possible since too many people have a fath-based belief in the validity of said system. They can introduce new disorders but it's almost impossible to remove an existing one.

Instean of christian church their are psych-wards people are often forced to attend similar to how people were forced to attend christian churches in the past. Psych-wards and therapist brainwash and harm people claiming they are helping them and people are constantly being told to "seek help" when someone disagree with them but cannot point out why he/she is wrong.

Nothing in psychiatry is based on any good evidence, it's all completely faith-based and often there is good evidence against but they are doing, similar to other cults lack of evidence and evidence against does not hinder them in any way, they just ignore these inconvenient facts.

When people join a cult they will end up abandoning all their previous values when it comes into conflict with their faith. Feminists are in favor of bidily autonomy when it comes to abortion but not when it comes to whether they should use a drug or not. Conservatives are in favour of constitutional rights except when a psychiatrist decide to take them away. Feminist think it's very bad to touch a female on her breast without her consent but they are perfectly fine with far more severe psychiatric rape.

Democrats complain about child-abuse when ICE does it but not when psychiatrist engage in it. Qanon cultist complain about supposed hidden child-abuse by democrats but ignore actual abuse done out in the open by psychiatry.


Increasing detention rates
This is what happens when you give these quacks power over people, it will just keep getting worse until everyone is under a community treatment orders with the government deciding which drugs they should take and not take.

The reason this is happening is becuase the antipsychiatry movement are largely peaceful and opposed to violence and thus nobody will respect them, you do win by being weak. You win by overpowering your enemies.

Authorities weaponizing psychiatry to circumvent the supposed "role of law" was to be expected, authorities would very much hate being deprived of that highly useful tool when it comes to looking people up, it sucks if you need an actual conviction of a serious crime.


Abandoning diagnoses completely doesn't fix psychiatry
One potential response given the broken dsm system is to instead "focusing on the actual needs of the individual" and while this may actually seem good there is one very big issue.

In actual medicine people are given a diagnosis and then we see if the treatment offer a real cure.

By classifying people seeking treatment into various categories we can better see which individuals that actually benefit from a treatment, there are of course other ways to do it but then there are bigger risk for bias.

It's still possible to evaluate people based on various scales to see if a drug is helping (short or long term) in any way. While these rating-scales (such as Hamilton depression scale) are far from perfect they are still better than nothing. You can also measure things like patient-assessed quality of life, mortality rate and income and other outcomes that actually matter.

The issue however with psychiatry is that their treatments doesn't work and thus a better way to diagnose people wouldn't make psychiatry any better since they cannot help you even if they somehow magically are able to correctly diagnose you. There is no pill that make you smarter, there is no pill that make society at large any better.