I mention many non-mainstream ideas in my blog. I write about the Compound Interest Paradox, the Black-Scholes Formula, the Labor Theory of Value (the Free Market Labor Arbitrage Process), or how many mainstream libertarians/minarchists/anarchists are really pro-State trolls. For each of these subjects, one or more people has responded "You're an idiot FSK, who doesn't know what he's writing about."
When I write that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is nonsense, I have received *ZERO* hate mail. Quite a few people have said "You're 100% correct FSK. The mental health industry is a total fraud." That is a bizarre statistical outlier. For all my other non-mainstream ideas, I almost always receive at least some negative feedback.
One theory is that, for the effects of anti-psychotic drugs, I'm a primary source. Unless you also have direct personal experience with those harmful drugs, you aren't going to question my personal experiences. My experiences probably are reproducible via a proper scientific experiment, but I don't have the resources to conduct such an experiment. Why should I bother performing research confirming something I already know to be true?
Most drug approval studies are fake cargo cult science. They give the superficial appearance of being scientific, while having flaws. The researcher is biased, because he has an economic incentive if the drug is approved. The FDA is merely a rubberstamp for the pharmaceutical companies. I once read through an FDA approval study for Risperdal, one of the drugs I was forced to take. There were obvious flaws. The flaws I noticed were:
- The placebo test was not conducted properly. Patients who were previously taking a different anti-psychotic drug would react favorably to a switch to Risperdal, because the drug masks withdrawal symptoms. Patients switching from another drug to placebo would suffer withdrawal.
- In order to do a proper study, the anti-psychotic drug should be given to people not previously diagnosed with a mental illness. If the drug gives a mental illness to otherwise healthy people, then it should not be used to treat mental illness. (Most psychiatrists/murderers/idiots justify this by saying that the brain chemistry of sick people is different from that of healthy people. Therefore, a drug that hurts a healthy person can heal a "sick" person.)
- The FDA study was for 6-12 weeks. Most psychiatrists make their victims take the drug for years/decades or the rest of their life.
- The negative side effects I experienced were not among those that the researcher claimed to be looking for. Further, negative side effects were determined based on an interview with the researcher. Since the researcher has an interest in the drug being approved, the incentive is for the researcher to not notice negative side effects, or downplay the complaints of patients.
Some people who have been brainwashed as pro-State economists read my blog, and get offended when I question their brainwashing. Some people who are (L)libertarians read my blog, and get offended when I question their brainwashing.
I conclude that nobody who has been brainwashed as a pro-State psychiatrist or therapist is a regular reader of my blog. That is very interesting. According to Google Analytics, I already have a couple hundred regular readers, and psychiatrists/therapists make up more 1% of the population. If my readership were a random sample of the population, then a couple of my regular readers should be psychiatrists or therapists. They should get deeply offended when I say that their profession is a complete fraud, and leave the usual hate mail.
I conclude that psychiatrists and therapists have a particularly low level of awareness. They are not interested in the corrupt nature of the US economic and political system. Whenever I tried mentioning "Taxation is theft!" to one of my therapists, they made it clear they were not interested in discussing such issues. I could talk about specific problems with abusive people at work, but if I mention "The economic system is defective!", that's something they've been brainwashed to believe is false. The patient is defective, and there are no larger issues with society as a whole worth discussing.
Psychiatrists and therapists are the chief defenders of the State and the Matrix. If anyone starts questioning the scam, they will be directed to a psychiatrist or therapist. The psychiatrist will give the victim drugs that dull their senses. The therapist will convince the patient that all of the patient's problems are because he is a loser, and that there are no other issues with society as a whole. As part of your psychiatrist/therapist training, you're brainwashed to behave as a pro-State troll. The role of psychiatrists and therapists is to keep people in line. The people who see the Matrix and start questioning the State must be silenced!
In many ways, a psychiatrist or therapist is worse than a policeman. A policeman shows you his badge and gun, which creates a certain level of fairness when you're involuntarily interacting with them. A psychiatrist or therapist damages the victim while pretending to help them. The psychiatrist and therapist sincerely believe they're doing the right thing, which helps make the scam believable to the victims.
That's a very interesting statistical outlier. I mention many non-mainstream ideas, and receive negative comments for almost all of them. When I criticize the psychiatry/death industry, I have received zero negative feedback.
3 comments:
Why do people troll at all? Because they have a life.
I was watching a program on C-SPAN2 today on their Booktv series and the author and book featured were very informative. The author's name is Norah Vincent and her book is called "Voluntary Madness: my year lost and found in the loony bin". This lady volunteered to go into a psychiatric ward by impersonating, or embellishing in some way, perceptible mental illness for the psychiatrists. She provided so much insight into how the environment and the treatments, both chemical and therapeutic, were abusive and madness-inducing. She talked about the costs involved in the drugs given and the treatments involved and said that, for the same amount of money, one could be put up in the Ritz-Carlton with access to a private masseuse and end up much healthier than staying in the psych ward. I find this interesting and also to be a part of the discussion in this post by theorizing evidence that you are in fact correct about the intentions of the mental health industry. I started asking myself why, for the same amount of money, other treatments aren't used or at least attempted such as staying in a peaceful spa or having access to social clubs where one can discuss their thoughts and feelings with peers as opposed to a "professional" who nods, ignores, then writes a perscription. Then it occured to me that wellness is perhaps not the goal at all, that the so-called "journey to wellness" including anti-psychotic drugs and therapy, is in itself the intended destination of the industry, which is madness and detachment for the patient. Anyway, here is a link to a website that features the author, this book, and some excerpts:
http://www.smithmag.net/memoirville/2008/12/22/excerpt-voluntary-madness-by-norah-vincent/
By the way, I still think that C-SPAN is the least-biased coverage on television, only because they don't have commentators who spoon-feed a particular conclusion about the events they portray, they just show the events.
Robert
I think I know a good answer to that 'why?'
Direct Experience Versus Abstract Ideas.
Direct Experience = Taking Pills, suffering horrible side effects, never taking pills again
Abstract Ideas = discussions about politics, money, interest rates, etc.
They say there are certain topics that you shouldn't talk about at parties - religion and politics. Those are both things that are like abstractions, something huge and complicated that you as an individual have no control over. You can't just go test something by yourself using direct experience, to find out the answers to questions like 'What's the best kind of economic system?' or 'Does God exist?'
So, when people talk about those subjects, they can argue for an eternity without being sure of the answer. Nobody can say, "Let's you and me step outside and test that theory right now!"
But you can definitely go out and take pills and find out that yes, prescription drugs are evil incarnate. And you can easily find other people who have done that.
Direct experience versus large abstract ideas that nobody can control, test, or observe very easily.
Post a Comment