This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Stefan Molyneux is a Murderer!

I got frustrated with, after having a censorship disagreement with a moderator. A moderator started deleting my posts, claiming "It's a violation of site rules to link to your own blog!" I have no patience for fools and censorship. I probably will go back to eventually, but not for now.

I decided to experiment with Stefan Molyneux's freedomain forums. Interestingly, it seems to use the same forum engine software as

Stefan Molyneux has asked me if he can read excerpts from my blog on his vlog/podcast, especially the posts where I specifically mention him. I don't mind. I'd expect you to link to my blog from that post, but that isn't a legal requirement. Intellectual property is not property. Let me know if Stefan Molyneux reads bits from my blog on his vlog/podcast.

On, the talk is mostly about economics. On, people are drifting towards anarcho-capitalism and agorism. A lot of the regular posters there now understand "Taxation is theft!" They still get offended when I mention The Compound Interest Paradox.

On the freedomain forums, there's a very low level of economic literacy compared to, especially regarding the evils of fiat money. There's very little awareness of agorism and counter-economics as the best strategy for defeating the State. There's a lot of talk about personal mental health. I wonder if shills for the mental health industry are regular contributors to Stefan Molyneux's forum?! If Ron Paul's forums have paid disinformation agents, then why not also Stefan Molyneux's forum?!

This thread was interesting. Stefan Molyneux was insisting that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is not a fraud. I was unable to convince him. Just because I couldn't convince him, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Stefan Molyneux didn't ban or censor me. If he did that, then I'd definitely be very offended, just like with "Not being convinced" is less offensive than censorship. However, it's still a problem. Stefan Molyneux is providing some mental health advice to his audience, but he doesn't mention that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is a fraud.

I'm disappointed that I couldn't convince Stefan Molyneux that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is a fraud, or even get him to seriously consider the possibility. I guess he isn't as openminded as he claims to be!

It's better to write a blog post on the subject, rather than have my arguments be buried on someone else's discussion forum.

On another thread, someone was considering electroshock therapy (ECT). Stefan Molyneux said "Consult with your psychiatrist!" That is bad advice. The correct answer is "NO!! DON'T DO IT!! ECT IS VERY HARMFUL! YOUR STATE-LICENSED PSYCHIATRIST IS A FRAUD!"

Stefan Molyneux has already come under scrutiny by State enforcers, because he advised the son of a politician to "defoo" and refuse to see his abusive parents. If Stefan Molyneux said that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is a fraud, then he might be charged with "Practicing psychiatry without a license!" Notice that such a "crime" prevents the psychiatry industry from ever being criticized. If I had a State psychiatrist license, and said "It's one big fraud!", then my license would probably be revoked. I'm not wasting 10+ years memorizing lies so I can get a State psychiatry license. State licensing requirements are evil. State licensing requirements are a barrier to entry for many professions, reducing supply and driving up prices and protecting insiders and restricting customer choice. Stefan Molyneux might be afraid to tell the truth, because he doesn't want to risk being the victim of State violence.

Regarding "defoo", I now think it's a bad idea to refuse to see abusive parents. "Retrain your parents to be less abusive!" is better advice. I'm partially succeeding! It's a slow process, because they're set in their ways, but I'm making noticeable progress! I'd still like to get my own apartment again, but I won't absolutely refuse to see them. It also was educational. I increased my own awareness trying to make them partially understand. I performed this experiment involuntarily, because I had no choice but to move in with them after I was involuntarily hospitalized.

Psychiatry is murder. Stefan Molyneux says "Follow the advice of your State-licensed psychiatrist!" It's like Stefan Molyneux took out a gun and shot his reader/listener. People are asking Stefan Molyneux for a second opinion regarding their mental health treatment, and he's giving them bad advice.

If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. The only tool a psychiatrist has for helping people is giving them drugs. If you see a psychiatrist, it's very likely that he will advise you to take drugs. Most people will blindly follow the advice of their State-licensed doctor. Unfortunately, most/all State-licensed psychiatrists are frauds.

A psychiatrist is not aware that he is committing fraud. He genuinely thinks he's helping people. That's not an excuse, because the psychiatrist is presenting himself as an expert. Similarly, Stefan Molyneux is guilty of negligence when he says "The 'chemical imbalance' theory of mental illness is not a fraud!"

A State-licensed therapist can also be harmful. If your problems are severe, a State-licensed therapist may refer you to a State-licensed psychiatrist. A State-licensed therapist will try to re-pro-State brainwash you, rather than help you discover the real truth.

All my psychiatrists were evil. My last few psychiatrists couldn't hurt me, because I refused to take the harmful drugs.

Similarly, a State-licensed therapist can be harmful. I've had some good therapists and some evil therapists. If you can tell the difference between a good therapist and an evil therapist, then you probably don't need a therapist! Now, I only go because my parents insist. My state-licensed therapist isn't helping me, but he isn't hurting me, because I know how the scam works now.

My State-licensed therapists had as their goal "Re-pro-State brainwash FSK!" rather than "Help me discover the real truth!" I was able to make some progress, by telling carefully chosen stories. It was frustrating that I couldn't tell them what's really happening. My State-licensed therapists also refused to discuss "Is the 'chemical imbalance' theory of mental illness wrong?"

Here's a good test. Ask your State-licensed therapist "Is taxation theft?" All of my State-licensed therapists refused to discuss this subject. They were only willing to consider my individual problems. They were unwilling to discuss larger problems of society overall.

Stefan Molyneux said "FSK has the burden of proof, that psychiatric drugs are harmful." This is exactly the same logical mistake that Stefan Molyneux accuses statists of making!

Stefan Molneux said "I'm only willing to consider State-licensed research regarding psychiatric drugs!" That's a problem, because all the State-licensed psychiatry researchers are biased. "I'm only considering government-approved research!" is a very bizarre statement for an anarchist to make. "A government-licensed expert knows more than me!" is also something an anarchist should question. If you're an anarchist, then "Licensed by the government!" should mean nothing or have a negative meaning.

When debating a statist, the statist says "The anarchist has the burden of proof that a government violence monopoly is unnecessary. There are no historic examples of a market anarchist society. The anarchist can't prove that a government violence monopoly is evil and not needed. Therefore, the anarchist loses the debate." The fallacy is that State violence prevents people from voluntarily organizing and solving their own problems, like the oft-cited example where it's illegal to watch your neighbor's kids.

When debating a pro-psychiatry troll like Stefan Molyneux, the troll says "FSK has the burden of proof, that the psychiatry industry is a fraud."

"A government violence monopoly should exist!" is a positive statement. The person saying that has the burden of proof. Even so, there's proof that taxation is theft and a government violence monopoly is evil.

"Psychiatric drugs are better than placebo!" is a positive statement. The person saying that has the burden of proof. I read a few "scientific" drug research studies, and they all had obvious flaws. My personal experience, my observations of other patients, and the other evidence I've collected, are proof that "Psychiatric drugs are worse than placebo!" My analysis and my experiences don't qualify for publication in a State psychiatry journal, but that doesn't mean my conclusions are wrong.

A statist says "Taxation is not theft! A government violence monopoly is necessary!" The statist is reciting his pro-State brainwashing without thinking. Stefan Molyneux says "The 'chemical imbalance' theory of mental illness is not a fraud!" Stefan Molyneux is reciting his pro-State brainwashing without thinking.

There is a massive State brainwashing campaign for "Taxation is not theft!" Similarly, there's a massive State brainwashing campaign for "Psychiatric drugs are beneficial!" The beneficiaries of this propaganda are pharmaceutical corporation executives. Via State violence, they make huge profits while selling drugs that hurt people. It's a huge loss. Profits are $1k-$2k per year per patient/victim, but ruining someone's life has an economic cost of a couple million dollars or more.

I have performed a scientific experiment, albeit with a sample size of 1. The results were so conclusive that I'm convinced. I've managed to achieve a much greater level of emotional awareness than before. I wouldn't have done this if psychiatric drugs were dulling my thinking.

I performed this experiment involuntarily. I had a panic attack, and wound up prisoner of the mental health industry. The psychiatric drugs had harmful side-effects that I couldn't stand. I couldn't do anything while taking them. All my psychiatrists said "Something horrible will happen if you stop taking your drugs! You need them! You have to take these drugs for the rest of your life! Your side-effect complaints are actually symptoms of your illness!" I know that the side-effects were caused by the drugs, because they went away when I stopped taking them.

It's almost as if my State-licensed psychiatrists knew that their scam would be exposed if I refused to take the drugs, but recovered anyway. My first psychiatrist was overly insistent that I had to take the drugs. Even in my doped-up mental state, I sort of noticed that my psychiatrist was acting like an evil person. I had enough experience dealing with scum to recognize the symptoms of evil, even though I was totally drugged up. I managed to convince my parents eventually to let me stop taking the drugs. Even when I relapsed, my parents let me stop taking the drugs after release from prison/hospital.

The Matrix is really powerful. It takes several manic/depressive attacks to fully crack your pro-State brainwashing. This creates the superficial illusion that those drugs are needed.

I figured "I can't stand taking the drugs. I'll stop taking them and accept the risk of relapse! I'm fine most of the time without drugs. I didn't have any 'mental illness' symptoms until I was 30 years old! I was fine for many years without drugs! I'd rather be incapacitated by a manic attack once or twice a year, rather than being unable to do anything at all!" After several panic attacks, I managed to mostly crack my pro-State brainwashing and reach a higher level of awareness.

"You have to take these drugs for the rest of your life!" made absolutely no sense. I was fine for many years until my first panic attack. Even when I stopped taking the drugs, I was only had a panic attack for a few days per year.

Government is a multi-trillion dollar a year scam. Stefan Molyneux agrees with that statement. Given that government is a huge scam, isn't it believable that the psychiatry industry is also a scam? The government scam enables the psychiatry scam. The government scam needs the psychiatry scam, because people who discover bits of the truth need to be silenced without being murdered. If mental health patients were physically murdered, then that would be obviously evil. When mental health patients are drugged and silenced, then that gives their relatives the illusion that they're fine.

It's wrong to say "The evil of government and the evils of the psychiatry industry are unrelated." They're very tightly correlated, just like the income tax and Federal Reserve are very closely linked. All these evils are aspects of the State and the Matrix. The evil State is more than just the government violence/economic/justice/medical/science monopoly.

A State-licensed economist or political science professor says "Taxation is not theft!" They're all frauds. Given that information, isn't it believable that all State-licensed psychiatry researchers are frauds? By itself, that isn't proof. I'm just saying "Consider it as a possibility!"

There's another important point here. It's Bayesian Reasoning. There's no smoking gun that proves the psychiatry industry fraud, although my personal experiences have convinced me. The State won't allow such an experiment to occur, just like the State won't allow a small group of people to experiment with market anarchism. Each little bit of evidence should convince you a little. The cumulative effect of all the evidence is practically a proof.

A State-licensed psychiatry researcher isn't going to start his experiment with the assumption "Suppose my entire profession is a fraud!" or "Suppose everyone in the world is insane!" When I ignored the advice of my psychiatrist and refused the drugs, I was implicitly saying "You're a fraud!" I didn't consciously realize that until later. I just knew that the drugs were hurting me, and I didn't want to take them!

Is it believable that everyone in the world is insane? If everyone were sane, they would say "WTF? Taxation is theft! Why are we supporting evil?" and the scam of the State would immediately collapse. Mass insanity is necessary, in order to allow mass evil to occur.

Humans are not intrinsically irrational. That's a symptom of pro-State brainwashing. It takes a lot of pro-State brainwashing to make someone behave irrationally as a reflex.

When you're a child, whenever you get too logical the insane adults around you reprimand you. A logical child starts questioning the pro-State brainwashing of his parents. In self-defense, the parents tell their child to stop thinking logically. Over time, this teaches you to think illogically. The parents are insane, so the process happens without anybody noticing. The child is insane just like the parents, so everyone thinks it's "normal".

What would happen if 0.1% of the population were sane and 99.9% were insane? Then, the 0.1% sane people would try to do everything they can to help the remaining 99.9%. They would have a huge productivity advantage over everyone else. They would use their resources to help people and eventually end the scam of the State. It'd be in the rational self-interest of a sane person to help cure an insane person, because that would be one more useful worker. Given limited resources, the most intelligent insane people should get helped first.

What if everyone is insane? From time to time, people would start developing partial sanity. People would partially crack their pro-State brainwashing. Then, they would start noticing that all the humans around them are insane. They would have a manic attack or depressive attack. Then, they would find themselves facing a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist would forcibly drug them. The drugs dull their senses and prevent them from noticing the truth. The patient/victim is prevented by his psychiatrist from fully cracking his pro-State brainwashing.

A panic or depressive attack is part of your body's natural healing process, when you start to notice the Matrix. Psychiatric drugs interrupt this process. Psychiatrists chemically assault the most intelligent people, those who have started noticing the scam.

I'm more intelligent than most people. It took me 6 panic attacks to mostly/fully crack my pro-State brainwashing. It might have taken someone else 10-20 or more episodes. I was able to figure out what's going on, both logically and emotionally.

I only have direct experience with anti-psychotic drugs. I was forced to take Risperdal, Geodon, and Abilify. I draw this conclusion for all anti-psychotic drugs. I haven't taken anti-depressant drugs or ADD/ADHD drugs or sleeping drugs, but I conclude those are also harmful. Any drug that alters your brain chemistry is damaging and addictive.

I read some FDA-approved research for anti-psychotic drugs. Here are the flaws I noticed. Some of these flaws refer to industry practices and not specifically FDA research.

1. The FDA approval study is for 6-12 weeks. Most psychiatrists make their victims take the drug for years/decades.

It's not valid to perform drug research for less than 3 months, when patients take the drugs for years and decades.

2. The placebo test is not performed properly. Suppose you are taking addictive drug X for "mental illness". You enter the FDA study. If you are in the placebo group, then you suffer withdrawal from drug X. If you are taking new drug Y, then drug Y masks the withdrawal symptoms for drug X. This creates the false impression that drug Y is beneficial.

In order to do a proper placebo test "people currently taking a drug" and "people currently taking no drug" must be tracked separately.

3. Psychiatric drugs cause mental illness symptoms in an otherwise healthy person. In order to do proper drug research, you should investigate the effect when the drug is given to an otherwise healthy person. If the drug makes healthy people really sick, then that is a red flag.

A psychiatrist retorts "A 'mentally ill' person has too much neurotransmitters. A healthy person has normal neurotransmitters. Therefore, it's reasonable that the drug harms a healthy person while helping a 'sick' person." That excuse is nonsense. Brain chemistry is not well understood enough to justify that explanation.

What really happens is that the psychiatric drugs make you calm and docile. This creates the superficial impression that they're helping you. The anti-psychotic drugs interrupted my thinking ability so much that I was unable to do anything at all!

4. The FDA research is performed by the drug corporation seeking approval. This leads to obvious bias.

5. University researchers are also biased. A university psychiatry researcher gets his funding from the NSF/State. The FDA and NSF are "captured regulators". They advocate for drug corporation executives, and not patients. They will only approve/fund experiments that meet their censorship agenda.

The "top" psychiatrists at Harvard and similar schools usually have consulting contracts where they work for drug corporations. This makes them biased. When the "leading thinkers" in a field are corrupted, then via the "peer review" process nobody can tell the truth.

If a psychiatrist proposed an experiment "Let's test psychiatric drugs vs. placebo over an extended period of time!", then his experiment grant proposal would never make it past the "peer review" process. Such an experiment implicitly says "Maybe my entire profession is a fraud?!", and nobody committing fraud would allow such an experiment to occur.

6. "Negative side effects" and "beneficial outcomes" are determined based on an interview with the drug company researcher. The researcher knows who is in the placebo group and who is in the drug group. The researcher can exaggerate beneficial effects in the drug group and ignore them in the placebo group. The researcher can exaggerate harmful effects in the placebo group and ignore them in the drug group. By asking loaded questions, the researcher can bias the outcome.

The negative side effects I experienced were not among those that the researcher investigated, in the studies I read.

An interview with a biased researcher is not a valid way to determine if a drug is beneficial or harmful. That isn't objective science.

7. The goal of FDA research is "Get legal approval!", and not "Does this drug actually help people?"

If an FDA-approved drug is later proven harmful, then the drug corporation executives can say "But the FDA approved it! We're not legally responsible!" That isn't valid, because an FDA approval study is not real science. That isn't valid, because the FDA is a "captured regulator", advocating for the interests of drug corporation executives ahead of the interests of patients.

Via tort reform, damages are limited if a drug is later proven harmful. For example, Eli Lilly was caught suppressing information that "Zyprexa causes diabetes!" They were sued and lost. The total damages in all the lawsuits was less than one year of profits from Zyprexa! Eli Lilly profited overall from Zyprexa, even though that drug was proven harmful and fraud was proven! Dishonest behavior by drug company executives is rewarded by the State! Via sovereign immunity, they are shielded from liability for their misconduct.

Stefan Molyneux should investigate the Zyprexa scandal before aggressively defending the psychiatry/drug/death industry.

"Zyprexa causes diabetes!" is a separate point from "Anti-psychotic drugs are harmful!" Anti-psychotic drugs slow your metabolism and cause weight gain, so it's reasonable that there's a diabetes risk.

8. A drug corporation has no obligation to publish negative research or inconclusive research. Suppose a drug corporation is seeking approval for drug X. They perform 20 experiments. Of those, 2 show a beneficial result, 15 show no result, and 3 show a harmful result. Only the two beneficial experiments are published.

If you perform lots of experiments, then by random chance, some of them will show a favorable outcome.

9. Drug company marketers actively encourage off-label use of drugs. If drug X is approved for disease A, then marketers will encourage doctors to prescribe drug X for disease B. Once a drug is approved, a doctor may legally prescribe it for anything.

For example, the trend now is to diagnose mental illness in infants and young children. Even though there is no State-licensed research to back it up, drug company marketers encourage such behavior by psychiatrists/murderers.

Psychiatry is murder. Infants and children have a hard time defending themselves from abuse. As an adult, I was able to convince others "These drugs are hurting me!", but even then it was difficult. A child won't have the ability to object.

10. Do you remember in elementary school, when you were asked to sell candy/cookies? If you sold enough, then you got a bicycle!

If a psychiatrist prescribes enough of a drug, then the drug corporation marketers will give him vacations and other kickbacks. It's the same as a kid selling cookies!

The drug corporation marketers can find out which psychiatrists are prescribing their drugs, and in what quantities. They can then pressure non-conforming psychiatrists to prescribe more of their drugs.

"Pharmaceutical corporation salesman" is as big a scumbag or bigger than "IRS tax collector".

11. If a psychiatrist prescribes an older patent-expired drug instead of the latest and greatest drug, then he can be sued for malpractice!

When the patent for drug X expires, the chemistry is changed a little and drug Y is then patented/sold. Drug Y is then hyped as much better than drug X. Psychiatrists are encouraged/forced to prescribe the expensive new drug instead of the older drug.

12. Who are the actual customers of a drug corporation? Is it the patients who take the drug? No.

The customers of a drug corporation are the doctors who prescribe the drug.

Via tort reform, it's irrelevant if the drug helps or hurts patients. The important part is to make sure that the psychiatrist prescribes the drug.

Drug corporation executives have *NO* fiduciary responsibility to make sure that their drugs actually help patients. Via sovereign immunity, they are protected from the negative consequences of their misconduct. Even when there is a lawsuit and the drug corporation loses, damages are typically less than one year of profits from that drug. Even if there is a lawsuit, the corporation is sued and not the individual executives.

13. I read that "mental illness recovery rates" are better in 3rd world countries were drugs are unavailable. I haven't seen any proper statistics. That's interesting, but not a valid experiment.

14. Psychiatric drugs are frequently administered at the point of a gun. When I was in the hospital, I was told "Take these drugs, or we'll get a court order forcing you to take them and you'll never get out of the hospital!" In the hospital, I was a prisoner; I wasn't free to leave. My workaround was to take the drugs, but then stop taking them immediately after escaping from the hospital/prison.

Fraud by State-licensed psychiatrists is another type of coercion. Lying and emotional intimidation are closely related to physically forcing the drugs on someone. It isn't exactly the same. Once I discovered that my psychiatrist was a fraud, I refused to take the harmful drugs. With no court order against me, there was nothing my psychiatrist could do. My psychiatrist said "FSK, you have to take these drugs!", but he couldn't legally force me to take them when I'm not in the hospital. I'm lucky that my psychiatrist didn't try to sue me, forcing me to take the drugs, and that such a law hasn't been passed (or wasn't invoked against me).

One of my evil ex-therapists called the "mental health crisis response team" after I fired her! My State-licensed therapist complained to the State police when I fired her! That should make you think twice before hiring a State-licensed therapist!

When I was involuntarily hospitalized, many of the other patients/victims wanted to stop taking drugs and be released, but they had no recourse; the State legitimized and sanctioned their murder/kidnapping. Some other patients were involuntarily hospitalized for weeks/months/years.

If you have no relatives willing to take care of you, you're put in an "assisted living welfare home" after release, where you're monitored and forced to take the drugs. One of the biggest uses of Medicaid money is for "mental health". Via taxes, I pay the cost for the murder of other people.

When I went to the mental health clinic, I saw a lot of parents with young children. The drugged-up children were much less active compared to "normal" children. I wanted to object, but there wasn't anything I could do about it.

15. For most real medical problems, like "broken bone", "infected appendix", "fever", "diabetes", and "high blood pressure", there's an objective medical test that conclusively says that you have an illness. There is no objective test for "mental illness". It's all subjective.

Do you know how new mental illnesses are added to the DSM (psychiatry industry handbook)? It's a majority vote of psychiatrists at their convention! It's not scientific! For example, homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness. That became politically incorrect, and so it was removed. (Does that mean homosexuality really is a mental illness, given that State propaganda tends to converge towards anti-truth? Fnord!)

16. When a new drug is approved, it isn't necessary to fully re-test the placebo. Suppose "Risperdal is better than placebo" is considered proven. In order to get the new drug Abilify approved, it is only necessary to prove "Abilify is better than Risperdal." It isn't necessary to carefully redo the placebo test. Drug company researchers only do the minimum research required to satisfy the FDA legal requirement.

A lot of drug research compares drug A to drug B. A careful placebo test over an extended period of time is not performed.

"Psychiatric drugs are better than placebo" is considered "proven". Therefore, you can't get State funding for an experiment to compare drugs to placebo over an extended period of time. Even if you self-funded, you probably couldn't get State bureaucrats to approve the experiment.

17. A psychiatrist reacts with emotional hostility when you say "These drugs aren't helping me. I don't want to take them." It's a pattern of evil I've identified. Politicians get offended when you say "Taxation is theft!" Economists get offended when I mention the Compound Interest Paradox. A State judge gets offended when you say "Your authority is not legitimate!" The psychiatrists' emotional reaction to "These drugs are harmful!" is a pattern of evil that I've identified.

If psychiatry were not a fraud, then the psychiatrists' reaction would be "That's wrong." and he would calmly explain why. All the psychiatrists I've seen got extremely hostile when I suggested that the drugs were harmful. An honest person would carefully explain their viewpoint, but someone committing fraud gets emotionally hostile when confronted with the truth.

Another typical excuse is "Those drugs didn't work for FSK, but they work for other people. Therefore, it's wrong for FSK to criticize." That makes no sense. My biochemistry isn't different from everyone else. If those drugs really hurt me, then they probably hurt most/all the other people who take them. Other people don't have the self-confidence to notice and object and refuse to take them. Addiction and withdrawal provide people with the illusion that the drugs help them.

Given the above information, combined with my personal experiences, I conclude that the psychiatry industry is a fraud. Some of the regular commenters on my blog have agreed with my analysis based on their personal experience, but that isn't scientific; there's selection bias among who decides to regularly read my blog.

This is an open-ended challenge. You show me a paper that claims to prove "Psychiatric drugs are better than placebo!" and I'll point out the mistakes. I have the most direct experience with anti-psychotic drugs, but I'll consider all psychiatric drugs. The scientists are not consciously aware that they are frauds, so they actually write out the details of the experiment. The fraud is subtle and not explicit. I only read a few FDA approval studies. I don't have an obligation to read every single paper, but I'll read one if someone points it out.

I don't have an obligation to prove "Placebos are better than psychiatric drugs!" The pro-psychiatry troll has an obligation to prove "Psychiatric drugs are better than placebo!" Even so, I consider my observations to be proof "Placebos are better than psychiatric drugs!" It's just like the anarchist saying the Statist has an obligation to prove "A government violence monopoly is a good idea!", rather than the other way around.

This is "proof by status quo". Once an act of evil becomes generally accepted practice and backed by State violence, then reform is nearly impossible. The State blocks competition, so you can't "prove" that the alternative really is better. The people profiting from State evil can always profitably lobby to block reform. Drug corporation executives spend a *LOT* of money on marketing and lobbying. I read an article that said drug corporations spend more on marketing/lobbying than on drug research!

Without the State, it'd be easier to achieve mental health reform. It'd be possible to sue psychiatrists for fraud and win. A corrupt State court protects psychiatrists from accountability via sovereign immunity. I can't legally sell mental health services unless I waste a lot of time and money getting a State license. Even with a license, I could only sell State-approved services. In a really free market, I could start my own competing mental health business, which I may do anyway agorist-style.

For example, you can't "prove" that a gold standard is better than fiat money, because it's illegal to use gold and silver as money. The only proof that paper is better than gold/silver is State violence. The "proof" is the armed thugs that assault/kidnap/murder anyone who tries to operate an alternate monetary system based on gold or silver, as occurred with the Liberty Dollar and E-Gold.

I've had pro-State trolls criticize my posts on The Compound Interest Paradox and The Black-Scholes Formula. Surprisingly, I've had no pro-State trolls challenging my statement that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is a fraud! I guess that economists read the Internet, but psychiatrists don't. Most State-licensed economists have a decent level of computer/Math literacy. My psychiatrists and therapists seemed to have almost no computer literacy. One of my therapists had a website and asked me to check it out. He didn't even notice that it was down!

I was googling around for papers comparing psychiatric drugs to placebo, and this article made me say "Shenanigans!"

Before the antidepressant drug trials begin, all participants are placed on a placebo for 2 weeks and anyone who feels better during this stage are booted from the trial.
WTF? That totally biases the study! If a placebo helps someone, then they're automatically excluded? If a placebo makes you feel better, but then the drug makes you feel sick, isn't that proof that the drug is harmful? If that is standard practice, then that totally invalidates *ALL* mental health drug research!

Also, someone currently addicted to a psychiatric drug will feel bad when they are put on a placebo, because they feel withdrawal. Then, when they are put on a new drug, the withdrawal symptoms go away.

When I was involuntarily hospitalized, I wasn't first given a placebo for two weeks to see if I recovered on my own. Based on my experiences, your body will heal on its own after a few days. A panic attack will end without drugs in a few days.

Psychiatric drugs are very damaging and addictive. Once you start taking them, then the withdrawal is *NASTY*. The withdrawal symptoms look the the outbreak of a mental illness. This provides the illusion that the drugs are beneficial and necessary.

From that same article, this joke was pretty funny.
The majority of the antidepressant drug trials were carried out by contractors of the drug maker, which in most cases establishes a conflict of interest.

There was an up roar about the use of placebos during drug trials. The concern was, allowing severely depressed individuals to take sugar pills was in essences placing them at risk. A report was commissioned and the finding was that depressed individuals taking placebos during drug trials did not harm themselves more than the depressed participants who were being administered the actual drug. However, the report went on to include; more depressed individuals tried to kill themselves while taking the SSRI antidepressants, than those who were taking the placebos did.
If you give depressed people a placebo during a drug trial, that's considered to be "unfairly abusing the patients"! Only someone committing fraud would be offended by the use of placebos during a drug trial. That assumes someone participating in a "mental health research study" would seriously consider suicide without telling the researcher!

The only time I ever really felt suicidal was when I was taking anti-psychotic drugs. I thought I had been permanently damaged and would never recover. Luckily, I realized that I recover when I stop taking the harmful drugs.

Via google, I couldn't find any experiments comparing anti-psychotic drugs to placebos over an extended period of time.

There is a properly-conducted scientific experiment that would back my conclusions. As far as I can tell, it hasn't been performed. I don't have the budget or State license required to perform such an experiment myself.

Take 200 current mental health patients. Divide them into group A and group B, 100 people each.

Take 200 people who are experiencing mental health problems for the first time in their life. They have no previous history of drug use (legal or illegal). Divide them into two groups, group C and group D, 100 people each.

Give group A and C the "latest" psychiatric drugs, whatever they are. Give group B and D placebos. Track these people for 10-20+ years. For the placebo group, they keep getting placebos *NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THEY RELAPSE*, no matter how many times they have a manic or depressive attack. If really agitated, give members of the placebo group a temporary sedative, but nothing more.

In order to be really done correctly, you'd probably need someone like me working with the placebo group. I probably could help them more than a State-licensed therapist. The experiment would probably succeed even with a typical State-licensed therapist. The important part is to make sure that the placebo group takes no drugs no matter what. Their body's own natural healing process will help them recover.

I predict that the placebo group will outperform the drug group. In addition to the usual biased "interview with a psychiatrist" test, I'd want the following additional objective measures tracked:
  1. Track the annual salary for members of each group. If necessary, adjust for their salary prior to entering the experiment.
  2. Track their ability to solve logic puzzles, like sudoku. Easy and hard puzzles should be given.
  3. Track their ability to play a computer game, like Tetris.
I predict that the placebo group would vastly outperform the drug group. Group D should have the best performance, followed by group B. Group B probably will struggle initially as they suffer withdrawal. That's why I specify a really long time-period. That's also why I separated "no previous mental illness symptoms" and "previous mental health patients".

Based on my experience, full withdrawal and recovery takes 6-24 months. You take an anti-psychotic drug that blocks your neurotransmitters. Your body compensates by producing extra neurotransmitters. You stop taking the anti-psychotic drug, but your body is still producing extra neurotransmitters. This increases your risk of relapse. It takes 6-24 months for your brain to naturally rediscover the proper neurotransmitter level.

I don't know of any instance where this experiment was conducted. Most State-licensed experiments only have a timeframe of weeks or months. Some negative side-effects of drugs, like tardive dyskenesia, occur over years/decades. Some drugs can superficially help initially, but are long-term damaging. Over time, your body compensates for the drugs, necessitating an ever-higher dose.

It's like Michael Jackson needing an ever-increasing dose of sleeping drugs. Sleeping drugs are one class of psychiatric drugs that I consider damaging, although I have no direct experience with them.

I need a license from the State to perform such an experiment myself. I can't conduct a "mental health" experiment without permission from government bureaucrats. I don't have the time and money to perform such an experiment.

Besides, why would I conduct an experiment that proves what I already know? I've got better things to do with my time and money.

Psychiatry is murder. Large-scale use of psychiatric drugs is mass murder. The fact that psychiatrists sincerely believe their own lies, does not excuse their crimes.

My only recourse for ending the psychiatrists' scam is to do the best I can to promote the truth. A corrupt State court doesn't recognize my malpractice claim as valid. The psychiatrists' scam is closely related to the scam of government and the State. I can't end the psychiatrists' scam without also defeating the State.

The State enables the psychiatry/murder industry to be profitable. By sovereign immunity, criminals are protected from negative consequences for their misconduct.

I'm not saying "Violence should be used to prevent people from taking these drugs!" Psychiatrists are the ones who use violence and trickery to force their patients/victims to take harmful drugs.

If someone really believes that the drugs help them, then they may keep taking them. I'm pointing out that "drug withdrawal" might be confused with "I really need these drugs and get sick when I stop taking them!" I'm saying that the patient should have informed consent. I'm saying that those drugs should not be administered via the barrel of a gun. I'm saying that someone who says "These drugs will help you!" and turns out to be wrong is guilty of fraud.

Of course, you could say I'm guilty of fraud if my anti-psychiatry accusations are wrong. You should think for yourself, and not blindly follow my advice. I'm convinced, but you still should think for yourself. I've presented enough evidence here to back up my conclusions. My decision to refuse anti-psychotic drugs is working fine for me, but for better proof I should wait until I go several years without relapsing.

"See a State-licensed psychiatrist!" and "See a State-licensed therapist!" is bad advice. In my experience, State psychiatrists and State therapists are shills for the State.

Many people ask Stefan Molyneux for mental health advice. He usually says "See a State-licensed expert!", which is bad advice. The fact that Stefan Molyneux doesn't know any better, doesn't excuse his behavior.

If my anti-psychiatry conclusion is correct, then Stefan Molyneux is doing an evil thing, when he advises people to consult with a State-licensed psychiatrist. Stefan Molyneux has an obligation to seriously evaluate "The 'chemical imbalance' theory of mental illness is a fraud!" before he gives mental health advice.

If Stefan Molyneux realized that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is a fraud, then he'd recognize that he's been giving bad advice to people. He can't recognize his huge error, for the same reason that statists can't realize "Taxation is theft!" It's amusing to see Stefan Molyneux make the same logical/emotional mistake he accuses statists of making!

Stefan Molyneux would be taking a legal risk if he started saying that the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness is a fraud. He has a bigger audience than me, and would be more likely to attract the attention of State enforcers. I haven't been the victim of State violence (yet) for criticizing the mental health industry. Technically, a State bureaucrat could say I'm guilty of "Practicing psychiatry without a license!"

One thing I'm doing well is noticing the bits of truth available in various locations and combining the conclusions. Stefan Molyneux is good at saying "A State violence monopoly is evil!", but he's completely missed the evils of the mental health industry, and he doesn't emphasis agorism and counter-economics as a strategy for defeating the State. People on are starting to understand "Taxation is theft!", but misunderstand other abuses of the State. Steve Pavlina tries to promote personal mental well-being, but he fails to notice/emphasize "Government is major source of evil!" John Taylor Gatto is good at saying "Public schools are evil!", but misses out on other abuses of the State. The Church of Scientology criticizes the mental health industry, but they use the legal system and copyright/trademark law to harass critics; allegedly, they use emotional intimidation/brainwashing tactics on their members. It's frustrating to see a lot of people with bits of the truth, but not linking them together correctly.

The psychiatry/death industry is a key component of the Matrix. When people start seeing the Matrix, the shock causes a manic or depressive attack. They then are forcibly drugged and silenced. That's a key component in preserving the scam of the State.

There are enough Internet sources on anti-psychiatry besides my blog. It's negligent for Stefan Molyneux to not perform his own research on this issue.

Stefan Molyneux's readers are asking for his expert but non-State-licensed opinion. Stefan Molyneux is responsible when he gives bad advice. "See a State-licensed psychiatrist!" reinforces the lies of a psychiatrist. "I didn't know any better!" is not a valid excuse for hurting people. By deferring to a State-licensed psychiatrist's opinion, Stefan Molyneux is reinforcing their lies.

Psychiatry is murder. When Stefan Molyneux says "See a State-licensed psychiatrist!", he is an accomplice to murder.


George Donnelly said...

"Stefan Molyneux said "FSK has the burden of proof, that psychiatric drugs are harmful." This is exactly the same logical mistake that Stefan Molyneux accuses statists of making!"


"Bayesian reasoning"

Nice! I like that concept.

Have you considered moving to New Hampshire? You may find a saner environment up there.

Anthony said...

This is why I like the liberty movement. It naturally and necessarily splinters. It's not a bad thing. It may seem counterproductive on the surface, but it is the way it should be.

Mike said...

Sorry, I've read the thread and I'm siding with Stef.

You are basing your conclusion, as you yourself say, on a sample of 1. That's illogical and unscientific.

Present evidence they ar e harmful, evidence that can be duplicated by others, and you'll have a case.

I've never had an issue with anti-depressants. I was on them for 5 years, with no issues or addictions and have been free of them for 8 years now.

Does my sample size of 1 now disprove yours? By your logic it does.

Anonymous said...

Stefan is a murderer because he doesn't think all psychiatrists are out to get people?

Stef's wife is a state licensed psychologist, and he's been in therapy before (I don't know if it was with drugs). I'm sure it will be tough to convince him that industry is all about killing people when I'm sure he sees his wife helping people on a daily basis.

Drugs aren't always (maybe even rarely) the answer, as they generally are used to mask underlying symptoms that need to be treated with some sort of talk therapy. But I know someone who would be regarded as clinically insane (paranoid/schizophrenia) who does not take meds, and she should be on meds, because she literally cannot process reality (and a single conversation with her would convince you of this). I hardly think using drug therapy to help her actually process reality correctly (so at least she isn't a harm to herself and others) is a step in the right direction, far from murder.

And I'm sorry, but a your individual testimony regarding the industry isn't going to convince anyone that it's as terrible as you say it is. I can produce someone who's life is orders of magnitude better seeing a psychiatrist (and taking meds). It's like someone trying to convince me their personal deity exists because of some random experience they had. Great for them, but not convincing. How does your theory explain the people who are actually helped by the industry? (And saying 'they aren't actually helped!' isn't acceptable).

(And I'm not a pro state troll, nor am I a murderer.)

theftthroughinflation said...

Great post FSK!
This gave me a good idea. You mentioned the idea of a free-market experiment. Its true you could not do it "for real" because of the tax implications. But you could do some sort of "laboratory" experiment similar to the famous prison experiment. You could take 2 groups of individuals and place them in identical enviroments and give them access to various resources/raw materials (uncut logs for fuel, non-potable water, raw foods, domestic animals etc...) and some sort of fake currency like monopoly money. I'd have to think about the initial division of the resources to have a starting point but the idea would be for the participants to survive via trade like they would normally.
One group would operate using free market principles without a government and the other with a taxation based economy with a government.
The groups could be measured in terms of general standard of living, quantity of goods produced etc...
Maybe mises university could sponsor the experiment! haha!

Anonymous said...

Maybe drugs for mental illness are wrong some of the time and right for some people.

I suspect in FSK's case they were wrong. As he said he was well for many years before. So what changed? Unless a doctor can say what changed, he/she can't say if drugs are appropriate?

I did hear that long-term medicines don't actually make you healthier i.e. they will just make you more susceptible for a different form of illness.

Good food and exercise is what people need.

A friend of mine once said that he had to work out when to leave certain jobs - it was a balance of getting money in versus the loss of his mental health due to idiot bosses, bad work situations etc. If he got the balance wrong he would get upset for days afterwards.

memenode said...

I wouldn't entirely agree with you about generalizing all psychiatrists for much of the same reasons already pointed out by other commentators, albeit I do think people shouldn't be so quick to trust their psychiatrists and therapists for many of the reasons you pointed out (like biases).

But I would say that I was always vary of a "see a therapist" advice given by Stef for similar reasons as you. I don't expect them to understand my ideas regarding the state, family and coercion in general. Instead I fear that much of their advice will come from a context and perspective that I would reject. I simply don't trust them enough to open myself up to them.

In fact, I'd rather completely voluntarily and with full awareness, have a talk with Molyneux about some issue than with a typical therapist. I know he's not a "professional" therapist and I would take his advice with a grain of salt (that is think it through myself), but when it comes to personal issues it's really ideas, methods and perspectives I'm after and that can be given by almost any experienced free thinker, including Stef.

I would classify such a talk closer to a helpful discussion with a friend than a therapy session with some therapist whose authority I'm supposed to just assume based on his certificates..

Debbie H. said...

I found this post to be confusing and I have no idea why you are so angry at Molyneaux.

He certainly showed his willingness and openness to your premise when he asked to see any studies you may know about. It's not his fault you had no answer to his query about studies.

What else did you want him to do at that point? Once you told your personal experience and had no studies to link to then the discussion obviously ends there.

It doesn't mean either of you are bad guys or anything.

The only thing you can possibly convince anyone of is that you had a bad experience with psychiatric drugs. That says nothing in general about the usefulness or non usefulness of drugs in general. However, I think its good to tell others about your experience in the hope that it helps others if they ever get to a place where they need to make decisions about such things.

You also attributed some quotes directly to him but I cannot find them. Are these real quotes or did you just put them in quotes as an extrapolation of your opinion of what he thinks?

By the way, I stay far away from drugs as I can and am very careful about medications of all sorts. I am sorry you went through all you did.

Anonymous said...

Interestingly Dr Nash (he won the Economics Nobel prize) stopped taking his drugs totally.

Watch the movie below. The relevant part starts at around 21 minutes.

There was a movie about his life. (A Beautiful Mind). The producer of the movie decided not to tell the truth about Dr Nash stopping taking his medicines and decided instead to say Dr Nash moved to a more modern drug on the grounds that it is dangerous to suggest to people they can stop taking drugs for mental illnesses!

Chrono said...

A couple of things.
1) I have not read one 'I agree with Stef' post that disagreed with FSK for anything more than a flimsy (sample size) reason. FSK actually gave more than just that reason for coming to the conclusions he discussed.
2) FSK, you are very hostile to Stefan's position. I want to make this clear as I remember commenting on your post on investing your IRA in GLD or SLV, I believe, and you commented back with 'why are you so hostile' when I clearly was not. For examples of a hostile post, read your comments about Stefan above. For a non-hostile example, read my post and very clear and rational questioning of your position on GLD.
3) This is a very good post. The burden of proof concept is completely irrelevant. The relevant idea here is power. Just like when dealing with the state, if you are accused of a crime, you are guilty until proven innocent, since, if you do nto fight the charges, you will be punished, thus the null hypothesis or the status quo is that you are guilty, until you prove yourself innocent. This issue is no different. You must prove that the psycho-drug-industrial-complex is a harmful machine, because if you do not, Stef will not change his view, the supporting 'splinters' above will keep bleating that they agree with him, and the machine will keep grinding people up as it has in the past. The only way to change that is to prove it. Or hope for a miracle. I hope you appreciate this point of view. I believe it is the correct one.

Chrono said...

I really hope you continue updating this post. You covered a lot of ground and most of the people who bothered to comment did not read your post all the way through. I believe this is a key reason why people do not agree with you. They are not looking at the evidence.

Just wanted to add...I noticed you covered the argument against the status quo (#3 in my comment above) and are already aware that while the burden of proof is on the other party...the burden of changing the status quo is unfortunately not.

Bill said...

Well, then please tell me, Mr. Stefan Molyneux (whose wife, and therefore him, have a vested interest in the growth of this field) how did all of those people get along 100 years ago? How did our society become so enamored with all of these drugs, mostly invented in the last 20 years? Please, the field of psychiatry is nothing more than a bunch of useless quacks trying to be important.

Anonymous said...

Hi, I also was a victim of being forced to take "anti-psychotic" drugs, psychiatry is indeed evil. I have slowly been able to ween myself off them over the last few years, but I will never forget the nasty side-effects. Freeing oneself from the shackles of psychiatry and their evil drugs makes it clear what an evil system it is, when there are so many people in its grips, still taking these horrible drugs.

ps. you can email me

Kyle said...

I don't like Molyneux, but c'mon, psychiatry isn't perfect, but it's not a fraud. You know all on your own you're not a normal person, you've done things that got you institutionalized, things we "normal" people don't do. Psychiatry may not be accurate, but it doesn't go out hunting for people, or else you can't explain the fact I know nobody who's been institutionalized.

We're not talking about ADHD, MD or autism, where many people are misdiagnosed and it's arguable how common the symptoms are, or what causes it, psychiatrists just don't get as many clients and customers as pharma does. On that point, without trusting psychiatry, I'd not consider it a money scheme, but rather a serious discipline that addresses serious problems (even if they're doing it wrong, the problems exist).

Spiritsplice said...

Spiritsplice said...,8599,1992988,00.html

Spiritsplice said...

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at