The Psychiatry Deceit

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

The Psychiatry Deceit

Unread post by sharpstuff »

THE PSYCHIATRY DECEIT

Like all ‘scientific’ studies, psychiatry is a minefield of what we might call ‘data’, attempting to explain phenomena (or processes) within which we constantly live and are, in essence, inexplicable when it comes to creating a ‘cemented in concrete’ world-view of that which we researchers constantly try to achieve. Along the way, we create many edifices of ‘knowledge’ that become entrenched in the psyche and from which we have difficulty in bringing these edifices down once entrenched.

One problem is that, once having studied a particular subject or subjects, we attempt to come to a conclusion of how, for example, something ‘works’ (to our satisfaction) or its opposite. Another very serious problem is that certain individuals rely upon an outcome that seems to work for us but may not work for others and as it becomes entrenched as a ‘fact’ and it ends there for whatever good or nefarious ends. Again, it then ends up being sucked into the vacuum cleaner of what we call ‘politics’ in its various guises and we can guess the consequences. Politics, in my view at least is the basis for nearly, if not all, subjects; for example, ‘religions’, ‘sciences’ and so forth.

The following is a very serious and is close to my heart as most of Clues regular readers know I worked for many years with children labelled ‘Disabled’, ‘Special Needs’or whatever is the flavour of the month for increasing numbers of students labelled by the ‘authorities’ if those individuals do not act or appear ‘normal’.

I will say this now. I believe that ‘psychiatry’ and most if not all ‘psychology’ is being used to explain behaviours that have little to do with ‘mind’ (whatever that is but at least our personal consciousness) but the circumstances of birth, the interference during pregnancy and birth and subsequent interference of injections of poisonous materials subsequently administered to the infant before going to subsequent mind-control ‘educational’ establishments (good, bad or indifferent depending upon your own views as readers of this missive). I will say that it may be useful to examine behaviours, of course but it is the blatant misuse of any data that is condeming others to ‘treatments’ (if these students, for some reason, do not follow the ‘correct’ path for whatever reason), especially when that data is not allowed (or cannot) be constantly be verified or proven false. This statement covers all known ‘sciences’.

Psychiatry is defined:

Cambridge defines: the part of medicine that studies mental illness.

Mental illness is defined by the same dictionary:

An illness that affects the mind.

Mind is defined:

The part of a person that makes it possible for him or her to think, feel emotions, and understand things.

Where this ‘mind’ is actually located, no-one can say, since it is not an observable ‘object’. It is therefore not something that can be physically observed (like a burn on the skin) but is left to the speculation of people to determine anything relating to it.

We all have behaviours, whatever they are. Psychiatry (along with psychology) is attempting to apply these behaviours along a path which may have a positive (however defined) or negative (however defined) effects upon individuals. These behaviours can then be ‘studied’ and applied to individuals for whatever purpose required.

In total, depending into which ‘society’ we are currently living, there are mores (the traditional customs and ways of behaving that are typical of a particular (part of) society) which are accepted and those which are not.

There is a wealth of information on the history of psychiatry at this site:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/me ... psychiatry

if you wish to explore it.

Psychology is tied to Psychiatry but they are not the same.

However, my reason for this post is to alert people to the notion that many ‘behaviours’ exhibited by people are being relegated to the notion that we could all claim some form of mental ‘disturbances’ which are part of daily life that we can or cannot call a ‘mental’ illness since they are part and parcel of daily life.

I am also very concerned about the language that is being used by people using words and phraseology which they do not understand or which are becoming used by those who have no clue as to what they mean or might mean.

Words like ‘dysfunctional’, ‘syndrome’, ‘disorder’ ‘complex’ are being used by the ignorati to make themselves sound erudite or as dear Billy (recently deceased) would say: ‘windswept and interesting’.

The main contenders in the study of ‘mind’ were Adler, Jung and Freud, at least this side of the 20th century.

Adler was concerned mainly with psychotherapy, treating the whole body, not certain parts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Adler

Jung was a friend of Freud but fell out with him somewhat over what he thought was Freud’s over use of sexual references.

However, it is the current reliance on Freud’s work which disturbs me.

It is from Freud that most of the work on ‘psychiatry’ comes and is mainly the basis of (in my and many others’ view) the dreaded D.S.M. (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). This a guidebook widely used by mental health professionals—especially those in the United States—in the diagnosis of many mental health conditions. The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association and has been revised multiple times since it was first introduced in 1952. The most recent edition is the fifth, or the DSM-5. It was published in 2013.

I am not enamoured with linking too many video references to posts, unless very relevant but if you intend to reply to this post (I won’t hold my breath), then this lecture says it all. I think it also extrapolates in a way to all other ‘scientific’ studies. You will not have to go through the whole video if you have no wish to because you can see readily where the lecturer is taking you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nd40Uy6tbQ

There is also an excellent essay which can be read or downloaded from:

https://www.all-about-psychology.com/th ... lness.html

This is called: The Myth of Mental Illness by Thomas Szasz


Be well.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE PSYCHIATRY DECEIT

Unread post by simonshack »

sharpstuff wrote: Sun Oct 30, 2022 4:45 am
I am not enamoured with linking too many video references to posts, unless very relevant but if you intend to reply to this post (I won’t hold my breath), then this lecture says it all. I think it also extrapolates in a way to all other ‘scientific’ studies. You will not have to go through the whole video if you have no wish to because you can see readily where the lecturer is taking you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nd40Uy6tbQ
Dear Sharpstuff - I watched it all. What a great lecture... James Davies truly rocks as a speaker.

As an anecdotal aside (which makes me feel rather proud & happy), over the years I've received several private e-mails from people expressing their thankfulness for the existence of Cluesforum and our collective discussions which, they say (in various ways), have kept them from going mad or depressed about the silly world we live in. In other words, one may say that Cluesforum is a "red pill" without nefarious side-effects (on the contrary)! :)


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nd40Uy6tbQ
thisisunreal
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:20 am

Re: THE PSYCHIATRY DECEIT

Unread post by thisisunreal »

simonshack wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 9:07 pm
sharpstuff wrote: Sun Oct 30, 2022 4:45 am
I am not enamoured with linking too many video references to posts, unless very relevant but if you intend to reply to this post (I won’t hold my breath), then this lecture says it all. I think it also extrapolates in a way to all other ‘scientific’ studies. You will not have to go through the whole video if you have no wish to because you can see readily where the lecturer is taking you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nd40Uy6tbQ
Dear Sharpstuff - I watched it all. What a great lecture... James Davies truly rocks as a speaker.

As an anecdotal aside (which makes me feel rather proud & happy), over the years I've received several private e-mails from people expressing their thankfulness for the existence of Cluesforum and our collective discussions which, they say (in various ways), have kept them from going mad or depressed about the silly world we live in. In other words, one may say that Cluesforum is a "red pill" without nefarious side-effects (on the contrary)! :)


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nd40Uy6tbQ
An absolute must watch.

Painstaking research, put together in a coherent manner, which builds and builds. More or less, Big Pharma is presented as money making cartel where the science (and health) becomes almost irrelevant.

Is this an indicator of what to expect from the free market, ultimately? An example of the problems of meeting increased sales and profits, year on year? It cannot be done naturally. Most products will plateau (naturally). But, the investment rhetoric suggests that unless growth is sustained you should divest from the company. And so? You have to get creative to push pills, or die as a company.

This is the most generous of the two options I have that come to mind. The second option is that ill health is desired and encouraged (or that falling global health is a small price to pay for heightened revenue and associated profit). James Davies informs that prolonged use of anti-depressants and anti-psychotics have well established, researched negative effects (which include increased mortality)!

What a complete and utter medical mess.
glg
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:48 pm

Re: THE PSYCHIATRY DECEIT

Unread post by glg »

thisisunreal wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 1:23 pm

Is this an indicator of what to expect from the free market, ultimately? An example of the problems of meeting increased sales and profits, year on year? It cannot be done naturally. Most products will plateau (naturally). But, the investment rhetoric suggests that unless growth is sustained you should divest from the company. And so? You have to get creative to push pills, or die as a company.
I don't think this has anything to do with ¨free market¨ in the least, certainly not if ¨free market¨ is understood in a literal sense.
Perhaps the misunderstanding stems from the fact, that the presenter verily exposes the Pharma Industry but perhaps fails to mention what B.I.G.Pharma stands for.
Banks, Insurance and Government that's what BIG stands for. So BIG Pharma is an actual concern and not an industry in itself.
You don't need to lobby Government in a free market, you simply need a working product and a good sales pitch.
You don't even need increased sales necessarily, just a sustained interest in your product. So a plateau of sales is actually a good spot to be in as free marketeer because it lets you plan either for retirement or to calculate further investment.
Take the cancer Business. If you have cancer, Insurance wiil not pay for your desired treatment if it just happens to be an alternative treatment route. Government won't back or sponsor alternative treatment institutions and banks never complain if you go broke in the process either way.
The bottom line is, BIG Pharma restricts freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom to compete asf. but not because it's Pharma, but because it's BIG Pharma.
So no 'free market' markers that I can detect in this criminal enterprise.
thisisunreal wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 1:23 pm This is the most generous of the two options I have that come to mind. The second option is that ill health is desired and encouraged (or that falling global health is a small price to pay for heightened revenue and associated profit). James Davies informs that prolonged use of anti-depressants and anti-psychotics have well established, researched negative effects (which include increased mortality)!

What a complete and utter medical mess.
Indeed
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE PSYCHIATRY DECEIT

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

glg wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 5:53 pmI don't think this has anything to do with ¨free market¨ in the least, certainly not if ¨free market¨ is understood in a literal sense.
You might say there is a point when the billionaires who benefited from free market capitalism to get to where they are find it advantageous to transition to monopolistic meta-capitalism (big media, big pharma, big tech, etc) and so set out to choke that same free market capitalism, closing the door to the possibility of competition.
glg
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:48 pm

Re: THE PSYCHIATRY DECEIT

Unread post by glg »

Flabbergasted wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 8:04 pm
glg wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 5:53 pmI don't think this has anything to do with ¨free market¨ in the least, certainly not if ¨free market¨ is understood in a literal sense.
You might say there is a point when the billionaires who benefited from free market capitalism to get to where they are find it advantageous to transition to monopolistic meta-capitalism (big media, big pharma, big tech, etc) and so set out to choke that same free market capitalism, closing the door to the possibility of competition.
You don't get to become a monopoly out of thin air.
You need to become a Concern to do that.
A concern is the opposite of an undertaking/enterprise - In the german language this distinction is very clear i.e ¨Unternehmen¨ = an Enterprise or simply an economic undertaking and on the other hand, a Group(ed) firm is a ¨Konzern¨.

You don't get to be a monopoly unless you are a grouped concern.
A Concern does not deal with the prospect of differentiated outcomes as an Enterprise or a genuine undertaking would need to, but instead makes sure that all concerns are met, preferably within the margins of Status Quo.

As long as you keep your concerns inside the market you are of no real concern to the customer. A customer can still freely transit that sort of concern and just buy according to his wishes.
No, a real Concern is one of total concern and that is what makes it a monopoly or, to B.I.G. to fail.

Monopoly has nothing to do with free market - it has to do with a concerted systemic concern.
antipodean
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am
Contact:

Re: THE PSYCHIATRY DECEIT

Unread post by antipodean »

simonshack wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 9:07 pm
sharpstuff wrote: Sun Oct 30, 2022 4:45 am
I am not enamoured with linking too many video references to posts, unless very relevant but if you intend to reply to this post (I won’t hold my breath), then this lecture says it all. I think it also extrapolates in a way to all other ‘scientific’ studies. You will not have to go through the whole video if you have no wish to because you can see readily where the lecturer is taking you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nd40Uy6tbQ
Dear Sharpstuff - I watched it all. What a great lecture... James Davies truly rocks as a speaker.

As an anecdotal aside (which makes me feel rather proud & happy), over the years I've received several private e-mails from people expressing their thankfulness for the existence of Cluesforum and our collective discussions which, they say (in various ways), have kept them from going mad or depressed about the silly world we live in. In other words, one may say that Cluesforum is a "red pill" without nefarious side-effects (on the contrary)! :)


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nd40Uy6tbQ


I've just finished watching it, the guy is a great speaker translating his findings to the lay person such as myself.
Firstly I was struck by his analysis of.
"Mental disorders expanding to include more domains of human experience"
It's helped me understand the rational behind the latest act of Stasi style Tyranny down here in New Zealand.
Snitch/ report your neighbour's behaviour to the intelligence services by filling in the online form.
https://providinginformation.nzsis.govt.nz/

A check is made against their vaccination status and QR code. Then their behaviour gets allocated the appropriate mental disorder to be either sectioned, or forcibly prescribed drugs for.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5nOI5CL5Xw

Then in the 2nd half of the video (1hr 7mins) is an excellent explanation of the underhand methodology used by Big Pharma for marketing their products, including the usual suspects.
https://youtu.be/-Nd40Uy6tbQ?t=4147
Newsbender
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 12:15 am

Re: THE PSYCHIATRY DECEIT

Unread post by Newsbender »

Just finished watching the lecture and wanted to echo the other sentiments here. Exceptionally well presented. What a brave man Dr. Davies is to go up against Big Pharma in this way!

Many thanks for sharing this, sharpstuff!
Mansur
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: THE PSYCHIATRY DECEIT

Unread post by Mansur »

There are many problems with this dr. Davies, and very serious ones for that matter, - is there anybody here being interested in such?

Anyway, one single remark:

At the end (from the 1:45:27 mark) the lady asks ’So what can the public do about that?’ (Then a moment of ‘relax’ and even laugh, - since no one ever thought it was all about to do anything.) The answer is characteristic. Or, more exactly, that he could not actually answer this simple, very simple question:
…well we need brave journalists don't we, we need brave journalists covering this kind of thing; we need brave clinicians and academics speaking up about it; we need greater regulation of links between pharma and psychiatry; and we've outlined in fact we've found an organization by the way, we don't make any money from this organization, its operating costs we pay for out of our own pocket so I'm promoting this organization now because it's an organization that disseminates information to the public we think they should have; there's no money involved at all we've never made it; I've lost a lot of money by way of this organization by the way, but I'm going to promote it now to you it's called the Council for evidence-based psychiatry Council for evidence-based psychiatry oh…
(BTW there is already a ’Psychiatry’ thread.
https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?t ... psychiatry )
Newsbender
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 12:15 am

Re: THE PSYCHIATRY DECEIT

Unread post by Newsbender »

Well, I think we can allow him a "33" or two given the myriad of other numbers in his presentation. What "serious problems" are you referring to?

(I haven't looked at his history yet, was going to do this later. Maybe you can start the ball rolling?)
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE PSYCHIATRY DECEIT

Unread post by simonshack »

Mansur wrote: Wed Nov 09, 2022 10:14 am
(BTW there is already a ’Psychiatry’ thread.
https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?t ... psychiatry )
Thanks Mansur - I've now merged the "Psychiatry" and the "Psychiatry deceit" threads.
Mansur
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: THE PSYCHIATRY DECEIT

Unread post by Mansur »

Newsbender wrote: Wed Nov 09, 2022 11:36 am Well, I think we can allow him a "33" or two given the myriad of other numbers in his presentation. What "serious problems" are you referring to?

(I haven't looked at his history yet, was going to do this later. Maybe you can start the ball rolling?)
I find your sudden interest in my postings curious. Anyway, - a few of many:

- As for his 'background', just enough is told by him at the beginning of the performance and there are just enough references to it during the lecture. I don't think we need more than that.

- By far most of the presentation is about business and on this everyone can and does approve of him - but it is all trivial, it has been told hundreds of times, even on YouTube alone.

- Evidently it never crossed his mind to question the very existence of the DSM (let alone psychiatry itself). Though a little thought is enough to see the absurdity of the whole thing. Mr Davies, on the other hand, is only challenging the inclusion of certain 'disorders' here.
antipodean
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am
Contact:

Re: THE PSYCHIATRY DECEIT

Unread post by antipodean »

by Mansur » November 11th, 2022, 7:28 am
I find your sudden interest in my postings curious. Anyway, - a few of many:
Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean that someone isn't out to get you.
Newsbender
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu May 20, 2021 12:15 am

Re: THE PSYCHIATRY DECEIT

Unread post by Newsbender »

Mansur wrote: Thu Nov 10, 2022 7:28 pm I find your sudden interest in my postings curious.
Not all of your posts, and not suddenly by any means. Only the posts where you appear to be trolling CF members, including me.

Such apparent behavior and the motives behind it should be explored, wouldn't you agree?
sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: Psychiatry

Unread post by sharpstuff »

Dear Clues members,

I wrote the thread Psychiatry Deceit in good faith. I thought there might be a previous thread but was not sure how to find it.

I now find it merged with that earlier thread. Having said that, it seems to have become the subject of some personal problems between certain members which are derailing (in my view) the subject. I find this concerning.

Studying the implications on our lives of various subjects is essential but letting personal feelings about other members is hindering any sensible debate, if debate is necessary.

By the way, I do not personally finding 'looking for numbers' a particularly scholarly ativity.

Be well.
Post Reply