The Most Evil Hoax in the History of Mankind

This blog post comes from a document that is part of my lawsuit against Institute of Mental Health Singapore. As such, that is the perspective this is written from, and I refer to "IMH", which is short for Institute of Mental Health a few times.

Mental illnesses vs mental health vs emotional well-being

What is a mental illness? Google defines it as:

“a health condition causing significant changes in thinking, feeling, mood or behavior, leading to distress and impaired daily functioning in social, work, or family life, ranging from mild issues to severe disorders like depression or anxiety, and can be managed like other medical conditions.”

I can poke holes in that and question why significant changes in thinking, feeling, mood, or behavior are a bad thing. These can be great things. I assume that psychiatrists see it as a great thing when their treatment changes a person’s thinking, feeling, mood, and/or behavior in the way that they envision for their patient. Hence, a change in thinking, feeling, mood, and/or behavior alone means nothing.

I can also ask what exactly falls under distress. Some people are comfortable and even enjoy falling out of an airplane (with a parachute), whereas to others that would mean unimaginable distress (in spite of the parachute). What qualifies as distress is different from person to person.

Daily functioning in social, work, and family life is similar. Different societies have different standards. In some cultures (Japan/Korea), someone going home from work at 7PM is considered an outrage, and others will be of the opinion that this person isn’t functioning well because it is going home so early. There are also companies and cultures in which someone going home at 7PM is considered an amazing hard-working employee. And there are also companies and cultures in which going home at 7PM will make people worry that the individual isn’t functioning well because it goes home so late.

Who is to say what is and isn’t impaired daily functioning? Everyone is allowed to set its own standards. In these examples, if a company doesn’t like the standards an employee has for itself, it can fire that employee, and/or it can improve its hiring practices.

What I really want to do is dive into what mental illnesses really are and compare them to physical illnesses.

Mental illnesses, such as Generalized Anxiety Disorder, are labels that psychiatry has come up with, similar to how modern medicine has come up with labels such as Appendicitis, to refer to an inflammation of the appendix. But whereas “Appendicitis” comes from the Latin and Greek languages, literally translates to inflammation of the appendix, the inflammation of the appendix can be visually confirmed by cutting open the patient’s body and confirming the inflamed appendix, one can dive deeper by considering that an inflammation refers to a red and swollen part of the body often due to an infection, and one can continue to dive and discuss that an infection in this context means an invasion and presence of something unnatural in the human body, such as a bacteria or a virus. One cannot do the same with “Generalized Anxiety Disorder”.

Generalized Anxiety Disorder cannot be proven to exist by cutting open someone’s body or in any other way. And if you consider what it might be, the name indicates that it may be anxiety that’s somehow a disorder. What anxiety actually is is a fear of the future, that can be considered an alarm system for potential threats, as it works in the animal world. What psychiatrists appear to want to do is to say that if someone’s anxiety goes above a certain threshold, it’s a disorder, and they want it to be their job to reduce this anxiety via drugs.

First off, who decides where that threshold lies? Some individuals, like certain professional athletes, are said to thrive under pressure and are very comfortable with high levels of anxiety, whereas other individuals can’t stand even the slightest amount of anxiety. Each individual is in the best position to decide when too much is too much for it, not psychiatrists on its behalf.

Secondly, imagine what would happen if you reduced or eliminated anxiety in an animal species, such as antelopes, so they don’t have to be so scared of lions all the time. That may sound compassionate towards the antelopes, it’s going to cause them all to die and go extinct. You just murdered an entire species.

I’m not saying psychiatrists are murdering humanity, but altering the emotions of individual human beings against their wills, is a REALLY DUMB idea. Humanity is already struggling with declining birthrates.

If you ask a medical doctor to prove to you that you have a broken bone, appendicitis, cancer, or any type of real disease or condition, it can dig down into the fundamentals and backup its diagnosis with evidence. If you ask a psychiatrist to prove to you that you have ADHD or Schizophrenia, it’ll act like it knows better than you, use complicated words, and essentially convince you that because you exhibit certain behaviors, you are ill. But what the psychiatrist is really telling you is that your behavior is unacceptable in its eyes and crossed a line. But what line?

Furthermore, many psychiatrists will not deny that what they do is manage what they see as “symptoms” rather than cure diseases. However, what they see as symptoms are human emotions, behaviors, thinking, and beliefs. These are what make humans human. If your profession is to manage and suppress these “symptoms”, your job is to suppress humans and essentially turn them into emotionless zombies.

Michael B First¹, who is an editor of the DSM-IV and DSM-V (the manual psychiatrists use to diagnose mental illnesses), has stated (in the Book of Woe by Gary Greenberg) that “these categories exist to facilitate clinician communication but have no firm basis in reality”.

I emailed Michael about this, and he responded:

• Confirming this statement.

• Stating that psychiatry has a limited understanding of how the brain works.

• S tating that in his opinion that does not invalidate the DSM.

Al Frances, the lead editor of the DSM-IV has stated something similar²:

"there is no definition of a mental disorder. It's bullshit. I mean, you just can't define it."

So, the ones who create these categories say they have no firm basis in reality, that psychiatry has a limited understanding of how the brain works, that there is no definition of a mental disorder, and that mental illness diagnoses are bullshit, but also that the categories are still valid somehow?

Another psychiatrist who’s spoken out against psychiatry is Thomas Szasz³. Many of his (negative) views on psychiatry can be found on his Wikipedia page. Here are two examples:

“Diagnoses of “mental illness” or “mental disorder” are passed off as scientific but are judgments (of disdain) to support certain uses of power by authorities.”

“Psychiatry is a pseudoscience that parodies medicine by using medical-sounding words and that, supported by various Mental Health Acts, it has become a modern secular state religion.”

Depression used to be believed to be the result of a lack of serotonin, but it has now been proven that there is no scientific evidence for this⁴:

This review suggests that the huge research effort based on the serotonin hypothesis has not produced convincing evidence of a biochemical basis to depression. This is consistent with research on many other biological markers [21]. We suggest it is time to acknowledge that the serotonin theory of depression is not empirically substantiated.

In essence, psychiatry’s theories and beliefs are assumed to be true until disproven, because psychiatrists are presumed to be scientists and doctors. Psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies make money off of these theories and beliefs. This is not how science works, nor how medicine operates. You don’t treat people, especially not against their wills, based on theories and beliefs.

The Guardian, a 200+ year old British newspaper, published an article in May of 2013⁵ questioning whether mental illnesses really exist after the DSM-V stated that shyness in children can be classified as a mental disorder.

And it’s not just shy children that psychiatry has labeled as “mentally ill”. If you’re a woman and you don’t have sexual/erotic thoughts or fantasies, psychiatrists may label you as “mentally ill” with the “Female Sexual Interest Disorder” label, as if it’s a disorder for women to not be interested in sex.

Psychiatry appears to be of the opinion that it’s not okay for women to be uninterested in sex, not okay for them to not be excited during sex, and not okay for them to say no to sexual advances, and psychiatry appears to want psychiatrists to remedy this via drugs. In what world is this considered science and medicine? In our world, unfortunately. And this isn’t some sub-sect of psychiatry, this is straight from the DSM-V-TR, the most-up-to-date manual that psychiatrists worldwide use to diagnose mental illnesses.

Let’s take a moment to ask ourselves who benefits the most from the status quo. It’s psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies. Psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry are profiting off of the suffering of human beings. Emotional suffering is real. However, there is zero scientific backing for the existence of mental illnesses. Zero. Psychiatrists convince people they have a mental illness and convince them they have to take psychiatric drugs to manage it, handing the pharmaceutical industry a new customer for life. This is the most evil hoax in the history of mankind.

If you find this hard to believe, perhaps the fact that psychiatry considers it a mental illness (Antidepressant Discontinuation Syndrome) when a patient stops taking its antidepressants may change your mind.

Where is the scientific evidence that proves that not taking your prescribed antidepressants is a mental illness with a physiological cause that can be remedied via more drugs? Psychiatry is not a science.

Even though the existence of mental illnesses is a belief that has no scientific backing, I am aware that “mental health” is the term society has chosen to refer to something that I don’t disagree exists. However, this term leaves a bad taste in my mouth for two reasons:

1. It suggests that humans have a “mind”, which I personally don’t know I agree with. Many people may, but if two people try to talk to each other about what this human “mind” entails exactly, different people will describe it differently.

2. Mental health still implies that there’s a right and a wrong, that an individual can be mentally sick, and that there can be something wrong with the way someone feels and experiences the world, which is incredibly invalidating.

Personally, I prefer to use the term “emotional well-being”, because emotions are something the existence of which I don’t think you’ll find any disagreement on within human society. I don’t think you’ll find many, if any, people disagreeing that humans experience emotions. And “well-being” is simply a nicer term to use than “health”. “Health” implies there’s a good (healthy) and bad (unhealthy), whereas “well-being” is more vague about this leaving more room for individuals to choose how they want to be, and what “well-being” means to them.

In Summary

Mental illnesses are labels psychiatry has come up with to refer to categories of behaviors, emotions, and beliefs. Neuroscience may have proven the existence of correlations between some brain activities and some emotional states, correlations do not imply causations. Psychiatry’s arbitrary categories cannot be linked to any sort of physiological cause, which is in stark contrast to real physical illnesses.

Mental illness vs Mind disease

When googling “disease vs illness”, Google’s AI says:

“Disease is the objective, medical diagnosis of a pathological abnormality (e.g., cancer, influenza). Illness is the subjective, personal experience of that condition, including feelings of pain, fatigue, and distress. You can have a disease without feeling ill (e.g., early hypertension) or feel ill without a clear disease.”

Although this does not match the etymology of the words, this is how medicine has chosen to use these two words. This then means that illnesses cannot be diagnosed, because they are subjective experiences. And as such, doctors diagnose diseases, not illnesses. Diseases are ailments with clear objective physiological causes, whereas an illness is a subjective experience of an individual, sometimes as a result of a disease.

Cardiologists diagnose cardiovascular diseases, dermatologists diagnose skin diseases, pulmonologists diagnose lung diseases, cancer is a disease that oncologists deal with, etc.

As such, if psychiatrists were doctors, they’d diagnose mind diseases with clear physiological causes, not mental illnesses. “Mental illness” refers to a subjective non-physical experience and cannot be diagnosed.

In Summary

Within the medical community, the word “illness” refers to a subjective experience of an individual, and the word “disease” refers to an objective medical diagnosis.

Psychiatric drugs

When googling “what do psychiatric drug studies show”, Google’s AI provides the following answer:

“Psychiatric drug studies show they can effectively manage severe symptoms like hallucinations or mood swings but often come with significant side effects, including cognitive dulling, emotional blunting, weight changes, and movement disorders, with long-term use sometimes worsening issues or causing dependence. Research highlights mixed results, with some evidence suggesting SSRIs can worsen mood in some, while antipsychotics may impair cognition, and overall, efficacy often depends on individual response, with combining medication with therapy being more effective.”

This in and of itself should make everyone question whether the administration of these drugs is a good thing, especially because pharmaceutical companies are heavily incentivized to influence these studies and undoubtedly do so. The sugar, tobacco, and alcohol industries did (or still do?) the exact same thing, namely, fund research that downplays negative health effects and promotes potential benefits.

Furthermore, the biggest problem with conducting studies on psychiatric drugs is figuring out what the right parameters for success are, because they are objectively subjective. Different people have different goals in life, and different people desire different lives. Some people don’t mind a tough and challenging life and make choices that lead to one. Others enjoy simple lives as farmers or baristas. These lives all come with vastly different challenges, experiences, and emotional states. How can the ones conducting research into psychiatric drugs say that some emotional states are inherently better than others? They cannot. And therefore, it’s impossible to set objectively positive targets for studies on psychiatric drugs, putting into question every single study ever done on psychiatric drugs.

But let’s for a second assume that all the skeptics of psychiatric drugs are wrong. Let’s assume that all drugs that alter brain chemistry are bad, such as cocaine and heroine, but that psychiatric drugs are the exception and that a correlation between taking them and something seen as objectively positive by all of society can be established. Even then, without any logic that would help us understand this correlation, this would still be unscientific. Reason being that a correlation between two things does not prove that one thing causes the other.

A great example to illustrate this is a basketball game. There is a strong correlation between having scored a large number of 3-pointers in a basketball game and being the winner of that basketball game. But is that because won basketball games often come along with a lot of 3-pointers made, or because a focus on making 3-pointers wins basketball games? If basketball teams solely focused on hitting as many 3-pointers as possible because data shows there is a correlation between hitting 3-pointers and winning basketball games, they would field less tall players sacrificing their ability to rebound, they would forget about playing proper defense, and a whole host of other things. They would certainly win less basketball games.

The bottom line is that a correlation does not imply a causation, and that without logic and understanding you cannot call something scientific. Science starts with logic and understanding, from which it theorizes and tests hypotheses. Psychiatry does not do any of this and therefore cannot be called a science. Psychiatric drugs are drugs that alter brain chemistry. This puts them in the same category as other drugs that do this, such as cocaine, heroine, LSD, alcohol, marijuana, ketamine, and the like. You cannot say that psychiatric drugs alter things like serotonin and dopamine, conduct studies showing a correlation between taking them and some outcomes thought to be positive by most of society, and then call it scientific proof that these drugs help people.

Sex also alters things like serotonin and dopamine, in a much more natural way than psychiatric drugs do, and I don’t think we need studies to show that sex generally leads to positive outcomes. That doesn’t mean it’s okay for psychiatrists to prescribe sex, or for psychiatrists to lock people up and force them to have sex. I assume there would be public outrage. So why isn’t there public outrage about what’s currently going on in places like IMH? Because a lot of the public isn’t aware of it, and most of the ones who are don’t understand what is actually being done to human beings inside these facilities.

Let’s also take a look at what psychiatric drugs do at a fundamental level. To understand this, first let’s dive into how the human brain works. The human brain consists of almost 100B neurons⁶, each of which is (on avg) connected to almost 10,000 other neurons⁷. In between neurons there exists space referred to as synaptic clefts that facilitate communication between neurons. There exist ~500 trillion such synaptic clefts in each human brain, or in other words the human brain contains ~500 trillion connections between neurons⁷.

The way one neuron communicates with another through one of these ~500 trillion connections is as follows. Neuron A activates and creates an electrical signal. When this electrical signal reaches the edge of the neuron, the neuron secretes chemicals into the synaptic cleft. The chemicals in this synaptic cleft then influence neuron B on the other side. Via this mechanism, neuron A is able to communicate with and influence neuron B.

There are more things we know about synapses (synapse = synaptic cleft + 1 membrane on each side), such as that the sending neuron can recycle chemicals via “reuptake”, and that there are over 100 different chemicals⁸ and over 1000 different proteins⁹ present in synapses. But to say that we understand what goes on in synapses would be a lie. To say that we understand how these 100+ chemicals, 1000+ proteins, and yet-to-be-identified elements work together in order to facilitate communication between neurons in ~500 trillion connections present in the human brain would be a lie. To say that we know how the chemical compositions of synapses affect the emotional well-being of individual human beings would be a lie.

Pharmaceutical companies have created drugs that alter the chemical compositions of synaptic clefts just like other drugs (cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc.) do. Pharmaceutical companies do not care about anyone’s well-being, their only objective is to make money, just like every other company. Some of the people who work for them may care, the companies that employ these people do not, nor does the vast majority of shareholders. These companies are entities who’s sole focus is increasing profits, and selling more psychiatric drugs increases profits. They do not care one bit about whether psychiatric drugs actually help individuals, although it helps them if society believes psychiatric drugs do.

As such, pharmaceutical companies and psychiatry are a match made in hell. Psychiatry has invented “mental illnesses” that it claims in many cases require lifetime treatment/management via psychiatric drugs. But what is really going on is that psychiatrists make their “patients” take drugs that affect the chemical compositions of ~500 trillion synapses in their brains, without any proof that there is anything wrong with these chemical compositions, based on studies that, in spite of being influenced by pharmaceutical companies to make these drugs look better than they are, still highlight mixed results.

I’ll say it again. Psychiatry and pharmaceutical companies are profiting off of the suffering of human beings. Emotional suffering is real. However, there is zero scientific backing for the existence of mind diseases, nor for psychiatric drugs improving emotional well-being. Zero. Psychiatrists convince people they have a mind disease and convince them they have to take psychiatric drugs to manage it, handing the pharmaceutical industry a new customer for life. This is the most evil hoax in the history of mankind.

In summary:

The desirabilities of emotional states are objectively subjective. As such, no objectively positive targets can be set for psychiatric drug studies.

Psychiatrists tell people they have a mind disease that requires (often times lifelong) consumption of psychiatric drugs to manage, thereby altering the chemical compositions of ~500 trillion synapses in the brains of their “patients”, in spite of not having an understanding of what this does to an individual. These drugs rewire human brains, and thereby alter human beings.

Making someone feel or behave a certain way via the involuntary administration of these drugs needs to be a crime.

Mutilation

An individual that captures, restrains, sedates, and performs involuntary cosmetic surgery on another individual, thereby changing the way that individual looks, is charged with physical mutilation.

It’s widely believed that what’s on the inside (character, values, heart, etc.) is more important than what’s on the outside (appearance, possessions, etc.).

Therefore, if an individual were to capture, restrain, sedate, and involuntarily alter the brain chemistry of another individual, thereby changing who that individual is on the inside, that is also a form of mutilation, and a worse one than physical mutilation.

Even though lobotomies have been banned, “mental health hospitals” still mutilate their “patients” via involuntary injections and the forced taking of psychiatric drugs.

In summary:

The act of changing who an individual is on the inside against the individual’s will is mutilation, just like changing what an individual looks like on the outside against the individual’s will is mutilation. This needs to be recognized as a crime.

Rape

(My apologies in advance for the graphic examples in this section, but they help illustrate a relevant and important point that needs to be made.)

Rape has to be defined as any non-consensual violation of the boundary of an individual’s body by another individual, in order to clearly draw a line as to what is and what isn’t legal. Otherwise, criminals can use loopholes to skirt around the law. I’ll illustrate this in the following paragraphs with a number of examples.

If a man were to strap a woman to a bed in a room, undress both of them, penetrate her vagina with his penis and ejaculate inside of her, the consequence to her (in addition to presumably severe emotional trauma) is that the semen will most likely drip out of her, or she gets pregnant and has the option to abort the pregnancy. A court of law considers this rape.

If, instead of penetrating her vagina with his penis, the man had masturbated and ejaculated in front of the woman, then put his semen into a custom-made ejaculating dildo in the shape of his penis, penetrated the woman’s vagina with his dildo, and pressed the dildo’s button, thereby injecting his semen into the woman, I can only hope that a court of law would still consider that rape, in spite of the man’s penis not having penetrated the woman’s vagina.

If, instead of using this ejaculating dildo to penetrate and insert his semen into her, the man had masturbated in front of the woman and used a syringe to penetrate the woman’s vagina and insert his semen into her, I hope that a court of law would still consider that rape.

If, instead of masturbating in front of her, the man had used the syringe to inject semen he had collected a few days earlier into the woman, I hope that a court of law would still consider that rape.

If, instead of his semen from a few days ago, the man had injected a mixture of 99% his semen and 1% psychiatric drugs, I hope that a court of law would still consider that rape.

If, instead of that mixture, the man had injected a mixture of 50% his semen and 50% psychiatric drugs, I hope that a court of law would still consider that rape.

If, instead, the man had injected a mixture of 1% his semen and 99% psychiatric drugs, would a court of law still consider that rape? If no, where does the threshold lie?

If the man had masturbated in front of the woman, and injected his semen into her via a syringe, but instead of injecting them into her vagina, like the previous examples, had barely missed her vagina and injected them into her tissues or bloodstream near her vagina, I hope that a court of law would still consider that rape, in spite of the semen having been injected into the woman through a newly created hole, instead of having been injected through an already existing hole.

If the man had masturbated in an adjacent room or had injected semen from a previous day into the woman’s tissues or bloodstream, I hope that a court of law would still consider that rape.

If, instead of pure semen, the man had injected 99% his semen and 1% psychiatric drugs into the woman’s tissues or bloodstream, I hope that a court of law would still consider that rape.

If, instead of that mixture, the man had injected 1% his semen and 99% psychiatric drugs into the woman’s tissues or bloodstream, I don’t think a court of law would consider that rape anymore. If this is true, where does the threshold lie?

If, instead of that mixture, the man had injected 100% psychiatric drugs into the woman’s tissues or bloodstream, I’m very confident a court of law would no longer consider that rape.

If the man had masturbated in front of the woman, sprayed his semen all over her, and then injected his urine into her vagina via a syringe, I hope that a court of law would consider that rape.

If, instead of injecting his urine into the woman’s vagina, after ejaculating on top of her the man had injected his urine into her tissues or bloodstream, I hope that a court of law would still consider that rape.

If, instead of ejaculating on top of the woman, the man had ejaculated next to her and injected his urine into her tissues or bloodstream, I hope that a court of law would still consider that rape.

If, instead of masturbating next to her, the man had masturbated and ejaculated in an adjacent bathroom, had told the woman about this, and had then injected his urine into her tissues or bloodstream, I suspect a court of law would no longer consider that rape. Which begs the question, in this example, how far away from the woman does the man have to ejaculate for his acts to no longer be considered rape by a court of law?

If any of the men in these examples had been psychiatrists in an otherwise empty “mental health hospital”, and the women had been involuntarily confined there, would that change the judgment of a court of law on whether any of these acts constitute rape?

I am not saying context and details do not matter, or that punishments for these varying acts should be the same. However, if the law is not more clearly defined, people can skirt the lines. Rape has to be defined as any non-consensual violation of the boundary of an individual’s body by another individual. And yes, rape can be non-sexual in nature. Otherwise you have to ask yourself where the boundary lies in respect to:

• What objects may and what objects may not be used to penetrate an individual against its will.

• What parts of an individual’s body may and what parts may not be penetrated against its will.

• What fluids may and what fluids may not be injected into an individual against its will.

• What acts a court of law will and what acts a court of law will not consider sexual in nature.

In “mental health hospitals”, psychiatrists instruct their nurses to bring fluids into the room the “patient” is in along with a syringe. The nurses then inject the “patient”, who is usually strapped to a bed and whose consent is deemed irrelevant, but instead of putting the fluids into a natural hole like a vagina or an asshole from which the fluids can drip out, new holes are created and the syringe penetrates the physical boundaries of the patient’s body, and the fluids end up in its tissues, from where they find their way to the brain via the bloodstream and alter that person's brain chemistry and life. On top of most likely emotional trauma of course. Although this act may not be sexual in nature, that does not change the fact that it is rape.

Putting aside the emotional trauma of being raped, which is different in each and every situation, in every other way the rape going on in “mental health hospitals” is worse than sexual rape, because the physical consequences (a rewired brain) are more severe and long-lasting.

Should rape be legal under some circumstances? It currently is. Is all rape equal? No, of course not. But what is done to human beings in mental health hospitals undeniably constitutes rape. They are strapped to beds and have fluids injected into them against their wills. If that isn’t rape, then strapping a woman to a bed and injecting her with things like urine, spit, blood, acid, and whatever other depraved fluids you can think of isn’t rape either, as long as semen are not injected, or as long as the semen are adequately diluted with “socially accepted” fluids.

Or in other words, rape shouldn’t be defined as a penis penetrating a vagina without consent. Rape needs to be defined as penetrating an individual’s body without consent, especially when fluids are also injected into the body without the individual’s consent. Punishments, as always, should depend on details, circumstances, and context. And a separate category for sexual rape can still exist, although it’s hard to define what is and what isn’t sexual, because that is subjective and different for each individual.

In summary:

The law needs to define rape more clearly as any non-consensual violation of the boundary of an individual’s body by another individual, in order to prevent criminals from skirting around the boundaries of the law.

This does not mean all rape is equal, nor that all rape has to be punished equally.

Suicide prevention is the worst crime

Murder is generally considered to be the worst crime in human society, but this is based on the assumption that life is a good thing and provably wrong via simple logic.

First, let’s talk about the assumption that life is a good thing. Although it is fortunate that most people see life as a good thing, this isn’t always the case. One sign of this is the existence of antinatalism¹⁰, the belief that it’s unethical to bring sentient beings into this world. Regardless of whether life as a whole is a good thing or a bad thing, the existence of antinatalism proves that at least for some individuals life is not a good thing.

Furthermore, there are children who die in infancy. Some young girls are raped and murdered. Some children grow up in war and die before the war ends. And Joseph Murphy (nicknamed Pyro Joe from “I Am A Killer” S02E06) is a man who, as a 6-yr old, was whored out to men for beer money by his father, and lit on fire by his parents, among other things. He committed murder at the age of 21 and is currently spending his life in prison. Although only these individuals themselves can determine whether their lives are a good and desirable thing, looking at these lives from the outside, it’s hard to imagine them being desirable.

But the irrefutable proof that life for some individuals is undesirable are these facts¹¹:

• Almost 1.5% of all deaths are by suicide. It is a leading cause of death.

• More than 700,000 people end their own lives each year.

• Suicide is the third leading cause of death among 15-29 year olds.

(These are in spite of negative stigma around suicide in the form of societal pressures and religious beliefs telling people not to end their own lives. If not for those, suicide rates would be much higher than they are.)

Suicide is frightening. If you’ve never been suicidal, you can try to imagine what it’d take for you to kill yourself. If you can’t imagine what that’d take, all you can do is understand that you cannot understand.

People who end their lives being dumb and not understanding the mistake they’re making is not what’s going on here. That’s projecting your personal experience that life is desirable onto others. There are reasons why people choose to end their lives, and not being able to understand them as an outsider, doesn’t make people who commit suicide dumb or irrational.

Would some people who commit suicide, if they had chosen to endure and not end their lives prematurely, at the end of their not-prematurely-ended lives have been happy they chose not to end them prematurely? Quite possibly. Sometimes people make mistakes. However, to say that every individual that ends its life prematurely makes a mistake it would’ve regretted had it not made it is beyond delusional and shows an inability to understand and empathize.

Finally, let’s look at why logic dictates that suicide prevention is the worst crime. In order to do this, one has to analyze and look at what murder and suicide prevention are at a fundamental level.

Murder, assuming that the victim wanted to continue its life and was enjoying its life, and assuming that the murder was quick and painless, denies an individual something positive that it wants. It’s like taking away candy or pizza from a child.

Suicide prevention, assuming the victim wants to end its life and is not enjoying its life, forces an individual to experience something horrible that it doesn’t want to experience, and that it deems worse than suicide. It’s like forcing a child to eat shit.

Circumstances always matter, and so just as murder is legal under some circumstances (death penalty, war, euthanasia, etc.), suicide prevention can also be legal under some circumstances. But it cannot be legal to indefinitely prevent individuals from ending their own lives under the assumption that they’ll be happier off alive. Fundamentally, suicide prevention is the worst crime known to mankind, and so it needs to be treated as such and used with extreme caution, because suicide prevention can sentence individuals to a fate far worse than death.

In Summary

Fundamentally, murder takes away life (something good) from an individual, whereas suicide prevention forces an individual to experience a fate worse than death (something bad). Experiencing something bad is worse than not experiencing something good, and as such suicide prevention is logically a worse crime than murder, with the asterisk that suicide prevention can be temporary and murder is final.

Involuntary Human Alteration Facilities

I’ve already explained why in my opinion the term emotional well-being is a better term to use than “mental health”. Now I will explain why the term “mental health hospital” is inaccurate and propose a more accurate term.

The term “mental health hospital” implies that individuals go to a place when they are mentally ill, and leave cured, or at a minimum improved, in the majority of cases. One could also assume that doctors and/or nurses in these places provide care and treatment based on diagnoses, and that that care and treatment are the reasons why the “patients” leave cured.

I’ve already explained why the existence of mind diseases is a belief, not a scientific fact, and why their diagnoses are based on opinions and beliefs rather than scientific evidence. Now, let’s look at what goes on in these places and whether the care and treatment from the psychiatrists and nurses are likely to improve or worsen the emotional well-being of the individuals that end up there.

First, let’s look at perhaps the biggest difference between hospitals and mental health hospitals, the way in which individuals end up there. Most individuals that end up in hospitals go there out of their own volition. Out of the individuals who are brought to hospitals without their consent because they aren’t able to speak due to being unconscious, you’ll be extremely hard-pressed to find individuals who aren’t grateful that they were brought there. I don’t know that anyone ends up at a hospital against its will.

In mental health hospitals, on the other hand, you’ll find mostly people who are there involuntarily. During my three involuntary confinements, I did not come across a single person who was there voluntarily, although it’s possible that this is due to the specific wards I was held in. I wonder how many people go to these facilities entirely out of their own volition with neither a referral from a psychiatrist nor pressure from a person close to them. Rarely do people have to be told to go to a hospital, especially in acute cases. Generally, when someone needs to go to a hospital, they want to go to a hospital. The same cannot be said for mental health hospitals, which most people do their bests to stay out of, especially people who’ve been there before, and which in many ways are more akin to prisons than hospitals. Next, let’s take a look as to what may be the causes of these differences.

After, in most cases involuntarily, having been brought to a mental health hospital against your will, you are confined to a ward with, based on my experience, 30-50 other individuals who are deemed to have a mind disease. Common sense would dictate that a person suffering emotionally would do well to spend time with loved ones who can provide support. It’s not beneficial for individuals who are suffering emotionally to be locked up with 30-50 others who are also suffering emotionally, none of which know each other, and none of which are in a place from which they can provide support to others, because they need to be there for themselves.

The nursing staff, from my experience, mostly does a decent job. There are a few outstanding nurses, but also a few who shouldn’t be anywhere near individuals that are suffering emotionally, but variance in quality is to be expected. But these are just my personal experiences.

What I can state factually is that the nurses do not have the time or resources to provide any real care. I saw a few nurses try their best. One made its phone available for brief periods for some music, another hosted a picture drawing session on a quiet Sunday, and things like that. However, these are few and far between. Most days the nurses spend every single hour managing the day-to-day, which consists of opening the showers, serving food, moving patients in and out of sections of the ward, taking vitals (even though none of the patients are physically ill), writing down notes for the psychiatrists, etc. Most days, the only interactions with nurses are along the lines of asking questions such as “when is lunchtime”, and being told to do something such as “take a shower”. These do not qualify as care.

Psychiatrists have even less interaction with the individuals that they refer to as their patients. A session with the psychiatrists lasts around 15 minutes, and if you’re lucky you have two of those a week, but most of the time there’s only one per week, and I talked to one individual who told me he hadn’t seen a psychiatrist for multiple weeks.

As for the “sessions” with the psychiatrists, I only know about my own experiences, which were extremely frustrating. In sessions with a psychologist or counselor, which I’ve had hundreds of over the years, it’s all about the client and the client has the space to talk about the things the client wants to talk about. During my sessions with psychiatrists at IMH, it was never about me. It was all about what the psychiatrists wanted to talk to me about, and when I tried to talk about the things that I wanted to talk about that I deemed important, such as why I was being held against my will, I got shut down.

Then there are the drugs that you are forced to take in mental health hospitals. If a psychiatrist in charge of you at a mental health hospital wants you to take drugs, there is nothing you can say or do to not take drugs, and if you refuse to take them, you are tortured into obedience until you do, and in the meantime the drugs are injected into you anyway. No matter how bad the drugs make you feel, no matter your personal beliefs or desires, no matter what you know to be best for you, the psychiatrists will put the drugs (that rewire your brain) into your system one way or another.

There are also drugs in the food. The labels on the meals at IMH clearly have “thin therapeutic fluids” written on them. And based on my personal experience and talking to others, I know there are “vitamins” in the milo, most likely to be some sort of light stimulant. The milo is served after drugs are distributed in the evening to make the patients feel artificially happy after they take the drugs, thereby manipulating them and helping them build an addiction to psychiatric drugs. Ironically, some people actually come to mental health hospitals to cure their addictions to substances such as alcohol and tobacco, but some of these individuals merely end up replacing their addictions with addictions to a different substance, psychiatric drugs.

If you ever find yourself in a mental health hospital, I strongly suggest you do your best to hide your emotions and not act up in any way, and act like you are a totally average person not suffering emotionally, even if you are suffering emotionally. The reason for this is that mental health hospitals will torture and rape you in the form of restraining you and sedating you if you act up too much or don’t do as the staff say. It’s somewhat understandable to punish, perhaps even to the point of restraining, an individual who physically assaults others, especially during periods during which the nurses have their hands full, such as lunchtime. However, I am proof that the threshold for this is extremely low, as I was punished for attempting to go through a door that was half open, for being scared, and even for simply sleeping. I was also undeniably tortured for not willingly taking psychiatric drugs orally.

Furthermore, the individuals that are locked up in mental health hospitals are suffering emotionally. If you punish them for things such as suffering emotionally, for showing you they are suffering emotionally (which can be looked at as an indirect way of asking for help), and for showing you their emotions, in essence what you are teaching them is that it’s not okay to suffer emotionally, that it’s not okay to show you they need help, and that it’s not okay for them to show you their emotions. Unless you’ve experienced this treatment first-hand, I don’t think you can understand the damage this does to an individual. To be punished for being you, and in essence to be told by the world that it’s not okay to be you.

All-in-all, it’s impossible to make a credible case that the treatment in mental health hospitals helps the individuals on the receiving end of it. There would have to be some real magic going on somewhere in order to not only outweigh the negative impact of the treatment and lack of care I’ve listed out, but also to provide any sort of positive impact. Yes, pharmaceutical drugs alter mood, but so does cocaine. Who’s to say whether changes in behavior and emotions are positive? Psychiatrists? The desirabilities of emotional states are objectively subjective, and psychiatrists generally attempt to reduce emotions and behavior, which as I illustrated with the Antelopes example, is a terrible idea. I’ll add that it’s extremely odd that society does not accept people drugging away their own problems via things like alcohol, but that society does accept psychiatrists drugging away the problems of people they barely know, in many cases against their wills, via psychiatric drugs.

Considering all of this, I think it’s clear that the term “mental health hospital” is not an accurate way to refer to places such as IMH. Personally, the term Involuntary Human Alteration Facility is one of the more neutral and accurate terms I can come up with*, because in essence individuals are brought there involuntarily when they are deemed to be out of line, and they are altered against their wills via methods such as torture, rape, mutilation, and forced taking of psychiatric drugs that have no scientific backing.

*Church of Psychiatry, Institute of Mind-Rape, and Rape House are less neutral terms I’ve used in private.

Henceforth, I will refer to the individuals that go through involuntary human alteration facilities as victims rather than patients, because based on my personal experiences, based on talking to others within these places, and based on looking at a basic fundamental level at what is done to individuals in these places, referring to them as anything other than victims is denying reality. One other victim told me he wouldn’t wish IMH on his worst enemies.

In summary:

Looking at what is done to “patients” in “mental health hospitals” at a fundamental level, which includes involuntary confinement, restraint, torture, rape, and mutilation, it is impossible to argue that these facilities help the individuals that are involuntarily confined to them. Even if psychiatric drugs were proven to help people feel better, it’s hard to imagine those wonder-drugs offsetting all of these horrendous acts.

Involuntary human alteration facilities need to be banned by law, unless society wants it to be legal to lock up, torture, rape, and mutilate the individuals that are suffering the most. Sadly, this is currently legal.

Mental Health Laws

Mental health laws allow the involuntary confinement and treatment of individuals that are deemed to be a danger to themselves or to others. The latter part of this law (danger to others) is not only morally wrong, it is straight up illegal. Let’s discuss the moral aspect first.

Let’s imagine a scenario in which science is able to find correlations between an unborn baby’s DNA and a high likelihood, let’s say 90%, that this individual will commit a crime in its lifetime. In this scenario, would it be morally okay to lock this baby up in a “DNA Alteration Facility” for the first month of its life, so that the part of its DNA that correlates to crime can be altered?

As a society it may be tempting to do this in order to protect yourself from these likely-to-commit-crimes babies, but you’re essentially saying that these babies are guilty before they’ve done anything wrong, let alone entered a courtroom. And what about the 10% that won’t commit a crime in their lifetimes that you’re altering for no reason?

I hope that this scenario would face severe backlash if it were to be implemented, even though it’s a very strong proven correlation between something that can be proven to exist (DNA) and crime. Then how come there is no backlash against mental health laws that essentially do the same but to adults? But instead of being based on a strong scientifically proven correlation, it’s done based on theories based on the existence of diseases of a mind, which cannot be proven to exist. DNA can be proven to exist, a mystical human mind cannot be proven to exist.

Individuals are locked up and altered in involuntary human alteration facilities via mental health laws, because psychiatrists theorize/believe that the behaviors of these individuals are a result of diseases of a mind that psychiatrists believe exists, and because psychiatrists believe that these mind diseases will lead to crimes.

As insane as this is, the much bigger issue with locking up individuals who are believed to be a danger to others is that this is done in the best interest of ‘the others’, not in the best interest of the individuals. As a result, you are not acting in the best interest of the individuals, and thereby as soon as you lock these individuals up you are in violation of the law that dictates you have to act in the best interest of these individuals.

This is equivalent to a lawyer taking on a client because it’s in the best interest of the opposing party that is also a client at the same firm, but then doing its best to act in the best interest of that client. It’s logically impossible, and it’d be in the client’s best interest if that client-lawyer relationship was severed, just like it’s in the best interest of anyone locked up in an involuntary human alteration facility for the deemed protection of others to be released.

As such, mental health laws and involuntary human alteration facilities are an illegal combination. It can in theory be legal to lock an individual up for its own presumed/theorized protection and still act in its best interest (although in my opinion this needs to be illegal as well). However, it is logically impossible to lock up an individual for the presumed/theorized protection of others and still act in its best interest, because the involuntary confinement is in the best interest of others. Therefore, it is illegal to lock someone up in an involuntary human alteration facility for the protection of others.

In summary

Using mental health laws to lock an individual up for the protection of others is illegal, because you are acting in the best interests of others and thereby are breaking the law that dictates you have to act in the individual’s best interest.

Paranoid Delusions

A term psychiatrists use. Google AI says:

“Paranoid delusions are fixed, false beliefs that others are trying to harm, persecute, or plot against you, even without evidence.”

Definition of belief per the Oxford Dictionary:

“An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.”

As such, according to the Oxford Dictionary, a lack or absence of evidence is what makes something a belief in the first place.

Therefore, the fact that psychiatrists use the term “paranoid delusions” is proof that psychiatry is either completely unscientific and doesn’t even understand the definition of a basic word like “belief”, or it’s intentionally trying to eradicate specific human beliefs.

Freedom of belief is a fundamental human right protected by international laws like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as Article 15 of Singapore’s constitution. Psychiatry is violating these laws by using terms such as “paranoid delusions”.

In summary:

Psychiatry selectively attacks beliefs stating they are delusions without any proof that these beliefs are false. Hereby, psychiatry is in direct violation of the international human rights law that states that freedom of belief is a fundamental human right, as well as article 15 of Singapore’s constitution.

Who is in the best position to judge whether one individual loves or hates another individual?

Let’s begin exploring this question by looking at a love-bombing physically abusive male and his female partner. This is an example that is unfortunately not that uncommon in human society. A woman with usually low self-esteem, and perhaps parents who didn’t love her, is desperately looking for someone, almost anyone, who loves her. She finds a male who is interested in her, they date, and over time they connect and move in together.

The male frequently tells the woman that he loves her, and he treats her well on some days. However, perhaps due to his own childhood or alcohol problems, there are also many days on which he is physically abusive and beats her to a pulp. Many women in situations like these stay for a long time, because they believe their men are in the best position to judge whether their men love them, or perhaps because to them love is verbally being told they are loved. Who are we to judge. However, most women in situations like these eventually become aware that their men’s physically abusive behaviors make them feel bad about themselves, and end up leaving, realising that they are in a better position to judge who loves them than their partners.

Another example to drive home the point that the individual on the receiving end of love/hate/feelings is in the best position to judge whether they are loved, is to consider that everyone has different preferences. If a girl bakes cookies for 100 different men, some of them will be ecstatic, feel loved, and say that the girl loves them. Others may say the girl hates them because they baked a type of cookies they don’t like, or because the girl forgot that they’re allergic to gluten.

Now let’s look at whether 3^rd parties may potentially have a better view than the individual on the receiving end. To do that, let’s consider the following scenario. A woman has been dating a man for a few months. Over lunch with 10 of her girlfriends, she shares stories and asks for their opinions on how the man feels about her. She’s getting older and wants to get married soon, so she wants to make a decision on whether to invest more time into this relationship or not. Her girlfriends end up being split 50-50 on whether this man loves her or not. Although this woman is perfectly within her right to outsource this important life decision, and even have lunch with another 10 friends to ask for their opinions, who do you think is ultimately in the best position to make this life-altering decision and decide whether this man loves her or hates her, and whether to potentially get married to this man? I think it’s hard to argue against she herself being in the best position to do so and to make this decision.

At the end of the day, the person on the receiving end of feelings, behavior, and treatment is the best judge of whether others love or hate it.

In summary:

The individual on the receiving end of feelings is the best judge on whether another individual loves or hates it.

Who is in the best position to judge whether one individual is a danger to another individual?

First, let’s get a better understanding of the word “danger”, which the Oxford Languages Dictionary defines as the possibility of suffering harm or injury. Injury is pretty easy to understand. Harm is a little bit more vague, but then further defined as “physical injury or damage to health”. Physical injury is clear, whereas “damage to health” is a very subjective term. Some individuals say their health is damaged when they eat a burger or a tub of ice cream, whereas others have different standards and say even a flesh wound is no big deal, will heal over time, and doesn’t really impact their health.

So who is in the best position to judge whether one individual is a danger to another? On one hand, there’s the individual who is the best judge of what constitutes injury and an impact on its health, which is clearly the one on the receiving end. Everyone is allowed to set its own boundaries. However, on the other hand the individual who is most in control of an individual’s future actions is the individual taking those actions. Granted, some individuals lie for personal gain, and individuals don’t always have the same amount of control over their actions (e.g. an intoxicated person). A person might ring your doorbell saying it is there to fix your AC, but after you let the person inside, the person could potentially assault you and steal your belongings. Then again, an individual can also lie and say someone is a danger to it. Think of someone claiming they were threatened, stalked, or even assaulted, to get back at an ex they absolutely hate. These situations are rare, but they’re not impossible.

What about 3^rd parties? Could psychiatrists be in the best position to judge whether one individual is a danger to another? Let’s assume for a moment that this is the case. If it were, that would mean that psychiatrists should be in charge of restraining orders and perhaps even interpersonal relationships. If a psychiatrist were to be able to gauge better than, for example couples, whether they are a danger to each other, by reasoning it would be best if psychiatrists interviewed every couple before it got married, and vetoed marriages in which they deem that one of the two is a danger to the other.

You can also ask yourself what a judgment, which is all that it is, of whether one individual may be a danger to another is based on. Knowledge of what kind of person the individual is, knowledge of how the individual feels towards the other individual, knowledge of how both individuals have treated each other in the past, and many other factors are important considerations in such a judgment call. Who has access to most such information and the most accurate access? Certainly not a 3^rd party, but the individuals themselves. I think it’s best to let each individual have the final judgement on who is and isn’t a danger to it, because otherwise no one would be able to get a restraining order, because the one who the restraining order is being filed against would be able to claim to know better and overrule the request.

In summary:

Every individual should have the final say in who is and who isn’t a danger to it.

Who is in the best position to decide what’s best for an individual?

Personally, I don’t understand how anyone could possibly disagree with the obvious answer to this question, which is that each and every individual is in the best position to decide what’s best for itself. But let me illustrate why this is undeniably so.

What sorts of factors and information are most important to decide what is best for an individual? I’d list things such as desires, goals, past experiences, present circumstances, impact of choices on loved ones, etc. But really, every single moment of an individual’s life history goes into making decisions at any given point in time. Who knows the most about all of this? Obviously the individual itself.

Perhaps the best way to understand this is by considering that different people have different preferences when it comes to just about everything. Some people love thrills and skydiving, others don’t. Some people love chill afternoons and reading books, others can’t stand it. So when someone has to decide whether to go skydiving that afternoon or read a book, who is in the best position to decide which to go for? The individual. Dating preferences are the same. Different individuals will treat and make you feel very differently. Who is in the best position to choose whom to date? The individual. Whether to spend time at an involuntary human alteration facility and whether to take psychiatric drugs are no different.

Ultimately, the one in the best position to decide what’s best for an individual is the individual itself. Do some individuals have temporary lapses in judgment, such as when they are intoxicated? Of course. But they made the choice to become intoxicated, and as such will have to live with the consequences of their actions while they’re drunk, like if they drunk call someone.

Can it sometimes be more difficult for someone under severe stress and pressure to make the correct decisions, such as a suicidal person? It can be, and so temporarily preventing someone from making what could be an irreversible mistake can be acceptable, but ultimately the individual remains in the best position to make its own decisions. And so if the individual remains suicidal even after a long period of restraint and best-efforts to help it, the individual should be allowed to end its life. Euthanasia and assisted dying/suicide exist for a reason.

Ask yourself why some people are allowed to choose death and others aren’t. Why is it legal to die in some situations and illegal in others? Who decides this, and why isn’t it always the individual who is allowed to make this choice? Because most people can’t fathom that it’s possible to suffer to such an extent that death is preferred, and so they believe they are stopping someone from making a mistake.

Euthanasia is legal in some countries in some situations. Refusing treatment for diseases such as cancer is also legal, which in most cases is equal to choosing death. But people who suffer severely emotionally in ways that no one is able to understand other than that individual are not allowed to choose death, and are instead locked up, tortured, raped, mutilated, and altered? And in some cases turned into near-vegetables for the remaining decades that their physical bodies hold out? Can you imagine the amount of suffering you are causing that individual who already wanted to die, and is now locked up for decades, tortured, raped, and has to live out its remaining years in an involuntary human alteration facility? No one can imagine such suffering, and society is doing this to them. Saying society is helping them by keeping them alive is just deluding oneself.

Involuntary human alteration facilities could be of the opinion that locking individuals up, torturing them, raping them, mutilating them, and forcing them to take psychiatric drugs that they in many cases end up dependent on, is best for someone or something other than the individual. They could be of the opinion that this is best for society, so that society doesn’t have to bother with or take care of the ones who are suffering severely emotionally. But if so, they need to clearly communicate this to the general public instead of deceiving it. So that everyone understands what these places really are, and can make informed decisions on whether to support them.

Lastly, I’ll finish off with the following. It's not considered okay for one person to claim to know what is best for a country and be solely in charge of a country against that country's will. We refer to this as a dictatorship and I don't know of anyone who wants to live in a dictatorship. However, it is considered okay for one person to claim to know what is best for a human being and be solely (or with a group of others, making the power imbalance even more severe) in charge of a human being against its will, when the former is a psychiatrist and the latter a victim locked up in an involuntary human alteration facility.

The fact that involuntary human alteration facilities exist the way they do should make everyone appalled.

In summary:

Every individual knows what’s best for it.

Psychiatry’s origin

The word psychiatry originates from the greek words “psukhē” meaning soul and “iatreia” meaning healing. Thousands of years ago, extreme behaviors in certain individuals were thought to be supernatural in origin¹², and for a long time psychiatry attempted to “heal” these behaviors by healing the “soul”. It was only a few hundred years ago that psychiatry pivoted to healing the “mind”.

As such, the origin of psychiatry is the observation of behaviors, emotions, and beliefs that are deemed extreme and poorly understood. Thousands of years ago these behaviors were explained by a belief in the supernatural, but over time that has morphed into an attempt to explain these behaviors, emotions, and beliefs via a belief in the existence of a “mind” (which is technically still a belief in something supernatural) that psychiatry has attempted to link to the human brain.

The way in which psychiatry has done so, is by first grouping behaviors, emotions, and beliefs, that it sees as symptoms, into categories, such as ADHD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Schizophrenia, etc. These groups were created by either single psychiatrists (Eugen Bleuler in 1908 – Schizophrenia¹³), or groups of psychiatrists (Group of US clinicians in mid-1970s – Major Depressive Disorder¹⁴).

Since creating these groups with objectively subjective criteria, psychiatry has done its best to link them to physiological causes, such as genes and biomarkers. Thus far, psychiatry has only been able to prove the existence of correlations, which do not imply causations, but the existences of these correlations are unsurprising, just like it’d be unsurprising to find that women with large breasts have genes and biomarkers in common and to find that men with a low body fat % have genes and biomarkers in common.

In essence, what psychiatry is is a group of human beings, who refer to themselves as psychiatrists, who have decided that certain behaviors, emotions, and beliefs are undesirable on behalf of others. And in order to try and eliminate these behaviors, emotions, and beliefs, psychiatry is attempting to find the root causes of them and is searching for ways to eliminate them. Which can be viewed as psychiatry attempting to eliminate certain types of human beings. It can even be seen as psychiatry attempting to disprove the existence of free will, because if behaviors, emotions, and beliefs could all be perfectly explained by things such as genes and biomarkers, that’d disprove the existence of free will.

If psychiatry truly wanted to help people via eliminating undesired behaviors, emotions, and beliefs, it’d approach things differently:

1. Talk to individuals and ask them if they have undesired behaviors, emotions, and/or beliefs.

2. Note down which behaviors, emotions, and/or beliefs the individuals find undesirable, which is objectively subjective and 100% up to the individuals. Outsiders, such as psychiatrists, have zero say in this, and different people will list different things as desirable and undesirable.

3. Attempt to discover the actual root causes of these undesired behaviors, emotions, and/or beliefs via the scientific method, without any biases towards the outcome, and with a willingness to admit that one can’t find the answer. (Which is what I personally expect the outcome will be, because the answers to some questions, such as “why am I the way I am?”, can only be found within by individuals themselves.)

This is in stark contrast to what psychiatry is currently doing, which is grasping at correlations that the general public will belief are causes for the behaviors, emotions, and beliefs psychiatry has deemed undesirable on behalf of the individuals exhibiting these behaviors, emotions, and beliefs.

Psychiatry is neither objective nor attempting to help human beings, because psychiatry’s very existence is in danger. If it were to be proven that psychiatry does not know the root causes of the behaviors, emotions, and beliefs it’s deemed undesirable on behalf of others, psychiatry would collapse. If society were to understand that the desirabilities of the behaviors, emotions, and beliefs (that psychiatry has deemed to be undesirable on behalf of others) are objectively subjective, psychiatry would cease to exist.

Psychiatry, just like human beings do, is doing its best to survive. But the only way for psychiatry to survive is to deceive humanity into believing it has the answers to emotional suffering, even though it doesn’t. This is why psychiatry is a hoax.

In Summary

Psychiatry is the pursuit of eradicating specific human behaviors, emotions, and beliefs that one finds undesirable in others, while deluding oneself (and the world) that the ones you’re eradicating them from also find them undesirable, and that you’re doing this to help the individuals you’re eradicating these traits from.

The Most Evil Hoax in the History of Mankind

Let’s compare psychiatry to other atrocities in the history of mankind. Human society has not always been right in the past, nor has the law. Two great examples of this are the holocaust and slavery. Within Nazi German society, jews were seen as inferior beings. And the law used to state that specific human beings (in the Americas generally those with darker skin colors) were livestock.

Today, most people agree that Nazi German society was wrong about jews, and that the laws that used to state that some humans are livestock were also wrong. These are real historical examples of how both the law and society can be wrong. Today, both the law and society are wrong about psychiatry, because it is a hoax and it is deceiving humanity.

In order to look at how bad psychiatry is, let’s compare it to slavery and the holocaust and let’s look at three factors:

Scale

• Slavery dates back at least 6,000 years¹⁵ to Sumer, the earliest known civilization. At least 100s of millions of distinct individuals in human history have been slaves.

• Nazi Germany directly murdered 6 million jews¹⁶, but the 3.5 million European jews who survived were also affected, and one could argue that jews outside of Europe were indirectly affected as well. As such, at least ~10 million jews were affected.

• As of today, almost 10 million people¹⁷ are locked up in involuntary human alteration facilities each year, and 100s of millions of people¹⁸ take psychiatric drugs each day. Furthermore, involuntary human alteration facilities date back to the 9^th century, when they were initially constructed throughout Arab countries¹⁹.

Targeting

• Although slavery in the Americas by far and large specifically targeted people with darker skin colors, throughout history that was not the case, and it was generally people with power taking advantage of people with less power.

• The holocaust specifically targeted jews based on their religious beliefs.

• Psychiatry specifically targets the individuals that are emotionally suffering the most.

Crimes

• Living a life in slavery is (presumably) a horrible experience, but other than during the transatlantic voyage, suicide rates among slaves were low²⁰. This means that, although there were notable exceptions, and although it’s hard to imagine the suffering that comes along with living a life in slavery, slaves generally did not suffer to the extent that death was preferred.

• I will not attempt to put the atrocities committed against the jews during the holocaust into words. But one can read up on what it was like to die in a concentration camp.

• Some of psychiatry’s crimes aren’t that bad, because even though none of psychiatry’s victims are able to give informed consent for “treatment” due to psychiatry’s deceits, most are only deceived and not physically coerced.
  However, the worst of psychiatry’s crimes are undeniably worse than any of the atrocities committed by slavery or the holocaust. Psychiatry inflicts a fate worse than death upon some of its victims. To be suicidal and to be on the verge of choosing a horrible lonely death by suicide means that continuing to live one’s life is only barely better than this terrible lonely death. Psychiatry cuts actively suicidal individuals off from their least bad option (lonely suicide) via suicide prevention, and then makes the already horrible lives of these individuals even worse via involuntary confinement, restraint, torture, rape, and mutilation.
  In the worst cases, people who already had lives so bad they wanted to die, are forced to live even worse lives in captivity, essentially as vegetables, in some cases for decades. A lot of people can to some extent imagine dying in a concentration camp to be extremely bad, no one but these individuals themselves can claim to have any idea of how bad of a fate psychiatry bestows upon them.

In Summary

Psychiatry is the most evil hoax in the history of mankind.

Psychiatry is a religion posing as a science, not a science, nor a form of medicine or healthcare

Psychiatry is neither a science nor a form of medicine, due to its lack of any underlying science. “Correlation does not imply causation” is a fundamental scientific principle. All psychiatry does is violate this principle. If psychiatry abided by this fundamental scientific principle, nothing would be left of it.

Psychiatry hasn’t proven a single thing other than the existence of correlations between the use of psychiatric drugs and certain outcomes, but those studies are influenced by the pharmaceutical industry and objectively positive targets cannot be set. The existence of correlations between some brain activities and some human emotions and behaviors hasn’t even been proven by psychiatry but by neuroscience. And of course, correlations do not imply causations.

What psychiatry really boils down to is the belief that humans have a “mind”. If you ask a dermatologist what it’s a doctor of, and to prove to you it exists, it’ll answer the skin and point to its skin and to your skin. If you ask the same of a cardiologist, it may invite you to an operating room or a morgue, so you can see the human heart during surgery or autopsy. If you ask the same of an oncologist, it can invite you to its lab and show you the difference between healthy cells and cancerous cells.

If you ask a physicist what it’s scientifically researching, it can jump up and you can both observe it come back down. It can also roll a ball across the floor and you can both observe the ball coming to a halt. If you ask the same of a chemist, it can invite you to its lab where you can observe molecules through a microscope. If you ask the same of a biologist, it can invite you to its lab and you can observe things like DNA and bacteria through a microscope.

If you ask the same of a psychiatrist, it’ll say “the mind”, but it’ll be unable to prove “the mind’s” existence to you. Psychiatrists are like children playing doctor on dolls when they imagine the dolls are ill. The difference is that psychiatrists are playing doctor based on their beliefs and imaginations on real human beings who are suffering emotionally, without informed consent, and often times even against the will of those real human beings. And psychiatry is deceiving society by telling it that its beliefs and imaginations are real scientific facts, and society is not smart enough to understand that psychiatry’s beliefs are not scientific facts.

Psychiatrists are treating human “minds” that they believe exist by altering the real brains of human beings via the administration of psychiatric drugs. Psychiatrists are treating things they imagine/theorize/belief exist, by altering the real brains of human beings, that psychiatry has zero jurisdiction over, because neurologists are the world’s foremost experts on fixing things that are wrong with human brains. Altering brains via psychiatric drugs in the hopes that it’ll cure minds is equivalent to altering bodies via chemotherapy in the hopes that it’ll cleanse souls.

Psychiatrists rewire the brains of their victims in spite of a total absence of evidence that there is anything wrong with their brains. Psychiatrists diagnose their victims based on them exhibiting similar behaviors, emotions, and/or beliefs as others. Psychiatrists diagnose by analogy. And because some (heavily influenced) studies show that psychiatric drugs can reduce some of these behaviors/emotions/beliefs that psychiatry’s handbook (the DSM) has stated are undesirable on behalf of human society, psychiatrists prescribe their victims, force their victims to take, and even inject into their victims, psychiatric drugs that alter the chemical compositions of 500 trillion synapses in their brains, thereby rewiring their brains and altering them.

Psychiatry is not a science. Psychiatry is not a form of medicine or healthcare. What psychiatry really is is a religion, because all it is is a system of beliefs built upon correlations, a few examples of which are:

• The belief that all humans have a mystical mind. No proof for its existence exists.

• The belief that mind diseases exist. Before one can proof that something can be affected by a disease, one first has to be able to proof that it exists.

• The belief that the things that make us human (emotions, behaviors, beliefs, etc.) are symptoms that need to be managed.

• The belief that psychiatric drugs improve life outcomes, in spite of research being divided and proving nothing.

• The belief (but really delusion) that certain emotional states, behaviors, and life outcomes are objectively better than others.

• The belief (but really delusion) that involuntary human alteration facilities help its victims via treatment in the form of involuntary confinement, torture, rape, mutilation, and alteration.

• The belief (but really delusion) that psychiatrists, especially those in involuntary human alteration facilities, know better than their victims what’s best for them. A real doctor would never treat a patient against the patient’s wish. The right to refuse healthcare is a fundamental patient right in healthcare that psychiatrists violate.

• The delusion that it’s okay to attack other people’s beliefs by leveraging what are thought of as professional opinions to state that they are delusions, in spite of a total absence of evidence to support that the belief is false. This is in direct violation of international human rights laws.

In summary

Psychiatry is not a science because the existence of that which it claims to conduct scientific research into (the “mind”) cannot be proven.

Psychiatry is also not a form of medicine, because something has to be scientific before it can be a form of medicine. Furthermore, psychiatry diagnoses by analogy rather than examination, and it rewires its victims’ brains (which is the area of neuroscience not psychiatry) in spite of a total absence of evidence that there is anything wrong with their brains.

Psychiatry is also not a form of healthcare, because it violates a fundamental rule in healthcare, the patient’s right to refuse treatment.

Psychiatry is a system of beliefs, a number of which are delusional. This makes psychiatry a religion.

The only other way to view psychiatry

The only way to view psychiatry other than as a religion is as follows. Let’s first look at the concept of the “economy” as a comparison for the concept of the “mind”.

The “economy” is a concept that humanity has come up with. The economy consists of many things, some examples of which are:

• Money

• Trade

• Companies

• Consumers

• Material Goods

The existence of these things can all be confirmed:

• Money exists in physical form in the form of paper and coins, as well as in digital form as numbers in bank accounts.

• Trade can be observed to exist by going to a physical store and watching a consumer buy something in exchange for money.

• Companies are complex entities consisting of many moving parts just like the economy, but the existence of companies can be confirmed by visiting one’s offices or factories.

• Consumers can be seen going in and out of stores, restaurants, etc.

• Material goods can be found in many places, including stores and restaurants.

The human “mind” can be viewed similarly to the economy. One could say the human “mind” is a concept consisting of:

• Thoughts

• Beliefs

• Memories

• Opinions

• Perhaps also emotions

However, different people have different opinions on exactly what is and what isn’t part of this “mind”. And in stark contrast to the things that make up the “economy”, the existence of the things that make up this “mind” cannot be confirmed:

• A “thought” is a concept in and of itself that humans appear to use to describe when they hear their own voice in their head. No individual can prove that any other individual experiences “thoughts”, and anyone claiming to know that others experience “thoughts” is claiming to be a mind-reader/psychic. Not to mention, people without an “internal monologue” exist²¹.

• A “belief” is also a concept, that just like “thoughts” cannot be proven to exist. Many people say they have all sorts of beliefs, but no one can prove that their beliefs exist within themselves. People can believe that other people have beliefs if they trust those persons’ words, but that’s it.

• “Memories” are quite likely to exist, given the fact that most people can remember things that happened in the past. However, that is only circumstantial evidence and insufficient to prove memories exist in any one person.

• An “opinion” is also a concept. People may share what they refer to as opinions with one another, but people could be lying. There is no proof that any one individual has any opinions.

• “Emotions”, if included in the concept of a “mind”, is the only one that is a little different due to empathy and the ability to sense the emotions of others. One can also observe things in others (body language, crying, vocal tonality, etc.) from which one can infer that others are likely experiencing emotions. However, none of these are irrefutable proof that any one individual experiences emotions.

Now, psychiatry wants to say that this mind can be ill or sick and require treatment. Just like it’s impossible to be physically ill while every part of one’s body is healthy, it’s not possible to say someone is “mentally ill” without stating that part of that person’s “mind” is sick. Let’s look at what it implies when psychiatrists say someone has a “mental illness”:

• The notion that “thoughts” can be sick or ill is a strange one. Thoughts are thoughts. How can thoughts possibly be sick or ill and be made better via treatment or drugs? One can be of the opinion that another person’s thoughts (when shared verbally) are stupid and maybe refer to them as “sick” or “ill”, but thoughts cannot be “sick” or “ill”.

• The notion that “beliefs” can be sick or ill is an illegal one. Freedom of belief and freedom of religion are widely recognized fundamental human rights.

• The notion that “memories” can be sick or ill sounds like the use of incorrect vocabulary. Can someone suffer from memory loss/amnesia or recollect things incorrectly? Sure, but that would be more aptly referred to as faulty memory, perhaps as a result of a sick brain.

• Stating that someone’s verbally shared “opinions” are sick or ill is expressing your opinion that you don’t like and/or disagree with that person’s opinions. Opinions cannot be sick or ill like parts of a human’s body can be, and the notion that sick “opinions” can be “treated” away is an evil one, most likely coming from people who want to control the world.

• In my personal opinion, the worst of all is stating that “emotions” can be ill or sick. If you punch an individual in the gut, and then when that individual (naturally) gets angry at you state that its emotions are ill or sick, that is incredibly evil. Similarly, if an individual is afraid of elevators, stating that its emotions are ill/sick/wrong is worse than invalidating its emotions, and equal to hatred.

The bottom line here is that the only one who knows what thoughts, beliefs, memories, opinions, and emotions an individual is experiencing, if any, is that individual itself. Outsiders can only guess. Furthermore, as discussed, the desirabilities of different emotional states are objectively subjective, and that also holds true for the desirabilities of different thoughts, beliefs, memories, and opinions.

To state on an individual’s behalf that a certain thought, a certain belief, a certain memory, a certain opinion, or a certain emotion is wrong/sick/ill is incredibly evil, because everyone is allowed to decide these things for themselves.

As such, looked at from this angle, psychiatry is an evil branch of philosophy dealing with the philosophical concept of a “mind” and illnesses of that “mind”. Stating that “mental illnesses” exist is indirectly stating that the thoughts, beliefs, memories, opinions, and emotions of individuals can be ill/sick, which is not only evil but in the case of beliefs even illegal. As such, one could say that psychiatry and the concept of “mental illnesses” are evil and illegal and in violation of fundamental human rights laws.

In summary

If not seen as a religion, psychiatry is a branch of philosophy dealing with the philosophical concept of a human “mind”. However, considering what this “mind” consists of, stating that it can be ill/sick equals to indirectly stating a number of things, which range from evil to illegal.

The World We Live In

As it stands, the few dozen individuals in the US who create the DSM are in charge of determining what does and what doesn’t constitute a “mental illness”/mind disease. (Imagine a few dozen dermatologists being in charge of what is and isn’t a skin disease…). Their decisions are evidently not based on science. What are they based on? Only they know, but looking at some of the things that are being labeled as mind diseases, which include Female Sexual (dis)Interest Disorder, Antidepressant Discontinuation Syndrome, Homosexuality until 1974²², recently Shyness in Children, and even Voyeurism²³, it appears as if this select group of individuals is attempting to police human behaviors and emotions.

If this ended at the creation of the DSM, that would be one thing, but psychiatry is deceiving humanity into believing that psychiatry is a science and that psychiatrists know what are and what aren’t mind diseases. The world believes this is a science, but it’s actually a religion²⁴ because all it is is a system of beliefs.

Worst of all is the fact that with the existence of mental health laws, psychiatry is physically able to police these behaviors. The law is the law, and if an individual’s actions violate the law, punishments and consequences come along with that violation as outlined in the law.

However, on top of the law exists psychiatry. Which through the use of mental health laws is able to involuntarily lock individuals up and perform all sorts of horrifying acts on them, and even straight up change these individuals via mutilation and the drugs of its partner-in-crime, the pharmaceutical industry.

In today’s world, if a psychiatrist doesn’t like your behavior, emotions, or beliefs, it’s not hard for it to make up some reason why you are a danger to yourself or others. A woman isn’t excited by sex? That’s dangerous for the world, because birthrates are declining and it might lead to population collapse. A man stopped taking his antidepressants? He might become depressed again and hurt himself, and as such he’s a danger to himself. A theory does not equate proof. It isn’t legal to lock up and alter human beings based on theories, but yet it is.

The threshold to lock an individual up in an involuntary human alteration facility and perform unspeakable acts on it is incredibly low, especially in Singapore. All it takes is the belief of a police officer that a person could be a danger to itself or others, (which as I am proof of can apparently just be crying in public), and the opinion of a psychiatrist that it should be treated. Individual police officers are neither trained nor qualified to make this inherently subjective judgment, and a psychiatrist can come up with a million reasons why someone should be treated. I challenge you to look through the DSM and declare yourself not “mentally ill” based on psychiatry’s standards. It’s nearly impossible.

Furthermore, psychiatrists don’t even need evidence or a reason to do these things to an individual, not even when medical reports are issued, as evidenced by the medical reports (if you can even call them that) that were issued on me. A single psychiatrist’s opinion is enough to label an individual as “mentally ill”, lock it up, torture it, rape it, mutilate it, and alter it, all against its will.

All of this makes it possible for psychiatry and psychiatrists to police human behaviors that fall well within the law, beliefs that are protected by international human rights laws, and emotions that should never EVER be policed. Psychiatry is an invisible, arbitrary law on top of the real law. This invisible law is written by a few dozen individuals and is called the DSM, and it is policed by the beliefs and opinions of individual psychiatrists. And if behaviors, emotions, and beliefs are what make humans human, psychiatry is policing humans themselves.

In summary

Psychiatry is policing humanity and altering humans who don’t follow its laws as outlined in the DSM. If it were honest and forthcoming about what it is, that would be one thing, but it is deceiving us all by disguising itself as a form of medicine grounded in scientific principles.

Urgent Plea to Singapore Supreme Court

Psychiatry is harming Singapore citizens through primarily IMH, but also private psychiatrists. Here is a summarized list of the reasons why:

• Psychiatry is deceiving Singapore citizens by lying to them that it’s a legitimate science and form of medicine and healthcare.

• Psychiatry is leveraging its reputable public opinion gained through deceit to make Singapore citizens belief their emotional suffering is a result of diseases of some “mind” that cannot be proven to exist.

• Psychiatry is offering its “services” and the drugs of its partner-in-crime, the pharmaceutical industry, as the solution to the emotional suffering of Singapore citizens, in exchange for their money.

• Psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry are rewiring the brains of Singapore citizens, thereby altering them, in spite of not having any jurisdiction over human brains, and in spite of a complete absence of evidence to support that there is anything wrong with the brains of these Singapore citizens.

• Psychiatry, through IMH with the help of the MHCTA, is involuntarily confining Singapore citizens who are suffering emotionally to a facility with others who are suffering emotionally, separating them from their homes and loved ones.

• Psychiatry, through IMH, is restraining Singapore citizens to beds against their wills.

• Psychiatry, through IMH, is (pharmaceutically) raping Singapore citizens via involuntary injections of psychiatric drugs.

• Unless my experiences are an isolated incident, psychiatry, through IMH, is torturing Singapore citizens into obeying the orders of psychiatrists to consume psychiatric drugs.

• Psychiatry, through IMH, is mutilating Singapore citizens via forced injections and coerced consumption of psychiatric drugs.

• Psychiatry, through IMH and private psychiatrists, is harming Singapore citizens.

I urge the Singapore Supreme Court to, at a minimum, urgently order IMH to immediately cease the involuntary confinement and “treatment” of individuals in Singapore, unless there is clear and concise evidence that an individual is likely to end its life in the near future, in order to reduce the amount of harm psychiatry is causing Singapore citizens.

I believe the right thing to do would be to order IMH to cease all operations pending trial, but I believe that such a request would be unlikely to succeed. I suspect that the Singapore Supreme Court would be hesitant to order such measures be taken, in the fear of being wrong. The Singapore Supreme Court is a lot less likely to be blamed/scrutinized for wrong inactions, than it is for wrong actions, which makes it hard to do the right thing, in the fear of being wrong.

In Summary

Psychiatry is harming Singapore citizens. Urgent measures need to be taken to prevent further harm from being done to Singapore citizens.

Long-term solutions to protect Singapore citizens from psychiatry

The following three are solutions that, in my opinion, naturally follow from the truth. I, however, of course acknowledge that I have zero say in Singapore’s policies. I am merely including these in this document, so as to provide alternatives to the status quo.

1) Replace IMH with a Human Preservation Center

I agree that the world is a less bad (or better, depending on one’s perspective) place when there exists a place where individuals that are suffering severely emotionally can go for help. Today, the world sees involuntary human alteration facilities as “mental health hospitals” and the places these individuals can go to, or be brought to, for help. However, as this document has outlined, these facilities, that are based on psychiatric principles, don’t help but harm people.

I propose a human preservation center, that helps individuals who are suffering severely emotionally who are suicidal as follows:

1. On day 1, the individual is allowed to design its own death. It is allowed to state its ideal last 24 hours alive and its preferred method of ending its life. This is recorded.

2. Staff then promises the individual that, if they are unable to help the individual over the following three months, it will be helped to end its life according to point #1.

3. The individual is then shown to its own private room where it can sleep.

4. Over the following three months, the staff works with the individual to improve its life. Fundamentally, suicidality is a result of one’s life being so terrible that death is preferred. Logically, the way to “cure” suicidality is to empower the suicidal individual to make its life less unbearable, and perhaps eventually even turn it into something it desires.

5. To this end, the staff works with the individual to learn how they can help. This can be done via asking questions and listening to the answers. Questions such as: “What do you need?”, “How can we help?”, “What can we do to change your mind about ending your life?”, “What’s the biggest problem in your life?”, etc. The staff then does whatever is in its power to help make a difference.

6. Various other things can be helpful, such as rage rooms allowing individuals to unleash pent-up emotions via destroying (cheap) objects. Such as sedatives and brief medically induced comas for individuals who desire rest and are unable to sleep naturally. And yes, even drugs and even “psychiatric” drugs for individuals who desperately want a temporary form of relief.

The fundamental goal of such a facility should be to help people. Things that’ll logically help people are:

• Respecting the boundaries of individuals.

• Respecting the autonomy of individuals.

• Empowering individuals to be whoever they want to be, even if that ultimately ends up being a deceased person.

Note that this is the exact opposite of how involuntary human alteration facilities operate. Involuntary human alteration facilities put boundaries on people in the form of restraints and confinement. They violate the autonomy of individuals by disregarding the need for consent. And the psychiatrists in charge of those facilities make individuals behave like the psychiatrists want them to.

Putting boundaries on others, violating the boundaries of others, violating the autonomy of others, and turning others into what you want them to be, are all forms of hatred. Respecting the boundaries and autonomy of individuals, and empowering individuals to be whoever they want to be are forms of love. And yes, allowing someone to die and be at peace can be a form of love.

2) Ban psychiatrists (and psychologists) from having offices in hospitals

Neither of these fields belong in a hospital, because neither is a form of medicine/healthcare. Allowing psychiatrists (and psychologists) to have offices in hospitals is deceiving the general public. People should be able to safely assume that anyone who has an office in a hospital is a real, reliable, trustworthy doctor. Being able to prove the existence of that of which one is a doctor needs to be a bare minimum requirement for being a doctor and for being allowed to have an office in a hospital.

3) Psychiatric drugs

Psychiatrists need to be banned from prescribing brain-altering drugs. Partly, because psychiatrists aren’t doctors, and partly because only neurologists should be allowed to prescribe brain-altering drugs.

If psychiatric drugs are allowed to be sold in drugs stores, the labels need to clearly state action and effect. Namely, the action of altering the chemical compositions of all ~500 trillion synapses in one’s brain, thereby rewiring it. And both the positive and negative effects observed in independent studies. Example:

Action: This drug alters the chemical compositions of all ~500 trillion synapses in your brain, thereby rewiring your brain.
Effect: 70% of test subjects report reduced anxiety, 60% report reduced depressive feelings, 25% report weight gain, 15% report reduced sexual libido, 7.5% report suicidal thoughts.

Then, every individual can make its own informed choices on whether to take such drugs or not.

In Summary

Replacing involuntary human alteration facilities with “human preservation centers”, banning psychiatrists (and psychologists) from having offices in hospitals, and changing the laws on psychiatric drugs is a better alternative to the status quo, that would protect Singapore citizens from psychiatry and offer individuals who suffer severely emotionally a more loving environment in which they can heal.

Footnotes (links / sources)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_First

2. https://www.wired.com/2010/12/ff-dsmv/

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz

4. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0

5. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/12/medicine-dsm5-row-does-mental-illness-exist

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain

7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron

8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/synaptic-cleft

9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1535947620336768

10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

11. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/suicide

12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_psychiatry

13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3339235/

14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_depressive_disorder

15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

17. https://unitedgmh.org/newsroom/new-report-reveals-8-million-admitted-to-mental-hospitals-annually/

18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4960429/

19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_psychiatry

20. https://scholarworks.montana.edu/items/641db98c-7874-4b6b-9ed7-12cee0c10c47

21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u69YSh-cFXY

22. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_DSM

23. https://www.msdmanuals.com/professional/psychiatric-disorders/paraphilias-and-paraphilic-disorders/voyeuristic-disorder

24. https://www.madintheuk.com/2023/02/leading-psychiatrists-unwittingly-acknowledge-psychiatry-is-a-religion-not-a-science/