The Most Evil Hoax in the History of Mankind
Foreword:
Although this blog post can be seen as an attack on psychiatry, I do not mean to put any individual psychiatrists in a bad light. I have no doubt that many psychiatrists, just like I do, simply want to do their bests to reduce the amount of suffering in the world. It's just that in my eyes they are going about it the wrong way. Hence this blog post.
Mental illness 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 even psychiatrists, who diagnose mental illnesses, agree that if their treatment changes a person’s thinking, feeling, mood, and/or behavior in the way that they envision for their patient, that that is a positive thing. 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. 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 should be allowed to set their 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 prescribe an inflammation of the appendix. But whereas “Appendicitis” comes from the Latin and Greek languages, literally means 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 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 the 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 their 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, especially against their will, is a REALLY DUMB idea. Humanity is already struggling with declining birthrates.
If you ask a 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 illnesses. 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 expressionless zombies.
Even Michael B First, 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.
Al Frances, the lead editor of the DSM-IV has stated something similar:
"there is no definition of a mental disorder. It's bullshit. I mean, you just can't define it."So, the categories have no firm basis in reality, psychiatry has a limited understanding of how the brain works, and there is no definition of a mental disorder, but the categories are still valid somehow? Based on what? Opinions and beliefs?
Depression used to be believed to be the result of a lack in serotonin, but this has now been disproven:
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 beliefs are assumed to be true until disproven, because psychiatrists are thought of as scientists and doctors. This is not how science works, nor how medicine operates.
The Guardian, a 200+ year old British newspaper, published an article in May of 2013 questioning whether mental illnesses really exist after the DSM-V stated that shyness in children can be classified as a mental disorder.
If you find this hard to believe, perhaps the fact that psychiatry considers it a mental illness when a patients stops taking antidepressants may change your mind. It’d be bad if big pharma lost a customer after all.
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:
- 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 the human mind entails exactly, I think different people will describe it differently.
- Mental health still implies that there’s a right and 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.
In Summary
Mental illnesses are labels psychiatry has come up with to refer to categories of behaviors, emotions, and beliefs. In spite of the proven existence of correlations between some brain activities and some emotional states, psychiatry’s arbitrary categories cannot be linked to any sort of physiological cause, which is in stark contrast to real physical illnesses.
Psychiatric drugs
When googling “what do psychiatric drugs studies show”, 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 anyone 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 downplay negative health effects and promote 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 helps 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 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 by definition drugs that alter someone’s 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 certain effects 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 mental health hospitals? 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 people inside these facilities.
I’ll say it again. Psychiatry and big pharma are working hand in hand to profit off of the suffering of human beings. Emotional suffering is real. However, there is zero scientific backing for the existence of mental illnesses, nor that psychiatric drugs improve emotional well-being. Zero. Psychiatrists convince people they have a mental illness and convince them they have to take psychiatric drugs to manage it, handing big pharma a new customer for life. This is perhaps the most evil hoax in the history of mankind.
In summary:The desirabilities of emotional states are objectively subjective. As such, all research on psychiatric drugs is invalid, because no objectively positive targets can be set. Making someone feel or behave a certain way via the involuntary administration of these drugs needs to be a crime.
Mental Mutilation
An individual who captures, restrains, sedates, and performs involuntary cosmetic surgery on another individual, thereby changing the way the 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 this person is on the inside, that should be considered a worse act than physical mutilation.
“Mental health hospitals” routinely perform mental mutilation on their “patients” via involuntary injections and the forced taking of psychiatric drugs.
In summary:Mental mutilation is the act of changing who someone is on the inside against the individual’s will, just like changing who someone is on the outside against the individual’s will is physical mutilation. This needs to be recognized as a crime.
Rape
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, individuals 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, masturbate in front of her, and inject his semen via a syringe into the woman's vagina, he may not have put his penis in her vagina, but he has penetrated her and put his fluids 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 would still consider that rape, even though the man’s penis did not penetrate the woman’s vagina.
If, instead of masturbating, the man had injected semen he had collected a few days earlier into the woman. I have no doubt 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 have no doubt 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 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 a man were to masturbate in front of a woman, and then inject his semen into her via a syringe, but instead of injecting them into her vagina, like the previous examples, were to inject them into her tissues or bloodstream, I hope that a court of law would still consider that rape, in spite of the semen having been injected through a newly created hole, instead of having been injected through an already existing hole.
If the man had masturbated in a different 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% semen and 1% psychiatric drugs into the woman’s bloodstream or tissues, I hope that a court a law would still consider that rape.
If, instead of that mixture, the man had injected 1% semen and 99% psychiatric drugs into the woman’s bloodstream or tissues, 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 bloodstream or tissues, I’m very confident a court of law would no longer consider that rape.
If a man were to masturbate in front of a woman, sprayed his semen all over her, and then injected his urine into the woman’s vagina via a syringe, I hope that a court of law would consider that rape.
If the man had masturbated in a different room, brought the semen along with him and spread them across the woman, or if the man had spread semen from a previous day across the woman before injecting his urine into her vagina, I hope that a court of law would still consider that rape.
If, instead of injecting the urine into the woman’s vagina, the man had injected the urine into her tissue 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 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 the bathroom, had told the woman about this, and had then injected 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 involuntary human alteration facility, and the women had been involuntarily confined there, would that change the judgment of a court of law on whether 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 involuntary human alteration facilities, psychiatrists instruct their nurses to bring fluids into the room the victim is in along with a syringe. The nurses then inject the victim, who is usually strapped to a bed and whose consent is not considered, 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 victim'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 this is rape.
Putting aside the emotional trauma of being raped, which is going to be different in each and every situation, in every other way the rape going on in involuntary human alteration facilities is clearly worse than sexual rape, because the physical consequences 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 victims in involuntary human alteration facilities undeniably constitutes rape. They are strapped to beds and have fluids injected into them against their will. If that isn’t rape, then strapping a woman to a bed and injecting her with things like piss, spit, blood, acid, and whatever other depraved fluids you can think of isn’t rape either, as long as semen are not injected.
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, so as to prevent people from skirting around the boundaries of the law.
Involuntary Human Alteration Facilities
I’ve already explained why in my opinion 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. I was involuntarily locked up in one three times as you can read in my autobiography, and so I know a thing or two about what goes on in them.
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 there is zero scientific proof for the existence of mental illnesses, and why mental illness diagnoses lack any sort of scientific backing. 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 weren’t grateful that they were brought there. I don’t know that anyone ends up at a hospital against one’s 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 without a referral from their 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 the ones 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 cause 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 be mentally ill. Common sense would dictate that a person in distress would do well to spend time with loved ones who can provide support. It’s not beneficial for a distressed individual to be locked up with 30-50 others who are also in distress, 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 themself.
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 people in distress, 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 sessions 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 these a week, but most of the time there’s only one each 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 the mental health hospital I was locked up in, 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 were important to me, 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 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 into your system one way or another. There are also drugs in the food. The labels on the meals where I was held clearly had “thin therapeutic fluids” written on them. And based on personal experience and talking to others, I know there are “vitamins” in the milo (it's like hot chocolate), 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 their 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 these individuals end up leaving with an addiction to psychiatric drugs.
Lastly, 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 in distress, even if you are in distress. The reason for this is that mental health hospitals will torture 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 by restraining and sedating, an individual who physically assaults others, especially during periods in 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 distressed. If you punish them for things such as being distressed, for showing you they are distressed (which can be considered 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 be distressed, that it’s not okay for them 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? Psychiatrists generally attempt to reduce emotions and behavior, which as I illustrated with the Antelopes example, is a really bad 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 some cases against their will, 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 these places. 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 changed against their will via methods such as torture, rape (explained soon), involuntary altering of brain chemistry, and forced taking of psychiatric drugs that have no scientific backing.
Henceforth I will refer to the individuals who 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 that place on his worst enemies.
In summary:Looking at what is done to “patients” in “mental health hospitals” at a fundamental level, which includes torture, rape, and mental 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 these 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 torture, rape, and mentally 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 who 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 unborn 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 lifetime 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 illnesses 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 being locked up and altered in involuntary human alteration facilities via mental health laws, because psychiatrists theorize/believe that the behavior of these individuals is a result of an illness of a mind that psychiatrists believe exists, and because psychiatrists believe that these mind illnesses 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.
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 is highly questionable as well). However, it logically cannot be possible to lock up an individual for the presumed/theorized protection of others and still act in its best interest, because you are acting in the best interest of others by locking it up in the first place. 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 interest of others and thereby can no longer 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 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 law like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Psychiatry is violating this international human rights law by using terms such as “paranoid delusions”.
In summary:Psychiatry selectively attacks beliefs referring to them as delusions without any proof that these beliefs are false. Hereby, psychiatry is in violation of the international human rights law that states that freedom of belief is a fundamental human right.
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 that the man is in the best position to judge whether he loves the woman, 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 the man’s physically abusive behavior makes 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 3rd 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 would say their health is damaged when they eat a burger or a tub of ice cream, whereas others have different standards and would 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 their 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 3rd 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. This is important because psychiatrists lock people up in involuntary human alteration facilities based on their 'expert' opinion that they are a danger to others.
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 3rd 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 could 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 person 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 (fortunately?) 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, and mentally mutilated? 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, mentally 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 severely emotionally distressed. 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 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 is a religion posing as a science, not an actual science
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 of its partner in crime (pharmaceutical companies) and certain outcomes, but those studies are almost certainly being influenced and objectively positive targets cannot be set. The existence of correlations between some things the human brain does and some human emotions and behaviors hasn’t even been proven by psychiatry but by neuroscience. And of course, correlations do not imply causations.
But 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 an ENT doctor, it’ll point to its and your ears, noses, and throats. If you ask the same of a cardiologist, it may invite you to an operating room in a hospital, so you can see the human heart during surgery.
Furthermore, 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 similar to 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 emotionally distressed, often times 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, or perhaps society is not smart enough to understand that psychiatry’s beliefs are not scientific facts.
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.
- The belief that mental illnesses exist.
- 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, and mental mutilation.
- The belief (but really delusion) that psychiatrists, especially those in involuntary human alteration facilities, know better than their patients/victims what’s best for them. A real doctor would never treat a patient against a patient’s wish. The right to refuse healthcare is a fundamental patient right that psychiatry violates.
- The delusion that it’s okay to attack other people’s beliefs by leveraging what are thought of as professional opinions to state 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 it is a system of beliefs, a number of which are delusional, based on correlations, which do not imply any causations.
Psychiatry is also not a form of healthcare because it violates a fundamental rule in healthcare, the patient’s right to refuse treatment.
Comments
Post a Comment