"The mild and the long-suffering may suffer forever in this world. As
long as the patient will suffer, the cruel will kick."
-- Sidney Smith
never hurt each other but by error or by malice."
Robert Chambers, possibly inspired by Dr. Johnson)
1. The Marketing of Madness
Yesterday was about Correlations:
Madness, Lead & Crime. In
the first part I once again stated my hypothesis of what modern
position is that psychiatry is
a pseudoscience that the
last decades has been
designed on purpose
to push dangerous and medically worthless or unproven drugs
into and onto naive and defenseless people in the name of medical
science, and that this is to my way of thinking, that agrees with
non nocere = the prime duty of medical doctors is not to do harm, a
crime that deserves criminal proceedings.
Well, here is a bit more about this, and an
interesting video link.
What I also say is that if this does not
happen, the reason is that
psychiatrists and their professional associations have succeeded in
convincing the public that their pseudoscience is a real science, and
that they succeeded to do so not by any rational scientific
argument but by the propaganda
relations: Loads of cleverly designed manipulative lies,
deceptions, frauds, and misinformation.
1. The Marketing of Madness
As I said in the same Nederlog about my own writing about the DSM-5 and
I am not claiming
originality, other than that I do my own thinking, and many people have
criticized many aspects of psychiatry, indeed ever since this
pseudoscience was created.
Then again, I am rather well
informed: I have an M.A. in psychology and a B.A. in philosophy, and I got interested
in the DSM-5 after learning in 2009,
when I just had acquired fast internet and the XMRV-saga had just started unfolding, that especially English and American psychiatrists - Wessely, White, Sharpe, Reeves, Holmes - had
been writing the most amazing, sick, sadistic and
pseudoscientific utter bullshit about people with ME/CFS.
As it happens, I have been diagnosed with
ME/CFS four times since 1989, and have
the disease since getting Epstein-Barr on 1.1.1979,
that never went away, at least in the
sense that I have never felt well since
As it also happens, I
definitely gave up on XMRV as relevant to ME/CFS - having never believed it was a cause, but
having believed it merited serious research, given what
was in the 2009 paper published in Science - and I
come to see that - as I had argued was a serious logical possibilty in the
last quarter of 2011 - the Science
paper is probably a fraud from the start.
And by now, having learned a lot about ME/CFS
and psychiatry since late 2009, I
believe psychiatry, and the decisions
taken by bureaucrats
or politicians based on opinions obtained from
are very dangerous to very many people with
ME/CFS, while I have also come to see modern psychiatry as a fundamentally corrupt pseudoscience
whose diagnostic manual is designed to flummox
and flimflam those without a lot of
knowledge about psychology, science and medicine,
and that serves as a justification to push dangerous and expensive psychotropic drugs into millions of patients.
As I also
have said: I don't claim any originality, except that I do my own thinking and writing, by which I mean, among other things, that I tend
ideas or purported facts that matter to me, if I have
the opportunity to do so.
And it may also need some stressing that
originally I am not and never was much interested in psychiatry, clinical psychology or medicine. I got more
interested in medicine because I fell ill and never got better; I studied psychology not because I was interested in becoming a psychologist
but because my main intellectual interest is human reasoning of all kinds; and I never took psychiatry serious as a science since reading,
at age 17,
Mullahy's "Oedipus: Myth
and Conflict", which is a
competent review of the diverse schools of psychoanalysis, and also a book
that convinced me that
psychiatry must be almost all baloney. 
for something completely different: I found
a link on Phoenix Rising to the first part of a documentary film:
The first part looks OK, and indeed conforms to what I have
concluded based on my own reading and studying. What is "completely different"
is that I have not yet seen the rest, which I am going to do after uploading this, and
may later today or else tomorrow come
Here is one major motive that part 1 (of 18: It's a lot of video)
mentions: It is about a third of a trillion dollars a year:
I like quoting Dr. Johnson - or Robert Chambers - to the effect
that "We never
hurt each other but by error or by malice", there is a third reason,
that indeed may overlap with both malice and error:
"We never hurt each other but by error, by malice or by
Above - supposing the figure to be correct - you see
333,000,000,000 reasons for the APA to lie about psychiatry, science
and psychiatric diagnosing: It is enormously profitable, and it
is easy to take people in with pseudoscience, especially as regards
I said "More later",
and here is my review: I saw it all, and it is quite interesting, but
it has a few problems, from my point of view:
I think those are the main
problems. Two minor ones I've seen elsewhere:
- It ends with a
reference to a website that I know is a scientologists' website or that
is at least associated with them, so probably the documentary is
scientology related, but none of this is up front.
- No real evidence is
given (though what is said rhymes with what I have concluded and
written in Nederlog, while it is also true that filmed documentaries
generally, at least in the main body of the film, do not provide
references to books and papers).
- It is quite long, and I
would probably have cut some: It is not boring, but the same messages
could have been relayed with some cuts.
The last is an example of
something else that is not in this video but that I did see in some
other documentaries on YouTube:
- To show it is a
documentary, presumably, most of the time there is a sort of frame
around the sides of the screen.
- With things spoken by
the commentary voice, one often also gets served the text printed
on the screen.
I wonder whether the last two
points are merely fashionable or are intelligence related: I can view
words I hear as written mentally, and I can also imagine pictorially
what words mean, so if either occurs also in a filmed documentary I get
an irritating surplus: I have switched off documentaries with the
pictorial illustrations of spoken texts, for two reasons: I feel
treated as if I am an imbecile, and also my own mental associations are
- With things spoken by
the commentator's voice, one gets served pictures of the things spoken
Anyway... I think this documentary is worth seeing, at least if
one is interested in modern psychiatry, or has been recommended to take
psychotropic drugs, and it makes a number of points about modern
psychiatry and psychiatrists, and also about modern psychiatric drugs,
that deserve being known by many more people than do know them.
The documentary will not make one happier, nor more trustful of
psychiatry or psychiatrists, which is deserved: Psychiatry is not a
real science, and psychiatrists lie and have lied a lot, fundamentally
for money. And to take psychiatric drugs is in most cases both unwise
and dangerous, and may cause far more problems than they may solve -
while many psychiatric drugs in fact are probably hardly effective as
advertised, and more dangerous than one is told.
And as I said: The documentary is likely somehow tied in with
scientology, but it is unclear about its own background, funding,
money, makers etc. (also more normal on YouTube than not) while it also
is quite low, as in fact most filmed documentaries indeed are, on
One major point it makes, correctly in my opinion, is that psychiatrists
are to blame. Here is my reason why: Psychiatrists formally
are, and like to be seen as, medical doctors, and also as medical
scientists, both of which come with moral and legal duties: Not harming
patients and not lying to patients. The point the documentary makes
effectively is that psychiatrists do harm patients, and lie to them,
and do so for money, and not on a real basis of science or rational and
honest health care.
The documentary is also interesting in that it shows rather a lot about
how the whole scam
works and how it is imposed upon the public: By huge marketing
campaigns, on many levels. The FDA, the media, the GPs, the
politicians, and the public are all targeted very professionally and
very dishonestly. The funding is in the end by the drugs companies, and
from their enormous profits.
A point touched upon, that is of wider significance, also as regards
banks and bank managers: No person seems to get punished, and the drugs
companies, when convicted, settle for paying damages, which in fact are
small percentages of their profits. As long as persons are not
personally made responsible for hugely profitable misdeeds and crimes
the misdeeds and crimes will continue.
In sum, I think it is a useful documentary, that makes quite a few of
the points I have arrived at myself the last 2 1/2 years; it has some
weak points as a documentary, though it is not boring; and it probably
is related to scientology, which to my way of thinking is a pity,
since to me that is both a crazy way of thinking and also an
organization that seems to have done a lot of harm, but on the other
hand none of this refutes the points that are made in the documentary.
14, 2013: Corrected some typos and added a link. There also is a P.S. of Jan 14, 2013, because indeed the
documentary is scientology related.
 No, I don't have a logically valid
proof from provably true premisses. I only have an
"on balance of known evidence"
sort of argument, but that argument seems quite strong to me, as it is the
best explanation for such things as I meanwhile have learned about that 2009 paper in Science, about XMRV, about patents
taken out by the Ruscettis and Mikovits, about fraudulence in
science, about the WPI, and about Judy
Also, maybe this is the place to point out that almost everything one
believes - whoever one is - is an "on balance of known evidence" belief, that depends on such
evidence as one believes one knows, and on one's intellectual
capacities to draw rational inferences from what one knows, which
depend on one's intellectual talents and one's knowledge of or
ignorance about logic and probability theory.
 I had then - I think - three main reasons for
that conclusion, that I did not reach
through prejudice but through reading,
having started from the premiss that reading the book might help me understand myself:
First, there were many
schools that were all contradicting each other on basic issues - and there is only
one truth, so as is the case with religions: At most 1 can have
it right, and therefore all but one or possibly all must
have it wrong.
told me things about my childhood, that
I could very well recall aged 17, that
just were not true.
Third, they were making all manner of logical fallacies, such as invoking the workings of a subconsciousness they themselves insisted was not
Later I learned a lot about philosophy of
science and logic that only supported this, and also learned a lot ab
out psychology, and especially that to this very day
there is no real knowledge about how the brain produces human
But I still recall quite well how amazed
I was when 17 that adults took this
thinking and argueing that I had read
in Mullahy's book serious:
To me it sounded as if these psychiatrists
had been making up a lot of things, and
had no relevant facts, that also explained why there were so many competing schools of psychiatry.
Finally, another point that needs making:
Psychiatry, already then,
struck me as much more of a religion than as a science, but I was not
against the practice of psychiatry. For people do get psychological
problems, that may merit some sort of professional help. It is only
lately, after having learned more
about the DSM-5, about modern psychiatry, and about the incredible
amounts of money that are made by prescribing people with problems
dangerous medicines on the basis of bullshit that
my position is that
it were best if psychiatry were kicked out of medicine and out of the
courts: These are not scientists, these are conmen, and very dangerous
(that I prefer
to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search machines) which
is a disease I have since 1.1.1979: