I tried to watch the interview on youtube and it was full of adds, so I fell asleep, and when I woke up it was merely the interviewer?, psychiatrist just talking.
Nevertheless I came with a few impressions: first, those folks really are not suited to be physicians, they lack common sense and ability to do self study to guide them in the care they will be providing. Hence, it takes them, at best, years or decades to realize they were wrong, if at all.
Second, they pretend to present a milder alternative to care as usual, but they still hold the cherished beliefs mental disorders are real, when they are not, and on that, although impressionistic I saw more, in some contexts, of deceptive behavior, admitting top of my head I cannot point where specifically.
They display a lack of reasoning ability quite evident when the psychiatrist forgot what you asked, way at the beginning, when it was memorable and clear enough. In some contexts, such is a display of deceptive behavior: trying to set the script correct, hence requiring conscious effort to lie “correctly”.
In such contexts, there are others of course, involving precisely mental disorders and disabilities even if temporary, I would not trust whatever that guy says: he behaves deceptively, in some contexts, I need to clarify again.
Also, fear, anxiety and the need to show off, specially when facing “competent opposition” are valid, and relevant considerations, perhaps even correct.
Third, they are unable to see, as old physicians did from my personal and anecdotal experience, the severe side effects, lack of efficacy and worsening of some psychiatric treatments, evident in taking years to “see the light” so to say.
When I was a medical student, up to 1993-1996, around, surgeons could see benzodiazepines were worse for treating anxiety. We knew in México back then, opioids, even if for a few days led to addiction and dependence, hence they were rarely used, outside anesthesia practices, and probably private practices, I did my training in public hospitals.
Those physicians could see clearly in their patients, my guess both private and public, a lot of harm by some treatments, specially psychiatric. Before there was published evidence of its harms, hence they avoided them.
But, somehow, for the top psychiatrists, apparently, experience is worthless: they need some authoritative figure or newspaper headline to see what they do is wrong, and sometimes criminal.
As an example: I saw and read several articles arguing about covert medication as a medical ethics issue, well, no, in México, it is forbidden to give people psychotropics without authorization, it is a violation of the Federal Penal Code, and my guess, several State Penal Codes.
It is also a violation of the regulations regarding who picks which psychotropic at which drug store: the patient needs to go personally with an official ID and a prescription in his name to pick those up. No one else can pick those up, specially without the official ID.
And yet, those ignoramuses, proceed, as clinical psychologists, as if their practice somehow was absconded from Law, and merely guided by Ethical Codes, which sometimes are against the Law, as in the case of mandatory reporting of all crimes they are aware of: familial, psychological, and physiclal violence.
And yet, they do not disclose such to their patients or clients, and claim, erroneously whatever one tells them will be private, when law, at least in México, and I think France, obligates them to report it: all crimes, specially those which can be best or only be detected by professionals in so called “mental health”.
Professional secrecy does not apply to the obligation to report to District Attorneys, specially when it comes to minors or people with disabilities, or otherwise vulnerable.
And their lingo is all their patients are “struggling”, hence they have permanent or transient disabilities or vulnerabilities, therefore requiring a stricter abiding to the law of mandatory reporting to District Attorneys.
So, they are not alone in being incompetent, apparently, to know, not their “moral” or “ethical” obligations, but their legal ones…
And, as such, they are not trustworthy, at least to me.
And lacking common sense and limited working memory, I would not trust any physician displaying such characteristics.
But, as per usual, it might have been transitory, or explained in other benign ways…
Finally, they did not came clean with the wrongs they did or got involved in caring for vulnerable human beings during their training, hence their “change of mind” lacks efficacy if they don´t confess, probably under legal counsel: because effectively they show no remorse on the harm they did, covered up, or got involved in.
So, their rhetorics of changing and knowing better is, to me, no more than hot air…
Such might seem abstract: lack of remorse, but let me show a hypothetical although grounded example.
At a 2% risk of sudden death by antipsychotics per year, at a 5% false positive rate, let´s say 1,000 patients per year, different or new, we get:
50 non-psychotic “patients” dying at 2% per year is 1 wrongfully killed human being per year, who never had psychosis, at all, assuming Psychiatry was like the rest of medicine, which it is not.
Over a 30 yrs career, each psychiatrist at those rates killed 30 human beings wrongfully.
And such is just sudden death, mostly cardiac non-coronary arrhythmic.
Let´s add Diabetes, Hypertension, High Cholesterol and Lack of Excercise by anti-psychotics which, more or less, from memory increases the likelihood of dying by 2 fold, 6 fold, say 3 fold and who knows.
Such is a 36 fold increase in the risk of dying by anti-psychotics by just Diabetes, Hypertension and the rest.
It might be additive instead of multiplicative giving the “low”: 11 fold increase, who knows, it is not like they are researching on additive versus multiplicative death risk effects.
Still an 11 fold increase in dying on a wrongful diagnosis even if for a few, at a 5% rate false positive diagnosis is quite a lot, specially because treatments for Diabetes, Hypertension and High-Cholesterol give one person in around at least a hundred one more year of life, and hence, cannot correct for the increased risk of dying by those 3 new diseases alone, created by anti-psychotics treatment, no the original psychotic, so they say, disease.
And yet, they claim anti-psychotics are quite safe and life-saving.
And they hide or conceal the 5% per year rate of Tardive Dyskinesia caused by anti-psychotics that sometimes includes or cause Murderous Rampage Rage, not the so they say “original” psychotic disease.
And yet, I have not read of any psychiatrist showing remorse for killing people in a stochastic way, sometimes by proxy as Murderous Akathisia induced Murderous Rampage Rage: those akathisic victims can and probably do kill innocent by standers to psychiatric treatments, and sometimes kids, minors, along the way of Psychiatric Remorseless Beliefs.
And, again, it tells me, effectively, they are still remorseless, and whatever claim they make of knowing better, to me, lacks efficacy: it is just tokenization, more misleading and dishonesty, to keep their income flowing since they already committed to terminal specialization without ability to retrain…
This was a really great, as well as distressing, interview- I would really love more psychiatrists to recognise that as long as they don’t speak out lives are being destroyed. It is only because the population they “treat” is so systematically silenced that this is enabled to continue behind closed doors. I appreciated how you kept the focus on rights and challenging the usual narratives.
I tried to watch the interview on youtube and it was full of adds, so I fell asleep, and when I woke up it was merely the interviewer?, psychiatrist just talking.
Nevertheless I came with a few impressions: first, those folks really are not suited to be physicians, they lack common sense and ability to do self study to guide them in the care they will be providing. Hence, it takes them, at best, years or decades to realize they were wrong, if at all.
Second, they pretend to present a milder alternative to care as usual, but they still hold the cherished beliefs mental disorders are real, when they are not, and on that, although impressionistic I saw more, in some contexts, of deceptive behavior, admitting top of my head I cannot point where specifically.
They display a lack of reasoning ability quite evident when the psychiatrist forgot what you asked, way at the beginning, when it was memorable and clear enough. In some contexts, such is a display of deceptive behavior: trying to set the script correct, hence requiring conscious effort to lie “correctly”.
In such contexts, there are others of course, involving precisely mental disorders and disabilities even if temporary, I would not trust whatever that guy says: he behaves deceptively, in some contexts, I need to clarify again.
Also, fear, anxiety and the need to show off, specially when facing “competent opposition” are valid, and relevant considerations, perhaps even correct.
Third, they are unable to see, as old physicians did from my personal and anecdotal experience, the severe side effects, lack of efficacy and worsening of some psychiatric treatments, evident in taking years to “see the light” so to say.
When I was a medical student, up to 1993-1996, around, surgeons could see benzodiazepines were worse for treating anxiety. We knew in México back then, opioids, even if for a few days led to addiction and dependence, hence they were rarely used, outside anesthesia practices, and probably private practices, I did my training in public hospitals.
Those physicians could see clearly in their patients, my guess both private and public, a lot of harm by some treatments, specially psychiatric. Before there was published evidence of its harms, hence they avoided them.
But, somehow, for the top psychiatrists, apparently, experience is worthless: they need some authoritative figure or newspaper headline to see what they do is wrong, and sometimes criminal.
As an example: I saw and read several articles arguing about covert medication as a medical ethics issue, well, no, in México, it is forbidden to give people psychotropics without authorization, it is a violation of the Federal Penal Code, and my guess, several State Penal Codes.
It is also a violation of the regulations regarding who picks which psychotropic at which drug store: the patient needs to go personally with an official ID and a prescription in his name to pick those up. No one else can pick those up, specially without the official ID.
And yet, those ignoramuses, proceed, as clinical psychologists, as if their practice somehow was absconded from Law, and merely guided by Ethical Codes, which sometimes are against the Law, as in the case of mandatory reporting of all crimes they are aware of: familial, psychological, and physiclal violence.
And yet, they do not disclose such to their patients or clients, and claim, erroneously whatever one tells them will be private, when law, at least in México, and I think France, obligates them to report it: all crimes, specially those which can be best or only be detected by professionals in so called “mental health”.
Professional secrecy does not apply to the obligation to report to District Attorneys, specially when it comes to minors or people with disabilities, or otherwise vulnerable.
And their lingo is all their patients are “struggling”, hence they have permanent or transient disabilities or vulnerabilities, therefore requiring a stricter abiding to the law of mandatory reporting to District Attorneys.
So, they are not alone in being incompetent, apparently, to know, not their “moral” or “ethical” obligations, but their legal ones…
And, as such, they are not trustworthy, at least to me.
And lacking common sense and limited working memory, I would not trust any physician displaying such characteristics.
But, as per usual, it might have been transitory, or explained in other benign ways…
Finally, they did not came clean with the wrongs they did or got involved in caring for vulnerable human beings during their training, hence their “change of mind” lacks efficacy if they don´t confess, probably under legal counsel: because effectively they show no remorse on the harm they did, covered up, or got involved in.
So, their rhetorics of changing and knowing better is, to me, no more than hot air…
Such might seem abstract: lack of remorse, but let me show a hypothetical although grounded example.
At a 2% risk of sudden death by antipsychotics per year, at a 5% false positive rate, let´s say 1,000 patients per year, different or new, we get:
50 non-psychotic “patients” dying at 2% per year is 1 wrongfully killed human being per year, who never had psychosis, at all, assuming Psychiatry was like the rest of medicine, which it is not.
Over a 30 yrs career, each psychiatrist at those rates killed 30 human beings wrongfully.
And such is just sudden death, mostly cardiac non-coronary arrhythmic.
Let´s add Diabetes, Hypertension, High Cholesterol and Lack of Excercise by anti-psychotics which, more or less, from memory increases the likelihood of dying by 2 fold, 6 fold, say 3 fold and who knows.
Such is a 36 fold increase in the risk of dying by anti-psychotics by just Diabetes, Hypertension and the rest.
It might be additive instead of multiplicative giving the “low”: 11 fold increase, who knows, it is not like they are researching on additive versus multiplicative death risk effects.
Still an 11 fold increase in dying on a wrongful diagnosis even if for a few, at a 5% rate false positive diagnosis is quite a lot, specially because treatments for Diabetes, Hypertension and High-Cholesterol give one person in around at least a hundred one more year of life, and hence, cannot correct for the increased risk of dying by those 3 new diseases alone, created by anti-psychotics treatment, no the original psychotic, so they say, disease.
And yet, they claim anti-psychotics are quite safe and life-saving.
And they hide or conceal the 5% per year rate of Tardive Dyskinesia caused by anti-psychotics that sometimes includes or cause Murderous Rampage Rage, not the so they say “original” psychotic disease.
And yet, I have not read of any psychiatrist showing remorse for killing people in a stochastic way, sometimes by proxy as Murderous Akathisia induced Murderous Rampage Rage: those akathisic victims can and probably do kill innocent by standers to psychiatric treatments, and sometimes kids, minors, along the way of Psychiatric Remorseless Beliefs.
And, again, it tells me, effectively, they are still remorseless, and whatever claim they make of knowing better, to me, lacks efficacy: it is just tokenization, more misleading and dishonesty, to keep their income flowing since they already committed to terminal specialization without ability to retrain…
This was a really great, as well as distressing, interview- I would really love more psychiatrists to recognise that as long as they don’t speak out lives are being destroyed. It is only because the population they “treat” is so systematically silenced that this is enabled to continue behind closed doors. I appreciated how you kept the focus on rights and challenging the usual narratives.
I, too, wish more psychiatrists would speak out about involuntary commitment in other than the platitudinous ways they currently do!