The UK's information-access law, US government proposed social media bans for youth, and Canada's medically assisted suicide debate have something dangerous in common
“… refuse to release information to the public, if that information ‘would, or would be likely to endanger *the livelihood of everyone involved in the “mental health” industry.*
“The government health regulator has conducted studies into how dangerous an approved psychiatric medication truly is—but releasing these studies might cause some people to *see the truth about the “medication” scam.*
“… broad censorship and mass surveillance bills “masquerading as ‘children’s online safety’ measures.” … all of the good that access to diverse views and online communities have undoubtedly done for countless teens …” *notably including finding out anything true about the Gaza genocide in the face of the flood of imperial propaganda that passes as news.*
“… systems of … surveillance and coercive social control.” – *in other words, the actual purpose of psychiatry.*
“determinations of the existence or non-existence of ‘mental disorders’ are not truly medical but essentially subjective.” *how many times do “experts” have to “acknowledge” this shit before there’s even the tiniest dent in the crime against humanity that is psychiatry?*
Psychiatrists have long claimed to be able to reliably identify disorders and predict outcomes but the evidence shows that they can't. In early April, while the Committee tasked with making a recommendation on mental illness and MAID was operating, I sent a letter to every member and a copy of Robert Whitaker's "Anatomy of an Epidemic" to the Chair. I got no response or acknowledgement.
I pointed out that for decades, citizens in Canada have accepted damaging and costly myths about mental illness, and that in 2010, Whitaker's book exploded these myths, which I then listed along with what the evidence actually shows. The most important fact is that most mental illness is iatrogenic.
Just like the US, Canada is experiencing an explosion of costly mental illness-related disability claims. These claims continue to rise in lockstep with increased psychiatric drug prescriptions. I concluded the (5-page) letter by noting that "Canada is already facing criticism for its expanding use of MAID. As state-sanctioned manufacture of serious disability continues to grow, demand for MAID is likely to increase. Canada should stop any thought of approving MAID for MD-SUMC, while we can."
One time while I was testifying to a federal senate committee about mental health issues and civil commitment, I pointed out that there were no proven biological markers for most mental disorders. A Senator responded to me that "hundreds of thousands of scientific studies" proved me wrong. I'm sure she believed that. This is the reality of what we're up against in trying to just bring a measure of reasonableness into the discussion.
Thanks, Rob, for pointing out the similarities between MAID and YOUR CONSENT IS NOT REQUIRED. It’s sad to know that people only register concerns when the government and medical interventions affect them directly.
“… refuse to release information to the public, if that information ‘would, or would be likely to endanger *the livelihood of everyone involved in the “mental health” industry.*
“The government health regulator has conducted studies into how dangerous an approved psychiatric medication truly is—but releasing these studies might cause some people to *see the truth about the “medication” scam.*
“… broad censorship and mass surveillance bills “masquerading as ‘children’s online safety’ measures.” … all of the good that access to diverse views and online communities have undoubtedly done for countless teens …” *notably including finding out anything true about the Gaza genocide in the face of the flood of imperial propaganda that passes as news.*
“… systems of … surveillance and coercive social control.” – *in other words, the actual purpose of psychiatry.*
“determinations of the existence or non-existence of ‘mental disorders’ are not truly medical but essentially subjective.” *how many times do “experts” have to “acknowledge” this shit before there’s even the tiniest dent in the crime against humanity that is psychiatry?*
Psychiatrists have long claimed to be able to reliably identify disorders and predict outcomes but the evidence shows that they can't. In early April, while the Committee tasked with making a recommendation on mental illness and MAID was operating, I sent a letter to every member and a copy of Robert Whitaker's "Anatomy of an Epidemic" to the Chair. I got no response or acknowledgement.
I pointed out that for decades, citizens in Canada have accepted damaging and costly myths about mental illness, and that in 2010, Whitaker's book exploded these myths, which I then listed along with what the evidence actually shows. The most important fact is that most mental illness is iatrogenic.
Just like the US, Canada is experiencing an explosion of costly mental illness-related disability claims. These claims continue to rise in lockstep with increased psychiatric drug prescriptions. I concluded the (5-page) letter by noting that "Canada is already facing criticism for its expanding use of MAID. As state-sanctioned manufacture of serious disability continues to grow, demand for MAID is likely to increase. Canada should stop any thought of approving MAID for MD-SUMC, while we can."
One time while I was testifying to a federal senate committee about mental health issues and civil commitment, I pointed out that there were no proven biological markers for most mental disorders. A Senator responded to me that "hundreds of thousands of scientific studies" proved me wrong. I'm sure she believed that. This is the reality of what we're up against in trying to just bring a measure of reasonableness into the discussion.
Thanks, Rob, for pointing out the similarities between MAID and YOUR CONSENT IS NOT REQUIRED. It’s sad to know that people only register concerns when the government and medical interventions affect them directly.