I can probably prove this theory completely wrong i was first incarcerated at 21 then about 29 then 49 I went cold Turkey of the poison I was forced to endure then got more high risk tickets for working on construction sites as electrical spotter a pass rate is 100 percent no room for error and I am totally full of anxiety but just push on I have been assaulted twice by police one with a payout from the police coffers my lawyer didn't seem like he was interested in taking it further I wanted to hand em the keys to my house just to have the footage shown in court
It's hard to not be enthusiastic about a system of medicine that cured your son of "incurable" "bipolar with psychosis" and another relative of "incurable" "schizophrenia." Over the last 14 years, in my family alone, homeopathy has also cured food poisoning, skin rashes, itchy, red eyes, a sneezing problem, irritability, insomnia, made the pain from injured fingertips disappear in less than 60 seconds, and more. As I said, the World Health Org (WHO) says it's the second most widely used system of medicine in the world — because it cures people. Western medicine has never cured anyone of a mental illness.
I understand. And I'm glad it's been so helpful for you. But I know lots of people who've had no success with it for anything, and generally the scientific studies have been pretty murky. Not that I think 'western scientific' approaches are the only standard we should use, but it's just a reminder to be thoughtful about how one engages in discussion around it. And at times you can sound like you're "shilling" for it so hard that, as you've seen, some people can find it off-putting. I knew psychiatrist Abram Hoffer personally, do you know him? He specialized in using megavitamins to treat mental disorders, and he was passionate about the successes he had. And I do believe that, for some people, they felt it really helped. But I met others who just shrugged that it hadn't helped at all. And the science, again, was murky.
I believe that "mental disorders" is itself a horribly murky term that is encompassing a vast range of experiences and issues--and so it's not only impossible, it's misleading to promote any one understanding or approach to 'solution' to the exclusion of others.
Our mental "healthcare" system isn't even designed to cure anyone, so it doesn't. King County (Seattle area) audited their mental health program in 2001, 2002, and maybe 2003. In 2002, 9,304 mentally ill DSHS clients were treated with the usual psych drugs. Of these, 5 recovered, ending in a recovery rate of .0005%. For emphasis, that's point zero zero zero 5%. (K.C. Ordinance #13974, Second Annual Report). Psychiatrists use statistics like this one to claim mental illness is incurable when, in reality, it's the synthetic psych drugs that are the problem. They're only designed to sort-of suppress symptoms, not cure anyone. Psychiatrists, doctors, drug ads on t.v. all work to make Americans believe the lie that mental illness is incurable and that the only viable treatments are the junk chemicals they push. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mental illnesses have been curable for 200 years with homeopathy. That's what cured my son of "incurable" "bipolar with psychosis" and another family member of "incurable" "schizophrenia." Neither has needed a psychiatrist or their miserable drugs in years. The APA and AMA colluded with the Carnegie Foundation in 1910 to create "The Flexner Report" which claimed homeopathy was some old, quaint, useless form of medicine. The government got on board which meant the APA and AMA were free to institute their type of medicine: patented, man-made drugs and surgeries that bring in the big profits. As I said, the US uses an approach that isn't designed to cure anyone, so it doesn't. In psychiatric cases, the police, jails and courts get involved. We don't cure anyone! We wait until someone commits a crime then throw them in jail. That's how stupid our country is. Sadly, the US has no law saying psychiatrists must even TRY to cure patients. The leaders of the APA (and AMA) are free to choose any approach they like, and what they like are profits. Meanwhile, homeopathy is the second most widely used system of medicine in the world, according to the World Health Org (WHO). — Linda, author of "Goodbye, Quacks - Hello, Homeopathy!"
I discuss those King County reports in my book -- they are indeed eye-opening, and it's telling that they stopped doing them entirely because they were so grim. And I agree that there's lots of evidence that people can move through "mental illnesses" and recover on their own terms.
That said, I haven't seen much evidence to suggest that homeopathy is the kind of cure-all you're suggesting. I imagine it can be an avenue for some people, as many alternative approaches can be when explored individually, but let's not unduly hype.
Maybe Texas needs to work on the wording of the statute, and I would agree that large facilities are a mistake. However, most homeless people are mentally ill, drug addicts, or both who refuse housing and /or treatment when it is offered. The only way to solve the problem is to force these people to get treatment. Being off the streets and getting treatment is good for them and, quite frankly, good for society.
The biggest and fastest growing homeless population is actually seniors being priced out of their homes.
And a common confusion arises, for example, in how the questions about drug use or mental illness are posed--often the rates for homeless populations (and prison populations, too) are presented in terms of what's called a "lifetime prevalence" rate, and then are compared to annual rates in the general population. But the latest research for the "lifetime prevalence" for mental disorders in the general population is 60-85%. And by those numbers, the rates of mental illness in homeless populations are actually lower.
Really, psychiaric diagnosis is unscientific, and the numbers are pretty bogus--and anyhow try living on the street and see how long you go without experiencing anxiety, depression, sleeplessness-induced psychosis, and a desire to take drugs. Studies of Housing First show you can safely and stably house 80-90% of even the "seriously mentally ill" easily--homelessness has relatively little to do with mental illness or drug use, and much more to do with poverty and lack of practical supports for getting out of it.
Thank you for writing this. I'm not an American so I'm not aware of a lot of what is going on there. Even if I did live Stateside and worked as a journalist or activist, I think the sheer weight of this venality would be crushing and shuffle me towards mysanthropic burnout.
However, I forward your articles and recommend your book to anyone with a pulse, so I hope, in a tiny way, that helps get the information out there.
I've only read your book and Substack articles. Do you write much for mainstream newspapers? I know they can be leery of articles criticizing medication because of where their advertising dollars come from. Does that kind of censorship extend to institutional and legal criticism?
Whatever the case, I hope you can disseminate your reporting to as many outlets as humanly possible. These are vital, crucial issues and so few people know about them, or care.
Thanks, Steve! You can see links to my articles on my website at robwipond.com But generally, no, I've created PsychForce Report because it is so difficult to get critical writing about psychiatric coercion into mainstream news media. I manage occasionally, but only rarely. Just look at this post as an example of what they are doing--it's hard to punch through all of those layers of beliefs and assumptions.
I think it’s time we face the mounting evidence as we also reflect on history. From Ancient Rome on, elite leaders have always used propaganda to make force and even genocide look like it’s for the good of humanity. Why would we think anything is different now?
Because we have democracy now? Didn’t they have democracy in Ancient Rome? For a while?
History doesn’t just repeat itself it never changes the theme nor the plot.
This is our world—a few control all the resources and so they must keep the many from rising and taking it—and it’s always been this way. The few are just really good at tricking the many into thinking this is the modern era, things are different, we have all evolved...
It does seem to have a lot of those elements in play. One thing that is a bit different, I think, is the opportunity for communication and learning and collective action that is available for ordinary people today compared to some previous eras/places. Although, at the same time, the information and issue overwhelm for us seems somewhat unprecedented, too.
Agreed. The transparency is different. Which makes me wonder…
Is that an accident they are trying to correct, will eventually correct? Or is it calculated like everything else they’ve done throughout history?
Maybe, as in the theatre world, it’s what we call a ‘happy accident’, an unplanned event that can work in our favor & actually moves our narrative along even better. Any way you slice it, it will still come up peanuts. Maybe social media and the World Wide Web isn’t the masses’ liberation from oppression but just a new system of control?
Or maybe it is the ticket to freedom? But I highly doubt the few will just let us go without a fight & they have historically proven to be quite ruthless and quite brutal.
I’m going to use this time of transparency to make a personal foundation—to know myself & become secure with myself— so if “the wall” of propaganda is the only thing allowed to be heard again and the authorities close in, even though I can’t say it out loud anymore—at least in my own mind I won’t believe it, like I did before.
*the new law “will save lives”* probably true, if by “save” you mean “destroy.” Which would be consistent with psychiatry’s “logic.”
*The state has laws on the books to lower the threshold for committing people … and improve community-based treatment options* – as soon as the threshold for committing people is lowered, community-based treatment options, which are less lucrative, pretty much go out the window.
*people who have gone through involuntary treatment, as well as those who work in it* – what a delightful concept: people who work in forced treatment. And they say we're the crazy ones.
*which even proponents of such tests recognize “diagnose” incorrectly many times more often than they “diagnose” correctly* – always assuming, as I never assume, that any diagnosis can possibly be correct, given that the “disorders” don’t actually exist.
*most mental disorder diagnoses and the psychiatric treatments for them, unlike most health diagnoses and treatments, are extremely unreliable and arguably remain unscientific* – “Arguably.” Harrumph.
*there’s no evidence forced treatment prevents crimes* – but I would guess that, if one was studying reality rather than propaganda, there would be plenty of evidence that it actually causes “crimes” – see below.
*simple crimes or misdemeanors related to homelessness or disruptiveness, like trespassing, drug use, disturbing the peace, traffic violations, shoplifting and so on* – none of which should be criminalized, especially when caused by the effects of incarceration, forced treatment, and everything that goes along with that kind of abuse.
Your comments make me think about how "mental health" and associated coercion operate within so many of these kinds of euphemisms and misleading grey areas of "languaging." e.g. even "community-based treatment", presented as an alternative to inpatient coercion, does sound like an alternative--but of course many of the actual community-based resources out there are in fact still very coercive.
I’m commenting on the part about forensic psych institutions. A few things are being mixed together. 1) competency to stand trial 2) the right to refuse drugging that psychs want to do to ‘restore competency’ and 3) the overall agenda to drug people as a response to crime. I won’t go into all the human rights that is violating right now but just say it’s interesting that the question of actually having a right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty has gone out the window.
Thank you, Tina, very good points! And thank you for reminding me that you have written on these issues before -- if/when I get around to reporting more on this issue, I will reach out about that.
Sometimes it's so painful and absurd that I just have to laugh--that was a laugh. I tried to clarify it pretty quickly, for anyone who wouldn't immediately know it couldn't be true.
I can probably prove this theory completely wrong i was first incarcerated at 21 then about 29 then 49 I went cold Turkey of the poison I was forced to endure then got more high risk tickets for working on construction sites as electrical spotter a pass rate is 100 percent no room for error and I am totally full of anxiety but just push on I have been assaulted twice by police one with a payout from the police coffers my lawyer didn't seem like he was interested in taking it further I wanted to hand em the keys to my house just to have the footage shown in court
It's hard to not be enthusiastic about a system of medicine that cured your son of "incurable" "bipolar with psychosis" and another relative of "incurable" "schizophrenia." Over the last 14 years, in my family alone, homeopathy has also cured food poisoning, skin rashes, itchy, red eyes, a sneezing problem, irritability, insomnia, made the pain from injured fingertips disappear in less than 60 seconds, and more. As I said, the World Health Org (WHO) says it's the second most widely used system of medicine in the world — because it cures people. Western medicine has never cured anyone of a mental illness.
I understand. And I'm glad it's been so helpful for you. But I know lots of people who've had no success with it for anything, and generally the scientific studies have been pretty murky. Not that I think 'western scientific' approaches are the only standard we should use, but it's just a reminder to be thoughtful about how one engages in discussion around it. And at times you can sound like you're "shilling" for it so hard that, as you've seen, some people can find it off-putting. I knew psychiatrist Abram Hoffer personally, do you know him? He specialized in using megavitamins to treat mental disorders, and he was passionate about the successes he had. And I do believe that, for some people, they felt it really helped. But I met others who just shrugged that it hadn't helped at all. And the science, again, was murky.
I believe that "mental disorders" is itself a horribly murky term that is encompassing a vast range of experiences and issues--and so it's not only impossible, it's misleading to promote any one understanding or approach to 'solution' to the exclusion of others.
Our mental "healthcare" system isn't even designed to cure anyone, so it doesn't. King County (Seattle area) audited their mental health program in 2001, 2002, and maybe 2003. In 2002, 9,304 mentally ill DSHS clients were treated with the usual psych drugs. Of these, 5 recovered, ending in a recovery rate of .0005%. For emphasis, that's point zero zero zero 5%. (K.C. Ordinance #13974, Second Annual Report). Psychiatrists use statistics like this one to claim mental illness is incurable when, in reality, it's the synthetic psych drugs that are the problem. They're only designed to sort-of suppress symptoms, not cure anyone. Psychiatrists, doctors, drug ads on t.v. all work to make Americans believe the lie that mental illness is incurable and that the only viable treatments are the junk chemicals they push. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mental illnesses have been curable for 200 years with homeopathy. That's what cured my son of "incurable" "bipolar with psychosis" and another family member of "incurable" "schizophrenia." Neither has needed a psychiatrist or their miserable drugs in years. The APA and AMA colluded with the Carnegie Foundation in 1910 to create "The Flexner Report" which claimed homeopathy was some old, quaint, useless form of medicine. The government got on board which meant the APA and AMA were free to institute their type of medicine: patented, man-made drugs and surgeries that bring in the big profits. As I said, the US uses an approach that isn't designed to cure anyone, so it doesn't. In psychiatric cases, the police, jails and courts get involved. We don't cure anyone! We wait until someone commits a crime then throw them in jail. That's how stupid our country is. Sadly, the US has no law saying psychiatrists must even TRY to cure patients. The leaders of the APA (and AMA) are free to choose any approach they like, and what they like are profits. Meanwhile, homeopathy is the second most widely used system of medicine in the world, according to the World Health Org (WHO). — Linda, author of "Goodbye, Quacks - Hello, Homeopathy!"
I discuss those King County reports in my book -- they are indeed eye-opening, and it's telling that they stopped doing them entirely because they were so grim. And I agree that there's lots of evidence that people can move through "mental illnesses" and recover on their own terms.
That said, I haven't seen much evidence to suggest that homeopathy is the kind of cure-all you're suggesting. I imagine it can be an avenue for some people, as many alternative approaches can be when explored individually, but let's not unduly hype.
Maybe Texas needs to work on the wording of the statute, and I would agree that large facilities are a mistake. However, most homeless people are mentally ill, drug addicts, or both who refuse housing and /or treatment when it is offered. The only way to solve the problem is to force these people to get treatment. Being off the streets and getting treatment is good for them and, quite frankly, good for society.
.maybe you should volunteer yourself to a psychiatric ward you would definitely not recommend anyone go there for help
I suggest you do independent research into the data. Here's an article I wrote on this topic specifically, that has some links.
https://robwipond.substack.com/p/the-fastest-growing-homeless-population
The biggest and fastest growing homeless population is actually seniors being priced out of their homes.
And a common confusion arises, for example, in how the questions about drug use or mental illness are posed--often the rates for homeless populations (and prison populations, too) are presented in terms of what's called a "lifetime prevalence" rate, and then are compared to annual rates in the general population. But the latest research for the "lifetime prevalence" for mental disorders in the general population is 60-85%. And by those numbers, the rates of mental illness in homeless populations are actually lower.
Really, psychiaric diagnosis is unscientific, and the numbers are pretty bogus--and anyhow try living on the street and see how long you go without experiencing anxiety, depression, sleeplessness-induced psychosis, and a desire to take drugs. Studies of Housing First show you can safely and stably house 80-90% of even the "seriously mentally ill" easily--homelessness has relatively little to do with mental illness or drug use, and much more to do with poverty and lack of practical supports for getting out of it.
Thank you for writing this. I'm not an American so I'm not aware of a lot of what is going on there. Even if I did live Stateside and worked as a journalist or activist, I think the sheer weight of this venality would be crushing and shuffle me towards mysanthropic burnout.
However, I forward your articles and recommend your book to anyone with a pulse, so I hope, in a tiny way, that helps get the information out there.
I've only read your book and Substack articles. Do you write much for mainstream newspapers? I know they can be leery of articles criticizing medication because of where their advertising dollars come from. Does that kind of censorship extend to institutional and legal criticism?
Whatever the case, I hope you can disseminate your reporting to as many outlets as humanly possible. These are vital, crucial issues and so few people know about them, or care.
Thanks, Steve! You can see links to my articles on my website at robwipond.com But generally, no, I've created PsychForce Report because it is so difficult to get critical writing about psychiatric coercion into mainstream news media. I manage occasionally, but only rarely. Just look at this post as an example of what they are doing--it's hard to punch through all of those layers of beliefs and assumptions.
I think it’s time we face the mounting evidence as we also reflect on history. From Ancient Rome on, elite leaders have always used propaganda to make force and even genocide look like it’s for the good of humanity. Why would we think anything is different now?
Because we have democracy now? Didn’t they have democracy in Ancient Rome? For a while?
History doesn’t just repeat itself it never changes the theme nor the plot.
This is our world—a few control all the resources and so they must keep the many from rising and taking it—and it’s always been this way. The few are just really good at tricking the many into thinking this is the modern era, things are different, we have all evolved...
It does seem to have a lot of those elements in play. One thing that is a bit different, I think, is the opportunity for communication and learning and collective action that is available for ordinary people today compared to some previous eras/places. Although, at the same time, the information and issue overwhelm for us seems somewhat unprecedented, too.
To me they seem more like legal morgues
Agreed. The transparency is different. Which makes me wonder…
Is that an accident they are trying to correct, will eventually correct? Or is it calculated like everything else they’ve done throughout history?
Maybe, as in the theatre world, it’s what we call a ‘happy accident’, an unplanned event that can work in our favor & actually moves our narrative along even better. Any way you slice it, it will still come up peanuts. Maybe social media and the World Wide Web isn’t the masses’ liberation from oppression but just a new system of control?
Or maybe it is the ticket to freedom? But I highly doubt the few will just let us go without a fight & they have historically proven to be quite ruthless and quite brutal.
I’m going to use this time of transparency to make a personal foundation—to know myself & become secure with myself— so if “the wall” of propaganda is the only thing allowed to be heard again and the authorities close in, even though I can’t say it out loud anymore—at least in my own mind I won’t believe it, like I did before.
Several things:
*the new law “will save lives”* probably true, if by “save” you mean “destroy.” Which would be consistent with psychiatry’s “logic.”
*The state has laws on the books to lower the threshold for committing people … and improve community-based treatment options* – as soon as the threshold for committing people is lowered, community-based treatment options, which are less lucrative, pretty much go out the window.
*people who have gone through involuntary treatment, as well as those who work in it* – what a delightful concept: people who work in forced treatment. And they say we're the crazy ones.
*which even proponents of such tests recognize “diagnose” incorrectly many times more often than they “diagnose” correctly* – always assuming, as I never assume, that any diagnosis can possibly be correct, given that the “disorders” don’t actually exist.
*most mental disorder diagnoses and the psychiatric treatments for them, unlike most health diagnoses and treatments, are extremely unreliable and arguably remain unscientific* – “Arguably.” Harrumph.
*there’s no evidence forced treatment prevents crimes* – but I would guess that, if one was studying reality rather than propaganda, there would be plenty of evidence that it actually causes “crimes” – see below.
*simple crimes or misdemeanors related to homelessness or disruptiveness, like trespassing, drug use, disturbing the peace, traffic violations, shoplifting and so on* – none of which should be criminalized, especially when caused by the effects of incarceration, forced treatment, and everything that goes along with that kind of abuse.
Your comments make me think about how "mental health" and associated coercion operate within so many of these kinds of euphemisms and misleading grey areas of "languaging." e.g. even "community-based treatment", presented as an alternative to inpatient coercion, does sound like an alternative--but of course many of the actual community-based resources out there are in fact still very coercive.
yup.
I’m commenting on the part about forensic psych institutions. A few things are being mixed together. 1) competency to stand trial 2) the right to refuse drugging that psychs want to do to ‘restore competency’ and 3) the overall agenda to drug people as a response to crime. I won’t go into all the human rights that is violating right now but just say it’s interesting that the question of actually having a right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty has gone out the window.
This is definitely the case and some
Thank you, Tina, very good points! And thank you for reminding me that you have written on these issues before -- if/when I get around to reporting more on this issue, I will reach out about that.
Why did you name the article Texas finally has a involuntary commitment law? Don’t we already have enough deception?
Sometimes it's so painful and absurd that I just have to laugh--that was a laugh. I tried to clarify it pretty quickly, for anyone who wouldn't immediately know it couldn't be true.