How can this be explained to people

Chrysaor686 wrote:Those who know don't talk, and those who talk don't know, as truth is treason in the empire of lies. Our environment is so divisive that any attempt to spread your truth alone is met with contempt and condescension (even hatred), but if psychiatry let a single conspiracy slip through, society as we know it would crumble. They cannot afford to have people endanger society or others around them, even if they have to chemically lobotomize people to do so.

Thankfully, most forms of population control only apply to the selfish. This is why persecutory ideas can be labeled as delusional; if 'the government' is slowly killing you, or subtly controlling your mind, or what have you, it is almost always your own fault, to some degree. Retain a state of 'mania' through selflessness and connections of knowledge and you can readily and easily detect any sort of danger or threat to your well-being through sublime awareness.

If you are sectioned, and you prove yourself to be collected, calm, and non-threatening, you will be let go. Usually. They just need proof that you can handle yourself civilly given your heightened mental and physical state, even in the face of unjust imprisonment.

I think the reasons for forced hospitalisation vary from place to place in the West. I think in some places it's common to section someone if they can't sleep well or eat well due to delusions, especially if they then refuse medication. Theoretically, you could lie about such personal problems and stay out of mental wards, but that's not always as simple as you'd think.

Re your second paragraph. If our governments can't organise a process of drug approval that makes sense and guarantees a certain level of efficacy of approved drugs, then what can we expect them to get right? Not much, I'm afraid. Currently, the FDA approves a drug if two trials indicate (some amount of) efficacy. Doesn't matter how many trials you submit. The result of that procedure is that you can get anything approved if you persist in testing the drug until you get two happy flukes, as you are bound to, due to statistical variance.

mctps wrote:If our governments can't organise a process of drug approval that makes sense and guarantees a certain level of efficacy of approved drugs, then what can we expect them to get right? Not much, I'm afraid. Currently, the FDA approves a drug if two trials indicate (some amount of) efficacy. Doesn't matter how many trials you submit. The result of that procedure is that you can get anything approved if you persist in testing the drug until you get two happy flukes, as you are bound to, due to statistical variance.

The current process:


1.Patent a dangerous chemical as a "treatment" for a psychiatric "disease".

2. Invent fictitious trial results that prove the drug is effective in treating your new psychiatric "disease".

3. Bribe FDA officials into approving the drug as safe for everyone! (Even if it kills people.)

4. Submit to the American Psychiatric Association for inclusion in their DSM-IV (the standard reference guide of psychiatric disorders).

5. Create an emotional TV ad that shows unhappy, confused people being transformed into perfect beings after they take your drug.

6. Issue press releases to mainstream media outlets who will run your propaganda as news with zero skepticism.

7. Bribe doctors with vacations, extravagant meals and "consulting fees" in order to get them to prescribe your drug to as many patients as possible.

8. Buy off politicians and legislators to block alternative medicine and enforce a pharmaceutical monopoly.

9. Sit back and rake in the bucks while Americans go broke buying your drug to treat your new psychiatric "disease"!

10. When the lawsuits roll in from the families of sick and dead patients, simply use a small portion of your windfall profits to settle out of court, admitting no guilt.


Check out http://dsm5sucks.com/

The 10 steps are absolutely right, it's just getting people to understand that's what goes on - people are reluctant to believe it still does or to question everything they thought they knew about psychiatry. My anti-psych views are not responded to well on other forums- but I don't mind at least I know the truth.

Well, a lot of trials submitted to the FDA show zero efficacy beyond placebo, and some show worse treatment response than the placebo, even when we're analysing trials of an already approved antidepressant or whatever. So it appears not to be so much fraud as it is publication bias which the rotten system pretty much guarantees will take place.

So, the FDA and similar gate keepers, as well as the peer review process are all to blame, first of all.

Maybe if the system weren't so easy to game, we would be seeing more of the kind of serious fraud you think exists in great amounts.

Another huge problem though is inert placebo pills, as some studies appear to show that patients respond better to pills with side effects than those without. Using the latter seems to inflate the apparent efficacy of the drug being tested, because if you can tell which is which, the trials are no longer "blind".

mctps wrote:
Maybe if the system weren't so easy to game, we would be seeing more of the kind of serious fraud you think exists in great amounts.

Abilify for cocaine dependency... That has to be one of the worst I have seen lately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aripiprazo ... dependency

They will sell this Abilify crap for anything to anyone no matter how dangerous it is.

When people end up dead cause they mixed Abilify with cocaine ....

Copy_Cat wrote:10. When the lawsuits roll in from the families of sick and dead patients, simply use a small portion of your windfall profits to settle out of court, admitting no guilt.