Diagnosing Normality

Any thoughts?

It's interesting to hear there are increasing numbers of adults and children with psychiatric conditions. Isn't it more likely that it's the diagnosis that is flimsy and poor rather than psychiatric conditions increasing? Although i'm entering into the psychiatric profession (that's now more like a business if you ask me) I'm concerned for young children being put on neuroleptics and atypical antipsychotics as a first or second resort. People have seem to forgotten that many mental conditions are just as environmental as biological, if not even more so, and especially in regards to children.

I admit there are some serious cases, things like early onset schizophrenia or psychosis that, well, probably won't be controllable by some simple therapy once or twice a week. And I also admit that for some people medication is their saving grace. I completely respect that. I do not respect psychiatrists and physicians who simply toss a prescription anyone's way without taking into consideration their patient's daily life stressors or environment. I don't respect researchers who allow themselves to be bribed into releasing false findings into psychiatric journals for personal gain and for the gain of the Psycho-pharmaceutical industry. Any one agree? Disagree?

Their is very little of the MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY that is worthwhile, parents should be very careful about destroying their child's life by trusting the mental health industry...

I agree. If anything, they should inform themselves. The only problem is, not many parents know what to trust and what not to trust and how could they? So many articles that promote the industry are completely biased.

As a person who has seen psychiatry first hand I have no doubt psychiatry is legalized child abuse. A psychiatrist can diagnose just about anything in any child and invoke what ever behavior needed to get the desired outcome during diagnosis. Psychiatrists are geared toward seeing child behaviors, many normal, as a manifestation of illness. Illnesses which can have life changing outcomes entirely based on relative observation.


Psychotropic are usually a first choice in children. Rarely is anything else brought into question. As long as medication is being used psychiatrist believe some type of solution is being offered to a problem that may not even exist. Living in an era where we produce so few prodigies I have no doubt psychiatry has aided in this.

I fully agree with you, psychiatry is a business designed to capitalize where it can. Treatment is not about recovery but managing the snowballing iatrogenic symptoms it creates. Some kids do need support, but seeing it first hand the real outcome is very different then the mission statement. Note to buyer, psychiatry is not as advertised.

It's rather disgusting when they think they're actually helping those children. No one knows the effects it's going to have on them in adulthood. I remember learning of a case study where a child who was only six years old was diagnosed as Bipolar (can't recall what type, it's been a while) and put on two separate medications. The side effects caused him to continuously repeat the same phrases over and over again, phrases that were generally nonsensical. His parents were aware the medications weren't right for him but they were sure the psychiatrist knew what he was doing.

I think it's essential for consumers of psychiatry or any psychological/medical services to question their doctors. After all, doctors are only human, not Gods like some of them seem to think, and it's us who have to put them in their place sometimes. We could probably go on for ages about how the APA is in bed with insurance companies and insurance companies are in bed with the pharmaceutical companies and so on, but what good would that do? Awareness is key, awareness for the public more than anything. I see so many members of NAMI and places alike spreading the word of "listen to your pdoc! He knows how to help!". I'm not saying anything's wrong with that, but I do think putting your entire life in the hands of someone else is too risky not to get involved and stay involved in your own treatment.

I'm apart of this industry specifically to combat those who make it into a cheap business and to help those who have been wronged by it. I know i'm only one individual, but if I could help save just one person from themselves and do so ethically, my life will have been well lived and so will theirs.

Alucard wrote:It's rather disgusting when they think they're actually helping those children. No one knows the effects it's going to have on them in adulthood.

I have a good theory, but its not a nice one. When psychotropics are introduced to a child without a chemical imbalance they will actually create one imo. I have no doubt about that, especially considering how many diagnosed with metal illness in childhood latter turn to drugs.


I had an older uncle who had 2 boys. Basically his first child was labelled as 'hyper active' in elementary school so they took him to a psychiatrist who immediately diagnosed ADHD. There was absolutely no history of mental illness on both sides of the family and absolutely no abnormal behavior witnessed at home but he was given a psychotropic anyway. They believed the school as well as the psychiatrist having no reason to doubt them as professionals. The medication seemed to make the school happy so he continued taking it. As time progressed they decided to take him off of it but he had trouble quitting (withdrawal) and was given others instead that would supposedly fit better. At that time their second child was also labelled as ADHD by the school and recommended medication. Knowing more this time around they decided not to. School wasn't happy but they decided to rather let it be as is considering he was doing ok at home and with friends. Only his teachers were unhappy. His behavior was no different than his younger brother up until taking psychotropics.

At age 13 he decided to stop taking them, possibly from the side effects that were popping up. At age 15 his parents discovered he was getting drunk frequently. They of course gave him hell thinking he was just hanging around the wrong group of kids. Time progressed and it did not pass. As he got older in high school he turned to drugs. They did everything they could to have him stop but it was turning into fights and hiding his use. He told them it felt good could not stop. When they brought him to a counselor he claimed that he could only think straight when he was high, and it was partly true in that he was a lot calmer and talked more.

Their older son had a phase where he experimented with marijuana and had would drink at parties, but that was it. Looking at him it was clear their youngest was becoming addicted. After high school their oldest son outgrew his ways but not their youngest. Their youngest became addicted turning to prescription pills and street drugs when he could not find any.

While their oldest son was an average well adjusted individual, at age 32 their youngest son Gregory passed away from heroin overdose. Both boys started out normal.

Psychiatry would call this untreated mental illness, I would call this iatrogenic addition triggered from a Childs brain adapting itself for years on end around a toxic drug. When the drug is removed it like pulling the legs off a standing table.

I remember learning of a case study where a child who was only six years old was diagnosed as Bipolar (can't recall what type, it's been a while) and put on two separate medications. The side effects caused him to continuously repeat the same phrases over and over again, phrases that were generally nonsensical. His parents were aware the medications weren't right for him but they were sure the psychiatrist knew what he was doing.

Ticks, lip smacking, tremors, along with a host of physical and behavriohl side effects accompany these drugs. Psychiatrists insist this is better than what supposedly the medication is managing.

I think it's essential for consumers of psychiatry or any psychological/medical services to question their doctors. After all, doctors are only human, not Gods like some of them seem to think, and it's us who have to put them in their place sometimes. We could probably go on for ages about how the APA is in bed with insurance companies and insurance companies are in bed with the pharmaceutical companies and so on, but what good would that do? Awareness is key, awareness for the public more than anything. I see so many members of NAMI and places alike spreading the word of "listen to your pdoc! He knows how to help!". I'm not saying anything's wrong with that, but I do think putting your entire life in the hands of someone else is too risky not to get involved and stay involved in your own treatment.

I agree 100%.


In truth psychiatrists are being taught nothing more than a psedo science with zero evidence to back anything up. You can show x-rays of a broken bone, but there is absolutely nothing and I mean nothing to validate inorganic mental illness. Everything is based around relative observation influenced by the examiner's own beliefs. Not even the criminal justice system works this way.

Mistakes are not likely, they are inevitable along with the corruption that follows.


Knowledge is key in this case.

I'm apart of this industry specifically to combat those who make it into a cheap business and to help those who have been wronged by it. I know i'm only one individual, but if I could help save just one person from themselves and do so ethically, my life will have been well lived and so will theirs.

There are many individuals who feel the same way, even professionals. People are waking up and those who have been harmed by the system are no longer keeping their silence. I applaud you for speaking up.

The whole psychiatric industry is a fraud. I've seen not one shred of evidence it is anything but. I've heard a couple of people claim there are people who do benefit but where are they because of the 100's I met personally none anything but declined. I expect it is a myth that there are people who benefit created by the drug companies.

The analogy I would use is it's like the dieting industry. The dieting industry claim that starvation is good. There is ample evidence showing that people who starve themselves always put more weight back on (not to mention that people in Africa die of starvation, it's pretty obvious starvation is not good for the body):

[1- "95% of dieters regain all the weight back within 5 years"]
[2- "Eight studies reported the percentage of participents who weighed more at follow-up averaged 41% ranging from 29% to 64%.” A few pages later: “One third to two thirds of participants on diets weigh more four to five years after the diet than they did before the diet. This conclusion comes from studies that are biased toward showing weight loss, the true number may be significantly higher.”]

That makes it 100% fraud. They are perpetuating the myth that weight loss via starvation is good, when it's impossible for starvation to be good, whilst profiting. People keep trying to get good results and failing, meanwhile the diet industry keeps profiting, atm.

The drug psychiatric industry perpetuates the myth that stopping thoughts via brain damaging is good, when it's impossible for brain damaging to be good, whilst profiting. People keep trying to get good results and failing, meanwhile the drug psychiatric industry keeps profiting, atm.

The other important misleading to know about is as Ben Goldacre describes in this video "what doctors don't know about the drugs they prescribe":
https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=FLYSUQ ... KmxL8VYy0M

Alucard wrote:Any thoughts?

It's interesting to hear there are increasing numbers of adults and children with psychiatric conditions. Isn't it more likely that it's the diagnosis that is flimsy and poor rather than psychiatric conditions increasing? Although i'm entering into the psychiatric profession (that's now more like a business if you ask me) I'm concerned for young children being put on neuroleptics and atypical antipsychotics as a first or second resort. People have seem to forgotten that many mental conditions are just as environmental as biological, if not even more so, and especially in regards to children.

Not every illness is severe, I guess the same can be applied to psychiatric illness. Technically even acne is illness.

Alucard wrote:Any thoughts?

In the context of diagnosing normality, there is an inherent prejudicism in favor of normality. My thought would be that this paradigm needs to be reconsidered. Ironically, I just spoke to my T about this less than an hour ago. The example I used was this:

It is normal to have a hammer and set of screwdrivers. As a result, the world and it's systems are geared toward the hammer and screwdriver wielding group. While there is no doubt some very important things one can do with a hammer and screwdriver, there comes a time when only a saw will do. As a person who has learned to compensate for a life without a hammer or screwdriver, I actually have more skills than the 'normies'. Toss in the fact that I have a saw - and heck, why would I want to be normal?

I could care less whether my lawn is mowed or not - but in my neighborhood, they seem to think such things are important, so I mow my lawn. The boss thinks that it's important that I show up on time, even if I stay late whenever he asks, so I show up on time even though it doesn't much matter to me. I'm friendly and kind to my neighbors, not because I necessarily like them, but because we have to live in this neighborhood and it's easier to get along. But if an invading army drops into this neighborhood - you're going to be so glad that I live in your neighborhood, even if you have to close your eyes to the carnage.

To use a reference from pop culture...consider the X-men series of comics and movies. They're mutants - definitely not normal. Yet some use it their powers for the benefit of all people, and some use their powers selfishly and for their own gain. It's not the mutation that's 'bad', it's what the individual does with it.

There is also the not insignificant matter of definition, of everything that is decided in the mental illness world, as it is in every other aspect of human life.

When you discover, as I have recently, that those who are given the task of defining "X" are essentially complying with what they believe is the "right thing" for any given aspect of every subject and that swirling around in these people's minds are the views, beliefs, attitudes and positions of their predecessors, past and current subject experts and also, the collective belief that has gradually been arrived at by other people.
This, in simple terms, is compliance on a massive scale, to the perceived expert in any subject, whether that expert be a single person, a group, a company, a geographical region or even a whole country.

While some things clearly are not opinion because they are pure & testable facts, a lot of other things are and thus, definitions of many things in human life boil down to opinions.

The mental illness field is not exempt from this dynamic and so when it defines the word "normal", it does so from the opinion framework that has been arrived at by others in the field, rather than in any other way.

I am not in this field and so perhaps the following has no scientific basis, but it seems to me that there is huge variance in many aspects of human beings and so what is normal for one person is not for another. For example, we all eat but we don't all eat the same thing. Same with choices of clothes, cars, careers, social things, etc.

So, why are all humans given the same "normality" base from which they are assessed and diagnosed?