Justina Pelletier

[psychsurvivor 2]

I can't help but to compare psychsurvivor to a guy who bought a Lincoln in 1992 and had problems with it and has spent the rest of his life saying that he'll never own another Lincoln. Not only that, but he's trying to convince everyone else that all Lincolns are bad and should not be owned. Definitely a case of a guy with an agenda based on a personal bad experience. To dismiss the entire psychiatrist field as scammers, evil, greedy, etc is showing signs that he's not totally cured.

Excuse me, cured of what? Of some made up disease by MD degree holders that voted in "OCD" as a disease. As I said, 40 % of the voting APA members that participated in the 1974 referendum on the status of homosexuality should be appalled that these people, gays, not only were never "cured" of their disease but that they managed to impose their disease on the public sphere. Outrage!

 

As I said, the burden of proof lies on you to explain to me what part of my body is diseased. Where is the blood test, MRI or autopsy that explains that my brain is diseased. For genuine diseases, like CJD or Alzheimer's, you can see them in autopsies. Not so much for any of the DSM labels. I say yes, ANY. And the reason is simple. While in the past the DSM had genuine brain diseases (like Alzheimer's), as soon as these were shown to be such, they became the domain of neurology, not psychiatry. Psychiatry is by definition the labeling of behavior that the APA bigots think it is inappropriate.

 

And it also works with the dual purpose of "normalizing behavior" that is traditionally rejected. In 40 years, the APA has gone from calling homosexuality a disease to endorsing gay marriage. Gay activists use the exclusion of homosexuality of the DSM as "proof" that they are "normal". It was neither acceptable to call homosexuality a disease nor to impose it as "normal" because the APA thinks it is. It is an alternative lifestyle not shared by 95% of humans and that's OK. It is neither a disease nor something "normal". It is, that people are sexually attracted to people of their same sex. Period.

 

And there are some of us whose level of tolerance for HIV transmission risk is lower than the average person. Period.

 

And there are some other people who hear voices. Period.

 

None of that is a disease just because MD degree holders call it so. For something to be scientific we expect hypothesis tested in falsifiable experiments, none of which exist in psychiatry.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

I never said that long posts make me smart. I am saying my own credentials and the type of work that I do for a living is what prove that I am smart (I plan to out myself at some point in the next 10-20 years to work exclusively in anti psychiatry). If I don't die earlier because of some unfortunate event, you'll understand then what I mean.

 

As to the "long posts", well, if you find something that you would like to refute in the analogy with computers, let me know and I'll be happy to engage in a discussion with you on the topic.

 

I stand by what I said, those who believe that DSM labels are genuine diseases are bigots and I have explained cogently why. The burden of proof lies on you to tell me what is "diseased" in the case of somebody like Eleanor Longden or yours truly. You might not understand the way our minds operate, which is fine, but to call them "disordered" is an exercise of bigotry.

You never responded to my post re: your use of the term "bigotry".

 

Actually you've stopped responding to my posts altogether. Seems you don't like it when people point out the extreme absurdity of your arguments.

[NewbieJr 541]

Excuse me, cured of what? Of some made up disease by MD degree holders that voted in "OCD" as a disease. As I said, 40 % of the voting APA members that participated in the 1974 referendum on the status of homosexuality should be appalled that these people, gays, not only were never "cured" of their disease but that they managed to impose their disease on the public sphere. Outrage!

 

As I said, the burden of proof lies on you to explain to me what part of my body is diseased. Where is the blood test, MRI or autopsy that explains that my brain is diseased. For genuine diseases, like CJD or Alzheimer's, you can see them in autopsies. Not so much for any of the DSM labels. I say yes, ANY. And the reason is simple. While in the past the DSM had genuine brain diseases (like Alzheimer's), as soon as these were shown to be such, they became the domain of neurology, not psychiatry. Psychiatry is by definition the labeling of behavior that the APA bigots think it is inappropriate.

 

And it also works with the dual purpose of "normalizing behavior" that is traditionally rejected. In 40 years, the APA has gone from calling homosexuality a disease to endorsing gay marriage. Gay activists use the exclusion of homosexuality of the DSM as "proof" that they are "normal". It was neither acceptable to call homosexuality a disease nor to impose it as "normal" because the APA thinks it is. It is an alternative lifestyle not shared by 95% of humans and that's OK. It is neither a disease nor something "normal". It is, that people are sexually attracted to people of their same sex. Period.

 

And there are some of us whose level of tolerance for HIV transmission risk is lower than the average person. Period.

 

And there are some other people who hear voices. Period.

 

None of that is a disease just because MD degree holders call it so. For something to be scientific we expect hypothesis tested in falsifiable experiments, none of which exist in psychiatry.

I'm just saying you're very bitter and obviously have an axe to grind and are making broad brush statements about an entire profession because you personally had a bad experience. That doesn't sound like 100% mental stability.

[psychsurvivor 2]

I'm just saying you're very bitter and obviously have an axe to grind and are making broad brush statements about an entire profession because you personally had a bad experience. That doesn't sound like 100% mental stability.

I see. I think that it wouldn't take me much to find people who were sexually abused and in the aftermath were thankful for it. Does this mean that those who felt that were sexually abused do not have a right to complain about it and that just complaining makes them "mentally unstable"?

 

This could go on with slavery (many slaves were thankful to be taken care of, full room and board for life without worries!), Jim Craw laws, etc. The dissenters were always called names, like you are doing with me here.

 

I understand. Humans have an uncanny ability to rationalize massive abuses of civil liberties. This has been the case throughout history and this time and age is no different.

 

Take this Justina situation. The lengths to which many of you are going to justify the abuse says more about yourselves, and your own worldviews, than the abuse itself. I can point to many occasions in which widespread abuse of civil liberties was common with people like you providing similar rationalizations for the abuse. Take for instance Colorado. How many people were jailed before legalization of marihuana happened there for doing things that are legal now? Were those complaining that they were jailed during the regime that marihuana was illegal also "mentally unstable"?

 

In any case, good to know that all bigoted minds seem to work the same way: by blaming the victim!

[psychsurvivor 2]

You never responded to my post re: your use of the term "bigotry".

Actually you've stopped responding to my posts altogether. Seems you don't like it when people point out the extreme absurdity of your arguments.

I think I have made it perfectly clear why I used the word bigot. If you want to get into a "semantics" discussion (which only shows that you lost the debate), here it is,

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

 

" a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance "

 

Isn't that what the APA does with its "disorders"? They dislike them so much that they consider them diseases. They are so intolerant about them that they are in a crusade to "cure" them.

 

You cannot make this stuff up even if you tried. See how it went their crusade to "cure" gays .

[NewbieJr 541]

I see. I think that it wouldn't take me much to find people who were sexually abused and in the aftermath were thankful for it. Does this mean that those who felt that were sexually abused do not have a right to complain about it and that just complaining makes them "mentally stable".

 

 

No, but if they were abused by an uncle and then went on a lifelong crusade to claim that all uncles are child molesters, then there may be a case that their experience may have brought on some mental unstableness.

[psychsurvivor 2]

No, but if they were abused by an uncle and then went on a lifelong crusade to claim that all uncles are child molesters, then there may be a case that their experience may have brought on some mental unstableness.

No, but if you were on a crusade to say that all uncles that have sex with their nephews, nieces have to be suspect of being evil, that's a different matter. There are very few psychiatrists today innocent of the crime of "raping brains with psychotropic drugs".

 

In some Southern states, at least so the folklore says, incest of the kind you defend is socially accepted. Just as in some Muslim countries, nobody sees any wrong with a 30 year old man marrying a 6 year old girl. We in the West have different standards and I have a different standard about what people should know before letting their brains being chemically raped. If after knowing that psychiatry is a pseudoscience that has no objective, scientific tests for any of their invented diseases and that the most likely active mechanism for these drugs is the placebo effect people still want to take the drugs, I have no problem with it. How many psychiatrists do you know that tell their victims these things which BTW are well known within the profession itself?

[Sho Nuff 720]

Well Im glad he brought his "smarts" to a low rent ff message board to get the word out to the masses (by which I mean the 10 people who post here).

[NewbieJr 541]

No, but if you were on a crusade to say that all uncles that have sex with their nephews, nieces have to be suspect of being evil, that's a different matter. There are very few psychiatrists today innocent of the crime of "raping brains with psychotropic drugs".

 

In some Southern states, at least so the folklore says, incest of the kind you defend is socially accepted.

Wait, what? Ok, you are officially a whack job. The doctors were right.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Well Im glad he brought his "smarts" to a low rent ff message board to get the word out to the masses (by which I mean the 10 people who post here).

Well, do you disagree with my characterization of DSM labels as "bigoted"? And if you do, why? Note that DSM labels can be imposed by the force of government, which adds credence to the notion that these labels are indeed a reflection of the bigotry of those who vote them in.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Well, do you disagree with my characterization of DSM labels as "bigoted"? And if you do, why? Note that DSM labels can be imposed by the force of government, which adds credence to the notion that these labels are indeed a reflection of the bigotry of those who vote them in.

 

I have not particularly done enough research to conclude.

I would disagree that anything is 100% purely bigoted nor do I think anything Pen has stated is a bigoted stance.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Wait, what? Ok, you are officially a whack job. The doctors were right.

 

Sorry to break it for you, but insulting and name calling is not arguing. If you have valid reasons why people seeing psychiatrists should NOT be told that,

 

- The DSM labels lack scientific validity (per Tom Insel and David Kupfer's own statements last year).

 

- That the most rigorous studies done on SSRIs show that they are placebos.

 

- That the "chemical imbalance" was an urban legend http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blogs/couch-crisis/psychiatry-new-brain-mind-and-legend-chemical-imbalance "In truth, the “chemical imbalance” notion was always a kind of urban legend- - never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists"

 

Please let me know what those reasons are. I don't accept the paternalistic explanation for the simple reason that paternalism is not accepted in medicine. Before somebody accepts to have chemotherapy, he/she is given full information to make an informed decision.

[psychsurvivor 2]

I have not particularly done enough research to conclude.

I would disagree that anything is 100% purely bigoted nor do I think anything Pen has stated is a bigoted stance.

Since I am very sure of my stance, I encourage you to read on the topic. A few links that come from the leaders of mainstream psychiatry,

 

- http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml

 

- http://www.npr.org/2013/05/31/187534467/bad-diagnosis-for-new-psychiatry-bible

 

- http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blogs/couch-crisis/psychiatry-new-brain-mind-and-legend-chemical-imbalance

 

I don't even have to point to "anti psychiatry" blogs. The above is as "mainstream" as it comes!

[Googballz 39]

Sorry to break it for you, but insulting and name calling is not arguing

You are new here so let me clue you in: It's all he has. He has the mental capacity of a pre-pubescent girl.

 

HTH

[Sho Nuff 720]

Since I am very sure of my stance, I encourage you to read on the topic. A few links that come from the leaders of mainstream psychiatry,

 

- http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml

 

- http://www.npr.org/2013/05/31/187534467/bad-diagnosis-for-new-psychiatry-bible

 

- http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blogs/couch-crisis/psychiatry-new-brain-mind-and-legend-chemical-imbalance

 

I don't even have to point to "anti psychiatry" blogs. The above is as "mainstream" as it comes!

 

I know you are very sure of your stance...to the point that you have spoken with intolerance and hatred to any who would disagree with you. You know, the very definition of bigoted.

I may read those when I have a chance...there is a ton out there on both sides of the issue..with the liklihood that there are truths on both sides of this. You, however, will only see the one side as ever being true because of your own personal experience. (at least that is what it appears based on the limited interaction here).

Id guess your time would be better spent really out there supporting your opinions and working towards what you want than arguing it with others on a lightly trafficked fantasy football message board while proclaiming to everyone how smart you are.

[drobeski 3,061]

Wow the nanny state loving freakos took a beating in this one, it would do the world a good if you crazy focks were locked up: )

[NewbieJr 541]

Sorry to break it for you, but insulting and name calling is not arguing. If you have valid reasons why people seeing psychiatrists should NOT be told that,

 

- The DSM labels lack scientific validity (per Tom Insel and David Kupfer's own statements last year).

 

- That the most rigorous studies done on SSRIs show that they are placebos.

 

- That the "chemical imbalance" was an urban legend http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blogs/couch-crisis/psychiatry-new-brain-mind-and-legend-chemical-imbalance "In truth, the “chemical imbalance” notion was always a kind of urban legend- - never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists"

 

Please let me know what those reasons are. I don't accept the paternalistic explanation for the simple reason that paternalism is not accepted in medicine. Before somebody accepts to have chemotherapy, he/she is given full information to make an informed decision.

You're the one who made the claim that I defend incest. Fock you. You're just a passive aggressive ass hole. You think using big words and quoting research articles make you smart? I have a feeling that a team of doctors studied you and hit the nail on the head. Now use big words and rambling boring paragraphs to pretend you're something other than a psycho jerkoff.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Wow the nanny state loving freakos took a beating in this one, it would do the world a good if you crazy focks were locked up: )

 

Not really...interesting points on both sides.

psych brings a lot of knowledge of things...but ultimately nothing that refutes anything that pen stated about the topic at hand and the case at hand.

You got your ass kicked on page one and were smart enough to basically bow out (other than your question of why were no charges filed...which is easily dismissed as there are not always charges filed when a child is taken into state custody...at least not here in TN).

GP came along and strung the beating out for a few more pages and now has tried climbing on the back of psych who...while bringing knowledge of a matter of subjects...also brings his own bias and dislike to the point it clouds much of what he speaks.

[Googballz 39]

 

I proved that Pen never actually called them crazy or diagnosed them as crazy.

 

 

He never called them crazy? Really?

 

Meanwhile, the crazy parents can say whatever promotes mouth-breathing journalism...

 

He started to backtrack a little with some qualifiers after being called out by me.

 

 

I may be wrong, but I think the likelihood of a misdiagnosis and crazy abusive parents

 

 

Putting on a good face for the media does not mean the parents aren't crazy, and people with more information than you or I have decided they aren't fit to care for their child.

 

 

 

 

Here is a BONUS innerweb diagnosis made from a single quote from the sister in the OP. She has Stockholm Syndrome and the parents are back to definitely being crazy.

 

The sister couldn't possibly be under duress to protect her parents, could she? Or, because of her neurodegenerative condition, not recognize they are crazy? Or suffer from Stockholm Syndrome?

 

 

 

You really should rethink this on again, off again policy of not responding directly to me and just leave it in the off position.

[psychsurvivor 2]

I know you are very sure of your stance...to the point that you have spoken with intolerance and hatred to any who would disagree with you. You know, the very definition of bigoted.

I may read those when I have a chance...there is a ton out there on both sides of the issue..with the liklihood that there are truths on both sides of this. You, however, will only see the one side as ever being true because of your own personal experience. (at least that is what it appears based on the limited interaction here).

Id guess your time would be better spent really out there supporting your opinions and working towards what you want than arguing it with others on a lightly trafficked fantasy football message board while proclaiming to everyone how smart you are.

A big misunderstanding with science is the notion of "opinion". In science, there is NO room for "opinion". Either it is or it isn't. That is what differentiates science from other areas of human knowledge like the arts. If DSM labels are "diseases of the brain", I would expect them to show up in the same way genuine diseases of the brain show up: autopsies. The "we don't have the technology" canard doesn't cut it. We do have the technology to examine with microscope brains. It is just that no "schizophrenic brain" has been shown to be a diseased brain in the same way that CDJ or Alzheimer's brains have been shown to be such.

 

So my statement is one in which I say that psychiatry is not scientific, in the sense that it doesn't deal with diseases of the brain, but a bigoted discipline in which bigoted MDs vote their prejudices in the DSM.

 

Take "Somatic Symptom Disorder" the DSM-5 label that BCH alleges to Justina http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/mislabeling-medical-illne_b_2265198.html . Don't you think it is a bit strange that the vast majority of people who "suffer" from this "disease" are female? When you analyze the membership of DSM committees and realize that it has a majority of males, maybe that explains some things .

 

This is not to say that there isn't value in psychiatry for some people, but again, the same is true for astrology and homeopathy. Jeffrey Lieberman, in the NPR debate, described psychiatry as a "step child" of medicine. Perhaps if psychiatry were to be more open about what it is, and more importantly, what IT IS NOT, I wouldn't have to spend my time doing the educational work for them .

[psychsurvivor 2]

You're the one who made the claim that I defend incest. Fock you. You're just a passive aggressive ass hole. You think using big words and quoting research articles make you smart? I have a feeling that a team of doctors studied you and hit the nail on the head. Now use big words and rambling boring paragraphs to pretend you're something other than a psycho jerkoff.

I have been warned by user Googballz that

 

You are new here so let me clue you in: It's all he has. He has the mental capacity of a pre-pubescent girl.

 

HTH

Since obviously I am new here, I didn't know that in advance. Needless to say, what you just said confirms his diagnosis. You used an analogy about uncles having sex with nieces/nephews to counter my statement that psychotropic drugging is a form of brain rape. If you didn't meant to imply that you are OK with consensual incest, you are not very smart doing your analogies (which is consistent with what user Googballz says above)!

[psychsurvivor 2]

GP came along and strung the beating out for a few more pages and now has tried climbing on the back of psych who...while bringing knowledge of a matter of subjects...also brings his own bias and dislike to the point it clouds much of what he speaks.

Sorry, but the lack of validity of DSM labels is not bias, it is a fact,

 

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml

 

"While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity. Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure."

 

 

The real bias is to think that an invented disease, like Somatic Symptom Disorder, stands on the same ground as things that are purely biological, like mitochondrial disease even if said things are hard to diagnose. Mito might hard to diagnose, but the basis is biological. None of the DSM labels has any biological basis whatsoever. And you tell me that I am biased? So if I am biased, what is exactly that you are for promoting this false equivalency?

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

 

He never called them crazy? Really?

 

 

He started to backtrack a little with some qualifiers after being called out by me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is a BONUS innerweb diagnosis made from a single quote from the sister in the OP. She has Stockholm Syndrome and the parents are back to definitely being crazy.

 

 

 

You really should rethink this on again, off again policy of not responding directly to me and just leave it in the off position.

Nice parsed quotes and some taken out of context...even a few of them saying "I may be wrong...but I lean towards" sort of thing.

yet you kept claiming he unequivocally called them crazy...which is complete BS...sorry,

THe only quote where you have anything is where he called them..."the crazy parents".

Wow...pretty pathetic attempt to weasel out of admitting you were wrong...but thats what I expect from RP.

Damn...I was dumb enough to get sucked in and reply again...just to show you how foolish you are. I doubt you will agree or admit it though. You never have.

[NewbieJr 541]

I have been warned by user Googballz that

 

 

Since obviously I am new here, I didn't know that in advance. Needless to say, what you just said confirms his diagnosis. You used an analogy about uncles having sex with nieces/nephews to counter my statement that psychotropic drugging is a form of brain rape. If you didn't meant to imply that you are OK with consensual incest, you are not very smart doing your analogies (which is consistent with what user Googballz says above)!

Lolol. Ok, let me jog your memory by only 45 minutes. YOU introduced child molestation into the conversation. Not me. My analogy was meant to compare someone blaming everyone for their misfortune instead of the one that actually did the damage. A perfect analogy to you trying to admonish the entire psychiatry profession. How that would lead you to think I condone incest explains a lot about why someone out your psycho ass away.

And Google ball is the laughing stock of this message board. I put him to shame everyday. So he's very upset with me. Lol

Good luck in your recovery. You have a long way to go.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I have been warned by user Googballz that

 

 

Since obviously I am new here, I didn't know that in advance. Needless to say, what you just said confirms his diagnosis. You used an analogy about uncles having sex with nieces/nephews to counter my statement that psychotropic drugging is a form of brain rape. If you didn't meant to imply that you are OK with consensual incest, you are not very smart doing your analogies (which is consistent with what user Googballz says above)!

 

Not really...you claimed he defended incest...that is what earned you the "diagnoses".

BTW...when you find yourself agreeing with anything Googlyballz says...you should seriously rethink your conclusions...because you are likely on the wrong side of it.

[Googballz 39]

Ok Psych.......you are new here so let me clue you in on Sho Nuff.

 

He offers nothing. Zip. Nada.

 

His entire schtick is to whine about what someone else posts. He never addresses the subject, and never adds anything of value to any conversation.

 

 

32,000 posts of meaningless drivel.

 

 

Not worth your time.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Sorry, but the lack of validity of DSM labels is not bias, it is a fact,

 

 

The real bias is to think that an invented disease, like Somatic Symptom Disorder, stands on the same ground as things that are purely biological, like mitochondrial disease even if said things are hard to diagnose. Mito might hard to diagnose, but the basis is biological. None of the DSM labels has any biological basis whatsoever. And you tell me that I am biased? So if I am biased, what is exactly that you are for promoting this false equivalency?

 

The bias is that you are an anti psychiatry advocate. That you had a bad experience to the point you have labeled an entire group of people evil.

That you don't see this bias is neither my fault nor my problem but yours.

BTW...I don't believe I have promoted any false equivalency and you are jumping to some major conclusions about me.

[NewbieJr 541]

Ok Psych.......you are new here so let me clue you in. I'm a whiny pussie who can't stand anyone who puts my right wing hack ass in its place. As a lowlife loser, I try to encourage new members to dislike my enemies too so I feel like I have a friend.

Will you be my friend Psycho?

 

 

Awwww. Please say yes.

[Googballz 39]

 

I proved that Pen never actually called them crazy or diagnosed them as crazy...as you claimed multiple times in the thread.

 

Nope. Never called them "crazy"

[Sho Nuff 720]

Ok Psych.......you are new here so let me clue you in on Sho Nuff.

 

He offers nothing. Zip. Nada.

 

His entire schtick is to whine about what someone else posts. He never addresses the subject, and never adds anything of value to any conversation.

 

 

32,000 posts of meaningless drivel.

 

 

Not worth your time.

 

Funny...aren't you supposedly "new here".

You keep bringing up post counts...but by the amount of time you have supposedly been here, you post more than those you are trying to bash with that.

BTW...I address the subject of threads quite often...I don't need to whine about what someone else posts (another one of your usual claims about people going back to your old alias).

And Im still waiting to see any value you have added to any conversation on this board.

oops..I replied again. May just finally have to put your ridiculousness on ignore...since you just want to spout complete lies to try and cover the FACT that you are exactly who people have said you are.

[Googballz 39]

 

May just finally have to put your ridiculousness on ignore..

Is this different from vowing not to respond to me?

[Sho Nuff 720]

Is this different from vowing not to respond to me?

 

Sorry...couldn't resist pointing out the complete lies and fabrications in what you posted.

But now Im board beating up on a mental midget like you.

 

Good day.

[Googballz 39]

 

Sorry...couldn't resist pointing out the complete lies and fabrications in what you posted.

 

You failed to prove anything in my post to be a lie or fabrication.

[Sho Nuff 720]

You failed to prove anything in my post to be a lie or fabrication.

 

I did with his direct quotes and laughing at your attempts to take things out of context and so on as proof of something.

You were wrong...you won't admit it...this does not shock a single person on this board who has been dealing with you for years.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Lolol. Ok, let me jog your memory by only 45 minutes. YOU introduced child molestation into the conversation. Not me. My analogy was meant to compare someone blaming everyone for their misfortune instead of the one that actually did the damage. A perfect analogy to you trying to admonish the entire psychiatry profession. How that would lead you to think I condone incest explains a lot about why someone out your psycho ass away.

And Google ball is the laughing stock of this message board. I put him to shame everyday. So he's very upset with me. Lol

Good luck in your recovery. You have a long way to go.

OK, let me teach you something.

 

If you wanted to make the point that not all sexual contact is abuse, why did you bring the "uncle relationship" into the discussion? You could have said that somebody who was sexually abused by somebody else. You are the one who brought "close blood ties" into the analogy, not me. This can be explained by you not being very bright, which is something that others that have argued with you for some time confirm.

 

To the point: yes, I am saying that giving somebody drugs without telling those people the full information that,

 

- The DSM labels lack scientific validity (per Tom Insel and David Kupfer's own statements last year).

 

- That the most rigorous studies done on SSRIs show that they are placebos.

 

- That the "chemical imbalance" is an urban legend.

 

Is akin to non consensual sex (ie, rape). Whether that's incestuous or not, up to you. If after giving that information to somebody, that somebody still wants to take the drugs, then it is not rape anymore, but consensual. But again, how many psychiatrists do you know that inform the patients of the above before prescribing drugs to them?

 

I can tell you that I do not know any. In fact, since I got a copy of my medical record through HIPAA, I saw that when I began to ask those questions to my therapist (that was well before 2013 and the secret became public) before I quit all contact which psychs, he wrote something along the lines that I was becoming increasingly interested in "anti psychiatry" even though it wasn't after several months after I quit that I became knowledgeable with the anti psychiatry movement (in other words, I never used the word "anti psychiatry" during the sessions, only scientific inquiry based on my own scientific training about what was the scientific theory behind psychiatry).

 

This goes to say that the average psychiatrist knows all too well that they sell baloney. They just don't tell their patients and to me, that's equivalent to non consensual sex, aka, rape.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Not really...you claimed he defended incest...that is what earned you the "diagnoses".

BTW...when you find yourself agreeing with anything Googlyballz says...you should seriously rethink your conclusions...because you are likely on the wrong side of it.

As I said, NewbieJr is the one who brought the "blood ties" into a discussion about what differentiates consensual sex from non consensual sex. Bringing blood ties into such discussion implies that the person who thinks that consensual sex is fine also implies, by extension, that blood ties are not a bar to consensual sex, which is what the average guy calls "incest".

 

Nonetheless, he has already clarified that he doesn't defend incest, but by bringing blood ties in a discussion where they were not warranted, he also proved the point that he is not a very bright guy.

[Googballz 39]

 

I did with his direct quotes

No., You didn't.

 

I exposed your lie claiming he never said they were "crazy"........and I did it using multiple quotes by him calling them crazy.

[Sho Nuff 720]

As I said, NewbieJr is the one who brought the "blood ties" into a discussion about what differentiates consensual sex from non consensual sex. Bringing blood ties into such discussion implies that the person who thinks that consensual sex is fine also implies, by extension, that blood ties are not a bar to consensual sex, which is what the average guy calls "incest".

 

Nonetheless, he has already clarified that he doesn't defend incest, but by bringing blood ties in a discussion where they were not warranted, he also proved the point that he is not a very bright guy.

 

He brought it into the discussion because it gave an easy analogy to say that "all uncles are evil".

Where as just saying "all random guys" are evil would not work as well.

For someone so smart as you claim...you made that little thing into something huge and overly complicate...or you did so in order to continue the argument and use it as an insult to someone.

None of what he did was defending incest whatsoever.

It also did nothing to prove anything about him being bright or not...just a poor conclusion on your part. Maybe you are not as bright as you think you are.

[Sho Nuff 720]

[psychsurvivor 2]

The bias is that you are an anti psychiatry advocate. That you had a bad experience to the point you have labeled an entire group of people evil.

That you don't see this bias is neither my fault nor my problem but yours.

BTW...I don't believe I have promoted any false equivalency and you are jumping to some major conclusions about me.

This post is self refuting. You are promoting a false equivalency by giving BCH doctors the benefit of the doubt, which you are doing, aren't you?

 

Here is the false equivalency:

 

- BCH doctors say that an invented, non scientific disease is the root of Justina's problems.

 

- A world renown expert in mito says that mitochondrial disease, a difficult to diagnose but nonetheless biological disorder, is the root of Justina's problems.

 

You think that both sides deserve equal deference. That stance is a form of bias. Psychiatry defines psychosis as "believing stuff that is not real" -the actual technical definition is a bit more detail but that gets to the bottom of it-. How do you call when somebody insists, as the APA and the BCH doctors do, that Somatic Symptom Disorder is real in spite of admitting at the same time that there is NO objective test to prove or disprove that Somatic Symptom Disorder is real? Psychotic, perhaps?

 

So you are giving psychotic BCH doctors the benefit of the doubt and you say that you don't have a false equivalency bias? Please explain!