It is not a step towards justice, but a step backwards, towards the monopolization of what is and is not allowed to be said. I would argue that untrustworthy Government left unchecked by criticism; that is enabled & defended by popularized narratives, that are rendered invulnerable to debate by mainstream media outlets, is infinitely more damaging than the views expressed by conspiracy theorists. You speak of championing genuine dialogue, can you not see the immense propagandistic and ideological forces at work to ensure that there is no genuine dialogue to be had?

Polypharmacy is now “the standard of care” in child psychiatry: 1. Put a kid on a stimulant to comply with authoritarian schooling. 2. Put them on an antipsychotic to stabilize that irritability caused by the stimulant. 3. Put them on clonidine so they can fall asleep. 4. Put them on an antidepressant since the other medication is leaving them feeling flat and unmotivated. 5. Put them on metformin to manage prediabetic insulin levels caused by the antipsychotic. The good news is that the destruction of their bodies and identity formation doesn’t matter. What matters is now they’re easier for the school or the stressed parent to manage.

There is some recognition of this, but it is characterized as a "paradox" and clearly hasn't filtered down to guidelines. See this article, for example: "More treatment but no less depression: The treatment-prevalence paradox" sciencedirect.com/science/ar…

The psychiatric system taught a generation that their inner life was a set of symptoms to be managed. We haven’t even begun to wrap our heads around how that warps and deforms people, psychologically and emotionally.

Entire generations of young people have learned to explain themselves in clinical language before they had any other language for who they were.

If you take a systems view of the mental health field, it creates an inordinate percentage of the problems it’s tasked with solving. But it never acknowledges this. It just re-categorizes it as the patient’s individual pathology and then continues to profit from it anyway.

The reflex to escalate a diagnosis in response to side effects from medication is an intentional design feature within the mental health apparatus It ensures the patient is always held accountable and the institution always shielded Medication harms go on unaddressed undetected

Exactly. It’s by design. Look at how hard a time people like me are having even making these points about Clancy without being shamed for it. Look at how hard a time Reddington is having in court. The Right’s sudden Pharma amnesia shows how well the design works. Psychiatry was built to operate corruptly in plain sight while remaining infallible. It’s their word against yours. DSM jargon, like legalese, turns common-sense pushback into proof of ignorance. The diagnostic labyrinth is intentionally impossible for a layman to navigate. It’s a meat grinder of “consensus” masquerading as academic rigor, built from layers of post hoc rationalization. When one theory fails or doesn’t fit, they don’t discard it. They just add another. The prosecution pulled off the same bait and switch: four months of medication-induced activation, insomnia and destabilization became “bipolar psychosis” versus acute intoxication on January 24. The first makes the drugs irrelevant while the second is easily dismissed with low blood levels.

Compulsive escapism & cyclical relationships result from opening pressure release valves too soon To not consciously redirect that energy back into the engine is to constantly settle for the unintended ‘results’ that leak from the entropy of the unintegrated parts of the spirit

Good points

In reading this you’ll be left with the irrefutable impression that both Governance and Medicalization are indistinguishable extensive is the degree to which industrial societies have sought to use biomedical technologies to cement the roots of the ordained economic social order

In this dialogue between @TuckerCarlson and @ggreenwald, Tucker at 21:09 gets it exactly right that SSRIs and benzodiazepines are about “social control.” The late science historian Lily Kay (1947-2000) documented in her 1993 history of molecular biology, The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology, how the priority of “social control” was what shaped the rising of molecular biology over other ways of understanding who we are. The term “molecular biology,” in fact, was coined in 1938 by Warren Weaver, director of the Rokcefeller's natural sciences division, to rename for the third time the program originally known as “pscyhobiology,” the aim of which was “the rationalization of human behavior.” The sociologist Edward Alsworth Ross coined the term “social control” in 1894 as an answer to the debate between capitalism and socialism in which he argued that class conflict and social inequality were inevitable but that “society” had to modify individual feelings, ideas, and behavior to conform to social interests — rather than nationalizing the means of production and exchange as advocated by socialists, “social control” advocated the nationalization of the thoughts, feelings, and desires that would drive the private sector. The Rockefeller Foundation was founded in 1913. One of its critical missions was to support the development of social control. Trustee Harry Pratt Judson's 1913 policy outline for the foundation categorized its goals into uncontroversial ones like medicine and education and controversial ones that conflicted with human wants, for which “the real hope of ultimate security lies in reinforcing the police power of the state by training of the moral nature so painstaking and so widespread as to restrict these unsocial wants and substitute for them a reasonable self control.” John B. Watson wrote his “Behaviorist Manifesto” in 1913 as well, in which he promoted a new psychology whose “theoretical goal is the prediction and control of behavior.” By 1925, “social control” had become the dominant paradigm of the social sciences. In his Means of Social Control published that year, F. E. Lumley described the phenomenon as “the practice of putting forth directive stimuli or wish-patterns, their accurate transmission to, and adoption by, others whether voluntarily or involuntarily.” “Social control” was rationalized as the duty of society’s stewards to make sure that behavioral technology kept pace with industrial technology to prevent the gap from driving social ills like violence, racism, and divorce. Thomas Huxley’s 1864 “protoplasic theory of life” held that all physical and mental traits were driven by the physical substance within us. Watson’s behaviorism held that it could all be analyzed, predicted, and controlled. The modern synthesis of Watson and Crick’s DNA with Mendel’s genes held that each one trait was controlled by one gene that coded for one protein. LSD showed that microgram quantities of an exogenous substance can radically change mental state. The 1962 concept of “neurotransmitter” released the class of levers that the behaviorists could pull to modify each trait with a drug. SSRIs and benzos were the fulfillment of the social control molecular biology had been invented for.

Thank you for the acknowledgement!

AEDG (Epitalon amino acid sequence) is not 'better' than Pinealon (amino acid sequence EDR) It's just 'different' Which means each would or may affect each person, different "It depends"

“Rehab” for life. And fix your training program. If the injury was substantial enough to permanently remodel tissue (stretching ligaments or tearing something that needs to be reattached) the need to rehab is quasi-permanent. But “rehabbing” is often just doing exercises you should do anyway with greater and more intentional focus. For example my left shoulder dislocated four times and had one operation when I was in my teens and early 20s. If it ever hurts it’s because I wasn’t doing enough to strengthen it’s ability to bear load in various positions and directions while being kept flush to my body. Every few years I’ve developed pain in my shoulder that occurs during irregular protraction and it disappears after a few days or a week or two of banded protraction exercises. Recently I was doing some exercises that were very heavy on external rotation and lateral pulling without proportional counterbalancing of internal rotation and lateral squeezing, and it destabilized my shoulder allowing me to feel pain in a wide variety of positions. I experimented with exercises and the simplest way to correct it was to do cable or banded internal rotation. None of these problems ever happen to my right shoulder. They only happen to my left shoulder, which is not held in place effectively by my stretched ligaments, requiring more work of my muscles to coordinate it, especially in keeping it close to my body. This also manifests as a defective frontal lat display, even when I have zero pain. Pictures had made me think my left lat is smaller than my right. But I disproved this taking a picture of my lat spread from the back with a measuring tape. In fact it is just that my protraction on my left side is not strong enough to compensate for my stretched ligaments which manifests as a weaker frontal lat display. The work I need to do to rehab, though, is a result of an imbalanced program. Protraction should be abundant. An easy way to get it in is to do gymnastic pushups instead of regular pushups. If you do the full range of things you should be able to do with your shoulder, you will get plenty of work of the internal rotators that keep it flush to the body. That means having them not just push weight in front of you or on top of you but also be moving loads where the resistance is outside your body and moving into or across it. If you introduce an exercise that moves your body in one way you should counterbalance it with an exercise that moves it the opposite way, unless you are introducing a temporary and strategic asymmetry. So, on the one hand, your need to rehab could be forever. On the other hand, rehabbing it is just compensating for the deficiencies of your program. In fact, you probably got injured because of the deficiencies of your training in the first place. For example, I had biases in my falling that made me spiral forward from left to right, plunging my left shoulder into the ground. I should have trained how to fall, and I should have found and corrected that asymmetry. I do both now, but I can still subtly feel that same asymmetry: When I was 14 it made me spiral forward across my body to the right, plunging my left shoulder into the ground. Now what I feel is that when I do forward and backward rolls, the backward roll over my left shoulder, which takes my right side backwards across my body, feels hard to coordinate compared to the other three rolls. The asymmetry formerly forced me forward to the right. Now it subtly restrains me from gracefully rolling backward to the left. I was injured in the first place because I didn’t find and train out my asymmetries. The injuries have created a lifelong vulnerability of shoulder pain in response to far less glaring deficiencies in my training program. But if I train right, I have no pain. And I don’t need to rehab because proper training is always rehabbing everything.

Youth mental health has become a boutique identity industry which no longer addresses questions regarding psychopathology characterizing individuals. Rather, it glamorizes personality idiosyncrasies leading to narcissistic self-expression abetted by diagnostic shopping.

1. I think that “you just need to lift” is a metaphor for needing to have a healthy lifestyle. It is common for me to review someone’s and for them to say “no wonder I feel awful.” 2. I think by depression they often mean life distress and not major depressive disorder, which makes the advice more appropriate. I get the concern of many providers that some people benefit from clinical help, but we have expanded the term so much that it now encompasses many things better addressed by common sense lifestyle interventions.

When considering the overreach of the mental health apparatus, the fusion of its diagnostic descriptors into the common vernacular The omnipresence of psychopharmacology amongst the populace, its overprescription, with only ever worsening results, this conclusion was inexorable

Make it make sense. • You stop a benzodiazepine and get anxiety: we call it benzodiazepine withdrawal. • You stop an opioid and get pain: we call it opioid withdrawal. But you stop an antidepressant and get depressed: it’s always depression, never withdrawal. I get the desire to separate relapse from withdrawal. The problem is the line drawn feels arbitrary and tautological. I think that this explains much of the public frustration on this topic: the science seems convenient rather than factual.

A piercing insight into an omnipresent consequence of modernity: The ‘Inundation by Options’ Our sheer excess of potential choices insidiously erodes our quality of life, our willpower, our ability to enjoy or even be fully present in our own lives