It has to be a conspiracy.


, ,

Tin foil psychiatry

After I told my wife I have not written a post at my blog in two weeks, then watching Bret Baier’s panel tonight with Andrew Napolitano and Charles Krauthammer (and a third participant I do not know) talking about the Supreme Court’s ruling of the King Versus Burwell case once again bailing out Obamacare, I have to post about Chief Justice Roberts and his siding with this law.

I was not pleased with Robert’s 2012 ruling as the majority justice claiming the law was a tax when it was prominently claimed by the Democraps to NOT be a tax, but, his bullshit yet again to his siding with the 4 Left judges who side reflexively with Democrat agendas just like the three opposites who side with Republicans religiously, this is not law.  No, there is something amiss going on with Roberts, and it is time for someone to start picking up rocks out there and find the slime beneath.

Not that I liked the premise to King v Burwell, it was not the precedent I wanted to see the law finally start to die the hideous death way overdue.  But, this case was somewhat black and white to the behind the scenes truth the Democrats were enacting to make this a law.  It is the antisocial BS they are pervasive in propagating on the public these past 6 plus years, amazingly with a Republican majority in the House since 2010 and now Senate since January.

No, there is something amiss with this ruling, and I won’t be surprised should, and more hopefully when, the truth comes out.  Oh, and I won’t back off, I still hope deeply and passionately that as many supporters of Obamacare as possible are harmed, if not devastated, by this law’s consequences.

It is the nature of the beast of humanity, people have to touch the proverbial stove to know it is hot and dangerous and finally react appropriately.  Change does not happen these days by common sense and respect for attention to reality.  Not with the public out there.

I end with this picture to reinforce the point:

is the stove hot

A brief post about psychiatry.

In the May 2015 issue of Psychiatric Times, Dr Eric M Plakun, MD wrote this article, “Correcting Psychiatry’s False Assumptions and Implementing Parity.”  The link?

There were several important points in the article, but this one in particular was the “gotcha” moment most of my colleagues have dropped and discarded years ago, hence why they f— up patients’ care and I often wind up trying to “fix” the numerous mistakes these providers made by overmedicating, if by falsely medicating in the first place:

“Again using depression as an example, we are learning how important comorbid personality disorders are to treatment outcome—especially comorbid borderline personality disorder (BPD). The large, multisite Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study (CLPS) concluded that the presence of personality disorders, especially BPD, “robustly predicted persistence” of MDD, suggesting diagnosis and treatment of personality disorders are essential in treating depression lest it become treatment-resistant.6

However, in our focus on the medical model, personality disorders are underdiagnosed. In DSM-IV, the most frequent Axis II diagnosis made was “deferred,” and there is no reason to think this will change with DSM-5. Biological tunnel vision can lead to missing the reality of clinical complexity and interfere with provision of optimal patient care.”

Personally, I don’t focus on Borderline PD, as there is often no pure Borderline patient out there, but a smorgasbord of borderline traits, along with Narcissistic, dependent, Histrionic, and Avoidant features as well.

So, just to note briefly to readers, why there are so many “Treatment Resistant patients” out there, is because there are medication resistant, or just not medication responsive issues out there with some patients.

Just my imperfect opinion.  The “REALLY” series to continue this week with Part 2, about patients’ issues, so this a lead in???

Cheating, lying, and why it is tolerated…



The last several months, I have read and seen first hand people just blatantly skirting the rules, lying about it, if not other inappropriate things at the same time, and then having their “inner circle” of defenders, apologists, and plain cronies support the BS.  The outward examples in the press have been Hillary Clinton, Tom Brady, and read the below link what happened in Atlanta with the cheating scandal re test scores and how teachers and administrators got paid for it:

Read this follow up I read this morning:

in there this, “Recently, Baxter cut the prison sentences for Cotman, Davis-Williams, and Pitts. They won’t have to spend 7 years in prison after all, only 3 years. But they will also have to pay a $10,000 fine and perform 2000 hours of community service. Baxter said that he was not comfortable with the harsher sentences he initially doled out and so he wanted to “modify the sentence so I can live with it.”

I approved of the harsher sentences. As the ring leaders of this criminal conspiracy, these three deserved stiff punishment. They were playing with children’s lives. In fact, they are guilty of theft. They stole something precious from these kids, who are also African-American: Their futures.”

Exactly, the crimes weren’t just pure benefit for the criminals, and yes, the operative word here for these teachers and school administrators is “Criminals”, but, will impact on these kids who were told they were smarter than they really were, at least by the testing assessments.

The reason why I am writing this post this morning though is hearing a story on the local news about an addict being given yet another chance to be in recovery after yet another incident of traumatizing family, and I just have to ask, why does society think and feel we owe it to entrenched addicts they deserve chance after chance to get into recovery and accept it as it is:  abstinence, and there is no “controlled use” model, or just reflexive dismissal that relapse is part of the process and that should be forgiven every time it happens?

A few months ago, I saw a patient at one of my Locum assignment stops, and this person came in demanding Xanax, then was dismissive of their addiction history the person claimed was in recovery.  I refused to write for it, offering hydroxyzine HCl as an alternative as a start, and then, the fun began.

First the patient’s therapist got in my face and asked me why I was being insensitive to the patient’s needs, that benzos, much less Xanax, is not a big deal to provide to an addict.  I gave up after 5 minutes of discussion and providing a link on the Net to the pratfalls of benzos with addiction, but did not change my position.

Then, the patient’s mother came in with the patient on the next follow up, and she laid into me I had to “not be so cruel and rigid” and give the patient what was needed.  Again, I told the patient and mother in tow that I would not agree to write for a controlled substance, at least not at the beginning of care I am involved with, and risk relapse or abuse of the Rx.  They stormed out and went to the clinic director, who at least had some sense to defer it back to me as the administrator was not a treating provider.

And then, the truth has it’s painful and yet appropriate way of coming out.  First, by happenstance, I find a note NOT on the chart that the patient was actively in a Methadone Clinic, and the patient never told me this on either visit, but amazingly it was also mentioned deep in the chart, but not in the sections I expected to read it.  Then, I find out the patient was getting benzos from another provider prior to me, but then was discharged from that provider’s care for altering a Rx, for Xanax, how fascinating.

The final “then” was the patient’s sister called me one day to let me know she found out the patient was trying to get Xanax and the mother tried to ask the sister, who was the only one in the family setting limits with this patient, to help get me to agree to write for a benzo.  Oh, the patient was willing to agree to not ask for Xanax, but now for Valium or Klonopin, gee, what a nice change of pace!

The sister finished the discussion with several interesting details, how the patient faked a drug screen a couple of months earlier, how mom was the textbook enabler for not only the patient and this person’s behaviors, but other family members with addiction issues, and ends with this beauty:  “you need to know, I am not involved with my family anymore because they think simply being family trumps the rights and wrongs that are part of society, including zero tolerance for abuse.”  Wow, that hit home for me!

I just don’t get the enabling and codependence by so many in society these days.  It’s ok if you represent the right political party, or play for the right team, or have the right intention at first to help the public, but when the outcomes are just outwardly wrong, why does that trump common sense and principle?

But, on a global scale, why are people ok with being on the receiving end of cheating and lying?  A premise or agenda built on a lie or cheat will not lead to a healthy and responsible outcome until proven otherwise, and even then, retrospection of how it started will surely lead to some guilt and resentment, hmm?

Just remember, we are seeing more and more of this at least pervasively here in America, and the defenders and apologists seem to be winning in larger numbers day in and out.

I leave you with these two quotes, of many I could add here, just to educate and remind you, there is no defense for “I was just trying to help” when all one was doing was being complicit and ignorant at the very least!

cheating comment #1

cheating comment #2

Yeah, good point at the end of the second one, “It’s always about them.”  Why lying is part of the criteria of Antisocial Personality Disorder.  It is beyond reflexive sometimes, you agree?

Let’s have a “Be Free off Psychotropic Drugs Month” in honor of the antipsychiatry agenda. Let’s see how well that goes!!!


, ,

We’ll start with this article to show you what will likely ensue:

Some gems in there to give hope and faith to those who have foolishly thought that their mental health treatment is a total fraud and danger to all who take any meds:

“Like most people in the midst of psychiatric crisis, Natalie maintained that she was fine and that “everyone else is crazy.” She continued to deteriorate until police officers, responding to still another call, took her to a hospital emergency room instead of to jail. After a series of psychiatric examinations and a court hearing, she was committed to the state’s public psychiatric hospital. She received intensive treatment for severe bipolar disorder with psychosis until she was stable and symptom-free two months later.”

Then this, “Natalie’s relapse was worse than her first break: the psychosis and hospitalization longer, the recovery harder to achieve, the eventual medications more complicated, the resulting future not as bright. Her second commitment to the hospital lasted 10 months, an eternity in an era where the average psychiatric stay is about five days and most people who are psychotic never get a bed at all. Thanks to the intensive care, she rebounded again, albeit more slowly, and finished her bachelor of fine arts degree. Her attending psychiatrist from the hospital and several staff members drove 75 miles to attend her senior art show. It was a triumph for us all.”

My favorite in the article was this, and it made me think so long fully of all those antipsychiatry rants at MIA and at the various blogs that just pound away of all those evils all meds create in all patients:

“Natalie was a believer that treatment worked and that the mental health system needed to be reformed so other people received the kind of care she had when she was in crisis. She told her story in a documentary short last year about the criminalization of mental illness. She dreamed of being a peer counselor. She said she wanted to help others as she had been helped — until she became convinced that she was beyond help.”

Yeah, those meds, just ruin peoples’ lives, so they better get off them quick and permanently, because, hey, those that troll the threads at MIA alone are so willing and able to be reliable and effective supports for those with mental health problems.  Oh yeah, there aren’t mental health problems in real life, it is just the ultimate scam on America.

Tell that to Doris Fuller, the author of the article above!  Nah, you slime who just rail away that there is no mental illness, you have all the answers.

Just like ISIS and Nazi Germany did for the world, eh!?

Read the article and then tell me Natalie Fuller is just another victim of psychiatry.  And then make sure you cc the comment to her mom.  Losers!

The Fullers

It is a lot harder to slam people when there are reminders that there are real people with real problems who really suffered when they rejected care.  But, wait for the comments by the usual suspects who will show us all how MIA thrives in these times that hate and manipulation of facts sell a narrative that just wants retribution and retaliation.  Yeah, the real foundations for helping people across the country.

But, we do have the representation in our elected politicians that does echo those themes, so, maybe the system is in fact the antipsychiatry crowd at the end of the day.  Kinda sad to realize that, hmm …



, ,

Numbers defines criminality

This is a post I have been thinking of for weeks, but it has come to fruition due to the combination of a few events and experiences I have had in the past last 5-6 days, as it started with my watching a couple of NUMB3RS episodes of season 2, and then watching the ongoing BS of Hillary Clinton’s announcing her candidacy for President, and finally just listening to some of the crap from various colleagues and reading more BS from the APA in their recent Newsletter I continue to get without any effort on my part to request.  Oh, and the shooting of the man in South Carolina, that had an impact too.

So, the following scan is a summation of what I deem THE ANTISOCIAL QUOTIENT, and while it is a bit rough, I think it hits the highlights, or better to term the lowlights that are the antisocial.  The three groups in our society that prompted me to compose this are our politicians, our health care system, and our police force.  I think it is applicable to others in America, but, let’s start with those who seem to impact on us with a regularity that may redefine obscene and disruptive.

Oh, and you might note the theme of words with the letter “D” in there, and that is not a coincidence.  I like to look for patterns and similarities, and I think the letter “D” for deviant, disaster,and plain Demon or Devil seems to fit, eh?

So, here is my “Charley Epps” moment, hope it is entertaining, if not provocative and just plain presumptuous?

the antisocial quotient

I  can’t enlarge it too much for the post and risk the type becoming more illegible, so if you want to read it, you have to click it as a separate page and enlarge it as able per your device.  I want readers to know, I really did spend a good deal of time composing this in my travels and thoughts.  I will be adding addendums to this post in the coming next few days to clarify and postulate further, so if interested, please come back and read up.

But, let’s end this post now with something that hit me while lying in bed last weekend, while not related to this season, I think the scene transcends the Christmas holidays and is applicable to any time, any moment, and any real point of what our culture has lost in it’s meaning and intent these last couple of decades, to me since Reagan was President…

Go to minute 5:30 for the classic line, “Mankind was my business!”

Not what you hear from the usual suspects in the Democrat Party these days, not that the Republicans as a group fare much better anyway.

Just think of Obama when you consider an example to fit the Quotient, I think the scoring might just frighten you…


Addendum April 16 8PM:

Good work always needs to be cleaned up, and I will start with noting I had just 6 immature defenses listed, not 7, so I am not going to reprint the scanned sheet above, I ask readers to note it is an equal number of immature to mature defenses.

It shouldn’t mess up the quotient significantly at the end of the day.

Next, I found this today in my search for other scales for antisocial PD, and will link it for those interested, although it is moreso about psychopathy:

It does overlap a bit of what I list in my scale, er, attempt at quantification of human deterioration of values and boundaries.

Anyway, I hope readers note this is just my simplification at documenting the depths that people can degenerate to in being disgusting at the end of the day.  Like the ongoing use of “D” words there?

I do declare, the dogma is daunting…

Feel free to offer your declarations.


Addendum #2 April 16th:

Oh hell, let’s have some fun, I want to apply the quotient to Hillary:

Section A:  1.  Dishonest: can we give her a 6?  Ok, a 5.  2.  Disingenuous: easily a 4, I would give a 5 but people think this is a 5 across the board.  Maybe…  3.  Disdain:  she is a poster child, 5.  4.  Disruptive: a 3, only because so many Democrats are willing to suspend reality and believe her.  5.  Divisive: again, a poster child like her predecessor Barry, a 5.  6.  Disinhibitive:  a 3, she has some boundaries, just not around people like you and me.  7.  Destructive:  again, a 3.

So, 5+ 4+ 5+ 3+ 5+ 3+ 3 = 25.  Divided by 7 = 3.6 (average up)

Section B:  potential to destabilize, let’s use that phrase so well associate with her, “what difference does it make?!” = 8.  So, the denominator of negating factors, well, she has Republicans, but business opponents, who?  And influential family members not allied with her, again a fat 0!  Community groups as outlets, I guess some to count as 1.  Responsible media outlets, outside Fox News, I mean, how big is this woman’s butt to have all those media outlets with lips affixed to her cheeks?  Total a kind 2!

Total here = 4

Section C:  Determined by past, present and future, I give her 3’s for every one!  Yeah, I know I am accused as not being impartial!  Shit, and she is?!

Total = 3

Section D:  Drugs, I think not, a 0.  Debauchery?  I give her a 0.5, as I think she is not a healthy heterosexual, and married to Bill after all his BS cheating, that counts at least for something against her.  Duplicitous, again, can I go above 1?

1.5 divided by 3 = 0.5

Section E: Defense mechanisms, this will be fun!  Denial, projection, minimizing, deflecting, false rationalizing, and acting out, textbook on all counts from her!

+6!  Then, let’s here from the back about any mature defenses by her.  Displacement, really?  Intellectualizing, only in her mind.  Undoing, not the way the definition is for a defense, but if it happens in her campaign, hell yeah!  Realistic rationalization, maybe at times, a kind 1 here!  Sublimation, really a stretch to give her that one.  Assertiveness, well, not in a healthy way, but I am trying to be a kind guy and not give her every negative..

+6 for immature and -2 for mature, = 4

Section F, the Quotient Denominator, I can’t keep a straight face reading them and applying them in any fashion to her, well, maybe take out an enemy of the country, oh, Ambassador Stevens was on our side, shit!  Accepting of punishment, yeah, get back to me when the email fiasco plays out in the end!!!

SO the ending:

3.6 + 4 + 3 + 0.5 + 4 / 1 (and a kind one, note that if it is 0 it does not negate the quotient, but nice try out there Hillary defenders!  = a big ass 14!

Frightening if you agree with me to some level, eh!!??


Addendum April 21 9PM:

First this, from the most recent issue of Psychiatric Annals, Vol 45 Issue 4 (Ironically dedicated to Psychopathy versus Sociopathy, are they catching up to me in meaningful topics?), article by Michael Brook PhD, The Role of Psychopathic and Antisocial Traits in Violence Risk Assessment:  Implications for Forensic Practice:

Antisocial-psychopathy chart

Interesting how they show the progression of antisocial PD into pure psychopathy intent, hmm?  I feel the overlaps into my Quotient give it some validity?

Anyway, I ask readers to do their own assessment of Obama from my Antisocial Quotient, I think the scoring would be at least 10 if not even higher than what I scored Clinton a few days ago.

And I think my addendums for this post are done now.

So, to the antipsychiatry movement, should the US now reject the police as much as psychiatrists?!


, ,

Police shooting

Kind of eerie, isn’t it, for readers who know what is the rhetoric of the antipsychiatry movement?  One can easily substitute a psychiatrist figuratively pulling out a weapon and mowing down the patient in this scenario, as the antipsychiatry folk frame it, eh?

I read what I consider a garbage post today at Mad in America, as linked below, and I just ask readers, how do you define “persuasion”?

Well, when you read the definitions, you have to wonder, what is the agenda of that term for the post, here is what Google brought up:

  1. 1.
    the action or fact of persuading someone or of being persuaded to do or believe something.
    “Monica needed plenty of persuasion before she actually left”
    synonyms: coaxing, persuading, coercion, inducement, convincing, blandishment,encouragement, urging, inveiglement, cajolery, enticement, wheedling;More

  2. 2.
    a belief or set of beliefs, especially religious or political ones.
    “writers of all political persuasions”
    synonyms: group, grouping, sect, denomination, party, camp, side, faction,affiliation, school of thought, belief, creed, credo, faith, philosophy

    “various political and religious persuasions”

I would offer this, when you read #2, it is more about agendas then real principles, because when I hear the word “persuasion”, you are trying to coax others to believe your point of view is the correct one, hell, at times it is the ONLY one!

One could argue I am trying to persuade people to think as I do, and I accept that as a possible premise, but, what is my agenda?  Helping people help themselves, and not crucify a group of people.  Isn’t that what antipsychiatry is really doing though, wanting psychiatry to be crucified, to be abolished, to be eliminated?

And what do those terms bring to mind, hmm?

Anyway, to tie it into the bigger picture, the way antipsychiatry comes to conclusions, the behaviors of some psychiatrists, even if it is a bit of a majority being over 50%, and I could argue the numbers but have better things to do with my time this evening, should demand that all psychiatrists should be punished.  So, antipsychiatry folk who come here for getting energized and impassioned, your line of reasoning means that the US should abolish our police forces across the country.  After all, there are some people here across America, just like the antipsychiatry few, who conclude that some bad cops mean all are bad.

Gee, no police, now what would that lead to?  Anarchy is not a fun proposition, eh?  As those of us disgusted with the abandonment that antipsychiatry really is advocating for at the end of the day, what do real patients have to look forward to for care and support if psychiatrists are relegated to the scrap heap?  What, PCPs, NPs, PAs, psychologists, or better yet, the antipsychiatrists themselves as caregivers?

Hey folks, the antipsychiatry folk don’t give a shit at the end of the day for honest and real patients, their rhetoric is more than apparent to their agenda.

To me, they would be the ones shooting those fleeing for sanity and care in their backs.  But, I am sure commenters will correct me with sincere and genuine concern and alternatives.  But, not reading that at MIA, are you, other readers?

Nah, outrage has no concern for truth, even when some of the narrative has true dismay and outrage.  Nope, if you have an MD after your name, you are guilty.

Makes a psychiatrist wonder when you can turn your back on dissenters or protesters these days, true?

At least the APA Conference is in Canada this year, not that the location guarantees safety, but, I sense Canadians have a bit of a lower tolerance for hostile bullshit by the antipsychiatry crowd, with the way ISIS is carrying on with similar rhetoric.

Just my imperfect opinion…

persuasion as truth


addendum Thursday April 9 6PM:  from that above link at MIA, this was a comment from today, and I will print it in it’s entirety here:

Yes StDoP and all, why is there not. I was thinking along the same lines . A friend of mine back in high school used to say ” Great minds travel in similar patterns.” Any way I was thinking of a movie idea or a play titled maybe The Last Psychiatrist about some mad movement people capturing the last leading psychiatrist hiding in a remote area maybe the Fiji islands trying to revive psychiatry among a small group of natives . Then sneaking him back to the USA to put him on trial for crimes against humanity. On trial in a bullet proof glass booth and questioned like Eichmann . Maybe even call it The Banality of Psychiatry (Evil).The movie would be serious but also wit great comedy like in that sense “Everything will be Illuminated”. The script for a movie or play could maybe be written open source by the people.

I’m not real computer literate but what if there was an open source sight with a moderator for the purpose of getting idea’s to the population on how to completely avoid psychiatry while we are fighting to abolish it ?

After seeing the movie The Imitation Game about the Enigma decoding machine during World War II one line pertains to us . It was “It’s not the Germans who are the enemy it’s time.” For us too isn’t time also the enemy in the sense of the mounting numbers of casualties. We need brilliant solutions and as long as we are probably being observed anyway why not invite the population to help us on an open source website like the one that built the Lennox operating system with imput from the people from everywhere ? Just some idea’s , Fred”

Yeah, kidnap someone and then treat the psychiatrist as a Holocaust offender, there is the honest analogy at least some preach outwardly.  And, not edited or censored, because it is reinforces the narrative.  And then there is this little added gem later on:

Fred Abbe on April 9, 2015 at 4:12 pm said:

Bonnie and all, Is it correct to say that the psychogulog’s strategy is to shock,awe, and overwhelm . The Art of War says to attack the enemy’s strategy , is best if possible . Most people don’t even know they are being attacked because its disguised and propagandized as some kind of beneficial health care .The casualties are written off cause they were not compliant to the benevolent help so don’t you be non compliant or else . How to do a mass education effort ? Or what else to waken the people ? What about Code Pink type Actions ?”

Folks who want to minimize and rationalize this rhetoric is not so bad, not so threatening, well, think of what the Germans said when they learned of the atrocities that occurred in the concentration camps.  Ignorance is not only not a justification for bliss, but not a defense for being lame, and in the end stupid for not seeing what pervasive dialogue that is harsh and threatening leads to.

Psychogulog?  If I wrote that about antipsychiatry without their frontal accusations preceding my writings, I would be attacked mercilessly.  Just like the Liberal/Democrat/Progressive onslaughts we are brutalized with these last 10 years.  My bet is that most at MIA are in that political camp as well.

They, the antipsychiatry camp, want us to believe that there is no dangerous hate, but just pervasive disgust and harmless outrage.  But, then again, what is the real narrative going on there, hmm?  Consistency is the hallmark of success, when it is done in a healthy, productive, beneficial manner.  But, consistency can be also detrimental and downright brutal.  At least there is no wavering there, I’ll give them that…

One year later.



Remember Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 from 1 year ago to this date?  Well, what have we learned in a year?  I think this article does a nice job summarizing what is likely, and not:

How the article ends:

“And then there is the issue of the investigation. Nobody I have spoken to in the industry is happy with the way this is going. The protocols for the conduct of an investigation seem far from clear. To be sure, there is no precedent in the history of commercial aviation for the task facing the investigation into Flight 370, combining such a great loss of life with the absence of any physical evidence for this long. As one expert said to me: “We will not know what happened here to a high probability until and unless we get real and conclusive data from actual key parts of the aircraft.” 

Not having that data is no justification for the continued lack of transparency from the investigation – after a year we should really be told, at the very least, where the primary focus of the investigation is headed. This transparency should reflect the strong public interest in understanding what has so far emerged and the implications for future passenger safety. In the absence of reliable information this has been fertile ground for speculation and conspiracy theories, all of which damages public confidence in air travel. 

The parties to the investigation include Boeing, Rolls Royce, Malaysia Airlines and Malaysian police and regulators as well as investigative teams from the U.S., Europe, Asia and Australia. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has restricted itself to regular technical reports on the underwater search and the science behind the choice of search area. After over-optimistic statements by the Australian prime minister and other Australian officials, the drift toward foot-in- -mouth disease was halted. None of these parties is talking or, it would seem, is aware of the outrage of their silence.”

Interesting how the author talks about Occam’s Razor to what made the most sense, and how I noted that as well in my post about the incident last year:

in there this:  “Woods talks about the concept of Occam’s Razor, which I will link to below after finishing this paragraph.  It really is about exhausting the most obvious and realistic theories and outcomes before you start railing away about absurd and outlandish ideas.  Besides, where is a good honest and true spy to get leads, I mean, there really isn’t a real life James Bond-type sleuth out there to unearth the real info for something like a Boeing 777 disappearing during what seemed to be a routine flight to China?”

And then I had an addendum with an article by Chris Goodfellow, written just 10 days after the “crash”:

So, what do we know today, March 8 2015?  Pretty much nothing, a plane is gone with hundreds of lives lost, most likely dead, and just the politics and finger pointing of personal interests misdirecting and confusing.

Hmm, sort of more antisocial BS at the end of the day.

Unhappy anniversary to all involved still alive to grieve and wonder what the hell is going on when planes disappear…

MH 370 still missing


The real miracle is getting people involved who not only care, but know truth trumps personal interests and gains.

Why are physicians at higher risk for suicide? There is no ONE answer, but…



So, in the February issue of Clinical Psychiatry News, the front page story is:

“Medicine grapples with Physician Suicide”, by Doug Brunk, and here is the link, albeit from another periodical:

I will be candid, I was very distraught and a bit hopeless the end of last year being unemployed for 5 weeks for reasons mostly not my fault, but, I was able to keep it together and finally found something to keep me afloat.  However, that said, I think the growing intrusions, micromanagement, and frank dismissal of the needed role for physicians not only disempowers caring and invested docs, but, Obamacare is going to f— health care over so much, you as patients won’t realize how much the lost role of physicians really is needed to be restored.

Once again we turn to the quote by Ann Rand in “Atlas Shrugged” when the physician character says this: (from a June 21 2014 post of mine)

“I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind—yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn. Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it—and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn’t.”

It has been over 16 years since I first read that, still applicable to this day, and should be the rallying cry of invested and concerned doctors needing to refute the insidious destruction of medicine by the Democrats and their crony cohorts who just want to control society, and oh, destroying the institution of medicine that prides on independence and autonomy is a bonus.

Hey, if Hillary Clinton is the poster child of the Democrat Party these days, well, her antisocial agenda is front and center, hence validating my post last week.  But, remember, 30+% of the electorate would vote for her reflexively even if she was caught red handed saying in so many words, “the public, what difference do they make?!?!”

We already know how reflexive the Republicans are, gee, how is that majority with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell worried solely about keeping their jobs, not doing them, working out for the Republican faithful?

Idiots, we are surrounded by idiots, and the rulers depend on the status woe.  The American Scream, er, Dream…

Hope and faith, so eloquently trashed by the Obama crowd.  And true to form, he now strokes the racist fires of police policies with the spotlight on his failed Iran policy so bright by Netanyahu and others who understand the dire issues at hand.

Politics certainly can make us feel suicidal, but who wins with that outcome?  Only the antisocials and their clueless, naive supporters win with people quitting who could make a real difference.  End of line.

Deja Vu all over again: what happens when extremists and zealots try to dictate debate.




I know, I know, regular readers here will ask me “why do you read and participate at sites that end up being annoying and wasting your time?!”  Well, perhaps a bit of a glutton for punishment could be one explanation, but, I read at some blogs to see if fairness and reason will pervade, however, some sites not only attract extremism and lack of moderation, I think they encourage it, if at least not calling out the zealots for their complete lack of ability to show some respect to not generalize with comments like this, from an “Anonymous”:

“So let’s be candid. The only reason every single psychiatrist that I know justifies involuntary psychiatric incarcerations is because their existence goes hand in hand with the the flow of money to psychiatry and psychiatrists. Without coercion (which implictly means that the opinion of psychiatrists is legally binding in many cases), government would not invest a single dime in organized psychiatry or psychiatrists. So while many psychiatrists make a living without receiving public money directly or indirectly, it is the fact that psychiatry functions as a tool of government sanctioned “social control” that makes psychiatry relevant in society.

We live in a “theocracy”, in which the Bible or the Khoran have been replaced by the DSM, as far as the US government is concerned. This is not an exaggeration since the DSM is explicitly mentioned in state “mental health” laws as to who can be at the receiving end of involuntary psychiatric incarcerations and other abusive forms of coercive psychiatry.

So indeed, I believe that only individuals who are “seriously disturbed mentally speaking” would want to be part of such profession. Every interaction that I have with a psychiatrist, including the ones in this thread, reaffirms my belief.”

Oh, where is this coming from, my bad, here is the link to the blog post and the ensuing thread that I contributed to in several comments:

You have to read the whole thing to understand what crowd was attracted to the thread, but, I think the author of the post is trying to make sense of why there is a pervasive population out there who is just outraged that psychiatry has the gall to have to involuntarily hospitalize people.  People who are a danger to themselves or others, or are so incompetent to care for themselves that the status quo will be a hellacious status woe for both the patient and those around such individual, they need something that eventually will be seen as a sanctuary.

Although I don’t really understand Dr Miller’s thought of trying to empower or encourage the patient involuntarily hospitalized by having some type of ceremony or celebration when the patient is discharged.

This is what Dr Miller wrote in the blog piece:  “So would it help when people left a psychiatric hospital feeling badly, violated perhaps, and certainly shamed because this is something we hear over and over even if the patient did nothing shameful at all, if we listened, acknowledged how difficult it can be to get treatment and participate in it, to let people know what a tremendous job they’ve done in getting through such a difficult time (even if it wasn’t all graceful)?  Would it help to have a celebration when someone was discharged –even if just pizza or cake or something a little healthier, but to bring in family and print up a certificate to be read aloud and not make this all about shame?”

I think the same “Anonymous” quoted above wrote in the last comment dated today before Dinah signed off on her contributions there this as an endpoint?:  “With all due respect, with your license to practice psychiatry, you are dangerous to the well being of other people. As long as you don’t see this, you will remain tone deaf to the issue of involuntary psychiatric incarcerations.”

Again, I encourage readers who are not already participating there to read the whole thing, and pay attention to the detractors of involuntary commitment who lump all of psychiatry as villains and violators of rights akin to countries of dictators and tyrants.  Which is why I end up commenting when I come across these threads of hostility and venom that takes the term “overgeneralizing” to new lows.

But, I wish I could attempt to direct this post to something more productive and positive in regards to hospitalizing people of impaired insight and judgment.  I really don’t think this post can go that path, but, I want reasonable and fair readers to ponder this:  forgetting those 5-10% who are legitimately being victimized by some outside person or force that is using psychiatric care as a punishment, those approximate 90% of people who are genuinely in need of some support and sympathy, what are alternatives to care or intervention?

As I tried to note at the thread, is it just incarceration or burial that impaired individuals have to turn to for hope and faith?  Or, are we as psychiatrists trying to make the proverbial lemonade from the lemons that bring in these people who are hurting, or ready to hurt others without care or regard to consequences?

These alleged advocates for appropriate alleged alternative interventions that should never consider involuntary care, well, read between the lines to their vitriol.  I am sure that some have been mistreated in their inpatient experiences, but, to extrapolate that every one else in similar circumstances have the exact same outcomes is just characterological in premise until proven otherwise.

As I said in the thread, who are the most outraged and offended people who leave care from an involuntary admit status?  Yeah, I have seen them in my travels, and often one of a basic three categories:  the entrenched Axis 2 disorder without any ability to step back and discriminate who cares and who is careless;  the entrenched addict (often with at least addiction added personality disruptions) who won’t accept recovery is any option to their future; and, while this one with some hope for intervention, the entrenched hostile psychotic who’s paranoia and distrust of all of society will not be altered by inpatient care options unfortunately jaded by the involuntary process in the first place.

If not said by the same anonymous commenter already quoted above, I am just baffled how these folks want us, psychiatrists, to be involuntarily hospitalized to know their pain and traumas, but, none of them to my knowledge have taken me up on my rebuttal:  how about trying to be a psychiatrist for a few days and taking on the responsibilities of having to care for people who seem to have few if anyone in their lives to provide the needed stability, sympathy, and support that could prevent the need for involuntary care.  (here is how I originally worded it in comment at the thread: “You want us to walk in your shoes and be involuntarily hospitalized, why don’t you seek out a way to be a psychiatrist for a few days or week and see what is on our shoulders?! Easy to be critical, but not so easy to take responsibility for other peoples’ lives, eh?”)

I’ll share my most likely reason they won’t reply, and it is harsh and abrupt, but, so are their comments in the first place:  their struggles to be appropriately supportive, sympathetic, and stable are very apparent in their comments at blog sites that are trying to open these caring and encouraging doors for consideration and access.

Dinah will never say that, nor should she if she can’t call these folks on their repetitive, pervasive efforts to demean and disrupt.  But, I can and do because the anonymity of the Internet allows this crap to go on without challenge by those who are preyed on by the extremists and zealots out to bash psychiatry into oblivion.

Frankly, I don’t think this arrogant or presumptuous, but take this ending however it fits your narrative:  I write what I post and comment on at other sites to allow the Drs of other sites to eventually depend on the likes of me to take the heat by these extremist zealot detractors who only think a dead psychiatry is a good one.

So, to my colleagues who continue to hope that reason and negotiation will prevail, good luck with that premise.  Even if it isn’t an antisocial population behind much that is going on here at the Net, it certainly is not a moderate, negotiable group much of the time, and to let them go unchallenged with some harsh rebuttal, well, review history when overtolerance seems to rule.

Thank you for reading this bit of a rant, but, hopefully it provides a perspective to allow the reasonable and objective readers to pause and reflect where the dialogue of debating care options should travel hereon…



Hope it provides a bit of a smile or laugh!

Addendum March 3rd:  as written in the thread here today by Cat Lover:

“It seems to me that you [Dr H] often heap vitriol onto people criticizing psychiatry (overgeneralizing) just as bad as they heap vitriol onto psychiatry. Why? Been treated like crap by too many of them, probably is why. Well, I was treated like crap by some mental health providers. I try hard not to generalize.”

Yeah, but so many in the antipsychiatry legion write these far reaching overgeneralizations that ALL psychiatry is guilty and complicit of wrongs and demonizations simply because of being a psychiatrist, and then those like you, maybe not Cat Lover personally, say NOTHING to distance or deride the over generalizations.  So, being silent is being complicit, and that is said about us when not voicing the legitimate attacks on the antisocial psychiatrists out there, so why the hypocrisy?!

Plus, let’s be beyond candid, let’s be brutally honest and bold, people like me really are threatening to the antipsychiatry lobby because I don’t tout the “party line” of we as professionals have to be held to this faux standard we have to be kind and fair while being attacked mercilessly.  Gee, like what the Islamic lobby is demanding as ISIS and Iran try to destroy free thought and independence?!

Well, I find that the endless attack without exceptions is rigid and inflexible zealotry that does not deserve kindness nor compassionate understanding once it is more than obvious there is no negotiation, there is no honest and fair debate, just the bold exclamations of, how did the comment from March 1 from “anonymous” comment here at the thread say it ? :

“My value system is aligned with the first proposition while clearly, all psychiatrists who support coercive psychiatry (in my own experience 99.999% of psychiatrists) align themselves with the second, which is why they are psychiatrists in the first place!”

This anonymous commenter is not an exception to the rhetoric, just the most recent of the pervasive ones who write this way whenever they can get away with it.  So, to the Cat Lover dissenters of psychiatry, your silence and lack of challenge only validates it with those who are using you, the alleged more moderate dissenters, as full allies to the extremist  mission.

Ironic that when I write a post about antipsychiatry, the views jump logarithmically in number, and when the spotlight fades, so do the mob.

Onto the next torch and pitchfork rally for these folks, eh?

Sorry to Cat Lover, respect and kindness is earned, not demanded, and certainly not used as a vise to minimize the clout of our rebuttals.  You want a one sided shout down, go back to Shrink Rap, 1boringoldman, and the other overtolerant folks who think they are having discussions, not veiled rants interpreted as being possibly therapeutic by such blog authors.

And I am never nasty at moment one, that just gets lost in the skewed narrative of the zealot.  But, to Cat Lover, thank you for being more engaging and respectful.

Note how Anonymous is now going after BYH who was being supportive to the point about possible benefits of involuntary admissions.  Can’t have people support the psychiatrists, what the hell next, meds might actually help some people!?!?

What does hypocrisy mean to you, being on the receiving end at least?


First the definition of hypocrisy:

  1. the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.
    synonyms: dissimulation, false virtue, cant, posturing, affectation, speciousness,empty talk, insincerity, falseness, deceit, dishonesty, mendacity,pretense, duplicity

Look at the synonyms for hypocrisy:  deceit, dishonesty, duplicity, I mean, really does infer an agenda that is not conducive to being a team player, and certainly incongruent with being a leader, like, being a politician in a free society.

So, if that premise resonates in you, the reader, why is hypocrisy tolerated in those who practice it with regularity?  How many times can someone look you in the face and boldly claim attitude A and intention 1 as a plan, and then turn around and practice attitude B and intention 2?

I tell patients who are struggling with dysfunctional relationships this simple point:  surround yourself with people who are stable, sympathetic, and supportive, and hopefully not only will that empower you to take more positive and productive stances and actions, but bring those traits out in yourself as well.

So, think about that with the growing hypocrisy that is our government officials, as well as more often in various leaders of influence and control of not only business and services, but public opinion.

Consistency is the hallmark of success.  At the very least, even if someone is consistently inappropriate and disruptive, at least you know where you stand with such an individual.  The hypocrite, well, where do you stand with this soul?

I wish I could find the commercial break played on One American News Network spoken in French about what treason does to society, really fits here but will have to catch it later today and add as an addendum.  After all, the traitor is textbook example #1 of the hypocrite, in the most lethal way, hmm?



How can you watch these politicians on the Sunday Talk shows?


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 97 other followers