Brock Chisholm, with J R Rees and other like-minded psychiatrists, launched their campaign to make the 'people of the world' World Citizens in 1948. Chisholm became the first Director General of the new World Health Organization with its mental health division. The International Committee for Mental Hygiene which had been spreading eugenics throughout the world simply changed its name to the World Federation of Mental Health with J R Rees as its President.

The definition of mental health was changed to draw psychiatrists out of the asylums and hospitals with new responsibilities, not just for the mentally ill but to take charge of the lives of those who were not, their social interactions, raising their children, and even their business success, etc.

"... post-war scientific thinking reflected an extraordinary broadening of psychiatric boundaries and a rejection of the traditional distinction between mental health and mental abnormality. To move from a concern with mental illness institutional populations to the incidence in general population represented an extraordinary intellectual leap." Mitchell Wilson MD. 1990. DSM III and the Transformation of American Psychiatry: A History.

The same change was reflected in the World Health Organization then, and now:

*‘*Mental health is an integral and essential component of health. 'Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.’ An important implication of this definition is that mental health is more than just the absence of mental disorders or disabilities.” "Health and Well-Being", World Health Organization website.

"This change in the intellectual landscape of psychiatric thought reflected a change in its institutional geography. Asylum psychiatry and the Kraepelin model on which it was based, fell into relative decline. The field became dominated by private practitioners and hospital and community psychiatrists who applied a broadly conceived psychosocial model ..." Mitchell Wilson MD. 1990. DSM III and the Transformation of American Psychiatry: A History.

The practical result was a resurgence in psychotherapy and with it a new concept; 'dynamic psychiatry' - based on the source of mental illness being social, political, and legal rather than medical. A psychological motivation for human behavior.

For a very short time, it would seem that psychotherapy had won.

https://perlanterna.com/social-psychiatry

Planning was underway, even before World War II ended, for a new social psychiatry that was supposed to save the world.

"With the other human sciences, psychiatry must now decide what is to be the immediate future of the human race. No one else can. And this is the prime responsibility of psychiatry.”

Psychiatrist Brock Chisholm lectures. 1945. The psychiatry of enduring peace and social progress. (In 1948 Chisholm was appointed the Director-General of the World Health Organization)

Support for eugenics and NAZI biological psychiatry had evaporated. The new idea was that the 'people of the world' were so immature that they could not live together without bringing about war. They were all to be made 'World Citizens' through psychiatric treatment to address their neuroses.

This new psychiatry was announced at the 1948 International Congress 'Mental Health and World Citizenship'

There were two major problems:

1. The 'people of the world' weren't the ones who started the wars and psychiatry was carefully avoiding handling the few lunatics who were responsible.

2. Psychiatry had no technology worth a damn to bring about such as result (and still doesn't).

"the current leaders of ... psychiatry are throwing their weight around in a way quite unjustified by the minute amount of really tested knowledge on which their procedures are based.“ Robert S Morison head of the Medical Sciences division, Rockefeller Foundation. August 1948.

https://perlanterna.com/more-plans

The first antidepressant, iproniazid, started out as a drug against tuberculosis. Given out in mass amounts in tuberculosis asylums, doctors noticed an uncanny side effect.

Extreme elation and mania.

Due to this effect, our anti-tuberculosis drug was used to treat depression and became the first MAOI.

So tell me. Did all the tuberculosis patients have bipolar?

Origins of Orthomolecular Medicine

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7217386/

Orthomolecular Psychiatry: Varying the concentrations of substances normally present in the human body may control mental disease.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.160.3825.265

Orthomolecular medicine is part of the foundation of integrative medicine. The term ‘orthomolecular’ was coined by two-time Nobel Laureate, Linus Pauling, in his seminal article, Orthomolecular Psychiatry, published in the journal Science, April 19th, 1968. The combination of the Greek ‘ortho’ (meaning straight, correct, right) with ‘molecule’ created a term that means, literally, right molecule. As conceptualized by Pauling and established through the pioneering leadership of Abram Hoffer, orthomolecular medicine aims to restore the optimum environment of the body by correcting molecular imbalances, determined by a wide range of testing and physician experience, and based on individual biochemistry.

Originally defined in the context of treating and preventing psychiatric diseases (eg. - niacin/niacinamide for schizophrenia), orthomolecular therapy involves altering the intake of nutrients such as vitamins, minerals, trace elements, amino acids, fatty acids, macronutrients, and other naturally occurring, metabolically active substances, to find the most effective doses. The orthomolecular approach has informed the development of several treatments, including the use of intravenous vitamin C for cancer and sepsis, vitamin B6 for autism, zinc for eating disorders, EFAs for ADHD, and many others. More than a treatment-for-disease model, orthomolecular medicine is essentially concerned with achieving and maintaining optimum health and well-being.

In its fifty-year history, orthomolecular medicine has grown substantially. Today, the International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine numbers more than 25 orthomolecular medical societies and tens of thousands of orthomolecular practitioners worldwide.

In 1993, 25 years after Linus Pauling coined the word orthomolecular, the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine was thriving, there were several orthomolecular societies established around the world, the Annual International Orthomolecular Medicine Today Conference was the leading educational event in its field, and thousands of doctors, clinicians and researchers were engaged in orthomolecular science and practice worldwide.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7217400/

Orthomolecular Treatment Response Dr. Pataracchia, in this 2010 Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine Treatment Response article, describes six cases in detail and their response to treatment. This case series highlights assessment and treatment scenarios common to Orthomolecular psychiatry.

At the clinic we use a targeted battery of tests that uncover an individual’s unique biochemical profile. As treatment progresses, we assess lab measures and aim to reverse and manage the biochemically influential imbalances in the body. We aim to achieve consistent continued improvement in a significant portion of cases.

The full article includes the following cases:

Case 1: Chronic Depression and Anxiety – male, 46 years old Case 2: Chronic Anxiety and Depression – female, 47 years old Case 3: Schizophrenia – male, 18 years old Case 4: Schizo-affective Disorder – male, 41 years old Case 5: ADHD/Dyslexia – male, 42 years old Case 6: Chronic Depression – female, 56 years old

https://nmrc.ca/treatment-response/

Orthomolecular therapy: Its history and applicability to psychiatric disorders

Frank J. Menolascino M.D., John Y. Donaldson M.D., Thomas F. Gallagher M.D., Charles J. Golden Ph.D. & James E. Wilson Pharm.D.

Abstract Orthomolecular therapy has had much support and much opposition, and yet there remain a number of professionals and parents who continue the quest for its effective application in the amelioration of psychiatric disorders. The popular press has again been the forum for heated debate between those who debunk its possibilities and those who attest to its operative use. Because the parents of mentally retarded and mentally ill children are particularly vulnerable to the raising or dashing of their hopes against claims being made either way, this paper provides an overview and history of orthomolecular therapy, its application to both mental illness and mental retardation, as well as toxicity considerations relative to megavitamin treatment, in the hope that such information will provide mental health professionals with concise an swers to the challenging questions currently being asked by their patients.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00709727

Orthomolecular Hall Of Fame information has been provided by Dr. Andrew W. Saul www.doctoryourself.com and by the Journal Of Orthomolecular Medicine. http://www.orthomed.org/

http://orthomolecular.org/history/index.shtml

In 1948 the President of the Rockefeller Foundation had commented that he feared the 15-year campaign to insert psychiatry into academia and medicine as a valid scientific subject had involved the foundation in a 'social racket'. Robert S Morison, head of the Medical Sciences division provided this answer to his boss:

“In other words, the campaign of psychiatrists for recognition has succeeded beyond expectations. Since this improvement in status has been won with little reference to scientific evidence, it is natural that psychiatrists under-rate the necessity of providing such evidence in the future. It is here that I think they are making their greatest mistake for I believe they underrate the tentativeness with which acceptance has been extended. My guess is that most medical men who have accepted psychiatry have essentially said to themselves, “These people seem to have something that is worth listening to; let’s give them a break.” They are still waiting, however, for evidence of the sort which has validated, for instance, the use of antibiotics. If this is not forthcoming within the next ten or fifteen years they may react rather violently, partly out of embarrassment for having extended a welcoming hand to a group which finally failed to produce.” …

“There have been several times recently when I have felt that the leaders of American psychiatry are trying to establish truth on the basis of majority vote. This is, of course, quite contrary to the usual scientific procedure of submitting evidence which can stand on its own merits in a candid world.”

Robert S Morison, head of the Medical Sciences division, Rockefeller Foundation. 1948

https://perlanterna.com/social-racket

​

After WW II Rockefeller Foundation's enthusiasm for psychiatry had considerably cooled. The exclusive concentration on psychiatry was ended and the Medical Sciences Division was told to look into other fields.

It wasn't just the fact that the Foundation had funded many of the organizations and individuals in Germany responsible for NAZI psychiatric atrocities. https://perlanterna.com/descent-into-hell

The Foundation was concerned that psychiatry refused to provide evidence of a scientific foundation for the subject. Despite millions spent and a 15-year campaign to insert psychiatry into academia and medicine as a valid scientific subject, the Foundation was worried they had been taking part in and promoting a 'social racket.'

"Doesn’t a continued and general refusal to permit or attempt validation of psychotherapeutic methods put everyone concerned, including ourselves, in a position of promoting or carrying on a social racket? How can the charlatans be dealt with if the good men will give no validation but their own individual say sos?”

Chester I Barnard, President of the Rockefeller Foundation. 1948

[Barnard is using 'psychotherapeutic methods' to mean all psychiatric methods rather than only psychotherapy.]

https://perlanterna.com/social-racket

By 1937, the Rockefeller Foundation was coming to realize that their efforts to stage-manage biological psychiatry into an even vaguely scientific activity would entail a great deal of work:

"As a new science, it has not yet developed a body of knowledge or trained personnel comparable to that achieved by the other disciplines. Frequently isolated from the rest of medicine, psychiatry has sometimes run to strange cults and theories."

"Part of the cleavage between psychiatry and medicine, oddly enough, has been due to the scientific development of medicine. Medical science has enriched our knowledge of the entity of disease; the entity of the human being has been neglected. Scientific techniques, so fruitful in the study of diseases of the heart, or bacterial invasions, brought negative results when applied to the study of many mental diseases. Those few mental diseases, like general paresis [the effect of untreated syphilis on the nervous system], in which changes in brain structure were demonstrable, were amenable to the methods of general medicine. Those mental diseases which yielded nothing to the new pathological or bacteriological approach were left on the doorstep of the psychiatrist. As a result psychiatry has to a certain extent been shoved off in to a corner of speculation and terminologies—a stepchild, acknowledged but not understood and not really wanted."

Raymond Fosdick, President of the Rockefeller Foundation. Foundation Annual Report 1937.

perlanterna.com/strange-cults

​

Is it mandatory to take antipsychotics if you have had 2 psychosis in a time span of 2 years being an involuntary patient diagnosed with bp1? I mean i think i meet the criteria of bp1, but i dont really know if its mandatory to take by law or something in europe.I could just take mood stabilizers and be fine right? I dont have no more psychosis.I have been taking makes 1 year now.I dont really know if I should stop and then the cops go after me but i hide or smth.I am on university and trust me its way more difficult than I could imagine.

The men of the Rockefeller Foundation were interested in using psychiatry as part of their plans for worldwide 'mental hygiene' (eugenics and biological psychiatry). They set up a committee to study the state of psychiatry and its often pretentious claims and theories. The head of the committee, David L. Edsall, Dean of Harvard Medical School reported back in 1930:

*“*In most places psychiatry now is dominated by elusive and inexact methods of study and by speculative thought. Any efforts to employ the more precise methods that are available have been slight and sporadic. Often they have not been used at all. It is, of course, more difficult to use them in psychiatry than in the more definitely physical aspects of medicine, but there has been little employment of the methods that are open to use, in psychiatry itself, and there has been little change in real knowledge.“

"...the medical man was contented with finding small fragments of knowledge, but the psychiatrist insisted upon making such a comprehensive attack that he accomplished nothing.”

Nonetheless, in 1932 the Rockefeller Foundation embarked on a campaign costing millions across 23 countries, through research, the recruitment and training of psychiatrists, and establishing psychiatric departments in Universities - the birth of what you now see as international biological psychiatry.

To be continued...

https://perlanterna.com/edsall

It might be a bit on a tedious analysis trying dissecting the origins of psychiatry, because at first you think this is an intellectual field. an academic polish field. But its' rise, and solidification in the middle of the 20th century could hardly be attributed to one cause such as real actual intellectual development. Once the conditions of history emerged psychiatry got its' "schizophrenic" and "multiple personality" character. One could say that during the development of the field, it could be split into two or more main branches - Medicinal psychiatry, therapeutic psychiatry and pharmaceutical psychiatry. The part of psychiatry which in not strictly medicinal and not strictly pharmaceutical is the most critiqued, as it's not any more valid to deem it intellectual enough, than to say intelligent design (eluding to one of the dialectics of modern philosophy) is truer than the theory of evolution. The part of psychiatry attacked is exactly the theoretical therapeutic side of psychiatry, which is merely another theory on humans, and quite critique as well. Afterwards, the practice of psychiatry is critiqued for its’ coercive, cartoonist way of emulating military medicine discipline. One can say that without therapy or drugs psychiatry, all other psychiatry would be much less valid.

This leads one to inspect the origins of psychiatry itself which is without a doubt with modern politics and the Enlightenment. More directly - tt rose not from the privileged feudal classes, but from the needs and expectations of the poorer human reality, the experience of poverty, and the survival strategies it entails. Psychiatry rose from the disgraceful state in which the vast majority of humans were, including prostitution, in early modern times and the progress ideal which is down-rotten. It's ultimately from the narratives of the rot of humanity that it sprang, and it is validating of all other things rotten in humanity, like bad thinking, lack of control, criminality, dangerous deviance, coercion (without war, which is cowardice), ambition, greed and of course the much excused dirty-gossip like interactions. The rise of psychiatry is not incidentally from the aftermath of the Peace of Westphalia (1648), the Enlightenment, Rousseau’s thinking and the invention of the concepts of national sovereignty, and later 19^(th) century popular sovereign. That’s exactly why psychiatry is a social theory doctrine, and a SOCIAL CONTRACT theory, the arises from a compromise with the people and the masses , not from any direct demand. No, it belongs to the EXACT SAME MASSES from whom it rose. Not to any other person. Just like a social contract, that should leave those unsigned alone. The element of the new should leave unscathed and unharmed, and unchanged those who have by incidence have come to contact with all the previous humanities, and identities, which were imposed, passed down or transmitted to them throughout historical incidences. This includes human playfulness and irascibility , and other expressionistic or impressionistic projects which involved a portrayal of others, which was personal, subjective, creative or otherwise not properly reasonable and logical.

In continuance to this, psychiatry was interacting with historical reality, and due to its' initial source it was made of the material that creates the disgusting gossipy part of humanity, and in reality it's true goal is trying to defend this part of humanity that is most reliant on AUTHORITARIAN thinking, and coercive character of the staunchly under-educated poorer classes. Long standing romantic tradition have employed its' means to create a narrative of an idealized portrayal of the working and poor classes. This was done first to establish norms, aid political processes, and to convince skeptics or dissenting others to believe in the notion the poor classes are idealized humans, while the truth was more meager, mundane and cruel. But the trick is that once it is used, it's hard to undo it or clear the air from the narrative rationalizing and explaining human failure. That adds to the invalidity of the general practice of psychiatry, outside the pharmaceutic part. They speak about psychiatric theory as though it's theory is on par with medical science in theory, while in truth the theory reads like a weird technical way to explain human degradation. Specifically THE prototypical human degradation of the lower classes with their Malthusian presentation and (cultural) vulgarity. Add to that the massive overhaul Feminism had caused to western philosophy, and what you have is that the theoretical side of psychiatry is basically like Feminism. It acknowledges some "dark", unconventional side in humanity, which it addresses very partially, most reliably by using eugenic logic (take Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger, as an example). Eugenics is the only thing that makes sense in all NON-pharmaceutical intellectual/scientific fields even though its questionable from many perspectives. But, Psychiatry is unreliable insomuch as it treats itself (itself is the theoretical therapeutic part) as a medical science (or an exact science, for all hell to see) while denying it has a theoretical part which is not pharmaceutical, or is scientific. This part is like all other intellectual fields (Utopian Marxism, Kantianism, Consequentialism, or constitutional monarchy) - has to earn its' validity / reliability in intellectual debates. Psychiatry was really a hidden quasi-demagogic theory, that existed in the hidden underground “subconscious” passages of human thought, which were than given voice after they finally could claim a seat of power, as with other organized ideologies. It was than given a place of honor in the halls of regulation, and incorporated into law-enforcing states. For the sake of proper communication, this is not an endorsement of eugenics, merely highlighting the potential association, or verbal connect between mass politics, psychiatry and eugenics.

Up until 180-150 years ago, human rights and freedoms were very limited, even in the Western world. The restrictions were either legal or societal. Those living in complex societies, lived in a rather hierarchical social order , with traditional class and gender divisions and roles being strictly maintained by a dominant conservative, collectivist, autocratic, patriarchal structure. Economy was largely based on agriculture, small-scale manufacturing, local trade and on slave / serf labor in more advanced conservative societies. But in the aftermath of the Enlightenment and Industrial revolution, and modernity, humanity underwent more rapid overall evolution and divergence. With these came the progress which included democratization, bureaucratization, and modernization taking place gradually all over the earth, and reshaping the old, in cycles of creative destruction. With democratization which also triggered liberalization, people had more freedoms (on paper), and more options for self-actualization, and many practices have been normalized, taboos broken and novel things happened. In the aftermath, though, some viewed the self-actualization of these new modern people, as divisive, disconnected, alienated and more distant from human nature, more defying of inhibitions, and more personally-creative. This ushered unprecedented number of new identities and identity formation practices, and opportunities (abstract or materialistic). This could be phrased as a question, but the extent of these new identity formations, and identities, have thus reinforced a certain strand of psychiatry, which calls to control dangerous identities, and otherness which is too distant from natural / normal. For instance, things like tattoos, piercing, surgical procedures, bodybuilding, and other many new things have been normalized, so although many adopted to it, not all were reconciled wit these changes. One sch case is that of TradCons whose world radically changed by lib-normalization or those in high collusion areas between the old and the new, could need the help of psychiatry in theory. But, if this comes at the expanse of philosophy, this should be viewed as exaggerated overbearing psychiatric practice,

Most of what you see in 'modern' biological psychiatry is called the 'neo-Kraepelin revolution' and is based on the opinions of psychiatrist and eugenicist Emil Kraepelin. The only problem is that at the end of his career, Kraepelin confirmed it was indeed only his opinions and nothing more than speculation:

“The magnitude of the efforts to be expended on our task, the impenetrable darkness that hides the innermost workings of the brain and their relation to psychic manifestations, and finally the inadequacy of our instruments for dealing with extremely complicated issues, must cause even the most confident investigator to doubt whether it is possible to make any appreciable progress toward psychiatric knowledge and understanding; indeed, it has not been very long since some of our best researchers turned to related disciplines in search of rewards not afforded by psychotherapy.”

Emil Kraepelin. 1917. One Hundred Years Of Psychiatry.

More than 100 years later and using the most sophisticated equipment available it has NEVER been proven as being anything more than his opinions.

https://perlanterna.com/kraepelin

Apologies if this is considered spammy or anything, remove if this isn't allowed.

I'm a PROUDLY disabled person and advocate for reform in mental healthcare, substance abuse recovery, and (especially) the justice system. I'm a student currently researching the intersections between mental health, shortcomings in accessibility of care, and one's likelihood of being arrested. I'm sure you know where this is going.

If you're willing, I'd love to hear responses from folks in this community. Please note that, while my survey is long and does contain references to topics that may be triggering (life ending, hurting, substance abuse, etc.), respondents can (and are encouraged to) skip over any section that is too sensitive for them. I want to hear your story without it causing harm to you. So, please, share as much (or as little) as you're comfortable with. It's all helpful.

Check out the survey here. I'm accepting answers until Nov 01 2023.

EDIT: A note about information disclosure/informed consent:

I’m just an undergraduate student, so my research is very informal, and very limited in scope. I don’t have a prof overseeing me; I’m doing this of my own volition. I’m presenting later this semester (in a capstone course) about rehabilitative justice, mental illness in corrections, etc. I thought about my experiences with psych hospitals, so I thought it could be useful to hear other peoples’ experiences with corrections, psych treatment, and substance use.

I will be presenting my project, including some (but likely not all) of the findings of this survey twice: once privately (in my class), and later that same day publicly (for a small student organisation I’m in that’s interested in the topic). I have no interest in publishing these results anywhere, nor do I intend to share the detailed results (i.e., complete, but still anonymous, reports) with anyone else. It’ll just be “x% of respondents picked choice A instead of B or C” and select redacted quotes provided by participants. I’m not trying to do any groundbreaking work or make any profound academic statement. I’m not funded by anyone, nor do I have any interest in profiting off of this. I just want to hear peoples’ stories and hopefully get a better perspective so I can personally learn more.

I underline this in the survey itself, but all of this is of course anonymous. the only break in anonymity is if people CHOOSE to give a contact email for further interviews. However, I do not want peoples’ names (I specifically asked for an alias) and the ONLY person who will see any of that info is me, behind my locked, 2FA-backed account. It’s secure. I’ll probably use encrypted email when I reach out to folks too, just for added protection. And when I quote folks? It’ll be “respondent 1 said this” and such. No names or initials or anything.

If you have ANY other questions about disclosure, info sharing, etc., PLEASE ask. I only want to be transparent. I’m just a student who wants to make a cohesive and meaningful presentation.

I would like to preference this by saying psychiatry is not an actual science.

With that out of the way. I was on Facebook this morning and noticed a friend that usually like's my post hadn't done so in a while. So I go to her page just to find the dreaded "rip" "she'll be missed." She was a lovely woman and I always appreciated her takes on life. She reminded me of myself in some ways, a person with their trauma's just trying to get by in life. She was beautiful and kind to people from all walks a life, which always surprised me because she was pretty well off finically. but she seemed like a cool person

I knew she drank, and i knew she took psych meds (she talked about benzo's for sleeping) and right before she passed she posted a picture of her ketamine prescription.

This had me thinking that her doctors probably had her on a poly pharmacy of drugs, in a sense they were most likely her drug dealer. If it wasn't ketamine or benzo's what else were they prescribing her?

In my younger years I was a victim of the poly drugging from the terrible profession, they had me on 6 different drugs. it was pathetic, if I hadn't quit taking them i probably would have ended up dead myself.

It's crazy we don't question these things. Very few people realize the harm this awful profession is doing. I feel like my friend would be hear toady if she would have stayed far from the doors of psychiatrist.

​

Many of them don't visit their patients while inside wards.

They apply trauma bonding including prolonged durations where they don't talk to patients and then submit them to some form of monthly session only after the patient has left the ward.

They almost always will not entertain alternative psychiatric thoughts including things like banning usage of DSM, convincing victims that their place is different (oh it's not a psych ward, it's <name of ward>) and allow unmonitored opinions by staff including letting nurses explain away things as chemical imbalance to gullible patients, ignore patients that are being subdued and opt for sedation over conversation in most cases. They are also untrained in most therapeutic aspects. Often being disconnected from things like occupational therapy activities.

Most importantly they almost always employ a very expensive very top down approach in which 90% of the staff are abusive because they are mostly low paid compared to the psychiatrist and they don't encourage staff who are skeptical of the treatments to go above and beyond their empathy creating a culture that's at least 60-75% groups of abusive if not unempathic people with those 1-2% of people actually engaging in patients at a regular interval consistently. The rest being just workers in general. Looking for that quick fix high of receiving at least a good enough salary compared to your average minimum wage worker.

Studies of entry points into the mental health system frequently point to self-imposed authorities, namely parents, school staff, law enforcement, courts and medical staff, as being the primary complainants that usher non-criminal individuals into the clinical "re-adjustment" scenarios.

The overwhelming majority of psychiatric criteria are related to resistance of cooperation with authorities (and/or a violation of expectations); a way to demonize correcting "up-rank" individuals and groups by declaring autonomy a form of brain disease or dysfunction.

Since the foundations of society aren't set by any rule of logic, law or science based in epistemic reasoning, and have their roots dug-in via a history of aggressively selfish anti-critical groupthink and mob rule, it is only natural for people to push back, ignore dictations and express themselves in civil and/or non-criminal ways.

Some families, school workers, etc... however, are not compliant with civil non-conformity. For many people, these "authorities" and group attempt to engage in domineering and dominating behaviors, aggressively attacking those that they see as disobedient to their (frequently unfounded/fallacious) worldviews and status. In steps in psychiatry; the system known for oppressing women, minorities, foreigners, lowerclass, and the impoverished. The hero of oppressive forces, with a system in hand intentionally designed to back those of self-imposed higher status; to help them dictate what is right and sane. Those with enough aggressive accusations levied at them while lower status are dictated to be incorrect, dysfunctional and insane.

Commonly, psychiatry didn't hide this intent early on, focusing on "disobedience" and discouragements to diagnose people as insane and unstable, with the only criteria being that their lack of submission to others was seen as disruptive and disturbing. When people didn't submit to threats, violence and social abuse, the thought was that people had issues with their soul, mind or brain.

Today, diagnosticians and original complainants have changed their vocabulary, utilizing softer and softer unscientific pejorative terms/synonyms and associating negative emotions and non-cooperation with incapability and impulsivity in order to maintain the demonetization and infantilization of the targets of psychiatry. The main inevitable consequence: targets are given praise for obedience to the system's narrative and never question root-of-diagnosis concepts; targets help to promote the Social Dominance Orientation of the system (in order to help combat "worse" targets that require more "correction"); targets promote the idea that all targets are equally suffering from the same kind of soul/mind/brain issue, rather than just being targets of a rather hostile and irrational society.

Until the system completely reworks psychiatric hypothesis, criteria, diagnostics and fact-checking, then the system will continue to be a form of maintenance meant for "correcting" disobedience and instilling a respect for "authority" instead of actually address brain, social or unjustified suffering.

This isn't to say the more extreme impulsive behaviors do not exist; but the overwhelming growing number of "diseases" invented by the APA/DSM/ICD-M need to be re-addressed for being nothing more than an attempt to "other" individuals that question the absurdity of modern authoritarianism and groupthink, let along negative behaviors associated with social-fallout.

The more hyperbolic claims are on a form, especially without accompanied expository frameworks, the more likely someone is to be falsely entrapped and ensnared in the system of bias that is the modern psychiatric system.

There is no way out other than to appease the dominating uncritical, non-objective social and cultural beliefs of diagnosticians, peer-groups and authorities.

The act of shirking off demands and expressing disdain or displeasure with irrational socio-cultural fascism, even in non-criminal civil-disobedient ways, is itself such an offense to the current social dynamics (of broken teleological-centric groups) that it has become impossible to reason with people whom cannot accept a position of pure ignorance and non-control.

Many value poorly reasoned expectation or humility and debate.

We are living in an ever-expanding authoritarian society where opinion and rank is said to be the controlling influence of the populous, not rational thought/intellectual honesty.

Where there is opportunity for bias, all member of the psychiatric establishment will seize it.

Where there is opportunity for correction, critical inquiry or skepticism, the psychiatric establishment will squander it.

In the mental health field there is not a single falsifiable objective test that one can take to clear their name of any mental unsoundness or dysfunction.

Yet, most psychiatric diagnoses are made by way of unfalsifiable proclamations, reliant predominantly on known logical fallacies and biases (expectation bias, observer bias, antecedent/consequent fallacies, circular logic, begging the question, etc).

This is by design. Any objective test that would prove people are sound of mind would eliminate misuse of the system by authorities and peer-groups to oppress those they have impulses to dominate or dismiss. The early history of psychiatric practices clearly demonstrate that early "mental health" systems were designed primarily to due just that; promote domination or dismissal of individuals and groups. It was not about determining soundness, capability or maximum potential.

Due to a lack of falsification-based inquiry into mental health disciplines, and an aggressive history to promote fallacious logic in diagnostic reasoning, it can be reasonably concluded that the current psychiatry system is much of the same. Especially given the strong irrational emotional reactions by people wishing to promote a non-objective based practice that can label people as "lesser", "dysfunction" or "wrong" without having to demonstrate it so.

Sadly, motions toward creating a falsifiable test are likely to move towards fallacious/biased tests with fallacious expectations rather than rational/epistemic ones. A flawed focus on teleological "productivity" rather than "intellectual honesty and adequate expression" is the most probable [incorrect] route the current system would take.