“I resigned from those committees [DSM IV] after two years because I was appalled by the way I saw that good scientific research was often being ignored, distorted, or lied about and the way that junk science was being used as though it were of high quality, if that suited the aims of those in charge. I also resigned because I was increasingly learning that giving someone a psychiatric label was extremely unlikely to reduce their suffering but carried serious risks of harm, and when I had reported these concerns and examples of harm to those at the top, they had ignored or even publicly misrepresented the facts.”

Dr. Paula Caplan. The late Dr Caplan was a former professor of psychology, assistant professor in psychiatry and director of the Centre for Women’s Studies at the University of Toronto.

https://perlanterna.com/dsm

“Given its importance, you might think that the DSM represents the authoritative distillation of a large body of scientific evidence. It is instead the product of a complex of academic politics, personal ambition, ideology and, perhaps most important, the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. What the DSM lacks is evidence.

“The problem with the DSM is that in all of its editions it has simply reflected the opinions of its writers. Not only did the DSM become the bible of psychiatry, but like the real Bible, it depends on something akin to revelation. There are no citations of scientific studies to support its decisions. That is an astonishing omission, because in all medical publications, whether journals or books, statements of fact are supposed to be supported by citations of scientific studies”.

From: Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption by Maria Angell MD, former Editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Senior Lecturer, Department of Global Health & Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School. 2009.

https://perlanterna.com/dsm

Regarding Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders V:

"Steven E. Hyman, the former director of NIMH condemned the whole enterprise. It was, he pronounced, ‘totally wrong in a way [its authors] couldn’t have imagined. So in fact what they produced was an absolute scientific nightmare. Many people who get one diagnosis get five diagnoses, but they don’t have five diseases – they have one underlying condition."

S E Hyman. Director of the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research, Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Director of the US National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) 1996 – 2001. From A Scull. Mad Science: The Treatment of Mental Illness Fails to Progress [Excerpt] Scientific American. 2015.

https://perlanterna.com/dsm

To support psychiatry's push for psychotropic drugs, the world is being subjected to the largest-ever attempt to classify populations into ever-expanding categories of “disorders” or undesirable states.

This is being done through the similarly ever-expanding categories of disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since DSM III. (Published 1980 and III is the basis for all later versions.)

This activity which has subjected millions of people to these questionably effective drugs with often appalling side-effects should undoubtedly be based on science. But is it?

“[As] psychiatry is unable to depend on biological markers* to justify including disorders in the DSM, we looked for other things – behavioral, psychological – we had other procedures…. Our general principle was that if a large enough number of clinicians felt that a diagnostic concept was important in their work then we were likely to add it as a new category. That was essentially it. It became a question of how much consensus there was to recognise and include a particular disorder.” Robert Spitzer. DSM III Task Force Chair.

*“*There was very little systematic research, and much of the research that existed was really a hodgepodge—scattered, inconsistent, and ambiguous. I think the majority of us recognised that the amount of good, solid science upon which we were making our decisions was pretty modest.” Theodore Millon. DSM III Task Force.

(*biological markers are any objectively observed biological sign that indicates a medical condition, where that indicator can be measured accurately and reproduced. As DSM III was said to bring about the return to 'biological psychiatry', that there were no biological markers should have been seen as the first sign that something was very wrong.)

https://perlanterna.com/undesirables

The late Dr Loren Mosher resigned from the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 1998 in protest over the collusion between the association and the pharmaceutical industry and the resultant misuse of psychotropic drugs.

Dr Mosher was the head of the Center for Studies of Schizophrenia at the US National Institute of Mental Health from 1969 to 1980.

"This is not a group for me. At this point in history, in my view, psychiatry has been almost completely bought out by the drug companies. The APA could not continue without the pharmaceutical company support of meetings, symposia, workshops, journal advertising, grand rounds luncheons, unrestricted educational grants etc. etc. Psychiatrists have become the minions of drug company promotions. APA, of course, maintains that its independence and autonomy are not compromised in this enmeshed situation. Anyone with the least bit of common sense attending the annual meeting would observe how the drug company exhibits and “industry sponsored symposia” draw crowds with their various enticements, while the serious scientific sessions are barely attended. Psychiatric training reflects their influence as well: the most important part of a resident’s curriculum is the art and quasi-science of dealing drugs, i.e., prescription writing...

"Is psychiatry a hoax — as practiced today? Unfortunately, the answer is mostly yes."

The resignation letter by Dr Mosher remains a most concise and accurate statement of the corruption of mental health by psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry then and now.

The full text of the letter can be found here: https://perlanterna.com/mosher

Psychiatry's crisis of legitimacy in the 60s and 70s was a demand for accountability. Where was the science? The results?

"The Medical Director of the APA at the time, Melvin Sabshin, recalls that private insurance companies and the federal government began to view psychiatry as a "'bottomless pit-a voracious consumer-of resources and insurance dollars-because its methods of assessment and treatment were too fluid and unstandardized." Mitchell Wilson MD. 1990 DSM III and the Transformation of American Psychiatry: A History.

Its reputation in tatters, from 1965 to 1972 National Institute of Mental Health funding for psychiatric research decreased at a rate of 5% per year.

There were voices that had warned against this helter-skelter thrusting of psychiatry onto an international stage:

The subject's greatest benefactor, the Rockefeller Foundation, knew very well that neither biological nor dynamic psychiatry had any actual scientific foundation and were astonished at what was going on. https://perlanterna.com/social-racket

Others in the profession described what was occurring. From an article from psychiatrist Roy R Grinker in 1965: "There is a ferment to displace attention from the individual to larger groups and even to the world to prevent war and to facilitate social and cultural change. Unfortunately, extension of an activity is not a substitute for research or knowledge." Mitchell Wilson MD. 1990 DSM III and the Transformation of American Psychiatry: A History.

Despite these and other warning voices, no one listened. Psychiatry was on a fast train to nowhere. What would save it?

What did, had nothing to do with psychiatric 'knowledge'. In 1950 a tranquilizer of peculiar properties was found by chance to hide the symptoms of what psychiatry said to be 'mental illness'. Its use within psychiatry was driven by pharmaceutical company marketing over decades until it eclipsed most other psychiatric clinical applications, making the manufacturers previously unheard-of fortunes in profits. The pharmaceutical industry now determined psychiatric 'treatment'. The pharmaceutical industry domination of psychiatry had begun.

https://perlanterna.com/psychiatry-saved

The dramatic push after the war to insert social psychiatry into the West, and the many theories and forms of dynamic psychiatry and psychotherapy that traveled with it (to treat both those said to be mentally ill as well as those who were 'normal') made gains for a short time.

By the late 1960's, however, psychiatry was under attack from within and without.

Many within psychiatry disliked what was occurring and were demanding a return to biological psychiatry (although that subject had never gotten beyond speculation at best).

Psychiatry's monopoly on mental health had been broken and serious questions were being asked regarding the value of the profession. Psychiatry had entered what has been called a "crisis of legitimacy."

"In the American Journal of Psychiatry in 1977, Thomas Hackett, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, pointed out that the number of medical students going into psychiatry had shown a marked and substantial drop throughout the country and that it reflected, in his opinion, a growing skepticism about psychiatry’s useful future as it is seen from the outside. “Apart from their training in medicine,” he claimed, “psychiatrists have nothing unique to offer that cannot be provided by psychologists, the clergy, or lay psychotherapists” Mayes and Horwitz, 2005. DSM-III and the revolution in the classification of mental illness.

By 1976, the President of the American Psychiatric Association, Alan Stone said of social and dynamic psychiatry: "...carrying psychiatrists on a mission to change the world, had brought the profession to the edge of extinction." Mitchell Wilson MD. 1990. DSM III and the Transformation of American Psychiatry: A History.

https://perlanterna.com/crisis-of-legitimacy

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

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

​

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

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

At the peak of psychiatric eugenics, psychiatry's infiltration of Western democracies was very different from fascist regimes, such as NAZI Germany. An example of this was given in the annual meeting of the British National Council for Mental Hygiene on June 18th, 1940 by Colonel John R Rees (by 1948 Rees was the president of the World Federation of Mental Health directing psychiatry throughout the world, operating directly under the United Nations):

Excerpts. "We must aim to make it permeate every educational activity in our national life: primary, secondary, university and technical education are all concerned with varying stages in the development of the child and the adolescent. Those who provide the education, the principles upon which they work, and the people upon whom they work, must all be objects of our interest...

"Especially since the last world war we have done much to infiltrate the various social organizations throughout the country...Similarly we have made a useful attack upon a number of professions. The two easiest of them naturally are the teaching profession and the Church: the two most difficult are law and medicine.

"If we are to infiltrate the professional and social activities of other people I think we must imitate the Totalitarians and organize some kind of fifth column activity!

"It really wouldn’t matter if no one ever heard of this Council again provided that the work was done. Let us all, therefore, very secretly be “fifth columnists”.

(A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group or nation from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or another nation.)

This strategy is still being used now.

https://perlanterna.com/real-story-of-psychiatry-cat/no-psychiatry-you-cant-take-over-the-world/

The following quote - from a man who was there in Germany when all this was being disclosed - explains how Aktion T4 was the beginning of an international psychiatry/NAZI genocide program intended for areas conquered by the NAZIs.

"According to the records, 275,000 people were put to death in these killing centers. [Aktion T4] Ghastly as this seems, it should be realized that this program was merely the entering wedge for exterminations of far greater scope in the political program for genocide of conquered nations and the racially unwanted. The methods used and personnel trained in the killing centers for the chronically sick became the nucleus of the much larger centers in the East, where the plan was to kill all Jews and Poles and to cut down the Russian population by 30,000,000.”

“The original program developed by Nazi hot-heads included also the genocide of the English, with the provision that the English males were to be used as laborers in the vacated territories in the East, there to be worked to death, whereas the English females were to be brought into Germany to improve the qualities of the German race. (This was indeed a peculiar admission on the part of the German eugenists.)”

Doctor Leo Alexander. Medical advisor during the Allied trials of crimes against humanity by NAZI doctors and a contributor to the ‘Nuremberg Code’ covering human experimentation which was written after the trials. From ‘Medical Science Under Dictatorship’ July 1949

https://perlanterna.com/real-story-of-psychiatry-cat/no-psychiatry-you-cant-take-over-the-world/

The mass murder of 275,000 disabled and asylum patients by German psychiatry. 1940 - 1945:

“The tragedy is that the psychiatrists did not have to have an order. They acted on their own. They were not carrying out a death sentence pronounced by someone else. They were the legislators who laid down the rules for deciding who was to die; they were the administrators who worked out the procedures, provided the patients and places, and decided the methods of killing; they pronounced a sentence of life or death in every individual case; they were the executioners who carried out or – without being coerced to do so – surrendered their patients to be killed in other institutions; they supervised and often watched the slow deaths.”

F Wertham. A sign for Cain: An exploration of human violence. 1966

The Hadamar asylum… “celebrated the cremation of its ten-thousandth patient in a special ceremony, where everyone in attendance—secretaries, nurses and psychiatrists—received a bottle of beer for the occasion.”

E. Fuller Torrey and Robert H. Yolken. Psychiatric Genocide: Nazi Attempts to Eradicate Schizophrenia.

https://perlanterna.com/articles/aktion-t4-psychiatrys-eternal-shame/

The major psychiatric social manipulation program before WW II was Eugenics:

“In 1936, the authors of Eugenical Sterilization, led by Abraham Myerson, one of America’s most respected psychiatrists, praised Hitler’s eugenics legislation.” and “Similarly, many American psychiatrists and academics, such as Robert Foster Kennedy, supported Hitler’s euthanasia campaigns.

"In an editorial in the American Journal of Psychiatry, Kennedy warned that American mothers might respond with ‘guilt’ over the killing of their mentally ill children. The editorial suggests a public education campaign to overcome emotional resistance to such euthanasia.”

J Luty. Psychiatry and the dark side: eugenics, Nazi and Soviet psychiatry.

https://perlanterna.com/real-story-of-psychiatry-cat/no-psychiatry-you-cant-take-over-the-world/

Hello everyone!

We are looking to publish stories of people living in South Asia, stories that highlight a diversity of experiences with mental health systems - of using them/ surviving them/ challenging them. We would like to start a conversation around experiences of madness, emotional pain, suffering, and healing in South Asia. We welcome stories and experiences in different languages, writing styles, and mediums even audios/videos. This is an invitation to anyone with experiences of using mental health systems in South Asia (India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan), to share their experience and insights on being 'mad' in South Asia.

If you're interested do write to us at : info@madinsouthasia.org

Hi, I'm a college student and a psychiatric survivor and I'm currently writing my thesis for my bachelors in anthropology. My thesis is about how the experiences of psychiatric survivors offer opportunities to reconceptualize mental illness and change mental health care (more info in link). Here's a link to an anonymous survey I created. I appreciate any experiences you are willing to share!

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KH6G85V

Thank you, much love <3

Edit:

Thank you to everyone who participated in this project, I'm incredibly grateful that you chose to share your experiences, ideas, and insight. If you'd like to check out the completed project, you can see it here: https://www.josephinedaniels.com/raving-mad

My bro is taking resperidone 1mg twice a day since a few (2) psychotic episodes he had a year and 2 years back. On that front he is doing pretty well. There are no positive symptoms/delusions anymore.

The issue is with the negative symptoms/anxiety/restlessness/stunted emotions which is a consequence in such cases. Now his doctor gave him Nexito 20 mg, an anti depressant once a day for these symptoms but its not helping much.
A little history:
There is no family history at all. He had a seizure when he was around 2 or 3 years old while drinking milk and had to be put on medication for a year.
He used to take fumes of SR adhesive as a teen with friends to get high, which gave him serious kicks and hallucinations once but he soon stopped and never did it again.
Started developing little doubts in early 20's about people in his college at the same time he started smoking pot. Some of the doubts about his gf made him sad and traumatic. These things slowly progressed into delusions until a full blown psychotic episode.

Actually after his first episode he was put on multiple medications and the delusions still lasted for about a month and aftereffects for more. After 6-7 months he tapered off against the doctors wishes but within a year he started having delusions again but he himself knew what was happening. They went away within days of starting the medication again. He had a 3 mg dose earlier which was then reduced to 2 mg per day which he is currently taking. The doctor is adamant that we continue with the drug for a longer time and he will reduce the dose slowly and steadily.

After some time had passed after the second episode we did try to give him Aripiprazole (which supposedly also take care of the negative symptoms which are a part of anti psychotics) instead of resperidone but he started hearing humming sounds and some delusions came back during the transition in the medicines, so the doctor said that he continue resperidone because it has kept him stable.

Hello!

We are Medicating Normal-The Film.

We decided to come over to the sub and say hello and also invite you all to join us on August 22nd at 1 PM Eastern Time for a private virtual community screening of the film that is being hosted by the forum, SurvivingAntidepressants.org. The film is not yet released to the public, so community screenings like this one are the only opportunity to see the film before its official release in 2021.

We feel the hour-long dialogue after the film is as important as the film, and we welcome all respectful voices and perspectives to join in. Everyone deserves a seat at the table. Panelists for the post-screening discussion will be:

Altostrata: Survivor of prolonged paroxetine withdrawal syndrome, founder of SurvivingAntidepressants.org in 2011, for peer support in going off all psychiatric drugs, currently more than 15,000 registered members.

Ed White: Survivor of severe venlafaxine withdrawal, co-administrator of the Facebook group Effexor (Venlafaxine) Tapering, Discontinuation Syndrome and Protracted W/D, founded 7 years ago by Sherry Julo, with 6277 members at present.

Ashli Hein: Co-administrator of the Facebook group Cymbalta Hurts Worse, founded in 2013 by Toni Samanie, which has just passed 25,000 members.

Christy Huff, MD: cardiologist, benzo survivor, and Director of Benzodiazepine Information Coalition

CLICK HERE FOR TICKETS.

Hope to see some of you there!

Thank you,
The Medicating Normal Team

Hello r/SurvivorPsychiatry

We are Medicating Normal-The Film. You can find our website at medicatingnormal.com
We decided to come over to the sub and say hello and also invite you all to join us on July 11th for a private virtual community screening of the film. The film is not yet released to the public, so community screenings like this one are the only opportunity to see the film before its official release in 2021.

To get tickets: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/benzodiazepine-information-coalition-presents-medicating-normal-for-w-bad-tickets-107770115316

Please feel free to share the above in other subs, and with your friends, family, and social networks.

We hope to see some of you at the July 11 screening and post-screening community discussion. We feel the dialogue after the film is as important as the film, and we welcome all respectful voices and perspectives to join in.

Thank you,
The Medicating Normal Team

P.S. We are always looking to form partnerships so if you are aware of any organizations or conferences, etc. that would potentially like to screen our film to an audience, please have them contact us or share their info with us at medicatingnormal@gmail.com - Thanks!