The Antipsychiatry Forum (letters from readers)

Date: 06:25 PM EDT, 04/25/2002
To: antipsychiatrycoalition@usa.net
I came across this site looking for info on how we could legally commit my 21 year old brother. So I started reading your articles, and would like to know what you think the problem is then. Since according to you, there is no such thing like bi-polar disorder, then please help me understand why he's out of control. For the last 8 years he has gotten increasingly erratic. He can barely keep let alone obtain a job. He's verbally and sometimes phyically abusive he uses whatever drugs and alcohol he can find, has been suicidal, he's gotten into trouble with the police, sold many of my mother's belongings to get money, he's stolen from family members, seems to have no ambition or sense of responsibilty. And now he has a 6 month old, but he can't even take care of himself. He drove my mother to bankruptcy, she lost her house, and then got kicked out of an apartment because of him. So now she's on the verge of getting an order of protection in their next domestic court case. So should we just let the jails have him? Let him be homeless? How much of your tax dollars are you willing to spend on him? Because we've spent thousands. We love him, but he has us completely falling apart. So, smarty pants, will you give him a job, and a place to live? Or when he's dead or has aids or lives in a dumpster, are we just supposed to say "Well, that's the way it was meant to be?" I really think some people need other people's HELP, otherwise, you wouldn't need this website, now would you? Waiting on your 'all knowing' answer!
D.R.

April 26, 2002
Dear D.R.,
Thanks for your letter. I appreciate and sympathize with your frustration.
Here's my answer: You and your mother should do what you must to protect yourselves from your brother's irresponsible conduct, but at the same time, you should respect his right to do whatever he wants that does not violate the rights of other people. You have a right to disassociate yourselves from him, and you have a right to bring criminal complaints against him that may result in him being dealt with as criminal law provides, but (morally) you do not have a right to violate his right to freedom or his right to live his life as irresponsibly as he wants by incarcerating him (such as through involuntary psychiatric commitment) unless you first prove he did something illegal.
This is the best answer that is consistent with your brother's rights as a human being. While civil commitment law may give you the power to incarcerate and punish your brother for his irresponsible behavior, adding brain damage and neurological dysfunction and psychiatric stigma to his already existing problems will only make matters worse.
Good luck to all of you.
Sincerely,
Douglas A. Smith
webmaster, www.antipsychiatry.org

Date: Tue, 01 Aug 00 15:53PM EDT
To: antipsychiatrycoalition@usa.net
Subject: website
I happened on your website due to an article opposing it on http://www.writtenbyme.com/articles/375186504.shtml. I really didn't think that the things this author had been quoting from a Lawrence Stevens, J.D. would actually be said let alone publicized. Where do you get your research? Mental illness IS an illness and has been proven. It's a lack of seratonin in the brain. That's why the new S.S.R.I.'s are so affective.
Your callousness about suicide and the rights to be allowed to do it are extremely disturbing. I would be dead right now if it wasn't for suicide prevention, medication, hospitalization, and weekly therapy. And in my experience dealing with THOUSANDS of those with mental illness (in my research for my book) I have never heard of anyone being harmed by psych drugs, psychiatrist treatment, or any of the credulous blabber on your site.
Although I firmly support the freedom of speech, this is one time that I am ashamed that we let all our citizens express their opinions. I can only hope that your site doesn't KILL anyone who thinks they are not ill. Maybe you should think long and hard about that.
I think the following quote taking directly from the site PROVES that mental illness really does exist. Who else but an ill, untreated person would right and believe such nonsense. "After homosexuals made a big enough spectacle of themselves and showed their 'strength in numbers' and successfully demanded at least a small measure of social acceptance, it was no longer necessary and no longer seemed appropriate to explain homosexuality as a disease."
Susan

Webmaster Douglas A. Smith responds:
Regarding Susan's assertion that "mental illness" (she probably means depression) is caused by "a lack of seratonin [serotonin] in the brain," see Prozac Backlash, a book by Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, published in the year 2000, in which he says: "We do not yet have proof either of the cause or the physiology for any psychiatric diagnosis" (page 193). Of this serotonin theory of depression specifically (used to justify using drugs that are supposedly "selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors - SSRIs), Dr. Glenmullen says:"A serotonin deficiency for depression has not been found. ... Still, patients are often given the impression that a definitive serotonin deficiency in depression is firmly established" (page 197), which probably explains Susan's firm belief in this theory. Regarding Susan's assertion that "the new S.S.R.I.'s are so affective" (she means effective), Dr. Glenmullen says: "The efficacy and safety of serotonin boosters is anything but 'scientifically proven'" (page 211).
To read about studies showing psychiatric "treatment" does not usually prevent suicide (and may motivate people to commit suicide), see "Suicide: A Civil Right".
For evidence of harm from psychiatric drugs, see "Psychiatric Drugs - Cure or Quackery?", Jenelle's Story, and Harm from Psychiatric Drugs (elsewhere here in The Antipsychiatry Forum).
The quotation about homosexuality is found in "Does Mental Illness Exist?" Readers seeing this statement in (or out) of context can form their own opinion about whether it "PROVES that mental illness really does exist" as Susan claims.
And on the subject of killing people, you might want to read "Abuse in Mental Institutions", an article about people being not just physically and sexually abused but killed (by the use of physical restraints) in mental hospitals.

Date: Wed, 19 Apr 00 02:43AM EDT
From: Lisa Di Valentino
[Note: This writer's name and university affiliation appear here at her request.]
To: antipsychiatrycoalition@usa.net
Subject: Some philosophical musings
Dear Mr. Smith,
I have been looking through your website, and I thought I might offer some constructive criticism regarding your argument that mental illness does not exist. I will comment on each premise in turn:
1) "Mental illness doesn't exist because psychiatrists can't agree on its definition." This premise implies that there is one, universal, cross-cultural definition of physical illness to which mental illness can be compared. If you know what that is, I'd certainly like to be let in on the secret.
2) "They haven't found the biological causes of mental illness, therefore it doesn't exist." First of all, this is an argument from ignorance; a common logical fallacy. Even if a biological cause has not yet been found, we can't necessarily preclude the existence of one. I could just as easily say that because evolutionists have not found the missing link between humanoids and humans, that one doesn't exist, and so evolution is false.
Secondly, you are again implying that a biological cause can be found for every and all so- called physical illness. That is obviously not true. Can I now claim that cancer does not exist, or that oncology is a pseudo-science? Or that Lou Gehrig didn't really die of Lou Gehrig's Disease (ALS)?
Or do you mean to say that a biological cause is not necessary for illness, only a biological manifestation? In that case, mental illnesses do fit the bill, since they do result in somatic signs and symptoms; some annoying, some terrifying, some life- threatening (consider the rapid weight-loss experienced by sufferers of major depression and panic disorder, due to anorexia and gastrointestinal distress.)
3) "'Mental illness' is a label given to those who do not conform to society's standards." Certainly the behaviour of schizophrenics and manic-depressives is disturbing, sometimes threatening. I can understand why society would have an interest in anticipating any harms (real or imagined). However, not all mental illnesses manifest themseves in such behaviours. Panic disorder, for example, is disturbing mainly to the sufferer. They experience cold sweats, hyperventilation, gastrointestinal distress, violent trembling. They do not exhibit any symptoms that would be threatening to any bystander or to society as a whole. Society has no need to "fear" a person in the throes of panic attack.
"Illness" (as in physical illness) is also used to project value systems on to so-called sufferers. Some feminist authors (such as Gena Corea) claim that "infertility" is a manufactured disease meant to reinforce the notion that women are somehow "incomplete" or "abnormal" if they cannot conceive or maintain a pregnancy. The mainstream medical community, however, continues to research causes and treatments for this "disease", using women as guinea pigs under the guise of "therapy", and subjecting their "patients" to copious amounts of hormone stimulation and invasive surgery.
4) "Psychiatrists can't cure 'mental illnesses', only treat them." This is obviously true for many "physical" illnesses as well: diabetes and AIDS, for example. (Not to mention infertility, a fact that is perfectly OK with manufacturers of hormone stimulants.)
5) "Those with so-called mental illnesses are simply reacting to unfavourable circumstances in their lives." Again, this appears to be true of so-called physical illnesses such as ulcers, acne, infertility, and heart disease. Stress has been shown to cause all manner of physical impairment, from the merely uncomfortable to the life-threatening. We don't suggest, however, that ulcers do not exist because they are caused by reaction to unfavourable circumstances. Furthermore, this premise follows from premise 2) -- that no biological cause can be found, therefore mental illness does not exist. Simply because one cannot be found (or you don't agree with the causes that have been found), it is not philosophically sound to jump to the conclusion that there is no biological cause, and therefore it must be social.
6) "Psychiatry should be abolished as a 'medical specialty' because it causes harm." Psychiatry can cause harm; no doubt about it. So can genetic research and therapy. In fact, critics of the Human Genome Project claim that the mere search for the exact contents of the human genome will invariably lead us down the slippery slope to eugenics. Some bioethicists claim that such a slide is already occurring with the amount of genetic research taking place, and the claims by some companies such as Celera to ownership of genetic sequences.
In short, I can see no objections to psychiatry and the concept of mental illness that cannot also be applied to the field of medicine as a whole. If we are to determine what mental illness is, and whether it exists, it might be prudent to first determine what "illness" is.
To inject a personal note: I have been suffering from panic disorder for 20 years. I began treatment with Paxil in 1993. I am now very healthy, both physically and mentally. I suffer no side effects, and I am currently working on a Master's degree in philosophy. (I wanted to counteract the stereotype of the drooling, zombielike, overmedicated mental patient.)
Lisa Di Valentino
Department of Philosophy
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
Dear Lisa,
The definition of a physical illness depends on the illness, but every type of illness except mental illness has a biological cause. You are of course free to assume physical causes of mental illness will one day be found, but this is speculation rather than science. Does it makes sense to believe in an illness you can't prove exists? Why not similarly believe, on faith, in spirit posession or astrology? I think the likelihood of finding a physical cause of a mental illness is similar to the the likelihood of finding an electronic cause of a bad television program - or of a poorly designed computer program. Furthermore, if a physical cause of a "mental" illness were found, the illness would cease to be definable as "mental," since mental means non-physical. We continue to use the term "mental illness" to justify the use of force against people whose behavior annoys us because the vague nature of the term makes it difficult or impossible to disprove. More specific terms like brain disease can be disproved, making them less useful as rationalizations for imprisonment or suppression of annoying but law-abiding people. Manufacturers of psychiatric drugs spend millions of dollars on questionable, manipulated "research" and on misleading advertising to promote vague biological theories of so-called mental illness for the purpose of justifing the use of the drugs they sell. That is good for the executives and stockholders of the drug company, but it is bad for you, the patient. The physical nature of cancer and Lou Gehrig's disease or ALS makes them distinguishable from all mental illnesses, none of which have known physical correlates. (The Merck Manual (16th ed., 1992, p. 1512), defines Lou Gehrig's disease or amyotropic lateral sclerosis (ALS) as "Motor neuron disease of unknown cause characterized by progressive degeneration of corticospinal tracts and/or anterior horn cell and or bulbar motor nuclei.") Physical effects of emotional distress like losing weight if you don't eat, or gastrointestinal discomfort or high blood pressure because of anxiety, don't make the emotions that cause these conditions definable as diseases even if the conditions they cause are. Most so-called mental illnesses have no biological manifestations. They consist only of behavior. While psychiatrists can suppress disliked behavior (a.k.a., "mental illness") with brain-disabling drugs, ECT, or psychosurgery, none of these are either a bona-fide treatment nor a cure: Such "treatments" eliminate normal, desirable behavior as much as bad behavior. Yes, as William Glasser, M.D., has illustrated in books like Reality Therapy: A New Approach to Psychiatry (Harper & Row, New York: 1965), the so- called mentally ill are reacting to unfavorable circumstances in their lives. As Dr. Glasser puts it: "...regardless of how he expresses his problem, everyone who needs psychiatric treatment suffers from one basic inadequacy: he is unable to fulfill his needs" (p. 5-6). He means psychological needs. It's not accurate to say ulcers, acne, infertility, or heart disease result primarily from psychological factors; their causes are either mostly physical or are unknown. Psychiatry should be abolished as a medical specialty not only because it does harm, but because psychiatry does only harm - with the exception of friendly advice called "psychotherapy" that can be done as well or better by people who have no medical or psychological training. Regarding a definition of "illness" that applies to both physical and mental illness, see my reply to Dr. Samei Huda, (below): Anything you dislike, whether physical or mental, can be and often is defined as an illness or disease. The important issue is who gets to gets to decide whether something is an "illness" or "disease" - the patient or other people? Regarding your apparently good results from Paxil, I'll quote Peter R. Breggin, M.D., and David Cohen, Ph.D., in their book Your Drug May Be Your Problem, (as I have many times before): "...a sugar pill may produce emotional improvement in 60 to 90 percent of patients. This is the placebo effect - improvement that comes from a positive expectation or faith in the drug or the doctor rather than from any chemical impact of the substance" (page 96). Lisa, I believe you'll benefit if you slowly wean yourself off Paxil (and all other psychiatric drugs). Paxil is advertised as an antidepressant drug, not an anti-anxiety or anti-panic drug, but like most psychiatric drugs, it can be and often is used for almost all psychiatric "conditions." That every psychiatric drug is used for almost every conceivable psychiatric "illness" illustrates the fact that psychiatric drugs are not specific treatments for specific disorders.
Sincerely,
Douglas A. Smith
Antipsychiatry Coalition webmaster

Note: In the following letter, replies by webmaster Douglas A. Smith appear in indented italics.

Date: Wed, 03 May 00 15:37PM EDT
From: Lisa Di Valentino
To: Douglas Smith - antipsychiatrycoalition@usa.net
Subject: More Philosophical Musings...
Dear Doug,
Thanks for the quick response.
The first sentence of your reply had [has?] me confused: "The definition of a physical illness depends on the the illness, but every type of illness except mental illness has a biological cause." How can we talk about "illnesses" at all, if there is no common definition? How can one claim that "mental illnesses" are not illnesses, when we haven't a starting point? If you want to say that, by definition, illnesses are physical, then of course you would be correct to say that "mental" is opposed to "physical" and so illnesses cannot be mental. Otherwise, you would be begging the question. So we have a starting point: illnesses are physical (somethings).

Yes, Lisa, you are exactly correct: Once we admit that to be a bona-fide illness or disease, something must be physical, we have admitted there is and can be no such thing as a "mental" illness or a "mental" disease, since by definition, mental means non- physical. The term "mental illness" is internally contradictory.
Perhaps I should have said "every type of illness except so-called mental illness has a biological cause."

The next question is: physical whats? Your response implies that by nature, illnesses have a physical cause. However, when I claim that, for example, panic disorder and major depression have physical causes, you refute me by stating that such causes haven't been found yet, and so they don't exist. Yet, as I pointed out in my previous letter, there are more than a few "physical" illnesses whose causes have not been found; ALS for example.

I think the physical nature of ALS is clear from the Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy quotation I cited above. ALS is caused by, or at least for some reason is associated with, "progressive degeneration of corticospinal tracts and/or anterior horn cell and or bulbar motor nuclei." Nothing similar can be said for so-called mental illnesses such as "panic disorder" or "major depression": Biological testing shows the sufferers are, physically, completely normal.
I think it is very obvious your examples, so-called panic disorder and so-called major depression, are psychologically (not biologically) caused. It amazes me someone as intelligent as you can't see this and instead assume these emotional states happen because of unknown biological malfunctions in the brains of the sufferers or something that affects the brain the exact nature of which we can only guess at. What's going on when you or anyone else has a panic attack?: Somewhere in the conscious or unconscious part of your mind you become fearful that something terrible is going to happen to you or to someone or something you care about deeply, or that something you very much want to happen isn't going to happen. Maybe some people are able to deal with the pain, the anxiety, by suppressing or repressing awareness of the threat - which despite this sometimes manages to be manifested in what you call a panic attack or panic disorder the cause of which you are not consciously aware of. According to psychoanalytic theory, the majority of mental functioning is unconscious. Maybe what you are so anxious about is thinking your husband is having an affair or that he's going to leave you. Maybe you're afraid the pain you occasionally feel in your abdomen is cancer. But instead of dealing with the real problem or problems, like dealing with your husband appropriately or seeing an oncologist or radiologist for an examination, you attribute your "panic attack" to an unknown brain disease and take a drug like Paxil that dulls your emotional reaction to these, perhaps, very real threats. Lisa, those emotions are telling you something important about your life. For your sake, you must heed what these emotions are telling you and deal with the problems as best you can. Turning off or attenuating the emotional warning signal by taking a brain-disabling drug like Paxil or any other psychiatric drug may be easier than improving your elationship with a loved one or making tough choices about your physical health. By imparing your brain's ability to think and feel emotions, the drug may even make you feel less anxious for awhile. But taking the drug not only won't help you deal effectively with life's very real and important problems. It is also counterproductive: Belief in unproven biological causation of "panic disorder" or any other so-called mental illness distracts you and other believers in mental illness from efforts to find real solutions.

You write, "The physical nature of cancer and Lou Gehrig's disease or ALS makes them distinguishable from all mental illnesses, none of which have known physical correlates." Again, I am unclear on your use of the phrases "physical nature" and "physical correlates".

I think it's been established that the loss of neurological function that characterizes ALS is caused by, or at least associated with, what the Merck Manual describes as "progressive degeneration of corticospinal tracts and/or anterior horn cell and or bulbar motor nuclei." Nothing of a physical nature can be found to be associated with any so- called mental illness (other than the brain damage caused by neuroleptic drugs, electroconvulsive "therapy" or psychosurgery, or the normal consequences of emotions such as anxiety, e.g., a faster heart beat and increased perspiration ).

A panic attack (PA) certainly does manifest itself in physical signs and symptoms; a few of these are sweating, diarrhea, trembling, and increased blood pressure. Whether or not "most so-called mental illnesses have no biological manifestations" is of no consequence here; I have given you an example of a mental illness that does have biological manifestations, despite not having (as you claim) a known biological cause.

The difference is these physical signs you describe (sweating, diarrhea, trembling, and increased blood pressure) are caused by psychological factors. In contrast, nobody claims the "progressive degeneration of corticospinal tracts and/or anterior horn cell and or bulbar motor nuclei" that characterize ALS are caused by psychological factors.

You write, "It's not accurate to say ulcers, acne, infertility, or heart disease result primarily from psychological factors; their causes are either mostly physical or unknown." Here again, you admit that the causes are "unknown", but continue to regard them as "illnesses" or "diseases". By whose terms?

I say so because ulcers, acne, infertility, and heart disease are aspects of bodily function. So-called mental illnesses are not. So-called mental illness are aspects of thinking and behavior.

If we do happen to find a biological cause for conditions such as panic disorder and major depression, should we abandon the label "mental illness"? I'm not so sure that would be necessary. At least, I think that emotional and cognitive factors should be acknowledged, alongside with (not in "competition" with) biological, genetic, and environmental factors.

Yes, if we were to find biological causes for so-called mental illnesses, such as panic disorder and major depression, we should abandon the label "mental illness." (For reasons I've stated, we should anyway.) I have no doubt if physical causes were found for so-called mental illnesses, we would cease to call them "mental" illnesses - even people like you would.

In other words, the rift between the "mental illness is biological" crowd and the "no it's not" crowd is an exercise in futility. I hold that illness -- in general -- can only be defined (if at all) by taking into account both the physical and psychological-emotional state of the patient.

The reason the rift between those who claim so- called mental illness is biological and those who claim it is not is not an exercise in futility, as you assert, is the way you deal with it - biologically or psychologically - is completely different depending on which kind of problem you think you are dealing with. If you think your so-called major depressive disorder is caused by an unknown biological abnormality, you are likely to try one supposedly antidepressant drug after another hoping to find a drug that by some unknown means corrects the unidentified biological abnormality or "chemical imbalance" in your brain. This is of course what many so-called psychopharmacologist-psychiatrists do today. If you think the problem is psychological, e.g., caused by unmet emotional needs, instead of taking a drug in hopes of feeling better, you'll try to find ways to satisfy these needs, for example, by looking for a better job that will let you live a more affluent life, or spending time meeting and talking with people you are attracted to hoping you'll find love.

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 00 00:14AM MST
To: antipsychiatrycoalition@usa.net
Subject: Why?
Why should you try to stop people from getting the help they need? Why should you deny that there is a difference between a normal brain chemistry and a depressed one? Why should you try to make patients and doctors feel ashamed of doing what they can to help cope with debilitating illness? I suffer from rapid-cycling manic depression, and the drugs help. A lot. I still feel emotions (for example, a big glob of rage and sadness as I look over your site), I can get to school every day and actually do something, I don't scream at people or hit them or break stuff so much, and I can talk to people. I never talked to people before Prozac. Which is more shameful, admitting you have a problem and are doing something about it, or not being able to explain exactly why you haven't left your house for a week? Psychotherapy may not be a cure, but it is a treatment that can help symptoms become less obstructive of one's life. I'm not sending this anonymously, I'm not ashamed of who I am, my name is Dave ____ and I receive psychiatric treatment.
Dear Dave,
Although you have invited me to include your full name, I've deleted your last name and am including only your first name. When you are out of school and applying for occupational licenses and/or jobs, you may find psychiatric stigma is more of a problem for you than it is now, particularly if you have been hospitalized.
You say: "Why should you try to stop people from getting the help they need?" We don't discourage people from getting genuine help; we just don't think psychiatry is helpful. We think that, with the possible exception of conversation ("psychotherapy"), psychiatric "treatment" is harmful and that, whatever your problem is, you are better off without it.
You ask: "Why should you deny that there is a difference between a normal brain chemistry and a depressed one?" That's easy: There is no convincing evidence for the alleged brain chemistry differences between normal and despondent or "depressed" people. Even if some were found, it would be as likely that the emotions caused the brain chemistry differences as the reverse.
You ask: "Why should you try to make patients and doctors feel ashamed of doing what they can to help cope with debilitating illness?" We don't try to make patients feel ashamed of anything, but about the doctors, you may as well ask: Why do you try to make doctors feel ashamed of administering permanently brain damaging drugs and electric shock treatments (or pretending their 'training' makes them better than other people to discuss life's problems with)?
Strong emotions may be "debilitating," but they are not "illnesses," and they should not be treated as such. As Dr. Thomas Szasz once said: Trying to get rid of a so-called mental illness by having a psychiatrist work on your brain is like trying to get cigarette commercials off television by having a TV repairman work on your TV set. Treating severe emotions or other counterproductive responses to life's problems as if they were illnesses (that is, as if they were biologically caused) is a misconceived, mistaken, and harmful approach. A doctor using the biological approach can get rid of a so-called mental illness only in the way a TV repairman can get rid of unwanted TV programming, that is, by inhibiting the functioning of your TV set, preventing receiving good as well as bad television programming. Similarly, the biologically oriented psychiatrist can get rid of or reduce "symptoms" of so-called mental illness only by inhibiting the function of your brain (with brain-disabling drugs or electric shock treatment), reducing not only your unpleasant emotions or behavior, but also your intelligence, enjoyable emotional responsiveness, spontaneity, and creativity. A better approach is to leave your brain function intact and change the life experience that is troubling you.
You say: "I suffer from rapid-cycling manic depression, and the drugs help. A lot. ... I can get to school every day and actually do something, I don't scream at people or hit them or break stuff so much, and I can talk to people. I never talked to people before Prozac." I believe your rapid-cycling manic-depression is psychological, not biological. Perhaps your "manic" phase is just when you are trying furiously to overcome obstacles you face in life, and your "depressed" phase is just when you get despondent about not progressing as fast as you wanted. I can believe psychiatric drugs make you less likely to scream at or hit people or break things, because most of them will make you less likely to do much of anything, including think clearly.
You say you never talked to people before you took Prozac? Come on, now. Of course you did.
I support the right to commit suicide, and for similar reasons I support your right to take neurotoxic psychiatric drugs (or do anything else you want) so long as you are not jeopardizing the safety of nor infringing on the rights of others. I think the benefit you are getting from Prozac and whatever other psychiatric drugs you take is only a placebo effect, however, and that you will benefit if you stop taking psychiatric drugs (tapering off gradually over a period of time). If you don't have a good friend to talk with, "psychotherapy" might have some value, although a good friend is probably better. I hope you'll give everything on our Antipsychiatry Coalition website a careful reading (rather than just "look over" the website as you said in your letter), and if you do, I hope what you read will open your eyes to the misleading pro-psychiatry propaganda you are accepting as true.
Good luck, Dave.
Sincerely,
Douglas A. Smith
webmaster, www.antipsychiatry.org

Date: Mon, 06 Dec 99 20:28PM MST
From: "T.& K."
To: antipsychiatrycoalition@usa.net
Subject: your web page and my response
To Whom it May Concern:
I have perused the material on your web site. I have examined your arguments and tried to make sense of the pseudoscientific jargon contained therein (although I have serious reservations regarding the credentials of the "scientists and doctors" cited).
I would just like to say this. I have been diagnosed with major depression since 1993. I have been under treatment almost continually since 1993 as well. Your contention that illnesses such as mine are "not real" offends me so badly that it is quite difficult to write this without using copious amounts of profanity. To suggest that my illness is not real or valid and that therefore I must subconsciously be doing this to myself is an unbelievable affront to myself and others like me. How dare you trivialize and belittle an illness which has signifigantly changed and diminished the quality of my life. How dare you suggest that I suffer from a figment of my imagination. You can trot out all the fringe scientists you need to support your ludicrous suppositions, but it doesn't make the shit you are shoveling smell any better. The weight of the entire medical community is against you, and so are people like myself. God only knows how many people who could have received treatment and gotten better have followed you down your primrose path and continued to suffer needlessly. You are harming people. ... You are contemptible charlatans who would be better off peddling snake oil on some late night infomercial on some forgotten dusty cable channel. To wit: f___ you.
[signed]A Very Pissed Off Depression Sufferer
Dear "Pissed":
You are probably very sincere and completely serious, but your perceptions are so far from the truth and your choice of words entertaining enough that to me it almost seems you are trying to be tongue-in-cheek.
If you are a clear thinker and have an open mind and if you'll take the time to read "Does Mental Illness Exist?" and "The Myth of Biological Depression", I think you'll see we are correct when we say mental illness including biologically caused depression does not exist. This doesn't mean it's your "fault." It just means life experience, not biological abnormality, is the reason for your despondency. I feel bad about your being so thoroughly deceived by psychiatry's false claims, and I hope you'll take the time to carefully examine our point of view - for your own sake.
I thought of your assertion the physicians and others cited in articles appearing on this web site are "fringe scientists" when I recently re-read "Does Mental Illness Exist?", the first in attorney Lawrence Steven's series of articles that appears here. The first of the "fringe scientists" cited therein are psychiatrist Donald W. Goodwin, M.D., Seymour S. Kety, M.D., who is Professor Emeritus of Neuroscience in Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Steven Matthysse, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychobiology at Harvard Medical School, a panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, and Columbia University psychiatry professors Jack M. Gorman, M.D. and Jerrold S. Maxmen, M.D. Not all of the people cited in Mr. Steven's articles teach psychiatry at Harvard or Columbia, but most are qualified professionals in their fields.
As for your assertion that we are hurting people by dissuading them from accepting the supposed therapies of biological psychiatry, you of course again have it backwards. Your own experience verifies this: You say you've been getting "treatment" for "depression" since 1993. It's now December 1999, six years later. Why weren't you "cured" in those six years?: because psychiatry has no effective "treatment" for the despondency you call your "illness." Psychiatry's so-called treatments for depression - "antidepressant" drugs and electric shock "therapy" - only worsen people's lives. Regarding supposedly antidepressant drugs, see the book review I wrote of Breggin & Cohen's book, Your Drug May Be Your Problem, or better yet, go buy the book. If you are taking a psychiatric drug, your drug may be your problem (or one of them), and the drug or drugs you take are probably an important reason you're still feeling depressed after six years. Psychiatry's supposedly antidepressant drugs alter your brain chemistry in harmful ways. They cause you to feel emotionally depressed. To feel better you must stop taking them. As a button I bought from another antipsychiatry activist says: "Recovery begins with non-compliance." Psychiatrist Douglas C. Smith of Juneau, Alaska, who opposes the use of psychiatric drugs and who specializes in undoing the harm done by other psychiatrists, said it well in a speech he gave at the NARPA Conference in Louisville, Kentucky on November 21, 1999: He said it is a great pleasure for him to "take people off their medicine and watch them come alive."
If your primary "treatment" has been so-called psychotherapy, read "The Case Against Psychotherapy" or my book review of Therapy's Delusions, which is a book that convincingly undermines the idea that "psychotherapy" helps people.
Dissuading people from accepting psychiatry's useless or harmful "therapies" is a public service.
Unhappiness, however severe, is not a disease, and it therefore cannot be "treated." The only effective way to deal with it is to figure out what you want in life and do your best to make it happen. For your sake I hope one day you will realize this. Good luck.
Sincerely,
Douglas A. Smith
Antipsychiatry Coalition webmaster

Wed, 22 Sep 99 18:07PM MDT
To: antipsychiatrycoalition@usa.net
I can appreciate irresponsible psychiatrists, but you people really scare the shit out of me. Had it not been for the antidepressants I'm on, I would be dead. What do you say about the success stories? . . . how can something that benefits you be abolished?
Trying to be rational,
O.G.
Dear O.G.:
I'll answer with a quotation from a book published in 1999 by Peter R. Breggin, M.D., and David Cohen, Ph.D., titled Your Drug May Be Your Problem, page 96: "...a sugar pill may produce emotional improvement in 60 to 90 percent of patients. This is the placebo effect - improvement that comes from a positive expectation or faith in the drug or the doctor rather than from any chemical impact of the substance." Regarding your belief that you would be dead without antidepressants, I'll quote what Drs. Breggin & Cohen say on page 192 of this same book: "Therapists, like the general public, have been bombarded with prodrug propaganda. ... Therapists have been led to believe that antidepressant drugs can help to prevent suicide. Few of them realize that there is no convincing evidence that any psychiatric drug can reduce the suicide rate, but that there is evidence that many drugs, including antidepressants, increase the suicide rate [italics in original, underline added]."
Douglas A. Smith
Antipsychiatry Coalition web-master

To: antipsychiatrycoalition@juno.com
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 14:50:35 PST
Subject: Question
Dear Sir;
After going thru some of the articles on your website I have a couple of simple questions for you. You are suggesting that BOTH psychiatric drugs (which are sometimes used irrationally or inappropriately) AND psychotherapy, which by the way I agree is usually (though not always) of limited benefit. What then would you suggest should a person do in the following situations:

1. A 57 year old married woman whose children have left home tries to kill herself because her husband (she feels) neglects her. She can't sleep, has no appetite, no energy and constantly thinks about suicide. What should she do? What should her family?

2. A 21 year old white college student becomes convinced that Madeleine Albright is trying to kill her and Al Gore has a crush on her. She hears Gore's voice in her head conversing with the devil's telling her she's a sinner and will go to hell. She sees blood on her drapes and sees ghosts in her car. What should she do? Her family?

3. A 38 year old man washes his hands 200 times a day, can't go to bed until 3 am because he has to check the doors and stove repeatedly and has lost his job because he thinks the office is contaminated with germs. What should he do?

These by the way, are composites of actual psychiatric patients. Should these people be "convinced" they're not really sick? Jailed? Shot? Exiled to some remote island? What do you think are solutions to the problems of suffering, drug use, emotional pain. Please post this on your website along with your reply. The feeling I got from your site was that like most people with extreme opinions, you see all the problems but no solutions. Am I wrong? I would very much like to see your reply.
Sincerely
Ali
Dear Ali,
I'm sure many other readers of this web site have had thoughts similar to yours. While I have my own common sense ideas about how I would try to help people like those you describe, I do not think being able to devise solutions for the problems of troubled people is a prerequisite to criticizing the harm now inflicted on them in the name of help. Part of a physician's oath is to first do no harm. A general answer to your question about how to help troubled or irrational people is don't add brain damage or a lifetime of psychiatric stigma to their problems. My general answer to family members of troubled, irrational, or obnoxious people such as those you describe is: You have a right to disassociate yourself from any adult in your family whose behavior you dislike or consider unacceptable, but morally you do not have a right to use or authorize the use of force against them even if the law gives you a means of doing this.
A complete answer to your questions about how to truly help people with problems or irrational thinking such as those in your examples would fill a textbook. What follows is a brief outline of what I'd do if I decided to advise them:
I'd in so many words tell the 57 year old suicidal woman with an "empty nest" (grown children having left home) and a neglectful husband (if you'll forgive the seemingly flippant response) to get a life! I'd ask her to think about what she has enjoyed in life or thinks she would enjoy, and in so many words I'd encourage her to "go for it!" That might include telling her about a woman I know who became a bride at the age of 78. If she seemed to have low self- esteem (which sometimes seems ubiquitous), I'd explain my philosophy that I think shows why low self-esteem is always based on irrational thinking.
I'd counter the irrational thinking of your second and third examples with evidence of what really is. For example, I'd ask the 21 year old college student if she's ever met Al Gore and explain to the man who washes his hands 200 times a day what's known about the ability of intact skin and the human immune system to protect us from germs. I'd educate him about the real risk of encountering pathogens that can overcome a human body's defenses. In small steps I'd encourage him to do things he irrationally fears (which is sometimes called "behavior therapy.") Sometimes irrational beliefs and irrational phobias fade away when subjected to a carefully administered dose of reality, and sometimes they don't. If I couldn't help, and if the people involved were not performing behavior that is prohibited by law in specific and understandable terms, I'd leave them alone.
Sincerely,
Douglas A. Smith
Antipsychiatry Coalition web-master

To: antipsychiatrycoalition@juno.com
29 Dec 1998
I agree with most of your efforts, but your claim that psychotherapists are no better than anyone else in listening to your problems is too much. Yes, most psychotherapists are worse than a caring friend. Yes most of what they learn is drivel. But there are some valuable tools taught therapists in the humanistic tradition. They are regard, listening, empathy and nondefensiveness. Most therapists twist these abilities with their inauthenticity and manipulativeness. But any caring friend who wants to be supportive to people in their lives would benefit from learning empathy, listening, regard and nondefensiveness. Many people do it naturally, but some learning can be helpful.
Rather than discredit yourself with one-sided overgeneralizations to fit your picture of therapists as completely useless, why not acknowledge some validity to some therapy techniques and then try to encourage them to be taken out of professional contexts and used by everyone? Any caring friend who tries to help others is going to come up with refined approaches which should be demystified and deprofessionalized. Therapy is a sham and a priesthood in part because it mystifies listening, nondefensiveness, regard and empathy. Anyone can learn these focused abilities in an afternoon, just as anyone can learn the medical doctor's attitude of confident control of the situation. But that doesn't take away from the reality that they are today taught to and used by some therapists.
N.W.[name withheld]
Dear N.W.:
I think your letter underscores rather than refutes the arguments made by Lawrence Stevens in his pamphlet "The Case Against Psychotherapy" (appearing on this web-site), wherein he argues so-called psychotherapists are usually not as good as a good friend for helping you figure out how best to deal with the problems you encounter in life.
Sincerely,
Douglas A. Smith
www.antipsychiatry.org web-master

Wed., 28 Oct 1998
You are most certainly entitled to your opinion, but I would like to correct one of the facts reported on your page. In the pamphlet "The Myth of Biological Depression," it is stated that clinical depression has biological causation. Some psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychotherapists do believe that this is the sole causation of depression, but that is not true of most. While it is often believed that some people are biologically predisposed to depression, the actual cause is usually a life experience. If biological treatments can ease the mental pain of a depressed person, you should not take that right away from them, just as suicide should be legal.
Mikaila Arthur
Judging from his "@mtholyoke.edu" e-mail address, the writer is probably a professor or student at Mt. Holyoke College.

20 Dec 1998
To: antipsychiatrycoalition@juno.com
Subject: ignorance or stupidity - or both
I did not have to get beyond the first paragraph of the first article before asking this question of the author, a fellow attorney. Any first hand experience the author has had apparently was not real clinical depression or bipolar disorder. The author probably had the blues from some normal life event and only thought it was, for example, depression.
To the extent that he raises a valid issue it would be that medical school should focus on psychopharmacology and ignore psychotherapy. If anything should be abolished it is psychology and mental health counseling.
Clinical depression is real. It can be confirmed by tests such as the PET Scan. (Insurers reject the PET Scan because if they accepted it they would end up providing coverage for depression and other illnesses under major medical provisions of their policies.) It can only be treated with medication if it is severe, and particularly when it is severe and refractory in nature.
I have defended people before a Board of Mental Health, been the chairperson of a Board of Mental Health, and suffered from a severe clinical depression that was refractory in nature and that could be relieved only through polypharmacy by a very knowledgeable and experienced [specialist] in psychopharmacology.
Depression is out there and it is chemical in nature. The problem is that too many people, including the various professionals, confuse depression with the blues. Those with the blues should see the talk therapists, and those with real depression need to see psychiatrists who are versed in psychopharmacology.
A major concern I have about this site is that it does nothing but promote the already dangerous ignorance of society as a whole, and consequently society's stigma against those suffering brain chemistry disorders which have nothing to do with one's mental capacity as is suggested by the label "mental illness." It is unfortunate that this site does not focus on education and knowledge rather than ignorance.
R.J.
Attorney at Law
Dear R.J.:
Although you included your first and last name in your correspondence, until you tell me it's okay to do otherwise I'll include only your initials in keeping with my usual practice of using only initials (or only a first name) when the writer indicates he or she is a current or former psychiatric patient. Psychiatric stigma is a problem you and I and every other former psychiatric patient live with every day. Although our opinions of psychiatry are exactly opposite, I speak to you as one former psychiatric "patient" to another.
For your sake, I hope you will, with an open mind, re-examine your dogmatic belief in biological causation of your despondency. There is no convincing scientific support for belief in biological or chemical causation of unhappiness or depression, however severe. As psychiatrist David Kaiser said in 1996 in his essay Commentary: Against Biologic Psychiatry (appearing on this web site): "For example the illness major depression is defined by its set of specific symptoms. The underlying cause is presumed to be a biologic/genetic disturbance, even though this has never been proven in the case of depression. The errors in logic here are clear. A set of symptoms is given a name such as major depression, which defines it as an illness, which is then treated with a medication, despite the fact that the underlying cause of the symptoms remains completely unknown and essentially untreated." (underline added). If you don't understand the psychological reasons for feelings such as severe depression, you may be inclined to assume there is a "chemical problem" in your brain. However, once you understand from a psychological perspective why you feel as you do, the wrongness of the biological or chemical explanations becomes obvious. Since no "endogenous," physical, or biological cause of unhappiness or "depression" has ever been proved to exist, the only reasonable way to deal with unhappiness or so-called depression is to assume some aspect of your life is causing it. In his article "The Myth of Biological Depression," Lawrence Stevens pointed out that, according to psychoanalytic theory, most mental functioning is unconscious. Let me offer a few suggestions to help you introspectively access some of the unconscious content of your mind that may influence your mood in undesirable ways: A general approach is to sit in a dark room, or on a hilltop, alone, and think or say aloud whatever comes to your mind. While this may work, you may find yourself digressing onto topics having nothing to do with your sad mood. A more specific approach is to think or say aloud to yourself the word: "bad". What comes into your mind? Maybe what will come to your mind will be "the Republican Party" or "the national debt" or something else that probably has nothing to do with your unhappiness; but maybe instead what will pop into your mind is "my job," or the name of someone you live with, or even "me!" Whatever you find yourself associating with the word "bad" may tell you a lot about yourself, about the life you are living, and about what you need to do to live a happier life. The same is true of what you associate with the word "good." You can also think of things that are of obvious importance in your life, such as your spouse, your love or sex life, your job, your house or apartment, your budget, or your health, and think or say aloud all of the adjectives that come to your mind when you do. This may make clearer what feelings you associate with these things, if it isn't already apparent. If you live with a bad situation long enough you might stop thinking about it and stop realizing how unhappy or "depressed" it is causing you to feel. You may even manage to keep it out of your mind for a time, but the unhappiness will almost always resurface eventually. After you have figured out what is causing your unhappy or "depressed" mood, do some planning and working at moving yourself closer to the kind of life that will make you happier.
You say you've had success with "polypharmacy." That's a cute word for taking two or more drugs simultaneously. It's been said: A common cold will cure itself within 10 days without treatment; therefore, a shot of penicillin will cure a common cold in 10 days. The "action" of so-called antidepressant drugs is similar. The reason so-called antidepressant drugs cause so-called "side-effects" immediately, but don't provide an immediate antidepressant effect is, in the words of psychiatrist Peter Breggin in his book Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain: "The most fundamental point to be made about the most frequently used major antidepressants is that they have no specifically antidepressant effect. Like the major tranquilizers to which they are so closely related, they are highly neurotoxic and brain disabling, and achieve their impact through the disruption of normal brain function. ... Only the 'clinical opinion' of drug advocates supports any antidepressant effect" of so-called antidepressant drugs (Springer Pub. Co., pp. 160 & 184, 1983, and cited in Lawrence Stevens' pamphlet "Psychiatric Drugs: Cure or Quackery," appearing on this web site). I've read a few articles indicating the newer so-called antidepressants like Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil, are no more effective than the older so-called antidepressants (tricyclics and MAOIs)
I disagree with your assertion that depression can be diagnosed with Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans. As Lawrence Stevens pointed out in his article, "The Myth of Biological Depression," (appearing on this web site): "At least one brain-scan study (using positron emission tomography or PET scans) found that simply asking normal people to imagine or recall a situation that would make them feel very sad resulted in significant changes in blood flow in the brain (Jose V. Pardo, M.D., Ph.D., et al., "Neural Correlates of Self-Induced Dysphoria", American Journal of Psychiatry, May 1993, p. 713)." Since it has been established that emotions cause biological changes in the brain, it makes no sense to point to these changes can say they caused the emotions. I think health insurance companies are on solid ground if they are rejecting bio-psychiatric theories of depression based on PET scans.
And I think the only solution for you, R.J., is to stop taking various psychiatric drugs (what you call "polypharmacy") and introspectively figure out what in your life is responsible for the feelings you call clinical depression. The first step towards solving any problem is identifying the problem. Until you overcome your unfounded belief in biological theories of depression and your unfounded belief in biological psychiatry, you can't even get started in the right direction, that is, can't even get moving towards a bona-fide solution. Good luck, R.J.
Sincerely,
Douglas A. Smith
www.antipsychiatry.org web-master

2 Nov 1998
To: antipsychiatrycoalition@juno.com
Subject: antipsychiatry webpage
I enjoyed reading your webpage. I felt there were several errors (but then I would!):
1. All illness including "physical" is socially defined. Having a "cold" is a "normal" experience but it is regarded as an illness because of the suffering involved.
2. You make the false "mind-body" dualism division.
3. There is a very selective reading (and quoting) of the evidence, largely ignoring what doesn't agree with your viewpoint. However nobody is impartial and we are all "guilty" of editorializing.
I could go on but it would be tedious.
Have you read RD Lang, he has some excellent insights?
What's your position on people with "personality disorders"? In the UK some groups (not psychiatrists) are calling for these people to be compulsorily detained in case they commit an offense even though these people are not regarded by the profession as being "ill" or being responsive to treatment.
Anyway that's enough. Bye bye from rainy Manchester.
Dr. Samei Huda

Dear Dr. Huda:
Since you prefix your name with "Dr." and have "@psy" and "nhs.uk" in your e-mail address and say you're in Manchester (a large city in England), I assume you are a physician or a psychologist with a doctorate degree working in the National Health Service of the United Kingdom.
A full response to your letter would require a dissertation. I'll try to keep this brief, but I can't promise I'll succeed:
(1) The assertion there can be an "illness" or "disease" with no biological or physical cause is hard to support. I think it's fair to say that without a biological cause, there can be no disease. By this definition, mental "illness" has not been shown to exist, because, as psychiatrist David Kaiser said two years ago in 1996 in an article now appearing on this web-site: "modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the genetic/biologic cause of any single mental illness."
That said, however, I think you've made a valuable and valid point when you say "all illness including physical is 'socially' defined." A few years ago this perhaps silly example occurred to me: Suppose there were some viral or bacterial infection or other biological condition which had only one effect: Once infected with this "disease" (?), the infected person grew to six feet in height (if he or she were not already that tall). To this condition we will give the name Tallness Disease. Most men would like to be six feet tall, so to most men Tallness Disease wouldn't qualify as a disease. On the other hand, how would most women feel about shooting up to six feet in height? For a woman a height of six feet would be disadvantageous. So if a woman were to be infected with Tallness Disease, she probably would want the disease promptly arrested or cured before she got too tall. So is Tallness Disease a disease or not a disease? It depends on your values. It depends on whether you like it or dislike it. It having a biological cause and being abnormal are not enough to make it a "disease."
Recognition of this forces us, logically, to decide whose values should be determinative when deciding whether an abnormal biological condition qualifies as a "disease" that should be treated: those of the person whose (supposed) health is at issue? "Society's?" The affected person's relatives? A doctor's, social worker's, or judge's? My opinion is that in the area of so-called mental health (as well as physical health) the so-called mentally ill person's values should be determinative except to the extent his or her behavior violates the rights of others. (I disagree with laws that criminalize or "mental-illness-ize" behavior that does not violate the rights of others.) If I were to get Tallness Disease (and I truly wish there were such a "disease" and that I could get it), and you're a physician, what gives you the right to cure my disease just because it is biologically caused and is abnormal if I'm perfectly happy with it, and it doesn't cause me to violate the rights of others in any way?
Let's take another example some will find amusing: Suppose I'm what some consider "psychotic" and hallucinate vividly and frequently but thoroughly enjoy my hallucinations? Perhaps such a person may be defined as "ill" by others, but should that matter? If I'm a "psychotic" person who thoroughly enjoys hallucinating and never violate the law or harm anyone in any way however much I hallucinate, what gives you as a physician or as a psychologist in the UK National Health Service (or anyone else) the right, morally, to cure me of my "disease" thereby depriving me of the hallucinations I enjoy so much? It's my life, isn't it?
I've never had a hallucination (that I know of) or a delusion (other than when I was deluded by my public school education into believing that the USA is a human rights respecting nation), but I have experienced deep sadness - what some consider a disease named "depression." However awful I have felt, I think my sadness is or was important and meaningful because it tells or told me there is or was a problem in my life that needs or needed to be addressed, and I also think my capacity for sadness and joy are the same and that my capacity for sadness can't be "controlled" without simultaneously "controlling" my capacity for happiness. I like my emotional sensitivity even if because of it I am sometimes so sad others think there is something seriously wrong with me. So I don't want it changed or "cured" or "treated" (particularly not with psychiatry's brain-numbing "antidepressant" drugs or brain-damaging treatments such as neuroleptic drugs or electroshock so often falsely touted as effective treatments for "depression").
So, Dr. Huda, I think "disease" isn't or at least shouldn't be "socially" defined: I think "disease" can and should be defined as such only by the patient. And I think no one is obligated to conform to others' idea of "normality" or "rationality." A person's only obligation is to respect the rights of others.
(2) After giving it some thought, I think mind-body dualism is valid: Suppose you have some kind of unpleasant psychological reaction because of a traumatic life event - what's been called post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). If it were possible to transfer all your memories from the brain you were born with into another brain (entirely supplanting the memories that were previously stored in that new brain), not only would the new brain now be the real you, but you, now occupying a new brain, would still suffer from PTSD because of your memory of the traumatic event that you experienced when you occupied the other body and brain! The same would be true if you suffered from "chronic free-floating anxiety" because of a series of upsetting events you experienced when you were occupying your previous body and brain or if you suffered from chronic low self- esteem leading to a lifelong feeling of inadequacy and sadness because of early childhood experiences or whatever. Of course a case can also be made for how biology, not just experience, affects thinking and behavior - for example, a man with an unusually high level of testosterone. But what we call "the mind" consists not only of the thinking ability our cerebral and other biological "hardware" provide but at least equally of memory - and that comes from experience.
(3) Regarding the selective reading and quoting of the evidence against psychiatry by the writers whose articles appear on this web site: Yes, you are entirely correct. This web-site presents the case against psychiatry. Likewise, you won't find the case against psychiatry anywhere in DSM-IV nor other publications of the American Psychiatric Association nor in the writings of most mental health professionals - nor will you find the case against psychiatry in the full-page, even full double and triple page magazine advertisements by pharmaceutical manufacturers who make billions of dollars a year from selling psychiatric drugs. However, I do think the writings on this web-site present the case against psychiatry accurately and fairly. With the possible exception of letters from readers presenting opposing viewpoints, I don't think anything published on this web site distorts the truth or misleads anyone.
I've read very little of R.D. Lang's writings, although I liked some prose he included in his book Knots.
I think people with "personality disorders" (i.e., people whose personalities others strongly disapprove of) should be treated exactly the same as people without "personality disorders": If they obey the law, they're entitled to their liberty. If they violate the law, they should be treated as the law provides. Future human conduct can not be predicted with anything even close to what could be called accuracy, and nobody can prove he or she isn't going to do something bad tomorrow or next month or next year. So it is unfair to incarcerate anyone solely on the basis of predicted future conduct (or on the basis of "mental illness" and predicted future conduct).
Sincerely,
Douglas A. Smith
www.antipsychiatry.org web-master

10 Nov 1998
I am considering quitting therapy and am quite disillusioned with it, so I do not find what you publish to be distasteful. I would suggest however using some more recent sources in your arguments. It makes more of an impression on people like me, who are very suspicious of most things found on the Web. Most of your references were about 10 years old, and in science, that's ancient history. S.K.
Dear S.K.:
I hope the articles on our web site, in addition to your first-hand experience, do persuade you to extricate yourself from psychiatric or psychological "treatment." I'm not surprised your experience has caused you to be disillusioned.
Many of the references in the articles appearing on this web site are from sources published in the 1990s. I haven't counted and don't know if most are older than that. In any case, I think the articles on this web-site present the case against psychiatry accurately and convincingly and haven't lost validity because of changes occurring in psychiatry since they were first published, despite the subsequent introduction of some new psychiatric drugs. ECT is administered the same way it was when "Psychiatry's Electroconvulsive Shock Treatment: A Crime Against Humanity" was published, and most if not all of the drugs referred to in "Psychiatric Drugs - Cure or Quackery?" are still in use. I'm not aware of any changes in so-called psychotherapy since the publication of "The Case Against Psychotherapy." I first read the oldest article on this web-site, "Mental Patients' Liberation: Why? How?" in 1972, and as I listen to those who have become victims of psychiatry very recently relate their experiences, that article seems as true today - 26 years later - as it did when I first read it in 1972.
However, your letter has motivated me to add some new material to this web site. This includes Dr. David Kaiser's article "Commentary: Against Biologic Psychiatry" published in December 1996 (two years ago), the Antipsychiatry News Clips section (recent news stories in major news media), and updates I've been adding at the end of Mr. Stevens' articles showing that his arguments against psychiatry have not been undermined by recent developments.
Thanks for writing.
Sincerely,
Douglas A. Smith
web-master
www.antipsychiatry.org

24 Sep 1998
Hahaha. This site is so ridiculous that it makes me laugh. I am mentally ill. No, I was not convinced of that. Do you hallucinate? Do you hear voices? Do you get moods that are extreme? Ever talk to fish and believe beyond a shadow of a doubt they were going to take over the world? Have you ever taken LSD? If a drug can induce hallucinations and bizarre behavior, why can't the mind do it when it is not right? No one knows what causes these disorders, but they are real. We just don't have the evidence. Lack of evidence does not make it not so. People are murdered every day: Just because they can't find the evidence to prove a man did it doesn't mean he didn't do it. The brain is so complex. Seizures are a puzzle to doctors. There are disorders of the brain. Simple as that. I do not believe that everyone who has been diagnosed with a disorder really has a disorder. Yes, there are behaviors that are just not acceptable to society, and they are diagnosed with personality disorders of various types. These are behaviors that can be helped with therapy. But I don't think they have a biological abnormality causing them. Oh, but maybe. All I know is medication helps me.
Psychotherapy works for me. Clarifies what I am thinking. It may not be any better than talking to a neighbor. But my neighbor will not sit there and listen to me and respond in a controlled manner. He guides me to reach a solution to my problems. He don't [sic] tell me what to do. Only asks questions. I pay him to help me sort out my problems so that I may resolve them. It works for me. Medication helps, too. Mental illness exists. Either that or hallucinations, delusions, extreme mood swings, incoherent talking, confusion, etc., is normal. Lets say it is normal - It disrupts someone's life so severely. Medication is a must. This site is so ridiculous I don't know why I bother writing.
Cindy
Reply from Antipsychiatry Coalition web-master Douglas Smith:
Dear Cindy,
Thanks for writing. Your letter illustrates the fact that there is debate among patients and former patients as well as among psychiatrists regarding whether or not mental illness exists. A few years ago I read a book titled The Reality of Mental Illness written by two physicians, probably psychiatry professors, probably in response to psychiatry professor Thomas Szasz's book The Myth of Mental Illness. The strongest argument the authors could muster in support of their assertion that mental illness is a reality rather than a myth is what you, Cindy, have also said: No one knows what causes these (so-called) disorders, and the fact that we don't have the evidence doesn't mean they aren't real. That's a weak argument. Yet voluntary or forced "medication," ECT, psychosurgery, psychiatric "hospitalization," exculpation of responsibility for criminal acts, and psychiatric stigma foisted upon those "diagnosed" with so-called mental illness, continues despite the fact that no one can prove mental illness actually exists.
The term mental illness is nonsensical. "Mental" means non-physical. Yet "illness" or "disease" is by definition physical. As Donald W. Goodwin, M.D., said in his book, Is Alcoholism Hereditary?", there is "a narrow definition of disease that requires the presence of a biological abnormality" (p. 61). So, as psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey said in his 1974 book The Death of Psychiatry, there can no more be a mental "disease" than there can be a purple idea or a wise space. The term "mentally ill" continues to be used despite its vague, internally inconsistent, and illogical nature because more specific terms such as "brain disease" can be more easily disproved if applied to any particular person.
If we lived in a society where belief in spirit possession was more widespread than it is, and some historical accounts say such a time once existed, abnormal behavior might be attributed to spirit possession, and you might say, much as you have in your letter, "Spirit possession exists. Either that or hallucinations, delusions, extreme mood swings, incoherent talking, confusion, etc., is normal." The existence of these abnormal ways of thinking, perceiving, or behaving do not prove the reality of either spirit possession or mental illness or anything else that might be postulated as the cause. Spirit possession and mental illness are myths that might be used to explain what to date remains unexplainable. To "treat" these so-called mental illnesses with drugs or other biological "treatments" such as electroshock without knowing the real causes is unscientific health care quackery. It is as senseless as and is more harmful than doing an exorcism to rid someone of supposed evil spirit possession.
You say medication helps you. That reminds me of an alcoholic I knew who said alcohol helped him - and another man who told me marijuana helped him. Brain-disabling drugs, including alcohol and nearly all psychiatric drugs, will reduce the functionality of your brain, reducing or eliminating just about everything that emanates from your brain, including unpleasant emotions, hallucinations, delusions, incoherent talking, and other unacceptable thoughts or behavior; but they will at the same time and to the same extent reduce or eliminate your pleasant emotions, clear thinking, ability to express yourself well, and effective efforts towards achieving your goals in life.
If you try, you can probably find a friend who will be as patient and helpful as your psychotherapist, and without the cost. You should try to do that. You and a friend could take turns listening to each other. You might also find writing your thoughts on paper or on your computer screen helps clarify them.
Cindy, this web site was created to help people exactly like you: those who haven't yet seen psychiatry as the foolishness it is (and people forced into "therapy" by others who believe in psychiatry). At one time my belief in mental illness was so ingrained it took probably about two years of reading books by authors like Thomas Szasz and Nicholas Kittrie before I understood how wrong the concept of mental illness and all that flows from it is. Keep reading and observing and thinking and eventually you'll see those of us who oppose psychiatry are right. You'll live a better and happier life if you get away from psychiatric "therapy," especially psychiatric drugs, and work hard at experiencing whatever it is you want in life.
Best regards, and good luck -
Douglas A. Smith
web-master
www.antipsychiatry.org

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE

Physical Restraints

LETTERS FROM READERSof this Web Site

LETTERS FROM READERS
of this Web Site