I saw a therapist, then at less frequent intervals I saw his boss the psychiatrist, who consulted briefly and wrote prescriptions.
The psychiatrist put me on series of antidepressants. Besides some horrible side effects, they were useless. An avid reader, I came across a book written by a doctor, debunking psychiatric drugs. Among many disturbing facts was this: the pills are literally poisonous.
When I confronted the therapist, he said, "Well, it's a quality of life issue versus a quantity of life issue," Angry, I said that was a choice I should have been given; I was never informed that the pills are toxic. He just shrugged.
Those pages and pages of paper you get with the pills, printed in tiny tiny letters are not to inform you of anything. It's just wallpaper. They know a sick person hasn't got the capacity to digest this stuff, the purpose isn't to advise or warn, it's to cover their asses, to fend off liability. The people in power know you're not a doctor, you're not a lawyer, and they know you're vulnerable.
When I eventually confronted the psychiatrist regarding the book, he got angry and said, "He's just one doctor!"
I replied, "Galileo was just one astronomer. Did that make him wrong?"
The therapist threw me out and wouldn't ever see me again.
Anyone unwilling to admit they might be mistaken, anyone violently conformist, may not be someone worthy of your trust.
I never wanted pills to just make my behavior more acceptable to others, or to cause me to accept the horrible way I am often treated. I wanted Popeye spinach to lend me the ability to effectively fight back, to give me the power to make tangible changes, not simply change perception. Psychiatric drugs are very much not that.
It's easy to be skeptical of the book I read, and the doctor who wrote it. Ad Hominem attacks are always easy. The little boy who shouted "The Emperor Has No Clothes!" was derided as "just an ignorant peasant child". Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The source may be suspect, but that does not justify rejecting the information on that basis alone.
Over the years, I read other disturbing information. For example, that people who did not take pills got over depression just as quickly as those who did. That scientists had no tangible proof of the function of SSRI drugs within the body.
https://www.theguardian.com/society...-of-antidepressants-after-survey-on-serotonin
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2412901/
Naturally, I'm wary of any source of information. However, a good rule to use is "follow the money". Who profits, who gains power? Drug companies profit. Governments benefit by having a pacified work force, less likely to rebel.
I recall a famous incident. Actress Brooke Shields was on a talk show and spoke in glowing terms of how antidepressants helped her get over the depression she sank into immediately following delivery of her child. Soon after, actor Tom Cruise commented that this disturbed him. He was concerned that her popularity would lead impressionable people to believe antidepressants were safe and effective, when in reality they are not.
Now, I question Tom Cruise's motives. He was parroting the party line of his church. I don't think the church of scientology very much care about the pills harming anyone or controlling anyone; they simply don't want any competition in that venue.
That said, the topic got turned into a "feminist issue" with huge female backlash against Cruise, which was unjust.
Perhaps depression is a good thing, a natural thing. Perhaps we are SUPPOSED to suffer when conditions are intolerable, in order to motivate us to take action and make changes. Since that does not serve the status quo, it gets attacked and shouted down.
Similarly, anger gets a bum rap. Ever since 9\11, things have become progressively worse. Raise your voice, use swear words, call out people for being idiots, and suddenly you're a "terrorist".
The psychiatrist put me on series of antidepressants. Besides some horrible side effects, they were useless. An avid reader, I came across a book written by a doctor, debunking psychiatric drugs. Among many disturbing facts was this: the pills are literally poisonous.
When I confronted the therapist, he said, "Well, it's a quality of life issue versus a quantity of life issue," Angry, I said that was a choice I should have been given; I was never informed that the pills are toxic. He just shrugged.
Those pages and pages of paper you get with the pills, printed in tiny tiny letters are not to inform you of anything. It's just wallpaper. They know a sick person hasn't got the capacity to digest this stuff, the purpose isn't to advise or warn, it's to cover their asses, to fend off liability. The people in power know you're not a doctor, you're not a lawyer, and they know you're vulnerable.
When I eventually confronted the psychiatrist regarding the book, he got angry and said, "He's just one doctor!"
I replied, "Galileo was just one astronomer. Did that make him wrong?"
The therapist threw me out and wouldn't ever see me again.
Anyone unwilling to admit they might be mistaken, anyone violently conformist, may not be someone worthy of your trust.
I never wanted pills to just make my behavior more acceptable to others, or to cause me to accept the horrible way I am often treated. I wanted Popeye spinach to lend me the ability to effectively fight back, to give me the power to make tangible changes, not simply change perception. Psychiatric drugs are very much not that.
It's easy to be skeptical of the book I read, and the doctor who wrote it. Ad Hominem attacks are always easy. The little boy who shouted "The Emperor Has No Clothes!" was derided as "just an ignorant peasant child". Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The source may be suspect, but that does not justify rejecting the information on that basis alone.
Over the years, I read other disturbing information. For example, that people who did not take pills got over depression just as quickly as those who did. That scientists had no tangible proof of the function of SSRI drugs within the body.
https://www.theguardian.com/society...-of-antidepressants-after-survey-on-serotonin
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2412901/
Naturally, I'm wary of any source of information. However, a good rule to use is "follow the money". Who profits, who gains power? Drug companies profit. Governments benefit by having a pacified work force, less likely to rebel.
I recall a famous incident. Actress Brooke Shields was on a talk show and spoke in glowing terms of how antidepressants helped her get over the depression she sank into immediately following delivery of her child. Soon after, actor Tom Cruise commented that this disturbed him. He was concerned that her popularity would lead impressionable people to believe antidepressants were safe and effective, when in reality they are not.
Now, I question Tom Cruise's motives. He was parroting the party line of his church. I don't think the church of scientology very much care about the pills harming anyone or controlling anyone; they simply don't want any competition in that venue.
That said, the topic got turned into a "feminist issue" with huge female backlash against Cruise, which was unjust.
Perhaps depression is a good thing, a natural thing. Perhaps we are SUPPOSED to suffer when conditions are intolerable, in order to motivate us to take action and make changes. Since that does not serve the status quo, it gets attacked and shouted down.
Similarly, anger gets a bum rap. Ever since 9\11, things have become progressively worse. Raise your voice, use swear words, call out people for being idiots, and suddenly you're a "terrorist".
Last edited:
