"Mental" Illness: The Future of Treatment

Haha what???
This is great material. No way to verify it, but it kind of does fit with the general screwed mental and emotional makeup of nazis.

Yes the nazis and Hitler used a lot of amphetamines. I think many armies do, though. But Hitler was apparently always on several drugs along with his perpetual stream of coffee and cake with whipped cream.

It does make sense to assume they invaded Russia as a side affect of a bad choice in drugs. It could also be seen as “suicide by cop” - Hitler and his “men” hated themselves so much that they just sought out an enemy that could pulverize them.

Hey this, my latest video, to help get some perspective:

https://youtu.be/SymrB2xVP6I

According to Johan Hari in “Lost Connections”(2018), renewed studies of how psychedelics affect the “mentally ill” have yielded startling results. In experiments in which the participants were given psilocybin, 80 % of the smokers were able to quit smoking.
The theory is that psychedelics put one in a mind-state close to that observed when one meditates–a loss of ego and a gain of being part of a larger whole of all that exists.
In this work Hari, with the aid of scientific studies and personal experience, attempts to refute the notion that depression and anxiety are caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain.

2 posts back I posted a link which was fated to die. This is the new & improved video:

youtu.be/OdhBRSF6fIE

My friend J., who suffered from schizophrenia, died this weekend. She was only 64.

My condolences, Ier.

Thanks Wendy and Chakra. Love is forever.

The first thing that pops into my head when I think of mental illness is this:

“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society” - Jiddu Krishnamurti
.

True certain extent , however , humane treatments have been on an upswing, whereby bedlams are no longer necessary except in certain extreme cases to forcefully contain patients.

The blame for mental illness on society has only limited use,and under limited circumstances.

Its difficult to believe nowadays, that witchcraft, demonic possession, electro and insulin shock , psycho surgeries , were other notions/uses were employed just a few years ago.

=D>

Society creates hermits and the disheartened… there is no doubt about that! such demographics as they evolve to sts (save their souls).

Mental illness is an irony!

The difference between being shut out and shut in revolves on a fragile whip ,perhaps even as on a whim, starting with
self castigation, then cast off as a broken little thing

This irony is borne of an anti compassive insulated measure
the onslaught of s new modern reality: that of a distinct divorce of the age of the romantic, from that of childlike innocence.

All wrapped up in a neat bundle of brutish malfeasance, pray of those of disonhrartened privilege, while those less fortunate struggle with their own demons, accepting them in silent veneration: realizing that they are but friends of the opposite sort.

They, who never have the chance to get out, where to, privilege runs amok.

Stuck in the unending ghettos of their mind, indelicately , as Emily Dickinson in her garden, literally, to escape those confines.

What? Sentimental nonsense, you say? Or the advent of the new exterminating angel

youtube.com/watch?v=SlfokOQ … be&t=7m50s

You have to watch this^ if you want to understand my brain science video*

I was looking at the creation of the circumstances that might spawn the environment for many mental health conditions to arise in, but I did find your reply very creative…

That double entendre literally is looking for a rational way out of the quandry, of all the unfortumates’, whose insight may not reach that level of inquiry, postulating the theory that insight is at least half way to sanity.

The creativity in terms of trying to figure (spawn)) out those elements giving rise to creating (your terms) non adaptive environments , tend to be successfully understood in terms of that creativity.

That is what appears here by the double entendre.

The other half is where the damaged emotions can ever arise from the depth where things can ever go back to stability.

Milder methods still carry on the pathologizing of individual emotional responses that are normal.

I would focus differently and disagree strongly. The vast majority of psychopharmaceutical suppression of emotions is pathological, but is unfortunately widespread.

Current full disclosure research shows almost no help from psychotropics but significant side effects at high rates. It is a farce. I recommend again Lost Connections.

Karpal,

I do agree with You , however, symptom supression is not primarily pharmaceutical profit related , but the result of lack of success with psychoanalysis. Although sadly. It does play into it.

Psychoanalysis, that is the Freudian approach to psychotherapy, had many limitations. Freud had a lot of insights that have turned out to be true and others that did not, but his approach to the client analyst relation was pretty stiff, distant, mental and not dynamic. A lot of interesting approaches have arisen since his death and most of them outside pyschoanalysis.

It pays to view normal emotional reactions as problems, to individualize the reactions rather than look at things at broader levels: pain related to past traumas, unhealthy extrinsic values, meaningless stressful work, disconnect from nature, social isolation and more. Big Pharma and psychiatry have a vested financial interest in making us think we should have less emotions and that emotional pain has to do with us being broken chemical machines. And they have incredible media power and have brainwashed the public to believe their BS. Now I do not view this as a simple conspiracy. Of course many of the players think they are doing good, and the paradigms that drive them are wider spread and not of their creation. But they make money off it. Lost Connections gives a good overview of what is really causing most of the problems treated by psychotropics and it gives nice references to research supporting both a fundamental critique of Pharma approaches to emotional health and supporting other ways to solve these issues.

Ok. Then call it analysis. The point made is that without being able to analyze what is bugging a patient, in terms of his awareness of it, there is no possibility of improving his position.

The putative acknowledgement of figuring it out, will have little little or no effect on affect.

It is because of this that the symptoms are uneffected
It’s not the question of the quality of the subconscious, but the quantifiable , measurable change to establish status,
or, equalization between what formerly was described as the passions and reason.

Qualification of symptomalogy, , does little to move the fulcrum of the balance tonward qualifying different modes of interpreting results, so, for instance, moving the differential diagnosis from autistic to schyzotypal characteristics on the basis of some current changes of classification, will not change the dynamic that will establish more observable symptomalogy.

Even if it is to be claimed that the current methodology implicates a better concurrency with balanced relative stasis, a primary starting point can not prevail within observable symptomalogy.

Then, insight will relieve some symptoms, and these unrelieved ,will still need to be extemporeniously managed.This is the primary reason for pharm. management, and although it can be claimed that it would be too costly to extend analysis to a long term , the erroneous conclusions which insight and analysis are based on, are a function of affordability. , and may be misconstrued, if the claim made is that psychotropic drugs are merely a money making device ,
To deny the fact that it is society that is maladjiated to an extent , due to using drugs as a money making device, is too far a stretch, at leastndoe now.

The presumption is very great to make such an assessment, at least for now

On the other hand, a return to pure and unadulterated economically driven social system, compounded with sharp increase in the techno-regulated social system world wide, may tip the odds in favor of a drug regulated system of social control. But even then, a biotechnocal product may be one of necessity, with a predicted tramsvaluation to norms not heretofore imaginable may be only by ditiroats2 like Huxley and Nietzsche

The point is, profits are secondarily derived from necessary adjustments of social control, due to overpopulation and changing demographocs.

The profit angle is the conditional conditional aspect of the present , and probably the future world wide economic system

But upon re reading this kind of duplicates my last post, however with more detail.

After 15 years of trial and error, the psychiatric pharmaceuticals I am currently taking maintain my mental stability without side effects. The problem with a lot of psychiatric drugs is that the consumers do not take responsibility for their use of the drugs. The biggest problems with prescription meds for psychiatric usage is 1) the recipients do not take their meds as prescribed 2) MI individuals do not accurately evaluate their meds and ask for replacement options when the meds are causing side effects or are not beneficial enough. Spending years evaluating medicine after medicine is exhausting, but has to be done in order to receive the most effective prescription treatments. Perhaps most who are ill do not have the wherewithal to properly evaluate their situations due to a combination of 1) and 2) above. A large portion of MI treatment is self-responsibility which becomes self-advocacy.