51 Comments

  2. The number of tools in the military and government’s arsenal of bio weapons is quite large and well developed. I urge everyone to watch this brutally honest summary of the state of biowarfare given by Dr James Giordano, speaking to Cadets and faculty at West Point. There is much to be concerned about in this sphere but was especially struck by the ability to access and change one’s health records and the Big Data initiative undertaken by China and other nation states. This part of the lecture starts at ~13:40. BTW, the virus pandemic bio weapon scenario is outlined starting at 33:30. Chilling!

    https://youtu.be/N02SK9yd60s

  3. Hi Catherine,

    Thank you for this very important warning. Persecuting political opponents is right up their alley, as we witness all the time – and imprisonment for “mental illness” fits right in.

    Your post reminds me of the movie “Frances”, starring Jessica Lange. The movie was based on the life of the actress, Frances Farmer, who was a big star in Hollywood in the 30’s, but due to her politics and defiance of the powers-that-be, she was eventually committed to mental hospital, where she was beaten, raped by many men, electroshocked.. I saw the movie in the early 80’s, and never forgot it. Later in life, Farmer was able to recover enough to resume her acting career. Brilliant performance by Jessica Lange. Said to be her best. Looks like it can be rented on amazon.

  5. HERE IN NEW ENGLAND WE ARE BEING GIVEN A “SURVEY”….QUESTIONS REGARDING DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY…
    AND ALSO REGARDING GUN OWNERSHIP…WHEN ASKED WHO MANDATED THE SURVEY,PA REPLIED:
    “I MAGINE THE STATE SINCE THAT’S WHO PROVIDED THE MONEY!”
    FIRST QUESTION: AT ANY TIME DURING THE PAST 2 WEEKS,HAVE YOU FELT UNHAPPY,CONCERNED…AND ON AND ON…RIDICULOUS!
    AFTER I ASKED WHO MANDATED,SHE DID NOT BOTHER TO ADMINISTER THE REST OF THE SURVEY..THINK SHE JUST TYPED IN A “NO” RESPONSE FOR REST…..

  7. A big vote of agreement. I poo-pooed the documentary with Thomas Szasz, as I find him tricky, but the general theme was right, and you are SPOT ON WITH THIS COMMENT. I am a mental health practitioner, have been involved in academic medical research, management and development of mental health programs, and what Catherine is saying is true. To be honest, the PHQ9 and GAD7 they ask are a joke, and you can just answer all 0s. But the overall theme is right – you cannot trust medicine to have your best interests at heart. As a wise man I knew, Don Jones used to say, “Organizations (or the medical industry, govt, etc) are like cows – you have to learn how to milk them without getting kicked off the stool.” Thanks for increasing folks awareness of the coming dark cloud.

    1. Very glad to have your insights on this. If you are willing to share more on what tactics we should anticipate and learn how to navigate, I am sure it would be helpful.

      1. Catherine, I can come up with certain ideas, but the first point that people should realize is that mental health/psychiatry is ontologically bankrupt. I am going to probably be long winded and I hope I dont lose you, but it is important to lay the proper groundwork first.
        The reality is that psychiatry has a serious problem – they define their disorders teleologically, or more simply, defines psychiatric disorders by the symptoms. It is massively flawed. There is no etiology, merely a list of symptoms. Imagine going to your oncologist and having him tell you that you hae or do not have cancer because of symptoms you tell him or her in an appointment. he is defining your cancer based on your self reported symptoms.

        How did this come about? First off, the field is not really that old. for the sake of illustration, we will say it began at the beginning of the 20th century. The first phase was what is known as the Meyerian era, named after Adolf Meyer of Johns Hopkins.Meyer stressed using a complete history and full mental state examination in evaluating and conceptualizing clinical mental health problems and stressed the importance of identifying every theme that might illuminate a mental disorder. Meyer emphasized the need to appreciate slow and deliberate progress in psychological science and aspired to build psychiatry using a deliberate scientific method. In short, he approached psychiatry with the same patience, discipline and rigor that the internists of his time were using advances in biology to identify and treat physical diseases.

        The second phase was the psychoanalytic one (1940 – 1970), dominated by Freud, where motivational drives, libidinal development, and unconscious psychic conflict were seen as the primary causes of psychiatric illness. Psychoanalysis, aside from being a Frankfurt School anti-nomian chestnut, drew out a belief in the similarity of all human beings to each other and thus enlarged one’s sympathy for patients. However, the practices and conceptions of psychoanalysis led to neglecting the important attention to medical and clinical observation that Meyer had stressed as important. What was left was complicated and byzantine theories unique to each psychoanalyst, and if you sent a distressed person to 5 different psychoanalysts, you would get 5 different diagnoses that resembled literary analyses more so than a medical diagnosis.

        The field soon grew tired of this because psychoanalysis began to sound like a parody of itself and did not foster advancement in treating serious illnesses that are tragic like what is called schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. So in the early 1970s, an effort by some academic medicine researchers led to an effort at the medical school of Washington University in St. Louis to improve the research in psychiatry and radically change the nature of psychiatric science and practice. What they did was define a limited number of common disorders like schizophrenia that are clear problems and can manifest in diverse ways. They were hoping that by creating a set of such “research diagnostic criteria,” it would allow research to be conducted across and among separate laboratories across different regions that might lead to discovering the actual etiologies of some of these diseases.

        Their method was to create the DSM that outlined the features of what they thought were the essential elements of these disorders that could be studied across different nationwide hospitals. They were not, and were not intended to be, actual definitions of the diseases. They knew it was a gamble – they realized the criteria had no validity in the scientific sense of defining a disorder, but they hoped it would allow them to aggregate the findings of the numerous studies and lead to the discovery of etiologies.

        The problem was that their effort to accomplish this failed(the field is still largely ignorant about the causes of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, the two big ones), and their making this move had baleful consequences. In planning DSM-III (1980), the third edition, the APA fell in love with the clarity and reliability that came with the symptom listing and lost interest the truth that comes with stressing scientific validity in defining mental illnesses. As such, what had been developed (i.e., the DSM) at St. Louis U as a tool of scholarly research subtly transformed into a shitty clinical method of diagnosis (and, presumably, treatment) of psychiatric states and conditions of all kinds.

        The result of this has been a disaster, and it has led to all kinds of horrible societal phenomena like transgender pre-teens getting sterilized. I worked under Paul McHugh, and to convey some of his wisdom, I am going to C&P from of his many writings on this subject. If you want an incredible discussion of mental health, his book “the perspectives of psychchiatry” is the best I have ever read – but from an article at American Scholar:

        “The significance of this turn to classifying mental disorders by their appearances cannot be underestimated. In physical medicine, doctors have long been aware that appearances, either as the identifying marks of disorder or as the targets of therapy, are untrustworthy …For all these reasons, general medicine abandoned appearance-based classifications more than a century ago. Instead, the signs and symptoms manifested by a given patient are understood to be produced by one or another underlying pathological process. . . . Internists are reluctant to accept the existence of any proposed new disease unless its signs and symptoms can be linked to one of these processes.

        The medical advances made possible by this approach can be appreciated by considering gangrene. Early in the last century, doctors differentiated between
        two types of this condition: “wet” and “dry.” If a doctor was confronted with a gangrene that appeared wet, he was enjoined to dry it; if dry, to moisten it. Today, by contrast, doctors distinguish gangrenes of infection from gangrenes of arterial obstruction/infarction, and treat each accordingly. The results, since
        they are based solidly in biology, are commensurately successful.

        In DSM-led psychiatry, however, this beneficial movement has been forgone: today, psychiatric conditions are routinely differentiated by appearances alone. This means that the decision to follow a particular course of treatment for, say, depression is typically based not on the neurobiological or psychological data but on the presence or absence of certain associated symptoms like anxiety— that is, on the “wetness” or “dryness” of the depressive patient.

        No less unsettling is the actual means by which mental disorders and their qualifying symptoms have come to find their way onto the lists in DSM-III and
        -IV. In the absence of validating conceptions like the six mechanisms of disease in internal medicine, American psychiatry has turned to “committees of experts” to define mental disorder. Membership on such committees is a matter of one’s reputation in the APA—which means that those chosen can confidently be expected to manifest not only a requisite degree of psychiatric competence but, perhaps more crucially, some talent for diplomacy and self-promotion. In identifying psychiatric disorders and their symptoms, these “experts” draw upon their clinical experience and presuppositions. True, they also turn to the professional literature, but this literature is far from dependable or even stable. Much of it partakes of what the psychiatrist-philosopher Karl Jaspers once termed “efforts of Sisyphus”: what was thought to be true today is often revealed to be false tomorrow. As a result, the final decisions by the experts on what constitutes a psychiatric condition and which symptoms define it rely excessively on the prejudices of the day.

        Nor are the experts disinterested parties in these decisions. Some—because of their position as experts—receive extravagant annual retainers from
        pharmaceutical companies that profit from the promotion of disorders treatable by the company’s medications. Other venal interests may also be at work: when a condition like attention deficit disorder or multiple personality disorder appears in the official catalogue of diagnoses, its treatment can be reimbursed by insurance companies, thus bringing direct financial benefit to an expert running a so-called Trauma Center or Multiple Personality Unit. Finally, there is the inevitable political maneuvering within committees as one expert supports a second’s opinion on a particular disorder with the tacit understanding of reciprocity when needed.

        The new DSM approach of using experts and descriptive criteria in identifying psychiatric diseases has encouraged a productive industry. If you can describe it, you can name it; and if you can name it, then you can claim that it exists as a distinct “entity” with, eventually, a direct treatment tied to it. Proposals for new psychiatric disorders have multiplied so feverishly that the DSM itself has grown from a mere 119 pages in 1968 to 886 pages in the latest edition; a new and enlarged edition, DSM-V, is already in the planning stages. Embedded within these hundreds of pages are some categories of disorder that are real; some that are dubious, in the sense that they are more like the normal responses of sensitive people than psychiatric “entities”; and some that are purely the inventions of their proponents.

        END

        So, realize when they try and diagnose you, they are using bogus concepts that mean nothing. I need to catch my breath, but I will try and come up with approaches you can use when they try and corner you with mental health diagnoses.

        1. Medicine is ontologically bankrupt, because science taken to logical extreme, as grand narrative, is ontologically bankrupt. There is no meaningful definition of pathological states at any level allopthy. Its garbage, pseudo-scientific inventions of the philosophically inept.

      2. Quoting from “Big Brother in the Exam Room”, an award winning book by Twila Brase, “The systems of health surveillance are growing. State and Federal agencies are building one database after the next while preparing a national medical-records system for 24/7 access to the private medical, genetic, lifestyle and behavioral details of every American. The public has no idea that the HIPAA privacy rule eviscerated their privacy rights rather than protect them.”
        HIPAA is actually a “disclosure” regulation and they can share your information far and wide. Sometimes a HIPAA signature page is attached to the page for financial payment. You can refuse to sign HIPAA, which I have done and was still seen by my dermatologist. If they refuse service, there is a form that will “rescind” the HIPAA page you signed. To learn all about Health Freedom, you can go to cchfreedom.org. Twila Brase is the co-founder who has won multiple awards for her book and campaigns for health freedom. “The Wedge” is a network of doctors across the country on her website who don’t take insurance and can provide individual healthcare without the overreach of the medical establishment and Insurance companies. In 2021, Scott Atlas was her keynote speaker for her annual dinner and this year it was General Michael Flynn. Throughout Covid she kept her members informed of the “latest and greatest” and most of all accurate and truthful information.

      3. On the practical level, it is important to remember that the laws actually favor you when being coerced into mental health restrictions. You cant give someone a diagnosis unless they have “medical evidence” of mental illness. You cannot institutionalize someone or force them to go to an inpatient unit without their consent. No matter how intimidating they may be, remember they cannot force you to do anything on mental health grounds, and they know it. Just stay calm and stick by your guns.

        On the aggregate, any diagnosis that can follow you requires an evaluation by a mental health professional. A psychiatrist, a psychologist, and dependeing on the state, a licensed counselor or LICSW. On the whole, they are not in medical offices, and normally not a part of a medical visit. If you do not take a test, answer a questionnaire, agree to a diagnostic intake, it is hard to get a diagnosis. Virtually all primary care physicians are scared of giving a mental health diagnosis because it can come back and smack them in the face. They hand people off to mental health.

        If you stay away from mental health practitioners, the only way to get a diagnosis without testing or an evaluation is to exhibit behavior that is unstable. Of all things, keep you cool when in a doctors office. Getting mad is acceptable, but do not swear excessively, threaten people, or make a claim of hurting others or yourself. When you do that, you poop the bed. They can and will document that, and it will stick to you like a bad habit, and everyone you see for the next ten years will note it on your chart. The evidence then becomes your behavior, and they can use the system and laws to make things hard for you.

        I make that sound terrible, but the reality is there are people who are unstable and cant help themselves. The laws have good intentions and they are humane and for the common good on the aggregate. And the reality is that the vast majority of people in medical settings are predisposed to be kind, empathic and have a natural sense of how to be ethical. It is helpful to remember that the person got into medicine or behavioral health because they want to be a force for good. We have just had a societal hiccup and people have been deluded and bullied into the covid cult. If you are cool and reasonable, chances are that the medical staff will do the same. Avoid power stuggles with doctors – your power can be to politely refuse taking actions that lead to a diagnosis.

        As far as the questionnaires they give you at the beginning of a visit, my advice is to answer them as all zeros or an occasional 1. If you are suicidal, get help, and from someone you trust, and if you feel you wuld like help from the doctor, circle the suicide quesiton truthfully. They will help you, and I highly doubt that they will hassle you about vaccines, etc. if that is your concern. However, if you are feeling stable, the best course would be to answer all the questions 0.

        Research has shown that most people first go to ther medical doctor for mental health issues. 80% of primary care visits are behavioral health issues – things that are normally outside of what a doctor can treat directly. Smoking, diet, drinking, poor sleep habits, depression, mourning the loss of a loved one, a break up, losing a job, etc. Those things are real stressors, and do take a toll on you. that is why they screen for depression and anxiety – they are the low hanging fruit of distress that people experience that underlie the medical issues that brings them to the doctor like a sour stomach, erectile dysfunction, low energy or a long standing cold or infection.

        Docs live for the opportunity to heal people and thrive on the appreciation that their patients have for their care and expertise. Keep that in the back of you mind when interacting with them. THey may be hollow, slightly autistic, but at the root, they want to be a champion and a healer. However, when docs are challenged, they get their backs up I have seen some power struggles to beat the band when a doctor feels their authority is being challenged. That would be the time I would be scared of being diagnosed. Outside of that, I think it would be rare for a doctor to try and corner someone with a diagnosis outside of a correctional or law setting. I hope that helps, thought I suspect I just muddied the waters!

Comments are closed.