I think i have an idea on how to achieve progress on pssd

Topics related to activism.
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 07, 2021 7:07 am

I think i have an idea on how to achieve progress on pssd

Unread post by Daniel »

I posted this on the rxisk blog as well, this is my first post here.
I have an idea on how to achieve progress for pssd and other iatrogenic problems and i belive it is the right thing to do. Here comes a long explanation on why.

We need for this to become known, it would, i believe increase the likelyhood that scientific interest in understanding ssri iatrogenesis increases? At any rate, i figure it would be godsend to increase political interest in reforming the way/extent to which drugs are tested in order to find the real risks. But it would, i believe, be very difficult to convince the public that the system "would ever be allowed to do anything so harmful/unsafe" that the drugs they resort to in order to alleviate their suffering and feel they need is dangerous, and nurses dont want to believe what they do is harmful (do a quick websearch on "choice under cognitive dissonance" )and are tought to believe in their system and doctors cannot imagine either that they themselves or their databases/ for side effects are wrong. The power of dogma is very severe.The phamaceutical industry who deny or downplay problems and worst of all: all these groups (laypeople, nurses, doctors, journalists) of people, when trying to find authoritative and objective views they will find most proffesional psychiatrists, most large medical information websites and most clinical trials all tell the same narrative, that is one ommiting serious permanent harms for many who take them, one which tells you these sources are indeed the authorities on the subject.The problem is you cannot partially make people understand the situation (im thinking of understanding in a deeper sense which is needed to explain it to others) There are so many points of control they (the pharmaceutical industry) have over the publics sense of reality: so if you tell people (who care, who want to find out the truth) "there are these specific kinds of serious risks of permanent harm that are not captured by the clinical trials" then they will eventually seek out a psychiatrists (an "expert") opinion and get to hear that their medications "dont have those kinds of grave harms" and "dont listen to to those wierd" conspiracy theorists" on the internet, were the experts we are the ones who know, those are symptoms of depression" and if they look on the internet they will find the same narrative If you tell them (a non involved layperson/or holder of power or influence) "most proffesionals in medicine/psychiatry are ignorant of these severe risks and they are not appearing on warning labels or in their databases they use" then they would likely go to the internet and look at the academic litterature and clinical trials to find out harms vs benefits(normally a reasonable strategy to figure out the truth), most with ties to the industry or ghostwritten and or manipulated science all saying that ssris are wonderful.If instead you told people "psychiatrists usually blame harms from drugs on the patients illness and keep giving them drugs that harm them more, in order to treat the" "illness" they would say "no society would never allow that especially not for medications given for"health" reasons/we have systems to prevent that/theyre nice people/media would have reported it to the public a long time ago"(though they have economic ties with pharma, censored peter gottzsche every time he tried to tell about drug harms in tabloids, using "they would just harm society or themselves if they got the idea that they should stop using them" as a pretext.Also when they made a documentary all critical parts were cut Media also treats the medical authorities as objective and reliable sources. Also real violent crimes caused by ssris are always reported/framed as being caused by the patients illness as Healy has shown),If instead you told them "the medical research do not test these drugs for withdrawal harms or their effects in the polypharmacy regimes that they are being used in, or long term usage effects" they will instead assume "authorities must take that into account when assesing drug safety" (though they do not) . If you tell people of any kinds of problems with the drugs or the research on them or the medical doctors, they will assume that the problems cant be that severe authorities would never have allowed that(though they often have revolving doors with pharmaceutical industry)or "i would allready have known if that was true media would have reported it"
Trying to tell one or two things of the situation to a noninvolved person can often (in my experience) be as diffycult as trying to cut the head of a hydra, another one will grow back,i mean specifically from what they believe about society or medicine which make sure that they will not be capable of fully seeing this societal problem which is on so many levels of the societal apparatus academic, clinical conflicts of interest, revolving doors in the governing bodies(which are made and function by socially engineering trust from the public) with the industry, all these sources of information, these pieces of a narrative or impression has the power to make people forget, discredit or diminish the importance of what revelations and warnings you have given them.
They have so many points of control over peoples beliefs.If you are not informing them fully enough they will retain their illusions on the big picture of the medical system. And if you tell too much, too many deep ways in which people are decieved by them people will feel that you are so arrogant who think you know better than so much of the establishment, that rejects the validity so many of the
expert sources that they ran into saying that the drugs are wonderful and healthy and that "all drugs are rigourously tested and safe", and if you talk about the corruption in medicine as well as other evils as well they will feel as if it is perhaps mainly your attitude as opposed to fact, or maybe you are a conspiracy theorist? Im gonna get to the point. In the face of such severe control of the narrative by the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical industry, it will be harder to make people both seeking out information/engaging in it AND convinced of a societal system that fails their trust AND able to with confidence and clarity explain it to others, all without being swayed by dogma.
Unless you bring hard evidence of both the problems and their magnitude.

Even if you make someone convinced of these things they will not be able to second hand convince others of information they dont fully remember, have no written comprehensive yet fairly easy to go through list of facts with references giving evidence giving confidence to spread awareness.
Such a list would have to include evidence on the aspects of the dysfunctioning roles of institutions like "evidence based medicine", media and website conflict of interests and its results in terms of censorship/distortion and things like genital numbness proving pssd is not depression,things like 100k us citizens a year are killed by prescriptions, the record of distortions of truth by the pharmaceutical industry,that the medications create new illnesses, that much of established medical opinion on safety and benefits is manipulated and proven to be wrong, that iatrogenesis is worsened by giving further harmful medications to treat it which they regularly say are mental illness symptoms. That the gradual and variable nature of the harms make it impossible to know what portion of "normal" mental illness is actually caused by medications, and that the symptoms are overlapping. That trial measure only parts of the real risks. And trying to get some kind of quantitative evidence on all these things whenever possible. Essentially we need a collection of enough hard evidence of a nature which would explain, both medical and political, and human suffering aspects of this until there is no longer possible for it to fail to make people understand and desire political change, even in the face of all the power over reason, thought, authority, research medical practises, as well as our views and definitions of the illnesses as well as all objections or scepticism about the idea that "society could be failing at that level (and it is failing, otherwise it would have adressed the problem. And the problem is the pharmaceutical industry more then anything else) Society fails on so many levels because if not all these parts of the societal system: trials/research, professional opinion with its conflict of interest, media with its denial of coverage and active censorship, the authorities with revolving doors with the industry, then the problems would eventually be known and solved, atleast in terms of people would avoid unneccessary medications and be able to recognise at an earlier stage when impaiments are caused by iatrogenesis and protecting them from further harm, and enabling doctors to know that repeated withdrawal processes (going on and off medications) is more risky, and creating demand for and interest in research on withdrawal effects. Clearly many sufferers of iatrogenic damages(if anything that is the strenght of many of the community
) as well as scholars know a lot about these things. So if we created as resource /wiki or something with hard evidence to that awareness and clarity promoting end, that gives whole picture , any work made to it would empower each of us with the clarity of many of us combined, (even the cognitively impaired could use it to derive leverage to convince people like politicians if broad and subtansive enough evidence was there and journalists could be directed to it to not have them caught under the spell of the conventional narrative, to make them see through the confusion). Every achievement in such a work would become x times more powerful in making a difference because so many people could with low effort make use of it, times y times again which is the average amount of people every person would send it to/base attempts to make people care about us on. And further times z which would be the amount of people these people pass it on to.It would be very empowering. And primarily we should influence politicians and journalists and maybe also people who are famous enough to make these things publicly known. With all these morally outrageous things pharmaceutical industry has inflicted upon society, some politicial opposition parties in the world might also see it as a strategic gift to appeal to voters with, by crusading against wrongs and holding the establishment accountable. I actually feel it is the rational thing to do. We all know things about psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry and our adverse effects. I cannot any programming myself but if someone could do it we could all contribute to it. Additional i think we can ask people like breggins, gottzsche, healy and others who who are experts on this to refer us to a lot of references without much effort on their part which we can read and/or include in such a resource or wikia, helping us to make it progress, and at some point it will be an unstoppable political case for change, it is clearly in our self interest too.

(Just to clarify: the idea is to have evidence that actually stands up to scrutiny, so we should probably if possible have an expert oversee the content every now and then).
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests