Topic on Talk:Psychiatry

In short, this page contains potential misinformation, poorly sourced claims, and even themes of Anti-intellectualism and pseudo-science.

Firstly, the first sentence of this page claims that:

"Psychiatry is a pseudoscience based on the idea of mental disorders (or mental illness); the notion of mental disorders are not based in any form of material analysis or science."

This is false, both in its definition of psychiatry and its claims about the nature of mental disorders.

Firstly, we must ask: what is psychiatry?

According to Dr. Ananya Mandal, a well-known and trusted Pharmacologist,

"Psychiatry is an area of medicine involving the study, diagnosis and treatment of mental health disorders. A person's mental health is influenced by a combination of factors that are both specific to an individual as well as related to interactions with society, community, and family. There are several components to mental well being including a healthy self esteem, communication skills and the development of resilience." [source]

Indeed, the medical speciality of psychiatry is not merely a theological doctrine, or a form of esoteric wizardry, separate from all fields of intellectual study; an astrology of sorts, as this page is attempting to portray it, but is instead intimately associated with many other forms of natural science, psychology, and such.

Hence, by looking at the definition of psychiatry that is commonly agreed upon, particularly by specialists in this field, we can now understand that this page is fundamentally based off an understanding of this topic that is both highly false and incomplete, which is very clearly attracting misinformation and pseudo-science, particularly when documenting and criticising scientific matters such as this.

Secondly, we must again ask: are mental disorders material and scientific?

In brief, a mental disorder is defined as

"Mental disorders (or mental illnesses) are conditions that affect your thinking, feeling, mood, and behavior. They may be occasional or long-lasting (chronic). They can affect your ability to relate to others and function each day." [source]

In other words, a mental disorder is largely based on the analysis of reality, namely, on consistant patterns in one's mental behavior that prevent certain common acivaties from being performed. While a diagnosis in this context certainly is not infailable, and may sometimes be distorted by external factors, you absolutely cannot say that it is not based in reality, nor that is is not based on science. The fact that the section on this page "Psychiatric Diagnoses" lacks any sort of citation ought to show the amont of misinformation that is presently being spread.

Psychiatrists themselves are required, at least in the United States of America, to study for nearly a decade on a vast number of medical and psychological topics, and are furthermore required to pass a great number of examinations in order to be granted to ability to be employed in that particular field. According to BestAccreditedColleges, which commonly gives accurate and factual descriptions of technical careers

"Psychiatrists are doctors who address their patients' mental and emotional health care needs. They may work in a hospital setting or private practice. Practicing psychiatrists have completed medical school as well as a supervised internship and residency. They must also be licensed and certified in order to practice their work." [source]

To claim, or atleast insinuate that psychiatrists are simply these "evil people" that want to drug the poor and who do not care about science is not only a gross distortion of the truth, it is itself an insult to science as a whole.

The other parts of the page, notably the "Reputation" section, are completely biased and false. Anti-psychiatry, atleast to the extent in which the page promotes it, is by all measures not accepted in mainstream medical circles, which in a scientific context, is almost always indicative of a fringe theory or pseudo-science. I understand that ProleWiki does not maintain a Wikipedia-like "Neutral Point of View", which I think is commonly a postive thing, but this should be a different case entirely. This page cites merely a few fringe and intellectually dubious voices, and totally ignores the vast majority of the medical community on this matter, in order to confirm a long-standing bias. This is not science, nor is it vaild from a scientific view, this is the exact tactic of Biblical Creationists and Climate Change Deniers - ignore all reasonable and common academic consensus, and only focus on a single, fringe, "scholar" who agrees with you without proof of a scientific claim, in order to justify an Anti-scientific claim.

Finally, I feel that it is impossible, and additionally irresponsible, to not mention a metaphorical elephant in the room: This page has entirely been created, and further edited by a single user, @Amicchan, previously known on ProleWki as "PrivacyIsImportantComrade...".

This person has promoted Anti-psychiatry, and has been very active on Anti-psychiatry communities, on a number of social media platforms, particularly Lemmygrad, before they were banned for reasons I will soon adress.

On Lemmygrad, they had actively espoused Anti-scientific and generally Anti-intellectual rhetoric, using terms such as "Scientism" [source] (a term which is almost always used by Christian Extremists and Flat-Earthers to make science seem like a "religion"), claiming that psychiatric diagnosis is a "myth" [source], posting content which suggests that psychiatrists are rapists and mental abusers [source], spreading a research paper which contains discredited assertions and harmful misinformation from thirty years ago which they failed to even read themselves [source], and even claiming that ADHD and Autism (which is a condition which arises before or during birth) were "Scientism", and further claiming that those very serious and proven disorders were "facts of culture" and "not based in the material world". [source] With this user's lack of factual claims, Anti-intellectualism, and borderline ableist and denialist ideas about medical conditions, they have since been banned from Lemmygrad, and their rhetoric, along with the Anti-psychiatry community itself on Lemmygrad, are the subject of ongoing controversy within the website.

This user clearly has a vested interest in, and bias towards, Anti-psychiatry, and the spreading of it. Already, from merely looking at this user's contributions, nearly all of their edits have been on this page (which they clearly made solely to promote Anti-psychiatry), Anti-psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, or on uploading a library work titled "Psychiatric Hegemony: A Marxist Theory of Mental Illness".

If this user's behavior, both in and outside of ProleWiki, is any indication, they are using ProleWiki as a soapbox, or a platform to merely promote their fringe pseudo-scientific views, and not to help build a Proletarian encyclopedia.

Psychiatry is certainly being abused by those in political and economic power to enrich themselves, excessive diagnosis is often a problem, and psychiatry is often used instead of focusing on changing social and economic conditions, but psychiatry is not the problem, Capitalism is, and it is Capitalism that is abusing psychiatry, like other medical fields, to sustain itself. Indeed, the Soviet Union had, and the Republic of Cuba has psychiatry programs themselves. [source]

My suggestion with this page would be to monitor what it says for misinformation, remove existing misinformation, and change its primary topic to how Neoliberalism and Capitalism are abusing psychiatry, not how psychiatry is harming people. I lastly suggest that Amicchan should reframe from creating more pages which promote Anti-psychiatry, until a consensus can be reached concerning this topic.

> In short, this page contains potential misinformation, poorly sourced claims, and even themes of Anti-intellectualism and pseudo-science.

> Firstly, the first sentence of this page claims that:

> "Psychiatry is a pseudoscience based on the idea of mental disorders (or mental illness); the notion of mental disorders are not based in any form of material analysis or science."

> This is false, both in its definition of psychiatry and its claims about the nature of mental disorders.

ok, I'll partly concede that I do thhink mental disorders are based in material analysis. Still, they are not based in science; they cannot be directly tested.

> Firstly, we must ask: what is psychiatry?

> According to Dr. Ananya Mandal, a well-known and trusted Pharmacologist,

> "Psychiatry is an area of medicine involving the study, diagnosis and treatment of mental health disorders. A person's mental health is influenced by a combination of factors that are both specific to an individual as well as related to interactions with society, community, and family. There are several components to mental well being including a healthy self esteem, communication skills and the development of resilience." [source]

It does not matter if a person is trusted; everyone should be able to independently verify that Psychiatry is a science; but no. Apparently only Psychiatrys are registered to do that. This is actually *anti-science*, as science demands that everyone should be allowed to perform independent verification.

> Indeed, the medical speciality of psychiatry is not merely a theological doctrine, or a form of esoteric wizardry, separate from all fields of intellectual study; an astrology of sorts, as this page is attempting to portray it, but is instead intimately associated with many other forms of natural science, psychology, and such.

You derived your argument from a deduction of a definition forwarded by *one* Psychiatrist. It's important to collectivly get definitions of a Psychiatrist before making this type of deductive argument.

> Secondly, we must again ask: are mental disorders material and scientific?

> In brief, a mental disorder is defined as

> "Mental disorders (or mental illnesses) are conditions that affect your thinking, feeling, mood, and behavior. They may be occasional or long-lasting (chronic). They can affect your ability to relate to others and function each day." [source]

That's not the definition I'm getting. At the fundamental definition, a mental disorder is a disorder of mentality; an opposition to an order of mentality.

We must agree on the definition of a mental disorder before being able to determine if mental disorders can be scientific.

> In other words, a mental disorder is largely based on the analysis of reality, namely, on consistant patterns in one's mental behavior that prevent certain common acivaties from being performed. While a diagnosis in this context certainly is not infailable, and may sometimes be distorted by external factors, you absolutely cannot say that it is not based in reality, nor that is is not based on science. The fact that the section on this page "Psychiatric Diagnoses" lacks any sort of citation ought to show the amont of misinformation that is presently being spread.

Ok. I'll admit that saying mental disorders are not based in reality is kinda dumb; disorders are a *disorder* of mentality.

However, they aren't exactly science. What is a mental disorder a disorder *of*? We still know a small portion of the brain, so who's authority is it to state how the mentality is supposed to work?

> Psychiatrists themselves are required, at least in the United States of America, to study for nearly a decade on a vast number of medical and psychological topics, and are furthermore required to pass a great number of examinations in order to be granted to ability to be employed in that particular field. According to BestAccreditedColleges, which commonly gives accurate and factual descriptions of technical careers

Do Psychiatrists study epistemology and understand Science? If not, then it doesn't matter if they studied medicine; they must understand science for them to be scientists.

> To claim, or atleast insinuate that psychiatrists are simply these "evil people" that want to drug the poor and who do not care about science is not only a gross distortion of the truth, it is itself an insult to science as a whole.

This argument is derived from the deduction of definition of a psychiatrist. Using this logic, I can define capitalists as "innocent people that help" and deduce that capitalists are helpful people.

> The other parts of the page, notably the "Reputation" section, are completely biased and false. Anti-psychiatry, atleast to the extent in which the page promotes it, is by all measures not accepted in mainstream medical circles,

This is because it goes against western dogma. The drug industry is dominant in the United States; and Psychiatry is the tool the drug industry uses to extract wealth. Unsurprisingly, they are going to oppose anti-psychiatry.

> which in a scientific context, is almost always indicative of a fringe theory or pseudo-science.

This argument is a fallacious argumentum ad populum

Science is a system that gains knowledge through testing. From wikipedia:

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

We shouldn't rely on popularity to declare a field a psuedoscience.

> This page cites merely a few fringe and intellectually dubious voices, and totally ignores the vast majority of the medical community on this matter, in order to confirm a long-standing bias.

Why are those voices supposedly fringe and intellectually dubious? What is the majority of the medical community?

> This is not science, nor is it vaild from a scientific view, this is the exact tactic of Biblical Creationists and Climate Change Deniers - ignore all reasonable and common academic consensus, and only focus on a single, fringe, "scholar" who agrees with you without proof of a scientific claim, in order to justify an Anti-scientific claim.

I haven't added more citation due to laziness and my surprising exhaustion. I'll focus on adding more citations in the future; but remember that citations are a type of reference.

> This person has promoted Anti-psychiatry, and has been very active on Anti-psychiatry communities, on a number of social media platforms, particularly Lemmygrad, before they were banned for reasons I will soon adress.

Which is just... lemmygrad.ml and lemmy.ml. I only posted to one anti-psychiatry community I posted to.

> On Lemmygrad, they had actively espoused Anti-scientific and generally Anti-intellectual rhetoric, using terms such as "Scientism" [source] (a term which is almost always used by Christian Extremists and Flat-Earthers to make science seem like a "religion"), claiming that psychiatric diagnosis is a "myth" [source], [source], . and further claiming that those very serious and proven disorders were "facts of culture" and "not based in the material world". [source]

I haven't used the term Scientism and probably won't ever. That's what the article uses as the website title, and I don't like that term either.

That being said: It's unfair to conflate the usage of a term to conspiracy theorists; I would liken this argument to ad hominem.

> spreading a research paper which contains discredited assertions and harmful misinformation from thirty years ago which they failed to even read themselves [source]

Yeah I should have read the paper. I apologize for that mistake; but is it really fair to use that as a reason to claim someone is anti-intellectual? I think it's intellectual to admit that I made a mistake.

> posting content which suggests that psychiatrists are rapists and mental abusers

I never said this in that post.

It’s the Rolling Stone; they pushed the false rape story of Jackie. Who would be surprised to find they lie (for corporations) at this point? They’re just another trashy magazine. It’s hilarious seeing Psychiatrists becoming so dishonest as soon as any critical thinking is applied to Psychiatry.

I only mentioned a rape story; I never conflated psychiatrists with rapists.

> With this user's lack of factual claims, Anti-intellectualism, and borderline ableist and denialist ideas about medical conditions, they have since been banned from Lemmygrad, and their rhetoric, along with the Anti-psychiatry community itself on Lemmygrad, are the subject of ongoing controversy within the website.

How are my ideas ableist and denialist? When did I ever deny the struggle of those diagnosed with mental disorders?

Denying that mental disorders are scientific is different from acknowledging the struggle those diagnosed with mental disorders go through.

> even claiming that ADHD and Autism (which is a condition which arises before or during birth)

Where is the evidence for this claim? As I said, claims must be independently and repeatedly testable to be scientific.

> nearly all of their edits have been on this page (which they clearly made solely to promote Anti-psychiatry), Anti-psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, or on uploading a library work titled "Psychiatric Hegemony: A Marxist Theory of Mental Illness".

My anti-psychiatry edits constitute a small part of my contribution history; most of my contributions are adding Marxist-Leninist information like normal.

I added "Psychiatric Hegemony: A Marxist Theory of Mental Illness" solely because it was a Marxist work; otherwise I wouldn't have added it to the library.

> but psychiatry is not the problem, Capitalism is, and it is Capitalism that is abusing psychiatry, like other medical fields, to sustain itself.

Psychiatry could become scientific if mental disorders actually had material testing (maybe biological testing); Capitalism indeed just worsens it.

> Indeed, the Soviet Union had, and the Republic of Cuba has psychiatry programs themselves.

Yeah, that's one thing I dislike about all the socialist countries.

"Still, [mental disorders] are not based in science; they cannot be directly tested."

Mental disorders are in fact based in science and are directly tested. In order for a mental disorder to be categorised and formalised in the first place, it must undergo decades of research, testing, and review. In order for a mental disorder to be classified as such, it requires extensive usage of the scientific method. If you disagree with that, then by those standards, the entirety of other fields such as psychology must be "non-science" as well.

"It does not matter if a person is trusted; everyone should be able to independently verify that Psychiatry is a science; but no. Apparently only Psychiatrys are registered to do that. This is actually *anti-science*, as science demands that everyone should be allowed to perform independent verification."

"You derived your argument from a deduction of a definition forwarded by *one* Psychiatrist. It's important to collectivly get definitions of a Psychiatrist before making this type of deductive argument."

You accuse me of making claims I never even contemplated to make. I never said that "let's trust only the expert-psychiatrists", nor did I say that "look! this one person said it, therefore it must be true!". That definition I provided is agreed upon by most others in that field, and outside that field, for that matter. I merely gave that one particular quote because it was easy to locate, and well-worded. Even people outside that field can easily understand that is what psychiatry is. You are furthermore undermining the fact that the definition (which is very commonly agreed upon) shows that the definition you provided in the start of the article (before it was removed) is false, and shows your likely lack of understanding in this topic.

"That's not the definition I'm getting. At the fundamental definition, a mental disorder is a disorder of mentality; an opposition to an order of mentality."

"We must agree on the definition of a mental disorder before being able to determine if mental disorders can be scientific."

That is your own heterodox interpretation of a mental disorder. I gave you the scientific definition of a mental disorder, which was found with empirical investigation. If you are unwilling to agree with the commonly understood definition of this topic, and instead use your philosophical view, than we cannot reach an agreement.

"Ok. I'll admit that saying mental disorders are not based in reality is kinda dumb; disorders are a *disorder* of mentality."

"However, they aren't exactly science. What is a mental disorder a disorder *of*? We still know a small portion of the brain, so who's authority is it to state how the mentality is supposed to work?"

They are scientific as I have already shown you. A mental disorder is a cognitive phenomenon which actively impedes a person from doing common actions. While some mental disorders I disagree with in their contents, most are what could be understood as disorders; they are harmful to a person, to the degree in which they often require external assistance.

"Do Psychiatrists study epistemology and understand Science? If not, then it doesn't matter if they studied medicine; they must understand science for them to be scientists."

"This argument is derived from the deduction of definition of a psychiatrist. Using this logic, I can define capitalists as "innocent people that help" and deduce that capitalists are helpful people."

The quote in which I presented to you indicates that Psychiatrists (atleast in the USA, of course) must have a four-year education in a scientific topic to even get to the higher-stages of an education in psychiatry. This information can be found elsewhere. The rest of that paragrath is a misrepresentation of what psychiatrists do as a career, they are not "scientists" per se, but merely apply an existing field that relates to science. People who work in a medical field are not necessarily scientists, yet for them to get to education for such an occupation in the first place, they must study a topic that deeply relates to science.

The second paragrapth is unclear in what it is attempting to say, nor is your comparison to "defining capitalists" vaild. I was arguing that the way you portray psychiatrists was dishonest. You can critique psychiatry, and I am sure many of those critiques would be adressing real issues in that field, I myself am often critical of aspects within that field. However, it is something else to target the people who work in said field. Psychiatrists are not people who extract surplus value, steal from workers, coup governments, ect. They are people, almost always proletarians, who dedicate a career out of understanding mental issues with people in order to help them. You could argue that the care they give is ineffective, if not harmful, but they themselves likely do not know or understand your problems with the field they work in, and how psychiatry itself is being abused by the present economic and political order.

"This is because it goes against western dogma. The drug industry is dominant in the United States; and Psychiatry is the tool the drug industry uses to extract wealth. Unsurprisingly, they are going to oppose anti-psychiatry."

"This argument is a fallacious argumentum ad populum"

You are once again proving me correct when I argue that the Anti-psychiatry community contains Anti-scientific ideas which are similar to those seen with Christian fundamentalists and Climate Change-deniers. Firstly, I said that Anti-psychiatry is unpopular among the scientific community, particularly with people who occupy a medical-related field. You, however, claim that I am false because the "drug industry" does not support it. This can mean one of two things, you simply misunderstood what I said, or you are claiming that the drug industry in the USA is in control of the ideas of, and has subverted, scientists and medical specialists.

This is the exact same mentality of Climate Change-deniers; they will refuse to accept proven facts about ecological damage, pollution, ect. all because, as they claim, the scientists who did that research who secretly "shills" to an underground conspiracy of "globalists" who had paid them all off. I am not saying, necessarily, that your ideas are just as false and unproven as Climate Change-deniers or Christian extremists, I am merely stating that you are refusing to consider the views of people educated in this matter simply because you have a clear bias in favor of Anti-psychiatry, which is certainly not how one advances science.

Nor is this an argumentum ad populum fallacy. The reasons why the Anti-psychiatry community is misguided in their ideas is much more complex than simple support or lack thereof. It is simply a notable trend that many pseudo-scientific and anti-scientific movements often have little-or-no support from people who have an education in scientific topics. This trend can be seen with "quantum mysticism", Anti-vaccine movements, astrology, and so on. Of course, the reason why all of the ideas and movements I mentioned are false is much more complex than simply the fact that they are no support from the scientific community, yet, the fact the they have no support is still nonetheless indicative of something, is it not?

"Which is just... lemmygrad.ml and lemmy.ml. I only posted to one anti-psychiatry community I posted to."

Stop attempting to trivialize your participation with these communites. You were on the Anti-psychiatry community for months if not years, you made a large amont of the posts about "scientism", among others, and you willingly defended that community up until you were banned. You clearly have a vested interest in spreading Anti-psychiatry.

"Yeah, that's one thing [usage of psychiatry] I dislike about all the socialist countries."

How is helping people bad? Furthermore, the fact that Socialist states use this medical field should show you that it is not a "big-pharma" plot to drug the poor, and instead is a vaild field concerning mental health.

I don't want to say anything mean here; but you kinda come off disrespectful. I dislike the accusatory tone of associating rational skepticism of (psuedoscientific) fields with quack theories and professions. This is the same behavior used to suppress dissent and critical thinking.

Also, I noticed that you haven't responded to some of my arguments in your comment. Do you plan to respond to them?

---

"Still, [mental disorders] are not based in science; they cannot be directly tested." Mental disorders are in fact based in science and are directly tested.

Any proof for this? Because mental disorders are currently based in subjective analysis; so they cannot be directly tested (to be disproved).

Have mental disorders been attempted to be disproved? I don't think so, but feel free to post any arguments to the contrary.

What are the causes for mental disorders? As I tried searching, there seems to be no consistent testable cause for mental disorders, which is neccessary to be able to falsify it.

In order for a mental disorder to be categorised and formalised in the first place, it must undergo decades of research, testing, and review.

There's already complexity here; who is doing the research; who is doing the testing; who is doing the review? In the case of research on Psychiatric drugs; most of those are done by pharmaceutical companies, which conveniently control studies that get published.

In order for a mental disorder to be classified as such, it requires extensive usage of the scientific method.

I don't know man; disorders in the DSM were built on expert consensus, not the scientific method.

If you disagree with that, then by those standards, the entirety of other fields such as psychology must be "non-science" as well.

Nah, I agree with that.

"It does not matter if a person is trusted; everyone should be able to independently verify that Psychiatry is a science; but no. Apparently only Psychiatr[ist]s are registered to do that. This is actually *anti-science*, as science demands that everyone should be allowed to perform independent verification."

"You derived your argument from a deduction of a definition forwarded by *one* Psychiatrist. It's important to collectivly get definitions of a Psychiatrist before making this type of deductive argument."

You accuse me of making claims I never even contemplated to make. I never said that "let's trust only the expert-psychiatrists", nor did I say that "look! this one person said it, therefore it must be true!".

You didn't say those claims; because I never said you did. I said that the argument is derived from deduction of one definition, not a collective definition.

That definition I provided is agreed upon by most others in that field, and outside that field, for that matter. I merely gave that one particular quote because it was easy to locate, and well-worded. Even people outside that field can easily understand that is what psychiatry is. You are furthermore undermining the fact that the definition (which is very commonly agreed upon) shows that the definition you provided in the start of the article (before it was removed) is false, and shows your likely lack of understanding in this topic.

"That's not the definition I'm getting. At the fundamental definition, a mental disorder is a disorder of mentality; an opposition to an order of mentality."

"We must agree on the definition of a mental disorder before being able to determine if mental disorders can be scientific."

That is your own heterodox interpretation of a mental disorder. I gave you the scientific definition of a mental disorder, which was found with empirical investigation. If you are unwilling to agree with the commonly understood definition of this topic, and instead use your philosophical view, than we cannot reach an agreement.

This was the original definition of 'mental disorder'. The term got perverted into mental illness; and the fact that "mental disorder" has such a lose definition is suspicious for a field that supposedly deems itself "scientific".

"Ok. I'll admit that saying mental disorders are not based in reality is kinda dumb; disorders are a *disorder* of mentality."

"However, they aren't exactly science. What is a mental disorder a disorder *of*? We still know a small portion of the brain, so who's authority is it to state how the mentality is supposed to work?"

They are scientific as I have already shown you. A mental disorder is a cognitive phenomenon which actively impedes a person from doing common actions.

1. What is a common action?
2. What are the causes for mental disorders?
3. Are mental disorders falsifiable?

While some mental disorders I disagree with in their contents, most are what could be understood as disorders; they are harmful to a person, to the degree in which they often require external assistance.

Except, this isn't even true.

1. Mental disorders lack any objective analysis; so the supposed "harm" cannot be tested.
2. As mental disorders lack real objective analysis, there is therefore no way to prove if these suppoesd "disorders" are curable.
3. Logically, the result is that psychiatric drugs are as effective as placebo.

"Do Psychiatrists study epistemology and understand Science? If not, then it doesn't matter if they studied medicine; they must understand science for them to be scientists."

"This argument is derived from the deduction of definition of a psychiatrist. Using this logic, I can define capitalists as "innocent people that help" and deduce that capitalists are helpful people."

The quote in which I presented to you indicates that Psychiatrists (atleast in the USA, of course) must have a four-year education in a scientific topic to even get to the higher-stages of an education in psychiatry. This information can be found elsewhere.

It does not matter if the topic is "scientific"; people must understand science in order to be (good) scientists; otherwise they will fail to properly enforce and utilize the principles of science (falsifiability, testing, experimental data, etc.).

The rest of that paragrath is a misrepresentation of what psychiatrists do as a career, they are not "scientists" per se, but merely apply an existing field that relates to science.

and what is that existing field?

People who work in a medical field are not necessarily scientists, yet for them to get to education for such an occupation in the first place, they must study a topic that deeply relates to science.

Again, it does not matter if the topic relates to science; the learner must understand science and it's principles in order to properly apply and utilize science.

The second paragrapth is unclear in what it is attempting to say, nor is your comparison to "defining capitalists" vaild.

how is it not valid?

I was arguing that the way you portray psychiatrists was dishonest.

Can you elaborate?

However, it is something else to target the people who work in said field.

So what makes this any different from, say, criticizing CIA collaborators who work in the field of military intelligence (where not everyone is working in the favour of the bourgeoisie?

Psychiatrists are not people who extract surplus value, steal from workers

I disagreeably argue that Psychiatrists extract wealth from workers for an imaginary solution that inevitably does not work. I view the relationship this way, as psychiatric disorders have been proven to be practically meaningless.

They are people, almost always proletarians, who dedicate a career out of understanding mental issues with people in order to help them.

1. What makes psychiatrists any more proletarian than a worker? They do not produce any real value (intellectual aid in this case), but instead extract value.
2. "who dedicate a career out of understanding mental issues with people in order to help them." Those are therapists, not psychiatrists.

You could argue that the care they give is ineffective, if not harmful, but they themselves likely do not know or understand your problems with the field they work in, and how psychiatry itself is being abused by the present economic and political order.

Then why isn't western Psychiatry being well regulated?

If Psychiatrists supposedly know how psychiatry is being abused; then why haven't they acted to shift it away from politics and economics?

"This is because it goes against western dogma. The drug industry is dominant in the United States; and Psychiatry is the tool the drug industry uses to extract wealth. Unsurprisingly, they are going to oppose anti-psychiatry."

"This argument is a fallacious argumentum ad populum"

You are once again proving me correct when I argue that the Anti-psychiatry community contains Anti-scientific ideas which are similar to those seen with Christian fundamentalists and Climate Change-deniers.

How is proving that the drug industry opposes anti-psychiatry "anti-science"? The field of vaccines contains anti-scientific ideas; but they are peddled by anti-vaccine advocates, who do not neccessary study vaccines?.

Also, you once again attempted the association fallacy. What "anti-science ideas" are you talking about?

Firstly, I said that Anti-psychiatry is unpopular among the scientific community, particularly with people who occupy a medical-related field.

Yes, it's unpopular because most people do not understand what science is.

You, however, claim that I am false because the "drug industry" does not support it.

I never claimed that "you were false" or whatever.

or you are claiming that the drug industry in the USA is in control of the ideas of, and has subverted, scientists and medical specialists.

That's what I think, yes. The drug industry aided in the bouregois subversion of science and medicine; and it still does today.

This is the exact same mentality of Climate Change-deniers; they will refuse to accept proven facts about ecological damage, pollution, ect. all because, as they claim, the scientists who did that research who secretly "shills" to an underground conspiracy of "globalists" who had paid them all off.

Do you have any proof of that claim? I don't think anti-psychiatry advocates are paid off by drug industry capitalists.

I am not saying, necessarily, that your ideas are just as false and unproven as Climate Change-deniers or Christian extremists,

Then why do you try to connect my points to Christian extremists and Climate Change denial?

I am merely stating that you are refusing to consider the views of people educated in this matter

Well I didn't see you directly argue that. If you argued this earlier, then show me the text where you argued this.

simply because you have a clear bias in favor of Anti-psychiatry, which is certainly not how one advances science.

I am not arguing against psychiatry solely because of bias; I argue against psychiatry being a science; because the material reality points to Psychiatry being unscientific. (Mental disorders have been disproven several times, yet they are propped up as scientific.)

Nor is this an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

It is an argumentum ad populum fallacy. The argument structure is exactly "less people talk about X [anti-psychiatry]; therefore it's Y [a psuedoscience]."

The reasons why the Anti-psychiatry community is misguided in their ideas is much more complex than simple support or lack thereof. It is simply a notable trend that many pseudo-scientific and anti-scientific movements often have little-or-no support from people who have an education in scientific topics.

Anti-psychiatry advocates are misguided because they aren't popular? This could be applied to U.S Marxists being misguided because Marxism isn't popular in the U.S. It is an ad populum fallacy by argument structure.

This trend can be seen with "quantum mysticism", Anti-vaccine movements, astrology, and so on. Of course, the reason why all of the ideas and movements I mentioned are false is much more complex than simply the fact that they are no support from the scientific community,

1. What are those reasons?
2. Who is the "scientific community" in this case?
3. What are the "complex" reasons then?

yet, the fact the they have no support is still nonetheless indicative of something, is it not?

Anti-psychiatry's unpopularity is indicative of the capitalist distortion of science; suppression of skepticism; and the disguised colonization of minorities; being a successful operation.

"Which is just... lemmygrad.ml and lemmy.ml. I only posted to one anti-psychiatry community I posted to." Stop attempting to trivialize your participation with these communites. You were on the Anti-psychiatry community for months if not years,

How am I trivializing my participation? I posted about antipsychiatry to two instances and only posted one community. To be exact, I was on the anti-psychiatry community for 4 months.

Ok, saying that I only posted to anti-psychiatry was incorrect; I did post some comments about anti-psychiatry when they were relevant. Regardless, I only made anti-psychiatry posts to one anti-psychiatry community.

you made a large amont of the posts about "scientism", among others,

Again, I did not use the term scientism myself; other people did. Cite the comments and posts if you really think otherwise.

and you willingly defended that community up until you were banned.

Yes, because I consider anti-psychiatry a valid movement that deserves to be recognized by Marxists. An admin banning me because I tell them to check your sources to self-verify my point about ADHD lacking objective analyis is a bad (and bullshit) reason to ban someone. It just reeks of being afraid of skepticism.

How is this any different from you having a pro-psychiatry bias and defending psychiatry?

Again, I do not use the term scientism; that is what the website uses as it's title. I just merely copied the title.

You clearly have a vested interest in spreading Anti-psychiatry.

Yes, I do, because I'm anti-psychiatry. It's no different from being a marxist and being interested in spreading Marxism. I became antipsychiatry because I realized that psychiatry is a psuedoscience.

"Yeah, that's one thing [usage of psychiatry] I dislike about all the socialist countries."

How is helping people bad?

It isn't. It's a bastardization of my argument.

Furthermore, the fact that Socialist states use this medical field should show you that it is not a "big-pharma" plot to drug the poor, and instead is a vaild field concerning mental health

Deducting my argument from this one, socialist states legalizing black markets would show me that they're not a tool to suppress people and is instead a valid economy meant to help people.

Also, we must fully analyze Psychiatry in both economies.

Thank you for attempting to respond to me. I have a suggestion, however: Read the full comment I made before creating a reply. This entire comment you made is almost totally filled with firstly, you misunderstanding a point I made, and going on to reaffirm the same conspiracy theory, uneducated claim, or Anti-scientific fabrication you promoted in the past, simply because you failed to read further, when I clearifed said point. Secondly, you purposefully removing the context from what I said (for example, partitioning a paragraph into a number of separate parts), and than going on to make a "strawman" out of what I am saying, or thirdly, you regurgitating the false and uninformed Anti-science arguments you have, and/or feigning ignorance- asking a question which is otherwise immediately explanatory via context exclusively.

Lastly, before I directly adress what you said, I would like to apologise for failing to adress some of your arguments in past comments - I had to attend to personal matters, and did not have the time. I shall adress them here.

"[mental disorders are directly tested] Any proof for this? Because mental disorders are currently based in subjective analysis; so they cannot be directly tested (to be disproved).

Have mental disorders been attempted to be disproved? I don't think so, but feel free to post any arguments to the contrary.

What are the causes for mental disorders? As I tried searching, there seems to be no consistent testable cause for mental disorders, which is neccessary to be able to falsify it."

As I have said before, mental disorders of based on consistent results over a long span of time, scientific methodology, and so forth. They are directly tested, and in regards to their development and classification, they often see a large amont of discourse among specialists over their particularities. I am unsure what particularly you mean by "subjective", as they are based off the research of a countless number of professionals over years. _[source]

"who is doing the research; who is doing the testing; who is doing the review? In the case of research on Psychiatric drugs; most of those are done by pharmaceutical companies, which conveniently control studies that get published."

This is self-explanatory. As with other scientific fields, the research within physiatry is done by people who possess a education in that field, particularly people who hold a doctorate. Such research is commonly done in a Hospital or other medical institution, in a manner similar to research done in other fields._[source]

In the case of the medication which is utilised by psychiatrists, in is much more context than that. Firstly, I require proof that medical studies are controlled by pharmaceutical companies, as in this case, you are indirectly asserting that drugs themselves are ineffective or harmful, which is clearly a massive claim. Secondly, do keep in mind that many of the drugs that are used in psychiatry are similarly used in other fields, often those that are medical or psychological.

"I don't know man; disorders in the DSM were built on expert consensus, not the scientific method."

You are partially correct. While the classification by the DSM is based on experts' view, you must note that such as view must be based off decades worth of studies, testing, research, ect. While they themselves do not directly use the scientific method, everything that influences them is largely based on it.

"[If you disagree with that, then by those standards, the entirety of other fields such as psychology must be "non-science" as well.] Nah, I agree with that."

I invite you to better make you argument clear. By your standards, everything in psychology must be "subjective" as you can not see what a brain is doing directly, can you not?

"This was the original definition of 'mental disorder'. The term got perverted into mental illness; and the fact that "mental disorder" has such a lose definition is suspicious for a field that supposedly deems itself "scientific"."

You are making a very large generalisation of this complex matter, even if you were to be correct, we, in the context of this discussion, are talking about psyiatry as it exists in the present. The definition is agreed upon in the present by most in that field, and outside the field. The definition of now-commonly used scientific terms has changed greatly in the past anyways.

"What is a common action?"

"What are the causes for mental disorders?"

"Are mental disorders falsifiable?"

1. A common action is a common and repeated trend.
2. There are a number of causes, and some of which are debated by people who work in that field. Many result from genetic anomalies or birth defects, and things such as that.
3. Yes, the classification of what constitutes a mental disorder is often debated within the field

Furthermore, to adress your (commonly-repeated) claim that "psychiatric drugs are placebos", that is largely false. While certain examples of drugs may show harmful effects, the vast majority of drugs have been proven to be atleast helpful againist major mental disorders. The common way this is done is by limiting certain neurochemical effects (often, the cause of a certain mental anomaly or disorder, such as anxiety, is in brief, the result of certain chemicals which result in stress and such being created in to great an excess, resulting in somebody having many common social fuctions, like social interaction between others, being greatly impeded) in the brain, which results in the negative aspects of a mental disorder being reduced or even removed entirely. I am not claiming that there do not exist issues in this system, or abuses, but in general, most drugs that are used in this context have a positive effect. _[source]

"It does not matter if the topic is "scientific"; people must understand science in order to be (good) scientists; otherwise they will fail to properly enforce and utilize the principles of science (falsifiability, testing, experimental data, etc.)."

"Again, it does not matter if the topic relates to science; the learner must understand science and it's principles in order to properly apply and utilize science."

Don't you think that by participating in a nearly-decade long education in a scientific topic, done by a professional institution such as a college or university, you perhaps will learn *something* that relates to science? You are ignoring the obvious, people who study to become a psychiatrist understand both science and the means in which science expands meaningfully, unless, of course, you present to me a new conspiracy theory that all physiatrists are brainless robots or FBI agents sent to drug homeless people are something to that nature.

"So what makes this any different from, say, criticizing CIA collaborators who work in the field of military intelligence (where not everyone is working in the favour of the bourgeoisie?"

Please explain how a physiatrist is similar to a CIA collaborator? Are you being satirical? I am unsure of how the people who attempt to alleviate mental health disorders are just as bad as CIA agents,

"I disagreeably argue that Psychiatrists extract wealth from workers for an imaginary solution that inevitably does not work. I view the relationship this way, as psychiatric disorders have been proven to be practically meaningless."

Is this another attempt at being comedic? You could argue that paying for a psychiatrists is a waste of money and time, even if I do not agree with you largely, but most people who work in that field do not own the means of production, nor hire and exploit labour. Most psychiatrists are paid in wage labour anyways, and even with the very few self-employed ones that exist, the economic relationship is much more petite-bourgeois, certainly not like being a Capitalist.

"How is proving that the drug industry opposes anti-psychiatry "anti-science"? The field of vaccines contains anti-scientific ideas; but they are peddled by anti-vaccine advocates, who do not neccessary study vaccines?."

You are totally distorting what I said. In the comment that you are responding to, I noted that you did not adress the fact that I said most specialists in that field disagree with your ideas, but instead omited what I said totally and vaugely talked about the "drug industry", which implied that you thought that this science was false and merely just propaganda by a "big-pharma" conspiracy.

"That's what I think, yes. The drug industry aided in the bouregois subversion of science and medicine; and it still does today."

I thank you for not attempting to omit the fact that you are an Anti-science conspiracy promoter. Of course, you can simply ignore all the many decades of research, debate, and testing by people who are actually educated in this topic by shouting "BIG-PHARMA!". This is what Climate-change deniers do as well, they will ignore all the decades of research in pollution and such, largely to confirm their dogmatically-held Anti-science position, and merely talk about how all the scientists are universally false because of a conspiracy theory they made up. Marxism is a science-based philosophy, and what you are promoting is directly against that.

I am not arguing against psychiatry solely because of bias; I argue against psychiatry being a science; because the material reality points to Psychiatry being unscientific. (Mental disorders have been disproven several times, yet they are propped up as scientific.)

Then why is psychiatry still practiced to this day? If mental disorders have been "disproven several times", why does the scientific community, including those in other fields, still heed the ideas of mental disorders? Who is "propping up" psychiatry as science? If you care to reply to me here, present to me something other than a Anti-intellectual conspiracy theory, or a fringe and discredited source.

Lastly, to adress the claims you made about autism being "scientism" and a "fact of culture", I wish to inform you that it has been widely confirmed by researchers to autism develops likely at birth, and almost certainly from a genetic-related issue. Perhaps you should consider doing research into these matters before spreading harmful misinformation? _[source]

Thank you for attempting to respond to me. I have a suggestion, however: Read the full comment I made before creating a reply.

I did read your full comment. How would you even know this?

This entire comment you made is almost totally filled with firstly, you misunderstanding a point I made, and going on to reaffirm the same conspiracy theory, uneducated claim, or Anti-scientific fabrication you promoted in the past, simply because you failed to read further, when I clearifed said point. Secondly, you purposefully removing the context from what I said (for example, partitioning a paragraph into a number of separate parts), and than going on to make a "strawman" out of what I am saying, or thirdly, you regurgitating the false and uninformed Anti-science arguments you have, and/or feigning ignorance- asking a question which is otherwise immediately explanatory via context exclusively.

You are just attacking my character, not my arguments; you call my arguments conspiracy theories (technically some of my points are conspiracy theories, but you are not using the original definition of the term) and other pejorative terms to make me look bad, and not to criticize them.

This situation is similar to when you called Alice Margatroid revisionist for them stating that your revisionist claims about Mao Zedong and the People's Republic of China are incorrect.

"Secondly, you purposefully removing the context from what I said (for example, partitioning a paragraph into a number of separate parts),"

I didn't remove the context. I did this to clarify which points my arguments respond to; if you want, I can just block quote the paragraphs and keep them unpartitioned.

"and than going on to make a "strawman" out of what I am saying,"

I do not make a strawman of your arguments. Cite the points where you think I am.

"or thirdly, you regurgitating the false and uninformed Anti-science arguments you have, and/or feigning ignorance- asking a question which is otherwise immediately explanatory via context exclusively."

How are my arguments "anti-science"?

I'm not feigning ignorance; I'm trying to understand your viewpoint. I ask you for sources, because if you can't back them up with good evidence; then your claims are just false. (It's on you to prove your claims, not me; it's the burden of proof.)

Lastly, before I directly adress what you said, I would like to apologise for failing to adress some of your arguments in past comments - I had to attend to personal matters, and did not have the time. I shall adress them here.

Apology accepted.

"[mental disorders are directly tested] Any proof for this? Because mental disorders are currently based in subjective analysis; so they cannot be directly tested (to be disproved).

Have mental disorders been attempted to be disproved? I don't think so, but feel free to post any arguments to the contrary.b

What are the causes for mental disorders? As I tried searching, there seems to be no consistent testable cause for mental disorders, which is neccessary to be able to falsify it."

As I have said before, mental disorders of based on consistent results over a long span of time, scientific methodology, and so forth. They are directly tested, and in regards to their development and classification, they often see a large amont of discourse among specialists over their particularities. I am unsure what particularly you mean by "subjective", as they are based off the research of a countless number of professionals over years. [source]

"As I have said before, mental disorders of based on consistent results over a long span of time, scientific methodology, and so forth."

Mental disorders are not based on scientific methodology; mental disorders cannot and do not require or use objective testing; therefore mental disorders cannot be falsified. Science requires that explanations can be objectively falsified (and tested); so therefore mental disorders are not scientific. (I should have stated objective testing; as science is a vulgar materialist philosophy. I apologize for that.)

So what scientific methodology is used there?

"They are directly tested, and in regards to their development and classification, they often see a large amont of discourse among specialists over their particularities."

I did not talk about the discourse; I asked for proof of testing.

Also, any evidence to back up that claim?

"I am unsure what particularly you mean by "subjective", as they are based off the research of a countless number of professionals over years."

Subjective, as in, they do not require any objective tools; they can not be objectively falsified; and they can not be objectively tested (to be disproved).

Also, what research? because most of the supposed "research" hasn't been able to find a biological test for these "mental disorders".

"who is doing the research; who is doing the testing; who is doing the review? In the case of research on Psychiatric drugs; most of those are done by pharmaceutical companies, which conveniently control studies that get published." This is self-explanatory. As with other scientific fields, the research within physiatry is done by people who possess a education in that field, particularly people who hold a doctorate. Such research is commonly done in a Hospital or other medical institution, in a manner similar to research done in other fields.[source]

(Do you mean psychiatry? that's a typo.)

"the research within physiatry is done by people who possess a education in that field, particularly people who hold a doctorate."

Ok, but there is a potential conflict of interest. What about studies that are not done by psychiatrists?

"Such research is commonly done in a Hospital or other medical institution, in a manner similar to research done in other fields."

ok.

In the case of the medication which is utilised by psychiatrists, in is much more context than that. Firstly, I require proof that medical studies are controlled by pharmaceutical companies, as in this case, you are indirectly asserting that drugs themselves are ineffective or harmful, which is clearly a massive claim. Secondly, do keep in mind that many of the drugs that are used in psychiatry are similarly used in other fields, often those that are medical or psychological.

"Firstly, I require proof that medical studies are controlled by pharmaceutical companies, as in this case, you are indirectly asserting that drugs themselves are ineffective or harmful, which is clearly a massive claim."

(I am referring to psychiatric drugs to clarify.) Here ya go:

General

1. Drug companies only publish studies (on their psychiatric drugs) that align with their goals.
2. Pro-psychiatric-drug studies tend to have issues with the active placebo bias.

Antidepressants

• Antidepressants are no different from placebo.
• Antidepressants are associated with an increased suicide risk.
• Antidepressants worsen outcomes for users of antidepressants.
• Antidepressants can just make someone more depressed.

Lithium

• Lithium is no better than placebo, and in fact is toxic.

Stimulants

• Stimulants have the same effect as placebo. (Surprise, surprise, a drug made to supposedly "cure" a disorder that lacks objective testing is equivalent to placebo.)

---

"I don't know man; disorders in the DSM were built on expert consensus, not the scientific method." You are partially correct. While the classification by the DSM is based on experts' view, you must note that such as view must be based off decades worth of studies, testing, research, ect. While they themselves do not directly use the scientific method, everything that influences them is largely based on it.

Can you cite those "decades worth of studies…"? I can't find any instance where mental disorders have attempted to be disproved through objective testing.

"[If you disagree with that, then by those standards, the entirety of other fields such as psychology must be "non-science" as well.] Nah, I agree with that." I invite you to better make you argument clear. By your standards, everything in psychology must be "subjective" as you can not see what a brain is doing directly, can you not?

It can be argued actually. As we cannot directly observe the concious, psychology's tests.

"This was the original definition of 'mental disorder'. The term got perverted into mental illness; and the fact that "mental disorder" has such a lose definition is suspicious for a field that supposedly deems itself "scientific"." You are making a very large generalisation of this complex matter, even if you were to be correct, we, in the context of this discussion, are talking about psyiatry as it exists in the present. The definition is agreed upon in the present by most in that field, and outside the field. The definition of now-commonly used scientific terms has changed greatly in the past anyways.

Yes, you are right; I also shouldn't have just usede my own definition (though that was the original definition). However, the fact that the term 'mental disorder' has an unclear definition is alarming.

"What is a common action?"

"What are the causes for mental disorders?"

"Are mental disorders falsifiable?"

A common action is a common and repeated trend. There are a number of causes, and some of which are debated by people who work in that field. Many result from genetic anomalies or birth defects, and things such as that.

Yes, the classification of what constitutes a mental disorder is often debated within the field.

1. Ok.
2. Any sources, especially for that genetics claim? Because those supposed mental disorders do not require any objective testing in diagnostic manuals. If some of these mental disorders were "genetic", then why do they lack requirements for genetic testing?
3. How are mental disorders falsified then? (You just claim that mental disorders can be falsified without elaborating on the method of falsification.)

Furthermore, to adress your (commonly-repeated) claim that "psychiatric drugs are placebos", that is largely false. While certain examples of drugs may show harmful effects, the vast majority of drugs have been proven to be atleast helpful againist major mental disorders. The common way this is done is by limiting certain neurochemical effects (often, the cause of a certain mental anomaly or disorder, such as anxiety, is in brief, the result of certain chemicals which result in stress and such being created in to great an excess, resulting in somebody having many common social fuctions, like social interaction between others, being greatly impeded) in the brain, which results in the negative aspects of a mental disorder being reduced or even removed entirely. I am not claiming that there do not exist issues in this system, or abuses, but in general, most drugs that are used in this context have a positive effect. [source]

"Furthermore, to adress your (commonly-repeated) claim that "psychiatric drugs are placebos", that is largely false. While certain examples of drugs may show harmful effects, the vast majority of drugs have been proven to be atleast helpful againist major mental disorders."

This claim is just incorrect; psychiatric drugs are placebos and they have been proven to be so. (This is not surprising, considering that mental disorders cannot be objectively falsified or tested.)

And what are your sources to the contrary?

"The common way this is done is by limiting certain neurochemical effects (often, the cause of a certain mental anomaly or disorder, such as anxiety, is in brief, the result of certain chemicals which result in stress and such being created in to great an excess, resulting in somebody having many common social fuctions, like social interaction between others, being greatly impeded) in the brain, which results in the negative aspects of a mental disorder being reduced or even removed entirely."

Can you elaborate on these "neurochemical effects"?

"It does not matter if the topic is "scientific"; people must understand science in order to be (good) scientists; otherwise they will fail to properly enforce and utilize the principles of science (falsifiability, testing, experimental data, etc.)."

"Again, it does not matter if the topic relates to science; the learner must understand science and it's principles in order to properly apply and utilize science."

Don't you think that by participating in a nearly-decade long education in a scientific topic, done by a professional institution such as a college or university, you perhaps will learn *something* that relates to science? You are ignoring the obvious, people who study to become a psychiatrist understand both science and the means in which science expands meaningfully, unless, of course, you present to me a new conspiracy theory that all physiatrists are brainless robots or FBI agents sent to drug homeless people are something to that nature.

This is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. It does not matter if the topic is related to science; the learner must understand science to apply it properly.

Also, psychiatrists study to be psychiatrists, not be scientists.

"So what makes this any different from, say, criticizing CIA collaborators who work in the field of military intelligence (where not everyone is working in the favour of the bourgeoisie?" Please explain how a [psychiatrist] is similar to a CIA collaborator? Are you being satirical? I am unsure of how the people who attempt to alleviate mental health disorders are just as bad as CIA agents,

Strawman. I never tried to say that psychiatrists are similar to CIA collaborators. I was trying to elaborate on how attacking psychiatrists are any different from attacking the bouregoisie.

"I disagreeably argue that Psychiatrists extract wealth from workers for an imaginary solution that inevitably does not work. I view the relationship this way, as psychiatric disorders have been proven to be practically meaningless." Is this another attempt at being comedic? You could argue that paying for a psychiatrists is a waste of money and time, even if I do not agree with you largely, but most people who work in that field do not own the means of production, nor hire and exploit labour. Most psychiatrists are paid in wage labour anyways, and even with the very few self-employed ones that exist, the economic relationship is much more petite-bourgeois, certainly not like being a Capitalist.

Ad hominem; and also Psychiatrists do extract wealth from the labourer, whether in value or money.

"How is proving that the drug industry opposes anti-psychiatry "anti-science"? The field of vaccines contains anti-scientific ideas; but they are peddled by anti-vaccine advocates, who do not neccessary study vaccines?." You are totally distorting what I said. In the comment that you are responding to, I noted that you did not adress the fact that I said most specialists in that field disagree with your ideas, but instead omited what I said totally and vaugely talked about the "drug industry", which implied that you thought that this science was false and merely just propaganda by a "big-pharma" conspiracy.

"That's what I think, yes. The drug industry aided in the bouregois subversion of science and medicine; and it still does today." I thank you for not attempting to omit the fact that you are an Anti-science conspiracy promoter. Of course, you can simply ignore all the many decades of research, debate, and testing by people who are actually educated in this topic by shouting "BIG-PHARMA!". This is what Climate-change deniers do as well, they will ignore all the decades of research in pollution and such, largely to confirm their dogmatically-held Anti-science position, and merely talk about how all the scientists are universally false because of a conspiracy theory they made up. Marxism is a science-based philosophy, and what you are promoting is directly against that.

Great, a strawman. You call me anti-science when I argue that the drug industry subverts science to peddle their domination of capital.

I am not arguing against psychiatry solely because of bias; I argue against psychiatry being a science; because the material reality points to Psychiatry being unscientific. (Mental disorders have been disproven several times, yet they are propped up as scientific.) Then why is psychiatry still practiced to this day? If mental disorders have been "disproven several times", why does the scientific community, including those in other fields, still heed the ideas of mental disorders? Who is "propping up" psychiatry as science? If you care to reply to me here, present to me something other than a Anti-intellectual conspiracy theory, or a fringe and discredited source.

(There is a possibility of survivorship bias; so we must acknowledge that scientists who understand science likely do not engage with Psychiatry.)

It's likely possible that most scientists who engage in Psychiatry have been bribed by the capitalist.

Psychiatry is likely practice because it forms a useful political tool for oppression; it has manage to permeate the majority populations as a psuedoscientfic field under scientific appearances.

"If you care to reply to me here, present to me something other than a Anti-intellectual conspiracy theory, or a fringe and discredited source."

What is an "anti-intellectual" conspiracy theory? What would be a "fringe and discredited source" to you?

Lastly, to adress the claims you made about autism being "scientism" and a "fact of culture", I wish to inform you that it has been widely confirmed by researchers to autism develops likely at birth, and almost certainly from a genetic-related issue. Perhaps you should consider doing research into these matters before spreading harmful misinformation? [source]

Again, I did not use the term scientism; and if you can't show me comments where I used that term; then I have no reason to believe you.

"I wish to inform you that it has been widely confirmed by researchers to autism develops likely at birth,"

Can you cite me sources for this claim? Which genes? This is too vague to be useful.

"Perhaps you should consider doing research into these matters before spreading harmful misinformation?"

I do.

Also, your only source is the mayo clinic, which itself does not cite any sources for the "autism is genetic!" claims.

You are, I admit, quite boorish to argue with. I have disproven your arguments many times at this point, yet you persist in making the same arguments, merely in a somewhat reworded manner. When I note and critique your dishonest and uncomradery behavior when conversing over this subject, you simply deny you ever do such actions, and then proceed to repeat said behavior soon after.

While I do certainly apologise if I may have seemed harsh or even belligerent in my tone and wording, what I said is not simply name-calling; it is not an insult to call somebody who perfectly meets the definition of a term that term. Likewise, I call you a conspiracy theorist (or atleast somebody who promotes a mindset which produces conspiracy theories) because you have openly supported, and indeed acknowledged, that you promote the "Big-Pharma" conspiracy theory. To quote you in your own words:

"[...] some of my points are conspiracy theories"

I have no interest in further debating somebody who promotes destructive conspiracy theories. Whenever I have disproven you on your claims, you have not even attempted to concede that you are incorrect (not even on points which you are clearly unable to defend), and merely just retreat back to claiming (with some variation in your wording) that Scientists who research mental health and disorders, and people who apply said research, physiatrists, are totally untrustworthy and false because they are paid off by "Big-Pharma", and you will futhermore promote, or spread material which promotes, the idea that anybody who is aware of the nature of mental disorders or heeds proven research are simply just "shills", and are part of a cult of "Scientism".

No matter how much you are disproven, you will always retreat to your metaphorical bunker of "Big-Pharma" conspiracy and "Scientism". You and others of a similar view are a regressive force for the development of science. I have no further intention of repeatedly refuting your fringe and widely-disproven arguments, therefore, in this comment, I shall directly adress only the few arguments you have made that I have not already disproven.

Adressing your arguments

"How are my arguments "anti-science"?"

Why are you an Anti-science conspiracy theorist, you ask? Simple, you repeatedly undermine the importance of people who possess a tangible, educated understanding of these topics, namely scientists, simply because they fail to adhere to your false understanding of these topics. Furthermore, whenever I present to you proof that psychiatry is overwhelmingly supported by science, and then tell you those reasons, you simply dismiss them and concoct a story about a plot by "Big-Pharma" to brainwash scienists and turn them all into Neoliberals or "Globalists", and such.

You are attempting to, perhaps unknowingly, destroy the very materialist basis in which Scientific Socialism is formed on, simply to ensure that it complies with you false views and clear bias. If you truly cared about the material basis of these matters, you would understand that psychiatry is largely vaild, and is simply being used by the ruling class, as so much else has. Rather, you try to make the reserach and material findings conform to your ideal of, what is effectively, Anti-science, in other words, your arguments are not those of a educated and principled Marxist, but an idealist, particularly one that seeks to extract simple answers from complex social and economic relations; you don't want to understand how this field is being used in the context of a Capitalist society, instead, you just look at what is most clear to you: you blame psychiatry, not what abuses it.

This is clearly a false notion, for to use a metaphor, while at first, a computer may look like a soild blob of metal and plastic, inside its case lies a conplex body of arcane components. This is how we must view this, you are blaming the blob of metal, whereas I understand the parts within this metaphorical computer. Do not direct your anger againist psychiatry, direct it against Capitalism - the system which turns something that could be helpful (and is being used to help in Socialist States), and turns it into yet a new weapon to support the opressive ruling class.

"Ok, but there is a potential conflict of interest. What about studies that are not done by psychiatrists?"

What conflict of interest in particular? Why would somebody wish to become a specialist in this field to begin with? Likely for altruistic intents, perhaps. If I understand what you are arguing correctly, most other studies in this topic yield the same proven result, regardless of what sort of specialist performs it.

"Can you cite those "decades worth of studies…"? I can't find any instance where mental disorders have attempted to be disproved through objective testing."

Like all forms of science, the evolution in our understanding in things such as autism, ADHD, and other mental-related topics has taken decades to develop, with each researcher doing more research, which other researchers in the future use to do an even greater and complex degree of research. This process is not only iterative, it is the very nature of how human innovation goes forth; the building upon others' work, to create a better work, and progress humanity forwards.

"This claim is just incorrect; psychiatric drugs are placebos and they have been proven to be so."

By Whom? Why do you insist upon citing the same fringe sources? If psychiatric drugs were merely placebos, why are they still used commonly? I suspect that if this were to be true, *somebody* would have figured out that such drugs are useless, as the placebo effect can only go so far, particularly when a mental disorder is of particular severity. I have looked at your sources many times, and they all are from the same discredited people, who repeat the same discredited assertions, yet, even if I did not, I still, from logic alone, understand that this is impossable.

"This is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. It does not matter if the topic is related to science; the learner must understand science to apply it properly."

"Also, psychiatrists study to be psychiatrists, not be scientists."

You ignored an entire paragrapth which explained how you are false, and effectively repeated the same argument again. I agree that people who work in such a profession must understand science, and indeed, they do, as I have already proven.

You similarly ignore what I said in the second sentence. I particularly explained how the relationship between science - the regimented study of a topic - and being a physiatrist - using the knowledge from the study of a topic in a applied context - is similar to the relation between medical specialists; just because a physician does not commonly engage in research in the topic they apply to people does not mean that physiology is no longer a science.

"Ad hominem; and also Psychiatrists do extract wealth from the labourer, whether in value or money."

Are you unable to read what I said? Pardon me for my tone, but I do not enjoy it when I write an paragrapth which disproves your absurd claims about these medical specialists being the ones who exploit surplus value or being as bad as the bourgeoisie, only for you then to just repeat the same argument, nearly word-for-word, which I disproved. No, psychiatrists do not own the means of production, they do not employ workers, and are almost always paid in wage labour, and are proletarians. If you are attempting to tell a joke, I have yet to find it funny, I would like to say. I am begining to suspect that you are repeating these disproven assertions simply for the sake of making your comment longer, as to make it seem more impressive, or perhaps to turn people away from reading it.

"It's likely possible that most scientists who engage in Psychiatry have been bribed by the capitalist."

"Psychiatry is likely practice^[sic] because it forms a useful political tool for oppression; it has manage^[sic] to permeate the majority populations^[sic] as a psuedoscientfic field under scientific appearances."

I am not sure of how you are expecting me to accept your claims about you not being Anti-science, when you totally disregard science as a "tool" that has "managed" the "majority population". You do not even cite any sources for this conspiracy theory (not that your currect sources have been meaningful). I have no reason to heed your Anti-intellectual claims regardless. There is no proof that "most" who work in psychiatry have been "bribed", in a similar way to how the "Deep State" or "New World Order" has not bribed the climate scientists to make-up climate-chage, as climate change has been undeniably proven, nor are harmful psuedosciences used in society on a mass-scale, as that would clearly be destructive and turn people against the Capitalists, considering that the Working Class are not moronic, and can identify such things. This is why, for example, Reiki or "Faith Healing" are not commonly used, as the working class understand that they do nothing useful, and can often be harmful. Why is psychiatry used if it is so, as you claim, detrimental to people?

You are just trying to attack me with false claims of anti-science; you load your arguments with ad hominems and strawmans to accuse me of being anti-science.

You are, I admit, quite boorish to argue with. I have disproven your arguments many times at this point, yet you persist in making the same arguments, merely in a somewhat rewording manner. When I note and critique your dishonest and comradery behavior when conversing over this subject, you simply deny you ever do such actions, and then proceed to repeat said behavior soon after.

You never disproved my arguments; actually, you just kept attacking me.

"you simply deny you ever do such actions, and then proceed to repeat said behavior soon after."

I deny that I do this. Can you show me where I supposedly performed this behavior?

While I do certainly apologise if I may have samed harsh or even belligerent in my tone and wording, what I said is not simply name-calling; it is not an insult to call somebody who perfectly meets the definition of a term that term. Likewise, I call you a conspiracy theorist (or atleast somebody who promotes a mindset which produces conspiracy theories) because you have openly supported, and indeed acknowledged, that you promote the "Big-Pharma" conspiracy theory. To quote you in your own words:

"it is not an insult to call somebody who perfectly meets the definition of a term that term."

Except I don't fit that term. I'm pro-science by supporting objective falsifiability and testing in explanations; and psychiatry does not fit that criteria; so therefore anti-psychiatry is a scientific position to take.

I'm not anti-science.

"[...] some of my points are conspiracy theories"

I have no interest in further debating somebody who promotes destructive conspiracy theories. Whenever I have disproven you on your claims, you have not even attempted to concede that you are incorrect (not even on points which you are clearly unable to defend), and merely just retreat back to claiming (with some variation in your wording) that Scientists who research mental health and disorders, and people who apply said research, physiatrists, are totally untrustworthy and false because they are paid off by "Big-Pharma", and you will futhermore promote, or spread material which promotes, the idea that anybody who is aware of the nature of mental disorders or heeds proven research are simply just "shills", and are part of a cult of "Scientism".

No matter how much you are disproven, you will always retreat to your metaphorical bunker of "Big-Pharma" conspiracy and "Scientism". You and others of a similar view are a regressive force for the development of science. I have no further interest in repeatedly refuting your fringe and widely-disproven arguments, therefore, in this comment, I shall directly adress only the few arguments you have made that I have not already disproven.

Adressing your arguments

You distorted the context of the quote. The original quote was "(technically some of my points are conspiracy theories, but you are not using the original definition of the term)".

"No matter how much you are disproven, you will always retreat to your metaphorical bunker of "Big-Pharma" conspiracy and "Scientism"."

Fallacious ad hominem. It's not ad hominem; I was thinking impulsively here; but this is an insult that does not contribute to the discussion. Again, I didn't use the term "scientism".

It is technically a conspiracy that big pharma is abusing scientific rhetoric to capitalize on health; but what is wrong with that?

This is the definition of a conspiracy (from wikipedia):

A conspiracy, also known as a plot, is a secret plan or agreement between persons for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason, especially with political motivation, while keeping their agreement secret from the public or from other people affected by it.

By this logic, Marxists are inherently conspiracy theorists. We argue that the bouregoisie regularly makes secret plans to ham the proletariat. So what is wrong with conspiracy theories in this case?

"How are my arguments "anti-science"?" Why are you an Anti-science conspiracy theorist, you ask? Simple, you repeatedly undermine the importance of people who possess a tangible, educated understanding of these topics, namely scientists, simply because they fail to adhere to your false understanding of these topics. Furthermore, whenever I present to you proof that psychiatry is overwhelmingly supported by science, and then tell you those reasons, you simply dismiss them and concoct a story about a plot by "Big-Pharma" to brainwash scienists and turn them all into Neoliberals or 'Globalists", and such.

You are attempting to, perhaps unknowingly, destroy the very materialist basis in which Scientific Socialism is formed on, simply to ensure that it complies with you false views and clear bias. If you truely cared at the material basis of these matters, you would understand that psychiatry is largely vaild, and is simply being used by the ruling class, as so much else has. Rather, you try to make the reserach and material findings conform to your ideal of, what is effectively, Anti-science, in other words, your arguments are not those of a educated and principled Marxist, but an idealist, particularly one that seeks to extract simple answers from complex social and economic relations; you don't want to understand how this field is being used in the context of a Capitalist society, instead, you just look at what is most clear to you: you blame psychiatry, not what abuses it.

This is clearly a false notion, for to use a metaphor, while at first, a computer may look like a soild blob of metal and plastic, inside its case lies a conplex body of arcane components. This is how we must view this, you are blaming the blob of metal, whereas I understand the parts within this metaphorical computer. Do not direct your anger againist psychiatry, direct it against Capitalism - the system which turns something that could be helpful (and is being used to help in Socialist States), and turns it into yet a new weapon to support the opressive ruling class.

"Ok, but there is a potential conflict of interest. What about studies that are not done by psychiatrists?" What conflict of interest in particular? Why would somebody wish to become a specialist in this field to being with? Likely for altruistic intents, perhaps. If I understand what you are arguing correctly, most other studies in this topic yield the same proven result, regardless of what sort of specialist performs it.

"What conflict of interest in particular?"

• Funding from bouregois­aligned organizations.
• Funding from the drug industry capitalist.

"Can you cite those "decades worth of studies…"? I can't find any instance where mental disorders have attempted to be disproved through objective testing." Like all forms of science, the evolution in our understanding in things such as autism, ADHD, and other mental-related topics has taken decades to develop, with each researcher doing more research, which other researchers in the future use to do an even greater and complex degree of research. This process is not only iterative, it is the very nature of how human innovation goes forth; the building upon others' work, to create a better work, and progress humanity forwards.

I asked you to cite those studies. You did not answer my request; you gave out an explanation, not direct references to those "studies" you keep talking about.

"This claim is just incorrect; psychiatric drugs are placebos and they have been proven to be so." By Whom? Why do you insist upon citing the same fringe sources? If psychiatric drugs were merely placebos, why are they still used commonly? I suspect that if this were to be true, *somebody* have figured out that such drugs are useless, as the placebo effect can only go so far, particularly when a mental disorder is of particular severity. I have looked at your sources many times, and they all are from the same discredited people, who repeat the same discredited assertions, yet, even if I did not, I still, from logic alone, understand that this is impossable [sic].

"By Whom?"

Independent researchers.

"Why do you insist upon citing the same fringe sources?"

How are my sources fringe?

"If psychiatric drugs were merely placebos, why are they still used commonly?"

Because the drug industry capitalists profits off psychiatric drugs; so they are heavily promoted to the masses through a psuedoscientific institution.

"I suspect that if this were to be true, *somebody* have figured out that such drugs are useless,"

They did; but you ignored them under being "discredited".

"I have looked at your sources many times, and they all are from the same discredited people, who repeat the same discredited assertions, yet, even if I did not, I still, from logic alone, understand that this is impossable [sic]."

How are those people discredited? How are their assertions discredited? because the authors of the studies I cited seem pretty credible to me.

"This is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. It does not matter if the topic is related to science; the learner must understand science to apply it properly."

"Also, psychiatrists study to be psychiatrists, not be scientists."

You ignored an entire paragrapth which explained how you are false, and effectively repeated the same argument again. I agree that people who work in such a profession must understand science, and indeed, they do, as I have already proven.

You similarly ignore what I said in the second sentence. I particularly explained how the relationship between science - the regimented study of a topic - and being a physiatrist - using the knowledge from the study of a topic in a applied context - is similar to the relation between medical specialists; just because a physician does not commonly engage in research in the topic they apply to people does not mean that physiology is no longer a science.

"You ignored an entire paragrapth which explained how you are false, and effectively repeated the same argument again."

because it was irrelevant and did not answer my argument. I said this to being with: It does not matter if the topic is related to science; the learner must understand science to apply it properly.

You said this in response: "Don't you think that by participating in a nearly-decade long education in a scientific topic, done by a professional institution such as a college or university, you perhaps will learn *something* that relates to science? You are ignoring the obvious, people who study to become a psychiatrist understand both science and the means in which science expands meaningfully," That quote just ignores my argument.

Yet you still keep asserting that people can understand science by learning a science related topic (which isn't true). I didn't ignore your paragraph; you just repeated your argument, which I already argued against; so I repeated mine in response.

"I agree that people who work in such a profession must understand science, and indeed, they do, as I have already proven."

You did not prove that psychiatrists understand science. You just assumed that a learner already knows science and therefore understand science; which is a circular argument.

"you present to me a new conspiracy theory that all physiatrists are brainless robots or FBI agents sent to drug homeless people are something to that nature."

What do you consider a conspiracy theory? Because it seems like you just call my criticisms of Psychiatry and my Marxist opinions on Psychiatry as "conspiracy theories".

"the regimented study of a topic - and being a physiatrist - using the knowledge from the study of a topic in a applied context - is similar to the relation between medical specialists; just because a physician does not commonly engage in research in the topic they apply to people does not mean that physiology is no longer a science."

Right; however science requires that explanations can be objectively falsified and tested through objective analysis.

Psychiatric diagnoses lacks objective falsification and testing; Psychiatry is based on psychiatric diagnoses; therefore Psychiatry is not a science.

"Ad hominem; and also Psychiatrists do extract wealth from the labourer, whether in value or money." Are you unable to read what I said? Pardon me for my tone, but I do not enjoy it when I write an paragrapth which disproves your absurd claims about these medical specialists being the ones who exploit surplus value or being as bad as the bourgeoisie, only for you then to just repeat the same argument, nearly word-for-word, which I disproved. No, psychiatrists do not own the means of production, they do not employ workers, and are almost always paid in wage labour, and are proletarians. …

"Are you unable to read what I said?"

No. That is a rude insult that does not contribute anything to the discussion.

"Pardon me for my tone, but I do not enjoy it when I write an paragrapth which disproves your absurd claims about these medical specialists being the ones who exploit surplus value or being as bad as the bourgeoisie,

Your paragraph did not (dis)prove anything.

How are my claims absurd?

"No, psychiatrists do not own the means of production, they do not employ workers, and are almost always paid in wage labour, and are proletarians."

• Psychiatrists don't produce value; they do not produce commodities.

However, Psychiatrists still steal wealth from the "patient", and produces no commodities in return. How are Psychiatrists any more proletarian than workers that produce material commodities?

"If you are attempting to tell a joke, I have yet to find it funny, I would like to say. I am begining to suspect that you are repeating these disproven assertions simply for the sake of making your comment longer, as to make it seem more impressive, or perhaps to turn people away from reading it."

Once again, another false accusation to slander me.

"It's likely possible that most scientists who engage in Psychiatry have been bribed by the capitalist."

"Psychiatry is likely practice[sic] because it forms a useful political tool for oppression; it has manage[sic] to permeate the majority populations[sic] as a psuedoscientfic field under scientific appearances."

I am not sure of how you are expecting me to accept your claims about you not being Anti-science, when you totally disregard science as a "tool" that has "managed" the "majority population". You do not even cite any sources for this conspiracy theory (not that your currect sources have been meaningful). I have no reason to heed your Anti-intellectual claims regardless. There is no proof that "most" who work in psychiatry have been "bribed", in a similar way to how the "Deep State" or "New World Order" has not bribed the climate scientists to make-up climate-chage [sic], as climate change has been undeniably proven, nor are harmful psuedosciences used in society on a mass-scale, as that would clearly be destructive and turn people against the Capitalists, considering that the Working Class are not moronic, and can identify such things. This is why, for example, Reiki or "Faith Healing" are not commonly used, as the working class understand that they do nothing useful, and can often be harmful. Why is psychiatry used if it is so, as you claim, detrimental to people?

"I am not sure of how you are expecting me to accept your claims about you not being Anti-science, when you totally disregard science as a "tool" that has "managed" the "majority population"."

I did not disregard science as a tool.

"You do not even cite any sources for this conspiracy theory"

I don't cite any sources because I never claimed that science was a "tool" to suppress people.

Also, you don't cite any sources for most of your claims. You keep claiming that mental disorders have objective testing; yet you don't cite any sources for this claim.

"(not that your currect sources [sic] have been meaningful)."

How are my sources "not meaningful"? They are studies from independent researchers and have proper research protocols (randomized, double-blind, blindness to placebo, etc.) in place.

"There is no proof that "most" who work in psychiatry have been "bribed","

Sources for this claim? It's a big claim, considering how Psychiatrists are being bribed by drug companies to produce biased studies.

Psychiatrists are bribed by drug companies to promote Psychiatric drugs.

Drug companies regularly bribe physicians and Psychiatrists to buy their drugs. (This process is called "pharmaceutical detailing" to hide the fact that it's bribery.)

"in a similar way to how the "Deep State" or "New World Order" has not bribed the climate scientists to make-up climate-chage, as climate change has been undeniably proven,"

New World Order wouldn't benefit to make-up climate change; making up climate change would show their hypocrisy when trying to argue that capitalists just made-up climate change to promote alarmism.

As for "deep state" benefiting from faking climate change, deep state is a general definition, not referring to a specific object. So which deep state are you referring to? Whether a deep state would benefit from faking climate change depends on the characteristics of the deep state. For example, fossil fuel capitalists have secretly conspired to bribe to fund climate change denial campaigns; this would technically count as a "deep state". It's been known that fossil fuel companies have funded campaigns that promote climate change denial.

Conversely, drug companies absolutely would benefit from forming a psuedoscientific system that prioritizes drugs to distract the working class from real solutions. An institution that manages to pass off as a science to the working class will entrench itself successfully, there by being able to be utilized as a political tool to suppress threats to the bourgeoisie. The bouregoisie would benefit to generate infighting in Marxists by trying to distort psychiatry into a science and distort anti-psychiatry into a psuedoscientific movement as a wedge into the workers.

Anyway, the rest of that quote is just ad hominem and guilt by association. You are trying to associate anti-psychiatry with climate-change denial and anti-vaccination, two unrelated movements which are actually against science.

"Why is psychiatry used if it is so, as you claim, detrimental to people?"

• Psychiatry motivates people to buy drugs, which the drug industry would benefit frmo.
• The working class still treats it as a science; so Psychiatry can stay entrenched for longer.
• As a result, Psychiatry forms the perfect political tool to abuse and suppress threats to the bouregoisie (usually the proletariat).

"By this logic, Marxists are inherently conspiracy theorists. We argue that the bouregoisie regularly makes secret plans to ham the proletariat. So what is wrong with conspiracy theories in this case?"

That is false. The Marxist understanding of society is inherently in contradiction with conspiracy theories. The bourgeoisie do not "regularly make secret plans to harm the proletariat", they instead pursue their own class interests, or other yielding actions which will help them maintain power, not to "harm the proletariat". The ruling class does not regularly "meet up" in a office every week to discuss things such as "how can we murder more workers today?", instead, they will do actions that may seem well and good relative to them, but bad for the wokers. The bourgeoisie, like other classes, did not appear because a group of "bad men" began to gang-up with eachother two-hundred years ago, but out of the development of society which resulted in the small-lander owners, traders, ect. moving in to social and economic positions of power, which was further caused by the bourgeois revolutions.

Dialectial and Historical materialism are not conspiracy theories, but vaild topics of study within sociology and economics. If you, for all this time, thought that Marxism is a conspiracy theory (and agreed with that percived conspiracy theory), I do not think you can call yourself a Marxist, or not an educated one, at the least.

"Funding from bouregois ­aligned organizations."

"Funding from the drug industry capitalist."

As I have asked before, where is this proof that all of these researchers are being "funded" by "Big-pharma"? There are many medical specialists, and paying them the amont of money needed to become full "shills" (if such a thing is possible) will require a large transfer of money, where are these payments?

"[my sources are from] Independent researchers."

Whatever. These "independent researchers" are little more than a small collection of conmen and conspiratorialists that are of highly dubious academic backrounds. They prove nothing.

"I asked you to cite those studies."

Why do you require me to cite studies to prove that, for example, anxiety exists? If you wish to, you can study the orgins of our understanding of these commonly-known mental topics. I do not need to cite common knowledge.

"How are my sources fringe?"

They contain widely-discredited assertions and are not supported by most of academia.

"Because the drug industry capitalists profits off psychiatric drugs; so they are heavily promoted to the masses through a psuedoscientific institution."

Then why is not Faith Healing widely used? If "the masses" are such fools as you imply them to be, how would they be able to understand the false nature of Faith Healing? That is not how any of this fuctions anyways; you cannot just "promote" placebos, not in the manner that you claim. Placebos do not work to solve most mental health issues, people would know that if these happened to be "useless" or "harmful" as you assert. If what you were saying was true, Anti-psychiatry would be a massively popular movement, why? Because few, if any people want poison to be put in their bodies by megacorporations, however, psychiatric drugs are largely useful, as I have proved already.

"They did; but you ignored them under being "discredited"."

Merely because a small group of conspiracy theorists "discredits" something does not mean that such a thing is no longer a science. There exists a esoteric community of Flat-Earthers who would swear that Earth is flat, and the Moon Landings were a hoax, but does that mean that it has been "proven" that Earth is flat, or that the Moon Landings have been "proven" to be fake, of course not. Similarly, it is of common consensus that psychiatry is a science, and is atleast somewhat useful.

"How are those people discredited? How are their assertions discredited? because the authors of the studies I cited seem pretty credible to me."

They are discredited in this matter because, not only have they been criticised many times, their claims go directly against the proven understanding of a topic, making (among other reasons) their assertions false. Perhaps you should be more critical with the authors you read.

"Yet you still keep asserting that people can understand science by learning a science related topic (which isn't true). I didn't ignore your paragraph; you just repeated your argument, which I already argued against; so I repeated mine in response."

Firstly, in order to better reach an understanding (if you think that none exists), you ought to better make clear in what particular way In which I failed to understand an argument you were making. Secondly, you are false. Learning science (did my wording "related topic" confuse you?) does commonly result in one understanding science. Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that if somebody learns of particular field of science which you personally disagree with, it no longer counts, because you dislike it. This is, needless to say, not how one applies and improves science. I see no reason why you wound contest me here.

"You did not prove that psychiatrists understand science. You just assumed that a learner already knows science and therefore understand science; which is a circular argument."

To respond to this claim, I will first have to ask two questions; what does "know" mean? To be aware of something through observation or information. What does "understand" mean? To have comprehension of something. They practically mean the same thing in this case. You are merely using words to attempt to disprove my argument for the sake of disproving my argument. I have proved to you that psychiatrists UNDERSTAND science.

"Right; however science requires that explanations can be objectively falsified and tested through objective analysis."

"Psychiatric diagnoses lacks objective falsification and testing; Psychiatry is based on psychiatric diagnoses; therefore Psychiatry is not a science."

Indeed, science does require that, and psychiatry does provide testing and such.

What do you mean "psychiatric diagnoses lack objective falsification and tested"? For a mental disorder to be classifed in the first place, it require years or decades of debate, testing, and so on. A diagnoses is based on a personal scale, not between entire collectives of scientists.

Psychiatry is not "based" on psychiatric diagnoses, but is based on many other scientific fields. Psychiatric diagnoses are simply the main way in which psychiatry is applied.

"However, Psychiatrists still steal wealth from the "patient", and produces no commodities in return. How are Psychiatrists any more proletarian than workers that produce material commodities?"

What do you mean "steal wealth"? They do not hire them are workers, nor pay them wages. If you think that paying for a psychiatrist is a waste of money, that still does not mean they are bourgeois in regards to their economic relations. Your absurd attempts to lie and vilify people who work in that field are not only trival to disprove, they are becoming tiresome on me personally.

"I did not disregard science as a tool."

You said it was being used as a "tool". This require no additional dispute.

"Also, you don't cite any sources for most of your claims. You keep claiming that mental disorders have objective testing; yet you don't cite any sources for this claim."

I showed you a large number of sources which prove my words. I suggest you read them.

"New World Order wouldn't benefit to make-up climate change; making up climate change would show their hypocrisy when trying to argue that capitalists just made-up climate change to promote alarmism."

There is nothing productive found here, however, atleast I now am aware that you adhere to the "NWO" conspiracy.

Conclusion

To conclude, I have nothing more to say to you. I have disproven all of your claims and conspiracy theories, many times. My orginal position stands: This article should remain based upon facts and scientific consensus, not the fringe, conspiratorial opinions of a single editor.

"By this logic, Marxists are inherently conspiracy theorists. We argue that the bouregoisie regularly makes secret plans to ham the proletariat. So what is wrong with conspiracy theories in this case?" That is false. The Marxist understanding of society is inherently in contradiction with conspiracy theories. The bourgeoisie do not "regularly make secret plans to harm the proletariat", they instead pursue their own class interests, or other yielding actions which will help them maintain power, not to "harm the proletariat". The ruling class does not regularly "meet up" in a office every week to discuss things such as "how can we murder more workers today?", instead, they will do actions that may seem well and good relative to them, but bad for the wokers. The bourgeoisie, like other classes, did not appear because a group of "bad men" began to gang-up with eachother two-hundred years ago, but out of the development of society which resulted in the small-lander owners, traders, ect. moving in to social and economic positions of power, which was further caused by the bourgeois revolutions.

Maintaining power involves harming the proletariat when they strike back. This includes criminal conspiracies to subvert or kill the proletariat; the bouregoisie will do everything in their power to suppress the proletariat, and one of those tactics includes secret harm.

Small examples:

• Battle of Blair Mountain
• Banana Massacre
• Homestead Strike
• Reesor Siding strike (Wikipedia link as a prolewiki page does not exist yet.)
• The mass murder of mineworkers in Marikana, South Africa.

Larger examples:

• Bouregois intelligence agencies' (CIA, FBI, etc.) attempts to globally subvert proletarian revolutions and socialist countries (USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos).

This is a revisionist claim. The bouregoisie regularly harms the proletariat for their benefit.

"The Marxist understanding of society is inherently in contradiction with conspiracy theories."

Can you elaborate?

Dialectial and Historical materialism are not conspiracy theories, but vaild topics of study within sociology and economics. If you, for all this time, thought that Marxism is a conspiracy theory (and agreed with that percived conspiracy theory), I do not think you can call yourself a Marxist, or not an educated one, at the least.

I did not ever talk about dialectical and historical materialism being conspiracy theories. It's another red herring.

"Funding from bouregois ­aligned organizations."

"Funding from the drug industry capitalist."

As I have asked before, where is this proof that all of these researchers are being "funded" by "Big-pharma"? There are many medical specialists, and paying them the amont of money needed to become full "shills" (if such a thing is possible) will require a large transfer of money, where are these payments?

Here.

• Drug companies have paid communication companies to write studies and then authors to take authorship.

"[my sources are from] Independent researchers." Whatever. These "independent researchers" are little more than a small collection of conmen and conspiratorialists that are of highly dubious academic backrounds. They prove nothing.

So you dismissed independent researches as being conspiracy theorists? Can you elaborate on why these independent researchers are "conspiratorialists"? (There has to be a limit on what you call a conspiracy theorist; because so far you just declared opposing critics of psychiatry conspiracy theorists.)

What do you think of industry researchers then? because science demands that explanations can be tested independent of authority.

"I asked you to cite those studies." Why do you require me to cite studies to prove that, for example, anxiety exists? If you wish to, you can study the orgins of our understanding of these commonly-known mental topics. I do not need to cite common knowledge.

You claim that mental disorders have objective testing; but you're not showing me any material instances of objective testing. This is a problem, because without any reference to backup your claim, I can not attempt to falsify your claim; and thefore I won't believe your claim.

"How are my sources fringe?" They contain widely-discredited assertions and are not supported by most of academia.

How are their assertions discredited?

The lack of support by "academia" (whatever academia it is) does not mean much. It is an argumentum ad populum. So, if the academia flimsily criticized independent researchers; then their criticisms are not valid, regardless of their authority.

"Because the drug industry capitalists profits off psychiatric drugs; so they are heavily promoted to the masses through a psuedoscientific institution." Then why is not Faith Healing widely used? If "the masses" are such fools as you imply them to be, how would they be able to understand the false nature of Faith Healing? That is not how any of this fuctions anyways; you cannot just "promote" placebos, not in the manner that you claim. Placebos do not work to solve most mental health issues, people would know that if these happened to be "useless" or "harmful" as you assert. If what you were saying was true, Anti-psychiatry would be a massively popular movement, why? Because few, if any people want poison to be put in their bodies by megacorporations, however, psychiatric drugs are largely useful, as I have proved already.

Faith Healing does not contain the same oppresive power as drugs. The effect of faith healing is merely placebo, while psychiatric drugs are placebo with harmful side effects that can destroy the body.

"That is not how any of this fuctions anyways; you cannot just "promote" placebos, not in the manner that you claim. Placebos do not work to solve most mental health issues, people would know that if these happened to be "useless" or "harmful" as you assert."

Then why is the Psychiatric industry not obviously alerting the people that drugs are placebo?

Psuedoscientists regularly peddle placebos marketed as drugs to solve a problem to scam the working class: Chiropractics, colon cleansers, homepathy, etc. are promoted by capitalist governments. The existence of psuedoscientific capitalists disproves this point.

"They did; but you ignored them under being "discredited"." Merely because a small group of conspiracy theorists "discredits" something does not mean that such a thing is no longer a science. There exists a esoteric community of Flat-Earthers who would swear that Earth is flat, and the Moon Landings were a hoax, but does that mean that it has been "proven" that Earth is flat, or that the Moon Landings have been "proven" to be fake, of course not. Similarly, it is of common consensus that psychiatry is a science, and is atleast somewhat useful.

"Merely because a small group of conspiracy theorists "discredits" something does not mean that such a thing is no longer a science."

Once again, another loaded argument. They are not conspiracy theorists, they are independent researchers.

Psychiatry is not a science; because mental disorders lack the ability to be objectively disproven.

The failure of flat earthers to disprove the claim that Earth is round is different from independent researching disproving the notion that psychiatric drugs are more effective than placebos. The former lack real evidence and do not attempt to disprove the flat earth theory; the latter attempts to disprove the notion that psychiatric drugs are more effective than placebo, and they have disproven that notion.

"Similarly, it is of common consensus that psychiatry is a science, and is atleast somewhat useful."

Common consensus is useless as the consensus is regularly manipulated by the bouregoisie through propaganda. Also, dogma is not science.

"How are those people discredited? How are their assertions discredited? because the authors of the studies I cited seem pretty credible to me." They are discredited in this matter because, not only have they been criticised many times, their claims go directly against the proven understanding of a topic, making (among other reasons) their assertions false. Perhaps you should be more critical with the authors you read.

1. So the independent researchers are discredited (to you) because they've been criticized many times. What are these criticisms they recieved?
2. and if their claims go against "proven understanding", apparently that makes them false? What do you mean by proven understanding? The notion that Psychiatry is a science has been disproved; simply because the theory of mental disorders lack the ability for objective falsification.

"Yet you still keep asserting that people can understand science by learning a science related topic (which isn't true). I didn't ignore your paragraph; you just repeated your argument, which I already argued against; so I repeated mine in response." Firstly, in order to better reach an understanding (if you think that none exists), you ought to better make clear in what particular way In which I failed to understand an argument you were making. Secondly, you are false. Learning science (did my wording "related topic" confuse you?) does commonly result in one understanding science. Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that if somebody learns of particular field of science which you personally disagree with, it no longer counts, because you dislike it. This is, needless to say, not how one applies and improves science. I see no reason why you wound contest me here.

"Firstly, in order to better reach an understanding (if you think that none exists), you ought to better make clear in what particular way In which I failed to understand an argument you were making."

I already did. you kept asserting that people can understand science by learning a science related topic (which isn't true); I pointed out that's wrong. (Learners must understand science to apply it properly; learning a science-related field does not directly teach science.) You were saying that learning a topic related to Science will therefore learn science, which is just incorrect.

"Learning science … does commonly result in one understanding science."

This is not what you or I was arguing. You were arguing that learning a science-related topic will result in learning science. I was stating that learning a science-related does not immediately result in an understanding of science.

P.S Your argument is a syllogistic fallacy. You argue that some topics are related to science (some X) and that learners know science (all Y), therefore the learner learns science. (Ignore this word salad; I thought I deleted it before I posted.)

"Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that if somebody learns of particular field of science which you personally disagree with, it no longer counts, because you dislike it."

A red herring. I never said nor stated this claim. Ever.

"I see no reason why you wound contest me here."

I don't contest that claim and never did. You are distorting my arguments and loading yours with rhetoric to attack my character, not my argument.

"You did not prove that psychiatrists understand science. You just assumed that a learner already knows science and therefore understand science; which is a circular argument." To respond to this claim, I will first have to ask two questions; what does "know" mean? To be aware of something through observation or information. What does "understand" mean? To have comprehension of something. They practically mean the same thing in this case. You are merely using words to attempt to disprove my argument for the sake of disproving my argument. I have proved to you that psychiatrists UNDERSTAND science.

You didn't prove anything. You literally just stated the definitions of know and understand.

"Right; however science requires that explanations can be objectively falsified and tested through objective analysis."

"Psychiatric diagnoses lacks objective falsification and testing; Psychiatry is based on psychiatric diagnoses; therefore Psychiatry is not a science."

Indeed, science does require that, and psychiatry does provide testing and such.

Can you cite the objective testing that you keep talking about then? because you have not given me a single citation to one.

What do you mean "psychiatric diagnoses lack objective falsification and tested"? For a mental disorder to be classifed in the first place, it require years or decades of debate, testing, and so on. A diagnoses is based on a personal scale, not between entire collectives of scientists.

They do not have an objective (not subjective) test that gives the opportunity to disprove it. It is a requirement of science for explanations to be objectively falsifiable. This is what I mean when I say that "psychiatric diagnoses lack objective falsification and tested".

"it require years or decades of debate, testing, and so on."

• Debate does not matter for a science.
• Are mental disorders based on objective testing? No.

Please, cite your source for this supposed testing, because you have not given me a citation, since I asked.

"A diagnoses is based on a personal scale, not between entire collectives of scientists."

What do you mean by a personal scale? Do you mean a subjective scale? If so, then that's what I was saying since this fight started.

If scientists aren't making the diagnoses, then who are making the diagnoses? That is a big red flag for a supposedly "scientific" institution.

Psychiatry is not "based" on psychiatric diagnoses, but is based on many other scientific fields. Psychiatric diagnoses are simply the main way in which psychiatry is applied.

Psychiatry is based on treating mental disorders; you are straight up wrong.

Wikipedia even states that Psychiatry is based on treating mental disorders: Psychiatry is [a psuedoscience] devoted to the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of mental disorders.

"but is based on many other scientific fields."

Any proof for this?

"However, Psychiatrists still steal wealth from the "patient", and produces no commodities in return. How are Psychiatrists any more proletarian than workers that produce material commodities?" What do you mean "steal wealth"? They do not hire them are workers, nor pay them wages. If you think that paying for a psychiatrist is a waste of money, that still does not mean they are bourgeois in regards to their economic relations. Your absurd attempts to lie and vilify people who work in that field are not only trival to disprove, they are becoming tiresome on me personally.

"What do you mean "steal wealth"? They do not hire them are workers, nor pay them wages."

They indeed don't hire workers; but they do require people to pay them for their useless service. They are at least leeches.

"I did not disregard science as a tool." You said it was being used as a "tool". This require no additional dispute.

Yeah, I said that science is being used as tool by the bourgeoisie. I did not disregard science as just a tool to suppress the worker. It is important to discern being utilized as a tool by the bouregoisie from being disregarded as a tool for the bourgoisie.

"Also, you don't cite any sources for most of your claims. You keep claiming that mental disorders have objective testing; yet you don't cite any sources for this claim." "I showed you a large number of sources which prove my words. I suggest you read them."

Where are your sources then? Because I saw 4 citations to pages, none of which referenced any actual studies.

"New World Order wouldn't benefit to make-up climate change; making up climate change would show their hypocrisy when trying to argue that capitalists just made-up climate change to promote alarmism." There is nothing productive found here, however, atleast I now am aware that you adhere to the "NWO" conspiracy.

I do not believe in the NWO conspiracy; you are just trying to insult me.

To conclude, I have nothing more to say to you. I have disproven all of your claims and conspiracy theories, many times. My orginal position stands:

You have not disproved a single thing I said; you just denied what I'm saying and then strawmanned my arguments.

"This article should remain based upon facts and scientific consensus, not the fringe, conspiratorial opinions of a single editor."

I will indeed attempt to follow this advice. However, you also should follow this advice yourself; because you don't seem to be following that motto in this case. (You refuse to cite studies for claims; you disregard independent researches who go against mainstream dogma as "discredited" (without any in depth explanation as to why); strawman my arguments to make me look bad; insult me instead of criticizing my arguments.)

I have wrote dozens of paragrapths and cited a large amont of sources that disprove you, yet after days of this conflict, you repeat the same lies and fabrications as before, and whenever I disprove you, you call me a "Revisionist" (considering how you used that term in past reactions to what I was saying, I don't think you know what it means) and cite Lemmygrad posts which claim that autism is "scientism".

If you attempt to pollute this page (or any other page concerning a scientific topic you do not like personally, which I suspect includes many other topics) with your disproven and fringe sources, they will not be tolerated, and removed, unless community consensus exists. I have concluded with wasting my time on you.

What happened to "To conclude, I have nothing more to say to you."? You still responded back.

You did not disprove anything; you just keep assuming I, and my arguments, are wrong, which are better described as bulverism and appealing to the stone respectively.

---

I have wrote dozens of paragrapths and cited a large amont of sources that disprove you, yet after days of this conflict, you repeat the same lies and fabrications as before, and whenever I disprove you, you call me a "Revisionist" (considering how you used that term in past reactions to what I was saying, I don't think you know what it means) and cite Lemmygrad posts which claim that autism is "scientism".

"I have wrote dozens of paragrapths and cited a large amont of sources that disprove you"

13 (citations) is a large number? /joke

The amount of sources does not matter; your sources aren't good. Most of your sources on your supposedly "scientific" claims just repeat the same talking points without pointing towards any actual studies that prove so.

"you repeat the same lies and fabrications as before,"

What lies did I make? You don't elaborate on them; you don't provide further argumentation, you just appeal to the stone.

"and whenever I disprove you,"

Again, you didn't disprove my claim; you just accused my claims of being disproven without evidence, so it's appealing to the stone.

"you call me a "Revisionist" and cite Lemmygrad posts which claim that autism is "scientism"."

I called you a revisionist in context to your incorrect claims about Mao Zedong; and how you just deny that the bouregoisie seeks to harm the proletariat to abuse them further. I did not call you a revisionist when disproving the claim that "Psychiatry is a science".

"cite Lemmygrad posts which claim that autism is "scientism"."

Can you show me where?

If you attempt to pollute this page (or any other page concerning a scientific topic you do not like personally, which I suspect includes many other topics) with your disproven and fringe sources, they will not be tolerated, and removed, unless community consensus exists. I have concluded with wasting my time on you.

"If you attempt to pollute this page … with your disproven and fringe sources,"

Again, how are my sources disproven and fringe?

"(or any other page concerning a scientific topic you do not like personally, which I suspect includes many other topics)"

Nah, it's just Psychiatry I dislike.

"they will not be tolerated, and removed, unless community consensus exists."

Hopefully that community consensus won't just consist of you.

I agree in full with Wisconcom. While there are certainly criticisms to be made of DSM-V, the American Psychiatry Association and Psychiatry in general, this does not mean Psychiatry has some valuable scientifical contributions which can be arrested through practice, following the main Marxist criterion for truth.

For instance, psychiatry has achieved outstanding advances in helping people who are facing anxiety issues, schizophrenia and psychotic crises. It helps people with depression stay on their ground.

Unfortunately, like Wisconcom said, the problem is that our mode of production conditions the development of science and technology, and psychiatry is also developed following bourgeois interest. For instance, addiction is a very common side effect for several pharmaceuticals, and the industry producing it benefits much by addiction, so they very likely "ignore" these side effects. Allied with the Fordist production line of psychiatric clinical trials of 8 minutes per person exams, this usually means a very desirable margin of profits for the pharmaceutical industry. So their business model depends on the constant consumption of medication for it to continue existing.

This means that psychiatry tends to favor persistent medication use. I have a family member which is a psychiatrist and they have received numerous offers from pharmaceutical industries to produce receipts for certain medication. Brazil has a massive monopoly called Pague Menos, the company which has bought another giant, ExtraFarma.

Besides all of that, psychiatry unfortunately also has indeed fringe elements, such as the case for considering being gay a "disorder" until the 70's and some supposed mental disorders which relies on the subjective experiences of the doctor, often subjecting the patients to bias. Being trans was considered a disorder until the 2015, which begs the question, who and what decides that one behavior is a disorder and what is not? How come a disorder stops becoming a disorder? So Psychiatry needs to be seen in historical context.

The struggle to abolish the oppressive structure of mental asylums should also be mentioned, as it's a struggle against oppresion and should be something that ProleWiki should definitely stand for.

> I agree in full with Wisconcom. While there are certainly criticisms to be made of DSM-V, the American Psychiatry Association and Psychiatry in general, this does not mean Psychiatry has some valuable scientifical contributions which can be arrested through practice...

well, what are the valuable scientific contributions?

> For instance, psychiatry has achieved outstanding advances in helping people who are facing anxiety issues, schizophrenia and psychotic crises. It helps people with depression stay on their ground.

(NOTE: Are you referring to the anxiety, schizophrenic, and depressive disorders or emotions? I will be referring to the disorders, to clarify.)

This doesn't seem to be the case in reality.

Oppressive tools

First, most of the oppresive tools of Psychiatry are still alive today, and in fact more prominent than they have been in the past.

• Psychiatric drugs have been proven to be as effective as placebo; the studies on them only cover the drugs in a short duration (in months); have harmful side effects that deal tons of damage; and even cause the very same symptoms that they were supposed to cure.
  • Antidepressants have been known to cause people to become murderous (and thus increase mass shootings); increase suicide rates; and often give sexual dysfunction (referred to as post-SSRI sexual dysfunction, abbreviated to PSSD).
  • Antipsychotics have a load of side effects.
• Electroconvulsive therapy has been proven to be absolutely useless for Major Depression Disorder; yet it's abused by psychiatrists *today*. The FDA *tried* to ban ECT; but higher courts overruled the ban because "the FDA does not have jurisdiction over Psychiatry."
• Psychiatric wards are arguably just prisons for innocent persons under a different name; they are full of abuses and the managers running them are often unchecked.

These oppresive arms have killed a lot of innocent people; (References taken from this post.) while resolving none of the original problems.

Meanwhile, average health tips like changing your diet and giving people homes and security, have successfully improved the mentality of people, more than psychiatrists can ever do; so these oppressive tools are unneccessary and unreliable.

Lobotomies may be banned; but psychiatric drugs seem to serve the same functions.

What are mental disorders?

The second problem is that psychiatric disorders are defined through subjective analysis; they depend on the psychiatrist's interpretation of the disorders: For schizophrenia as an example, there are varying ideas as to what is considered "delusional".

Psychiatric disorders are based on the notion that there is an order to conciousness; the fully‐recursed definition of mental disorder is an opposition of intellectual order. The problem is, we do not know what, and if there, is an order to intellect. Humans do not understand the brain as a whole; which is neccessary to make conclusive judgements on it.

Quoting an r/antipsychiatry post:

The diagnostic process of psychiatry is highly subjective, frivolous, arbitrary, and contingent on interpretation, which makes it necessarily subjective, because it depends on the psychiatrist’s opinions. The psychiatric definitions of mental illness, as defined by the DSM, are vague and overbroad so much so as to cast the widest possible net to target people for psychiatric enslavement. Their hypotheses of mental illness are unsubstantiated: have consistently failed to be confirmed. The theoretic entities of psychiatry are bogus, their conceptualizations of mental illness and what makes people “mentally ill” are ill-formed, fallacious, cognitively biased, and are not supported by scientific evidence. Their research findings suffer from systematic error: ex., confirmation bias and refusing to publish studies with unfavourable outcomes: counting only the hits and disregarding the misses. Psychiatry is a fraudulent profession of conscious liars and charlatans, delusional pretend doctors that have the hubris to have identified the very molecule that causes mental illness (dopamine in the case of schizophrenia and serotonin in the case of depression): yet science does not support either case. Psychiatry is not something worth reforming, it is something rotten to its core that needs to be abolished, overcome, and surpassed by civilized societies.

> Unfortunately, like Wisconcom said, the problem is that our mode of production conditions the development of science and technology, and psychiatry is also developed following bourgeois interest. For instance, addiction is a very common side effect for several pharmaceuticals, and the industry producing it benefits much by addiction, so they very likely "ignore" these side effects. Allied with the Fordist production line of psychiatric clinical trials of 8 minutes per person exams, this usually means a very desirable margin of profits for the pharmaceutical industry. So their business model depends on the constant consumption of medication for it to continue existing.

Yep.

> This means that psychiatry tends to favor persistent medication use. I have a family member which is a psychiatrist and they have received numerous offers from pharmaceutical industries to produce receipts for certain medication. Brazil has a massive monopoly called Pague Menos, the company which has bought another giant, ExtraFarma.

It also favors psychiatric wards.

> Besides all of that, psychiatry unfortunately also has indeed fringe elements, such as the case for considering being gay a "disorder" until the 70's and some supposed mental disorders which relies on the subjective experiences of the doctor, often subjecting the patients to bias. Being trans was considered a disorder until the 2015, which begs the question, who and what decides that one behavior is a disorder and what is not? How come a disorder stops becoming a disorder? So Psychiatry needs to be seen in historical context.

> The struggle to abolish the oppressive structure of mental asylums should also be mentioned, as it's a struggle against oppresion and should be something that ProleWiki should definitely stand for.

Absolutely!

---

r/antipsychiatry posts have much better explanations for my points than I do. (It's a subreddit, so watch out for liberal B.S.)

(I might edit my comment to improve on it.)