Trigger warning: No human Rights on the royal commission

Hi @Hope4me

Thankyou for your honesty.

Unfortunately, you have hit on exactly one of the reasons why

a) I have needed for my own safety to bring this issue to light; and

b) Why it has had such difficulty and faced such oppostion for me to speak out.

I appreciate your candidness and would like to ask you what sort of trigger warning would have prepared you for the difficulty in reading these posts?

I would also like to reflect back to you that everything you have said is unfortunately also true for me.

I would request that you read no further except to understand that in this circumstance there will be confrontation to the world view of others as they come to understand that there was and is more to the story than what the status quo would indicate

again URGENT: PLEASE READ NO FURTHER IF POSTS THAT CHALLENGE THE STATUS QUO ARE GOING TO BE FOUND DISTRESSSING. THE POST BELOW CHALLENGES THE STATUS QUO BELIEFS IN 'MENTAL ILLNESS' - AND POSITIONS THEM AS ONE WAY OF LOOKING AT THE WORLD: IT ALSO DISCUSSES HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AND EMOTIONAL AND PHYSICAL ABUSES THAT HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED IN THE NAME OF 'MENTAL HEALTH CARE' PLEASE DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU WILL FIND A CHALLENGE TO THIS WORLD VIEW DISTRESSING. IT ALSO DESCRIBES VIOLENCE IN A CONTEXT OF CARE.

FINALLY IT DISCUSSES EXPERIENCES THAT I HAVE HAD WITH OTHERS WHO HAVE BEEN IN CARING PROFESSIONS RE-EXPERIENCING THEIR BEHAVIOUR AS HARM NOT CARE -THIS HAS BEEN KNOWN TO BE SHOCKING FOR MANY IN THE CARING PROFESSION AND PATIENTS WHO HAVE ACCEPTED THE STATUS WHO HAVE EXPEREINCED DISTRESSED OR LASHED OUT AS A RESULT OF FINDING I HAVE A DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE. HOWEVER IT IS EXTREMELY DISTRESSING TO ME TO REMAIN IN SILENCE SO PLEASE DO NOT READ FURTHER IF IT IS DISTRESSING TO YOU - BUT PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO PREVENT ME FROM TALKING TO OTHERS ON THIS FORUM ABOUT IT WHO UNDERSTAND AND EMPATHISE WITH MY EXPERIENCE OR WHO MIGHT HAVE EXPERIENCED IT THEMSELVES.

FINAL WARNING: BASED ON WHAT YOU HAVE SAID IT WILL BE CHALLENGING AND DISTRESSING TO READ FURTHER, SO I HIGHLY RECOMMEND YOU DON'T, I WILL INCLUDE WHAT I NEED TO SAY BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT AND I WOULD LIKE THE MODERATORS AND/OR THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND MY PERSPECTIVE OR HAVE A SIMILAR ONE THEMSELVES TO BE ABLE TO READ IT IF THEY WANT TO FOR MY OWN SAFETY AND THAT OF OTHERS WHO MAY HAVE THE SAME DANGERS AND VULNERABILITIES AS I DO IN THIS SITUATION.

FINALLY I NEED TO EXPRESS STRONG CONCERNS AND DISAGREEMENT WITH SOME OF THE MATERIAL IN YOUR POST SO PLEASE DON'T READ FURTHER AS YOU HAVE ALREADY EXPRESSED THAT CHALLENGES TO YOUR PROFESSIONAL POINT OF VIEW, ARE EXPERIENCED AS DISTRESSING.

I WISH YOU PEACE AND GOODWILL BUT PLEASE DO NOT READ ON, THE REST OF THIS POST IS NOT FOR THOSE WHO FIND IT DIFFICULT TO DISCUSS CHALLENGES TO THE STATUS QUO OR WAYS IN WHICH PROTECTION OF THE STATUS QUO IS EXPERIENCED AS HARMFUL BY SOME OF THOSE WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED IT.

For anyone who chose to read further, I need to make it clear that I have faced real abuse and I do need to be able to speak about it, that the status quo and the offence of those who support it has long been used to silence me from speaking about, gaining support for or resolving abuse.

If this is distressing to some for various reasons, that is understandable so I sought to ascertain what would have been an adequate trigger warning so I can be sure to include it in future. But I would also ask those who find challenges to the status quo, particularly on the basis of human rights and abuse distressing to consider the trigger warnings of their own: they may not realise it but I am a genuine victim of violence abuse and exploitation and the only thing that would keep me safe from such things in the future would be for me not to be subjected to any mental health act. When they advocate against this it is terrifying to me and I expereince all the emotions that the other poster described and more.

It's unfortunately commonly the case that someone aligned with the status quo often speaks in outrage when I describe what I went through as abuse: even though it literally involved repeated physical violence. It's not uncommon that these turn out to be people who have been involved in referring their loved ones to services where they also experienced similar things, who are being protected from this realisation by denial, but it isn't always the case.

The abuse and harm I experienced was so common and consistent that those who were involved in my regular support: often in the same systems would ask me "why did you go there? you knew what would happen" as it were my fault that I was misunderstood and subjected to violence for refusing the explanations.

When I am silenced from speaking about the harm that was done to me because others find it threatening to their world view and their experience is priviledged over mine, I also suffer.

I am very sorry that others suffered, but I need it to be understood that I suffered too from what they said and the way they have posted makes me feel terrified that I will be forced into silence again because their point of view (that violence doesn't happen, that 'mental illness is real' and not one way of looking at things) - is priviledged over the reality of my experience - even though it is demonstrable that 'mental illness' is an ideology the idea that it is not is so privileged that people who dare to question are often received with outrage. this is why it has taken the support of the UN, the British Psychological society division of clinical psychology and many other brave people in positions of trust for things to get this far. The absolute trust in the the status quo was so powerful that nobody was even allowed to examine it - without even providing any physical evidence for critical analysis the statement is made "how dare you question the phsyical evidence?" - what physical evidence? . So the best way forward is for each of us to discuss what is needed to protect the other going forward *without* silencing. I don't wish to silence you from sharing your view or opinion or experience- but it is threatening and distressing to me, I would have benefitted from preparation of a better trigger warning too. Unfortunately, it would seem that some consciousness raising would be necessary for the trigger to be recognised: the trigger for me is that when people advocate things that put me in real physical and psychological danger.

Trigger warning: detailled description of things that are likely to challenge world view by disclosing harm that I have experienced from things that others have faith in.

When I read the post of the person that I replied to in this thread I was absolutely gutted. I had to try three times before I could even write a response and that is why my responses have been so long winded.

It is often the case that people find these discussions extremely confronting precisely because they actually require a re-examination of what a person did or had done to them. But they also involve people finally being able to talk about what they experienced.

If I asked myself: what trigger warning could have been written on the post which would make me comfortable with it? The answer comes back sadly that none would suffice.

Unfortunately what we are talking about is deeply painful. I suppose the best I could come up with is "trigger warning: includes disclosure of opinions that others will find extremely threatening as they include suggestions that human rights should be limited for people who are perceived as different based on subjective interpretations of their thoughts/feelings and behaviour"

I think this is very challenging and I am very sorry that anyone has found it distressing.

But I do need you to understand that I found their posts and position very frightening and distressing too and I also would have apprecieated stronger trigger warnings

We represent two sides of a coin:

a) The people who have experienced Violence, abuse and exploitation and recognised it as such

b) The people who have experienced deprivation of their liberty and not considered it to be abusive

a) The people who believe that human rights should not be tied to subjective perceptions of dangerousnewss and who want the same rights as every other citizen to be considered innocent of an actaul crime until proven guilty to lose their right to freedom; and

b) The people who believe that it is acceptable to believe those who are different need to be locked up because of what they might do.

There is more to it than that.

I have to admit that I am starting to find the tone a little frightening and seek protection from the implication that I should be silenced from discussion without silencing others and assistance in providing the right tirgger warnings. However, I also seek recognition and understanding that some do not seek for the right trigger warnings to be provided, they seek for an absolute silencing of all that they do not want to hear. That I have experienced this silencing multiple times and that it creates a culture of fear in which people can not speak about harm or seek safety (and after all what else is help seeking if not this?) because to speak about harm they implicate that others did harm, and those who are implicated or who resent the implication against others will lash out and attempt to achieve silence on the matter.

I have experienced this many times - sometimes even in the form of physical threats.

I need to be able to challenge the belief systems of others in order to be safe where those belief systems affect me. If others don't want to participate and find the information too threatening to their world view, challenging or retraumatising,there is a genuine need for a better trigger warning system. But it is not ok to silence discussion when people are free not to participate in it and to be fairly and adqueately warned of what the discussion will contain.

Because it is extremely harmful to silence one group of people because another group of people can not accept that their actions, or the actions of others were inadvertenty harmful towards them. And they need to be able to discuss their views for their own safety and to seek help for what they are going through. Not to be silenced because association with the status quo is considered a privilege.

It isn't fair to hide the real harm that I have suffered, that others have suffered or that any of us have suffered because certain others belong to a belief system that thinks it is justified to harm to us on the basis that they found it helpful or believed it to be helpful and now will not countenance any discussion that it may have been otherwise, at least for some.

I have fought very hard to be able to discuss what I have experienced and finally being able to talk about these things and try to resolve them in the open is extremely invaluable. I am happy to put it all behind stronger trigger warnings.

But I do need it to be understood to know that all the things the poster experienced and described in their post I also experienced in the posters' previous post advocating that people needed to be confined and also in the post above. I don't seek to silence the poster, but I do seek for

a) them to provide adequate trigger warnings and to clarify what trigger warnings would suffice to protect them

b) them not be allowed to try to silence me from speaking at all on the basis that they found my post distressing as I also find their post and position distressing for very good reason and it has been by silencing all dissent or engagement that things have got to the point that they have in our community that we need to have royal commissions into the harm done by trusted institutions.

There are things that are worth discussing with regards to the ins and outs of forensic issues where are person has actually committed a crime.

But I personally and many others I know have been subjected to harm and abuse when they did not. And there has never, ever been any physical evidence saying I have a physical malfunction: I have never even had brain scan.

The drugs never helped me and yet they were violently forced on me, I recovered without them

The RCTs consistently show high placebo effects, high intra-group variability and other effects that make them of very questionable efficiacy, the discussion of various biological pathways is often a very underdeveloped science, and it must be considered in conjunction with the vast body of evidence that indicates how these pathways are activated and regulated in real-time by psychosocial factors.

I am happy to put any and all trigger warnings but when people try to say that it's not enough for me to get the warnings right and I need to be silenced - that is not ok

because there are other people who have been abused, harmed and exploited too and we all need to be heard and feel safe to speak about it

It is unfortunately very commonly the case that people who don't want to hear about abuse and harm will not just seek to find a way to know what to read and not to read but will seek to find a way to actually silence the people who need to speak from speaking about it at all.

In my experience this happens commonly where there is familial violence, abuse or inadvertant harm as well as simlar things occurring in institutional settings.

It has often been as a direct act to try and stop people discussing and resolving issues of abuse and harm, particularly emotional harm, that it is claimed they should not be able to speak about what happened because it was 'too distressing' for others, while the distress caused to the victims by things those others said or did, or by the silencing itself is hidden.

We are in need of resolving this matter in a way that harms no persons.

The need to be able to talk about and resolve issues is really important.

I've actually been physically threatened by fellow patients before for talking about how the medical model harmed and didn't help me. they also found it threatening to consider there was any other point of view.

But I didn't create this situation. I am not the one who went around convincing patients, practioners and the public that it was ok to tell people "mental illness is real" - as opposed to "your suffering is very real and mental illness is only one way of looking at it" and "the physical evidence is incrontrovertable" when this was very far from the truth.

I am a victim of those people, as are many others, and it isn't fair to shoot the messenger.

It seems to me that the need here is to ensure that trigger warnings are strong enough and clear enough so that people are protected from reading anythign they don't want to read. But that the rules are fair enough so that no person is allowed to silence another person from speaking at all.

Unfortunately it is exactly this last thing which has been used to prevent the fact of the "mental health" paradigm being only one way of looking at things getting out in the open.

NOTE: CONTINUATION OF POST THIS IS A REPLY TO, PLEASE READ THE FULL LIST OF TRIGGER WARNINGS IN CAPITALS IN THE POST OF MINE I AM REPLYING TO BEFORE READING ANY FURTHER: SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSESS ISSUES OF MISINFORMATION AND FRAUD THAT MAY BE TRIGGERING DEPENDING ON THE WORLDVIEW THAT HAS BEEN REPRESENTED TO CERTAIN PERSONS PLEASE DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF VULNERABLE TO THIS TYPE OF TRAUMA OR RETRUAMATISATION OR IF IN ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE ISSUE EITHER WAY

As for the "physical evidence" I don't know what was being discussed in this context, but I have heard people talk about everything from the idea of a "chemical imbalance" to genetic determinism and many other things besides, all of which are incredibly terrifying because they are not genuinely evidenced.

This reaction is one that I have received in unmoderated forums and is one of the main reasons why I have sourght the protection of amoderated forum. I need to be free to disclose and discuss my experiences and the ways forward without feeling like I am in a culture of fear where if I say things that challenge the belief systems of others they do not lash out and try to discredit or silence me.

That does not mean that I do not care about the sensibilities and needs of others, it merely means that I and others who have shared similar expereinces deserve equal respect and to be allowed to speak. That means that trigger warnings need to be increased. But it does not mean that the status quo is not allowed to be challenged on the reasonable basis of harm.

I have been harmed over and over by the status quo, then told I wasn't allowed to say so because saying I was harmed was harming others. This is not ok. I am far from alone in this.

The fact is that what has happened to me and others is real, and if we are to move forward we need to be allowed to speak about it. There will be those who try to stop this for a huge variety of reasons, up to and including it being a shockingly different perspective on belief systems that may have involved actually submitting loved ones to care or participating in these acts oneself

here is one example of how the so-called 'physical evidence' was grossly misrepresented to patients by both prescribers and drug companies, in this case it discusses the so-called 'chemical imbalance' theory and its arc of heavy promotion in the 1990s and 2000s, dropping off in the past 20 years and now being denied as ever having been promoted - even while it is still promoted by prescribers, companies and others to this day.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284720621_Antidepressants_and_the_Chemical_Imbalance_Theory_of_Depression_A_Reflection_and_Update_on_the_Discourse_with_Responses_from_Ronald_Pies_and_Daniel_Carlat

While the entire article is relevant the two screenshots encapsulate well the heart of the issue with scientific misrepresentation and outright fraud (demonstrated legally in a number of cases and highlighted with evidene in others (see eg. 'study 329' lawsuit and the book "Psychiatry under the influence" by renowned journalists and former fellows of Edmond J. Safra research lab investigating institutional corruption at Harvard University, Robert Whitaker and Lisa Cosgrove

(https://ethics.harvard.edu/lab), https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781137506948)

The pattern is having been falsely conditioned to believe that there is genuine physical evidence that the subjective interpretations of thoughts, feelings and behaviour patterns made by psychiatrists in the 'diagnositic' process are 'real diseases' caused by 'chemical imbalances' or 'flawed genes' (neither of which are reliably evidenced and this has always been known to academic psychiatry) people do become genuinely traumatised upon hearing that they have lived their lives according to a false belief. However, the answer to this problem is not to silence those who speak out about it as it is not true that 'what people don't know can't hurt them' and there are also, of course many others who have been harmed not only by having to live that same lie, but being forced to do so when they knew that it was not true: often being violently forced to 'confess' their illness despite articulately explaining their own logical and evidenced reasons for rejecting the ideology and it's associated 'treatment' - sometimes even with published references brought to the hospital.

While I am glad this matter has come up and hope that we can resolve the issue of trigger warnings adequately, it is also something I have tried to bring to the attention of SANE and many other institutions and peak bodies for many months: people are not going to go back in the box or back under the rug, nor is it reasonable to ask them to. These organisations need to start ensuring that the truth comes out in a safe way,not continuing to try and silence those who speak out about it according to the unfortunately common human reaction of 'shoot the messenger' or, even worse "shoot the victims". Quite to the contrary, the established pattern that it is traumatic for patients to be lied to and then discover the lie makes it all the more important to be very careful not to participate in continuing to spread this lie or to take no responsibility for the damage it has caused - both at the time it is told and in the delayed reaction of patients, families and even practitioners finding out that they have been lied to.

Kemp's pilot study demonstrates that far from reducing self blame, as claimed by some - belief in a chemical imbalance is indicated to have no positive impact on self blame but to worsten outcomes statistically across a number of measures compared with believing that problems are not caused by a chemical imbalance. The full text of this article is unfortunately no longer freely available online but I have the pdf and can provide it for anyone who is interested.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0005796714000308

We need to learn from the mistakes of history, not continue to repeat them, misinforming people and later claiming that it was 'metaphorical' or 'helpful' or 'a little white lie' can be catastrophic in so many ways, it harms those who believe and those who don't believe and worst of all - it pits them against one another.

Hi again @Fredd50

I'm a bit more settled now (after my last post) so I'll endeavour to further respond as promised.

It's difficult to watch on as authorities dish out their findings when the topic affects [us] so dramatically. I do agree that neglecting to address Human Rights in the Royal Commission is an important oversight; absolutely.

On this thread though, I'm a bit overwhelmed by many 'we, them, they, us' terms used to qualify opinions. I'd really like to continue the discussion but from a more personal viewpoint or, from statistical and impirical evidence-based information.

That's not to say your opinions aren't important because they truly are. I just get a bit lost in your posts.

I want to engage but am finding it hard to identify specific issues to focus on. That's my thing of course as I'm a person who has/needs organised thoughts to cope. Otherwise I become confused and frustrated trying to find my way.

I gather from what you've said, you're involuntarily on a ward at present and your sister passed at her own hand while in care previously? Please forgive me if this is incorrect. I find this information far more interesting and valuable re the topic than ramifcations to the broader community. (At this point; later my focus could change)

Again, I'm sorry your experiences have been disappointing and even debilitating. It's a credit to you that you're still holding on and involving yourself in the politics of MH responses and treatment. Good on you! 🤜🤛

My own experience of needing MH intervention without appropriate assessment was indeed a scary situation. (Psychosis, delusions and major panic) Getting through it took a moment by moment approach to survive. I was however voluntarily admitted a couple while later due to separating myself from reality which could've been fatal. I thank God for the support and intervention I received.

I was treated with total respect and understanding which made for a pleasant and recovery driven stay. It was scary at times, but I ended up knowing myself far better than when I first went in.

The ward was open where I and others could wander the grounds or visit the neighbouring hospital cafeteria for some respite. There were times I was burdened by violent outbursts some of the broken people I shared with had.

I wasn't happy with the psychiatrist assigned to me but I had no other choice, being a public patient. I also had discussions with patients who were very unhappy with their treatment, especially medication and involuntary status.

My concern at present is the lack of quality personnel to assess people suffering in our local area. (An NGO funded to assess, treat and advise patients presenting with symptoms and distress or post admission follow-up) Their red-tape protocol is abhorrent and requires much needed reorienting. It seems their focus is on money and keeping staff who continue to leave. I'm shocked they were successful in aqcuiring the contract.

In my experience as a patient and also as a professional in the field, problems seem to lay with individuals who interpret legislation and policy more than the guidelines/laws themselves. I was an avid reader of ammendments for instance to keep tabs on not only my own work practises and focus, but that of subordinates, co-workers and authorities I worked with.

As I've said before, it's not perfect, but it's far better than in the past. Progress 'needs' good people with loud voices who're willing to rock the boat and cope with retaliation and opposition. It takes guts and time...

Take care;

Hope

Hey @Fredd50

Oh my goodness! I didn't see your last posts prior to posting so I didn't mention them.

Please...my thoughts on Eden1919's post was well thought out and not intended to add anything more to this thread than is appropriate. I haven't been hurt or severely triggered, and hope my words were sensitive enough to relay my thoughts so not to disturb.

Being upset by content can happen. It's how I coped that makes the difference. If I had've been inconsolable I would've stayed away.

My previous career does have a baring on the topic, so I feel it's important to contribute from this perspective also. As you've disagreed with something I've said, it might be helpful for both of us to talk about it. I'm open to discussion, especially since I summaried my comments. Interpretation of my words is extremely important to me. I'm not closed to being proved wrong I can assure you.

Finally, I'm in awe of your concern and compassion for my well-being and that of others. Thankyou for your kindness...

I haven't read your posts in their entirity yet but I intend to when my eyes can focus properly again. Being too long on the laptop tends to drain.

Go you!!

Hope

@Hope4me while i accept your right to your own opnion i feel you may not have understood mine. firstly what else is SH other than a choice? no one is sitting forcing you to do it you are the one who dicides to take that action not anyone else and to say it is not a choice is just a way to disolve responsibility for ones actions. secondly i CLEARLY said i was NOT premoting anything just stating my opinion. thirdly i personally do not consider harm to ones self to be violence because it is something you decided to do. it also has nothing to do with attraction.

I am very glad you had a good experience with the system and that you found it helpful but to say that because one person had a good experience means that we can ignore the bad experiences is not really fair. this same attitude of "well it was fine for me" stops people from taking action to stop abuse on others in their community. for example people saying that we dont need to put in more effort to help minorites because they are fine and they are in the majority. just because something didnt happen to as many people doesnt mean that it didnt happen or that it isnt important.

Also i find it counfusing when you say you dont want to talk about the issues with the system when to my knolwedge (and please correct me if i am wrong) this post was about just that. the issue isnt about one bad doctor or nurse it is about a system that allows abuse to be scilenced and carried out regualrly to people who are deprived of the right to stand up and defend themselves from said abuse. people who have committed no crimes and who there is not physical and or objective evidence to indicate that they will commit a crime and that there is anything physically wrong with them. no other medical discipline can force you to have "treatment" against your will and yet psychiatry with little to no actual way of determining objectivly that you have an illness ( i am NOT saying you do or dont i am just saying there is no objective eveidnce) somehow has the power to take away the most basic rights with which democray was built upon. the issue isnt if one person had a good or bad experience it is that there are serious problems with the actual system and that those problems are being hidden and ignored. @Hope4me i am sorry i dont mean to offend you and again this is my opnion only i am not trying to attack you but i do feel there has been a misunderstanding around my intentions and my position.

@Fredd50 i hope i havent misrepresented anything here please let me know if i have.

Thanks for responding to my post @Eden1919

I'm sorry my post offended and upset you. The issue of self harm is an emotional one for sure, not just for you and I, but for most. I'd like to touch on a couple of your assertions about what I wrote.

You post included:

'...i am also pro choice regarding the decision the SH and i want to make this very clear that i dont mean when someone is doing it on a whim and the is MY belief only but if someone has made a considered and thoughful decision and understands the counsequnces of thier own actions and it isnt hurting another person then they should be free to act as they wish.'

I understand you say this isn't promoting SH, but in fact it is. Just by the mere fact you disclosed it on a public forum by condoning the practice if it's "..through thoughtful decision". Suicide is self harm. That decision cannot be made without desperation and forethought. Does this make it ok?

What is the mindset and intent of someone who self harms, via thoughtful consideration or not? Who decides if this person has the knowledge, self insight and ability to determine if it's appropriate or necessary? What's the difference between one who acts out in the spare of the moment or those who 'use' often?

1 in 12 teenagers (8% of the teenage populous) will self harm. (Paul Moran of the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, and George C. Patton of the Murdoch Children's Research Institute in Melbourne, Australia, who developed, coordinated and wrote the study.) The average age to start is 15 and are mainly girls. Average! That means there's little girls and boys of 10 out there doing this.

Who between 10 and 19, or an adult for that matter has the full understanding and coping skills to determine if self abuse is ok? What's the data they base their actions on? Did they seek help first? Did someone show them how to do it? I can't say and neither can you because all we know is what we've gone through or from information we find electronically.

Self harm is kept 'SECRET'! Why is this?

No secret re any type of harm to an individual or others, has value or merit. That's my conclusion based on 35 yrs of working in the helping professions, research and qualifications I'm proud of. My opinion isn't just based on personal experience.

You also wrote:

'Also i find it counfusing when you say you dont want to talk about the issues with the system when to my knolwedge (and please correct me if i am wrong) this post was about just that.'

I wrote:

'Each singular case is individual. Tabling a topic for the Commission should address human rights if it's a clear case of abuse across the board. [Their] job of scrutinising complaints is a difficult one and takes many months to prepare and then address. Recommendations are investigated, debated and dealt with very carefully to ensure the best outcome for all concerned. It's also very expensive so care is taken when deciding what's appropriate.'

I've mentioned a few times that I'd prefer to discuss the issue from a personal viewpoint which may change later on. This is my preference because I'd rather, for the time being, hear/read what's happened to other people. I'm just one voice and I get that.

My experience matters by the way. It may not be what you want to hear, but it's valid none the less. Your story's an unfortunate one Eden as is that of @Fredd50. How could I possibley comprehend what that feels like? Isn't that why we're talking? How can opinions be transformed, challenged or validated if there's no balance of information?

I'm sorry you're upset with my words but I was upset by yours too. This happens from time to time on the forums. It's how we cope that matters. I want to contribute value and insight to the conversation as I'm sure you do too. If something upsets me then speaking up is the best option unless it's not in anyone's benefit to do so.

I'm also impressed with and grateful for your honesty btw. I think it's a wonderful character trait to be so up front. Thankyou for being so candid...

Kind thoughts;

Hope

@Hope4me you must not have read my entire post because down the bottom in caps i said that i was not premoting anything i really still dont think you are understanding me and quite frankly i cant have this conversation with you as it is too upsetting and i really dont want to get into the with someone who cant seem to see anything from another perspective and i am not saying that because i dont want to hear another opinion i am very used to people disagreeing with me but you are again doing what everyone has done to me in the past and telling me how i feel without listening to me and really hearing me and so you can continue to do whatever you want that is your right but i am not going to be interacting with you anymore as that is what is best for my health. @Fredd50 sorry fred i support the topic of this thread but i cant continue to view it i hope you are stronger than me at this current time. @Hope4me also i want to be clear this is not me not trying this is me doing what is best for my health.

I'm sorry you don't feel heard @Eden1919

I haven't slept either worrying about this thread. It's not nice to debate such emotive topics when our lives have been ripped to pieces by trauma and conflict.

It seems neither of us is equipped to engage this way and you're right, it's not healthy. I'd like to move on too.

Thanks for the trigger warnings that I should've heeded @Fredd50; my mistake. You take care of yourself and keep fighting the good fight. It seems to suit you.

Hope

Hey @Fredd50 thanks so much for citing those articles, very interesting read. I have heard a lot of varying views around the legitimacy of the term "chemical imbalance". What were your thoughts on Joann Hari's book Lost Connection's? Some of it might resonate with you. Just to balance out the discussion, I think it's important as we delve in to do our own research as individuals as well. There's a lot of really interesting papers and articles all over the place offering a lens on both sides of the issue. I've pasted some links below if people would like to further develop their insight around the debate 🙂

https://www.phoenixaustralia.org/

https://www.aasw.asn.au/

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/

http://www.apsa.org/

@Hope4me @Eden1919 I hope you're both travelling okay, if you need any further support or to discuss anything with a CM please feel free to reach out via team@saneforums.org

Just a reminder for all members to be gentle with one another, sometimes it can be tricky to maintain self-care throughout these discussions, I am stoked to see the conversation is still really respectful even though there are differing views. If people need to take a breather I think that's a really good idea, and as mentioned - if there's any concerns please let myself or @Former-Member know.

Thanks @Former-Member

And thanks for the help with the moderation on this thread it has been genuinely tricky to figure out how to respect everyone's sensibilities.

But with regards to the "chemical imbalance" notion. It is not something for which there is evidence, there never was evidence.

There was evidence for the correlative association of various biochemical pathways with certain experiences. But there was never any evidence that there was a "chemical imbalance". Ever. It's not even a cohesive scientific concept. The article I posted is one example of how the Psychiatric community was critcised for misinformijg the public and even other professionals who didn't have a fine grasp of the science involved.

The evidence that was found could equally have been indicative of clues as to the underlying mechanisms of certain experiences. But underlying mechanisms are not causation, they are mechanisms. It's like a bike riding up the hill, the mechanism might be viewed as the chain pulling the gears around thus turning the wheels. But it wouldn't make sense to say that if you ride your bike up a hill to buy a litre of milk that the cause of this was the chain turning the gears of your bike wheels.

Dopamine has also been associated with REM sleep and makes this a great deal of sense as many people describe their experiences with metaphor, walking in story or other meaningful experiences as being like a waking dream. Association of particular neurological pathways mediated by certain neurotransmitters with particular mental states doesn't indicate pathology, but mechanism.

Furthermore such association is far from a "chemical imbalance" but the activation of certain pathways which were never the whole story and only indicated a tiny piece if the puzzle in the great mystery that is being human.

I didn't click on the links provided but I did want to point out that the fact that the "chemical imbalance" metaphor was promoted by certain organisations and individuals is exactly what is being criticized: it was never a substantiated scientific theory and never could be. Our brains are not beakers full of chemicals. And the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

The reality is that the "chemical imbalance" is at absolute best a gross oversimplification and a metaphor. Given that it has been genuinely used to misinform patients, professionals and the public alike it is a serious issue. Unfortunately belief in a "chemical imbalance" as a literal fact is an example of cognitive dissonance.

It makes me feel sad and angry at the people who knowingly spread misinformation. Most people don't have a scientific education and they trust and rely on people they look up to as teachers or professionals to tell them the truth. The misrepresentation of science in this field is very upsetting, but it isn't going to get better by not admitting there is a problem.

That's what I liked best about the article I posted: that it acknowledges the need to recognise what has been done so we can grieve and move forward. By continuing to deny that harm has been done, unfortunately we continue to do harm.

Unfortunately misinformation has been a big part of this field. And it is difficult to know who has knowingly spread misinformation or who has genuinely believed and spread it in good faith. But people can not make informed choices and we can't consider which practices should be ditched entirely if we don't acknowledge what is evidenced and what is not. And we can't heal trauma, or prevent endemic abuse, discrimination or exploitation without acknowledging it happened and continuing to echo the behaviour that caused and propagated it.

Nobody has, not have they ever had a "chemical imbalance" in their brain, that is "corrected" by medication. And that has never been a substantiated causal theory for broken social norms. It is not even a coherent statement, what exactly is a "chemical imbalance" supposed to be?

To be honest I'm scared to click on the links you posted because if they are still spreading the "chemical imbalance" myth I will be depressed and I don't want to be.

We are Psychosocial creatures, with underlying Biological mechanisms. These mechanisms where genuine are interesting and relevant. But they don't exist in isolation and shouldn't be simplified.

Here is a paper I found really interesting and hope you do too. We regulate not only our own neural activity via Psychosocial means but that of others too. Human beings are incredibly social animals, there is huge scope for healing that we keep not exploring because of economic factors.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hyperscans-show-how-brains-sync-as-people-interact/

/www.scientificamerican.com/article/hyperscans-show-how-brains-sync-as-people-interact/

There is a lot more evidence around this. Our brains are so Psychosocially determined that a child raised by dogs until age 3 has a brain that was a noticeably different shape to that of typical three year Olds. After he got access to programs to restore his development to a usual human path, his brain did not look particularly different to his contemporaries (see Bruce Perry "The boy who was raised as a dog...")

To say that there was never any such thing as a "chemical imbalance" is not to say that brains and bodies and their Biological goings on don't play a fundamental part in the great and complex concert of experience

It is just emphasising that the "chemical imbalance" theory wasn't about recognising the great concert of experience. It was about reducing and repressing it to some kind of spontaneous "Biological malfunction" which had to be "fixed". And allowing p or even encouraging public, patients and professionals to believe this misinformation, putatively because a lot of people made a lot of money out of it or saved themselves from embarrassment ,loss of reputation or market share once they were entrenched in this model.

It would be one thing if the professions would admit and recognise wrongdoing and misguided or even greedy behaviour in some cases (many were actually paid quite substantially to do this, others made a lot of money from the way in which the simplicity bid "chemical imbalance" and it's promises of quick and easy fixes facilitated by technology captured the public imagination . If they were to reflect, find humility and seek truth and reconciliation, that would be a good start but unfortunately mainstream Psychiatry & other "medical model" propenebts haven't, instead it tries to rewrite history, which is further insult to injury and gaslighting for victims. The first step towards healing is admitting that wrong was done and harm was caused, the second is ensuring that it is never done again.

Without the first of these steps, the second is impossible.

It really is very upsetting because harm continues to be caused the more that truth reconciliation and healing are postponed.

As with all situations such as these, we need recognition and truth to move forward.