A communication to Mind Freedom International

I have some views I’d like to share with you.

The first is about the biopsychosocial model of mental difference. This model is accepted by medical organisations in England like the National Institute of Clinical Excellence even though they think of mental illness as a genuine illness.

It is in contrast to the biomedical model of mental health because it describes all of humanity from the freaks to the feckless masses. I am aware that the survivor movement and the antipsychiatry movement are, in general, against any acceptance of biological causes but I believe this is as erroneous as the biomedical model.

The biomedical model is what psychiatry is based on. It places biological brain differences as the sole cause of the phenomena that psychiatrists call mental illness. The biopsychosocial model posits biological, psychological and social causes. In fact it is the correct paradigm for real illnesses as well as human psychodiversty but, critically, there is no possibility of forced treatment because this power is solely derived from the biomedical model. It also doesn’t guarantee that doctors and other healthcare professionals should be the architects and arbiters of human psychodiversty.

It is vital to the future of human civilisation that the establishment and ways of thinking of the biomedical fallacy must be destroyed. Psychiatry was an invention and a very bad one. The biopsychosocial model is the scientific truth and its acceptance by politicians and the public is essential, not least because its acceptance is the way to end the cruelty and evil of psychiatry. The biomedical model is a lie which has damaged lives and influenced the mal development of modern developed world culture and society.

I’m not sure exactly what will replace psychiatry in a perfect world where the people give a damn about the truth. I use the term psychodiversty to replace all terms which are derived from the biomedical model, for example “mental illness” or “mental health problems”. Mental diversity is synonymous with psychodiversty as a term of language. The important thing is the focus on diversity and diversity principles.

The language of diversity opens up the acceptance of the integrity of psychodiversty and the integrity of disability. It is an equality and other human rights principle which is in sharp contrast to the normalising tyranny of psychiatry.

One of the key objectives of a psychodiversty system is the priority given to social change. At the moment there is one example of this called Time to Change. It’s an anti stigma campaign. It’s was initially funded by the national lottery then by the NHS. Unfortunately it still adheres to biomedical concepts so it’s not creating the revolution in consensus thought which is necessary but it is a beginning.

I don’t know if other developed world nations have something like it. Time to Change has been running for a decade and in the beginning there was nothing else even close to it, especially in terms of funding. It gets about £5million a year to run projects in England and Wales.

Of course the Finnish Open Dialogue Approach also works on social factors but ODAP and Time to Change are very rare examples of the necessary changes which are needed to undo the damage that the invention of psychiatry has done. It will take generations to undo the damage caused by psychiatrists.

It’s especially important now because of a massive threat to humanity’s psychodiversty which is made possible by the rapid advances in genetics and embryonic technology. The threat is the technology behind designer babies who are either selected to have certain genetic characteristics or are engineered in other ways. This technology is not science fiction. It’s in use today for those who can afford and in the one study about it I read a few years ago it’s being used now by parents who want male children rather than female ones as well as, of course, being used to screen for disabilities.

I known it’s an ad hominem argument but I’ll say it anyway. Hitler’s eugenics have become a possibility but instead of castration of schizophrenics (and others) It’s being done by parents who don’t want disabled children.

The threat is the possibility of the extinction of certain parts of natural psychodiversty and biodiversity. The few cases of using genetic screening to get male children shows how cultural prejudice – in this case the cultural preference against female children in countries like India or China – is very dangerous given the power offered to parents by advances in genetics and embryonic implantation. The greatest threat is to the disabled.

Unfortunately there’s no solution I can think of except for anti stigma campaigns which also educate the public about disability theory like the integrity of disability principle. The end of the institution of psychiatry will also be of benefit.

I hope I’m right.

Watch me sell out and try to think like a psychiatrist.


MIT is a highly regarded university which focuses on technology. They’re having some events which are designed to pioneer the application of technology to a variety of objectives, one of which is about brain science and mental health policy. Here’s my response where I sell out on all the things I believe until a little bit at the end of this short response.

Selling out to psychiatry and the biomedical model

I can’t attend but would like to submit some thoughts and questions for the brain science and mental health policy event.

I assume there’s no online way to contribute to these events?

There are a few areas where new approaches in biomedical psychiatry which will benefit from innovation 
– Neurogenisis
Growing new brain matter is the holy grail of the biomedical model of mental health. I don’t believe it is possible yet for adults but I think it might be possible in children who are diagnosed with a mental illness. Some sort of training – forced conditioning – might be able to alter brain development while neurogenisis is still happening.
– Genetic embryonic screening and embryo implantation 
Obviously brain development is affected by genes. Screening embryos for genetic abnormalities could eradicate so many disabilities.
– Psychosurgery 
The current cutting edge of biomedical model based psychiatry technology is the use of brain surgery to implant corrective devices or alter brain chemistry in other ways. The lobotomy is the prototype of this form of brain surgery but modern psychosurgery is far more precise. I saw a research paper about using a neurochip on monkeys which successfully boosted the recipient monkeys intelligence. This has the potential to eradicate intellectual disabilities. 
– New and better drugs
Again, there’s the potential for the novel use of psychopharmacology to alter brain chemistry and achieve behavioural conformity using neurobiological techniques.

Effects on mental health policy
– Free genetic embryo screening and IVF implantation will stop so many real diseases. It could also be used for restricting neurodiversity in tomorrow’s generation and producing perfect workers for the future economy. 
– Psychosurgery could be a powerful tool of last resort for treatment resistant symptoms. 
– The use of genetic screening after a person is born could yield possibilities for prevention, eg young children could be screened then assigned certain activities to boost neurogenisis where their brains are different. The MRI could be used also for such screening but it might be too expensive. 
– Better drugs with higher specificity to precisely target neurotransmitters changes by chemical means has excellent potential for successful drug treatments and combating treatment resistance. I’ve seen some interesting results from a few studies which use illegal drugs have potential as treatments. If MRI scans are cheap enough then the exact neurodiversity can be evidenced and the best drugs used to target specific sites. There’s some evidence that psychological therapies can also affect neurotransmitters however I’m not much of a believer in psychology. Drugs are definitely better than talking.
– However I believe the most important change in mental health policy comes from computer aided treatment assignment. Psychiatry uses research measures which combine effects from several symptom sub measures. From the psychiatric research I’ve read –  especially the systematic reviews and meta analysis which are deemed to be the best form of evidence – the combined scores are what’s used to derive clinical guidelines and these guidelines are an essential tool for doctors to prescribe the best treatment. This approach is deeply flawed but a simple piece of software could change this. If symptom sub measure scores could be collected from existing research a piece of software would allow clinicians to input the exact symptoms which someone is experiencing then get the software to select the best treatment based on the specific presentation of symptoms. This is most applicable to suicide in my opinion because this common single symptom is a matter of life or death. The aggregated scores used in psychiatric research and review are useless for getting the exact effect of treatments on suicide. I believe this alone is the justification for academia to go through old studies and collect the individual symptom sub measure scores. A simple database could store the sub measure scores and a Web interface would provide clinicians the opportunity to personalise the treatment to the individual presentation. I hope this explanation makes sense. The software makes it possible to align research results with specific symptom presentation whereas the current approach lacks this finesse.
– Critically there’s the intersection between the biomedical model and the social model of disability. It’s profoundly important to recognise the principles of the social model of disability and its relationship to mental health policy. The biomedical model only creates solutions which attempt to normalise and therefore are the antithesis of human psychodiversty and biodiversity. The social model demands change in society and culture to create equality between all types of diversity. The difference is critical.

The questions I have are as follows :
– Surely misery isn’t an illness? 
– What progress and innovation in suicide can you create from the biomedical model of psychiatry? 
– What was the new brain research or other neurobiological research which led to homosexuality being demedicalised? Also, what biomedical reason is there for the sole demedicalisation of homosexuality but none of the other paraphilias? (I don’t think there is a biological explanation but the question is designed to elucidate upon the flexibility of the psychiatric paradigm.) 
– Do you recognise the truth in the biopsychosocial model as opposed to the biomedical model? In England there’s a national anti mental health stigma campaign called Time to Change which is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatry and the National Health Service. Its aim is to address the prejudice and discrimination. I believe it is a salient example of how mental health policy can address the -social element of the biopsychosocial model but without a biomedical or neurobiological paradigm in use. The campaign’s success is measured using a new set of measures designed at the Royal College of Psychiatry and Dr Graham Thornicroft has done substantial work on these measures which evidence the effect of a non neurobiological and non normalising direction of modern mental health policy. England has run this campaign for about a decade and it has been a success.

There’s my 2 cents. I’m totally opposed to psychiatry and the biomedical model which is fundamental to the existence of psychiatry. It is a tyranny of evil which has perpetrated crimes against humanity and has negatively impacted the development of modern developed world nations.

If MIT wants a real challenge then thinking about the biomedical approach – which is all about neurobiology and behaviour normalisation – isn’t it. I can’t think of a good way to explain the goal of social change empowered by technology which promotes psychodiversty and biodiversity rather than mental or biological conformity. For example there’s a lot of technology which could make life better for people with intellectual disabilities but learning about computers presents a massive barrier. The Qwerty keyboard is an unnatural input device but it’s easy to have the option of an alphabetical keyboard thanks to smartphones with virtual keyboards. This is the sort of thing I’m thinking of where there’s adaptations made to accommodate people with low intelligence instead of making people with intellectual disabilities more intelligent and able to learn to use the Qwerty keyboard. Obviously voice recognition makes things even better for people with intellectual disabilities. Alternatively you could think about making Wikipedia easier to understand for people with intellectual disabilities or you could try to boost their IQ. While both of these objectives do sound important it’s their relationship to the biomedical model which I’m trying to explain. Doctors are focused on individuals and symptoms so they’re only going to think of boosting intelligence to make Wikipedia accessible to people with low intelligence.

The point I made earlier about suicide? It’s really relevant not just to devalue the psychiatric approach but also for the social and cultural objective for change. Doctors treat individuals but the problem is that modern life is too harsh. They are respected as the experts of suicide but they’ve completely failed to do the right thing. Again, there’s value in helping suicidal individuals to stop wanting to die but this isn’t the only solution. There has to be positive change in society and culture to prevent people from ever suffering so much that they choose to die. This has never been attempted because of the way doctors think. It is undoubtedly the wrong thing to do to just offer treatment once someone has lost their will to live. It is vital to protect individuals from losing their will to live in the first place and the only ethical way to do it is by social and cultural change.

I’m talking about big picture stuff. Perhaps it’s because I’m crazy?

That’s 3 cents from me.

Reply to my MP about university tuition fees

I only have a rudimentary grasp of economics. I’ll try to make an economic argument.

First of all I’d like to point out that when fees were introduced they were only a £1,000 and were never meant to go higher but the government broke its promises.

I believed back then that free university education is a right not a privilege but I doubt you’ll accept this. Your reply demonstrated the economic argument is important when you said the higher education system must remain financially sustainable.

You also pointed out that graduates earn more. I feel this is important when you consider the role of tuition fees because the government gets more tax from higher earners. The investment you ask teenagers to sign up to is one which has benefits for future governments because of the higher taxes they’ll collect. Since graduates earn more the investment you’re asking teenagers to make is one which benefits the economy in the long run and therefore shouldn’t be forced on young adults now.

It seems logical to me to see that creating more graduates with a free university system will reap rewards in the future. I think it’s fair to say that jobs in professions or in profit making corporations have much higher salaries but these jobs require at least a Bachelors degree. Graduates in these sort of jobs will be paying the highest rate of tax and earn much more than the average therefore future governments will get more taxes. The graduates of the previous generation who benefitted from free higher education are making significant tax contributions now so this government is reaping rewards for the foresight of the previous generation.

Tuition fees put a barrier up which will stop some teenagers from getting degree even with the best repayment options the government provides. The size of the debt is very large for a teenager and some will simply not want to be so in debt. This group will be much less likely to earn well in the future so future governments will get less tax from them.

If you compare the tax the government collects I’m sure you’ll find it’s a smaller minority who pay the most tax and these people commonly will have at least an undergraduate degree. The economic conditions of the future are unknown but I believe a better educated populous and workforce will be a good solution for ensuring future governments get more tax revenue.

There are other arguments too but they’re based on things which matter to me rather than the government. A better educated workforce has other benefits but I believe the small cost of free higher education would be a worthy economic investment.

The non economic argument I’d make is about life itself . The NHS is a substantial economic burden but it guarantees more people will live longer. A long life is important but so is a full, equal and rich one. The NHS doesn’t address the issue of helping someone get the most from their life and let them make a rewarding contribution. I believe university education is an essential step at a critical time in an individual’s psychosocial development which helps them get more from life and give a greater contribution beyond the tax revenue they provide. It’s simply not enough to pay  to provide citizens with a longer life.

My own experience of (free) university education was the most enriching part of my life which is a big reason why I want no barriers preventing anyone from growing in a university environment.

Imagine a culture with no boundaries between adults and children. They all have the same rights. Imagine this alternative society then imagine that paedophilia is not a mental illness in this alternative society

I’m not proposing this question to destigmatise paedophilia. The question is about your instinctive response against paedophilia and how it’s culturally defined.

In a society which believes human rights belong to children too they’d have to accept paedophilia. A society built on such strong beliefs about human rights would be far in advance of ours so wouldn’t pretend that certain unwanted types of sexuality are caused by mental illness. It would use the truth and the truth is that human variation is not a mental illness.

It would most likely deal with paedophilia in a different way. One way is to accept it is normal, which is an idea which is an affront to most readers sense of ethics. Another way would be to use virtual reality technology to perfectly simulate a paedophilies desired sexuality experiences thereby solving the problem of sexual exploitation of children and not enforcing the whole of the anti paedophilia stigma by creating a safe outlet for undesirable sexual desires.

The point is that cultural norms and values are what the fallacy of mental health enforces. These norms and values aren’t scientific but by pretending they’re caused by….

…you are utterly heartless. You are abominable cruel. When you die there’ll be a lot less evil on this planet.

I have more than one consciousness in my mind. Is that crazy or do I just have more than you?

I’m never alone without people because my other consciousnesses are there. It is hard at times of course but I couldn’t imagine living a life with just one consciousness in my mind.

Some people will think that I’m crazy because of the multiple consciousness existing in my stream of consciousness. But you know how I feel about that.

I’m We. You’re just “I”.

The best words are either psychodiversty or mental diversity. The wrong word is mental ‘health’

I hate the politically correct movement because it cares less about truth than it does about shaping the truth. Yet today I join the dark side and weigh in on the mental health language debate.

There’s a lot of people who demand the use of the term mental health problems instead of mental illness. Mental illness is a stigmatised concept whereas the politically correct term mental health problems apparently is devoid of stigma.

Revising language to reduce prejudice is one of the aims of the PC movement. There is a campaign to change the term schizophrenia to reduce the stigma. I hate this type of thinking because it wastes time and effort on changing words to disfigure the truth. It’s more akin to propaganda than truth seeking.

For example the term Afro-Caribbean is the PC term for black people but it still is based on skin colour. African culture and Caribbean culture are different but by assuming they’re the same the use of PC language does nothing to evoke truth.

The PC movement has a lot of fans in mental health. But every PC variant of the term mental illness still calls the phenomena mental “health”. It is far from the truth. I’ve frequently used the term schizophrenic instead of saying schizophrenia and I regularly got lambasted in public forums such as Facebook. Yet it is essential to say schizophrenic because the term identifies human diversity and allows for the interpretation that it is natural. Homosexuality was a disease and was thought to be totally unnatural. It needed to be treated to force homosexuals to be heterosexual. But now it’s considered part of natural human psychodiversty the individual can take pride in being a homosexual and never need they fear that they should be normalised by treatment to make them heterosexual. The use of the term schizophrenic is an attempt to convey integrity of being rather than defer to the idea that it’s caused by an illness which has to be treated to normalise the behaviour.

The critical element is the perception of natural human diversity applied to the phenomena called mental health problems, mental illness or mental disorders. It is not possible with anything which defers to the medicalisation. Mental health, illness and disorder are all words which have medicalisation in common.

Medicalisation doesn’t allow for integrity of being. When homosexuals were considered to be mentally ill they were considered abnormal and unnatural. They weren’t recognised as part of natural psychodiversty and they had no integrity of being until cultural norms changed.

Respecting human mental diversity changes the meaning of mental health but it does this to convey the highest truth. Mental health and psychiatry simply don’t respect psychodiversty. They are institutions which enforce the opposite of diversity. They try to make people more similar.

The phrase psychodiversty or mental diversity isn’t the most elegant of terms but it’s the best I can do to convey the truth through manipulating language. The concepts are the most important thing about my preferred vocabulary. And psychodiversty has nothing to do with health though it does encompass biological psychodiversty but sees differences instead of describing brain differences as deficits which is one of the big mistakes behind psychiatry.