Blog posts

Psychiatry’s Ultimate Catch 22 Diagnosis November 4, 2026 – Robert Carter      The author Joseph Heller coined the term “catch 22” with the 1961 publication of his satirical novel of the same name which sold over ten million copies. A catch-22 is a circular, inescapable dilemma. It’s represented in Heller’s book by a WWII pilot who claims to be insane to avoid dangerous combat missions, but the military rules is sane because no sane person would not want to avoid the danger of air combat.      The newly coined psychiatric catch 22 diagnosis is “anosognosia,” a multisyllabic, Greek root word – literally, “without knowledge of illness” – that sounds appropriately erudite for use in the next DSM. The word was first proposed in 1914 by French neurologist Joseph Babinksi to describe someone unaware of an area of paralysis in the body after suffering a stroke or brain injury. Babinski studied under Charcot and shared the French hypnotist’s belief that female hysteria had a biological cause.      Over time the term shifted its meaning to describe a lack of awareness or insight into various mental health conditions which were then thought to stem from physical changes in areas of the brain. The term has since become a standard psychiatric diagnosis since Dr. Xavier Amador wrote in the early 1990s that a patient’s inability to recognize his or her own schizophrenia was a biological deficit of the brain’s frontal lobe. He thus moved the cause of the “behavior” from one of mental denial to one of physical abnormality, conforming with the biological causes behind mental states that psychiatrist used in that time period tolegitimize themselves as “real” doctors.      Today anosognosia is used as the ultimate catch-22 diagnosis that offers no rebuttal by a patient so diagnosed. “Your ignorance of your own craziness is the final proof that you are indeed crazy and therefore nothing can be done for you. You are utterly treatment resistant.”      That staggering evaluation sets up endless prescriptions of mind and emotion numbing psychiatric drugs, often coupled with repetitive electroshock sessions that erase memory.      The final catch-22 of psychiatry’s anosognosia? “As you are obviously  incurable, the only ‘cure’ is for us to destroy you.”

How John D. Rockefeller Made Us Think Happy Pills Are “Happy” October 29, 2026 – Robert Carter      John D. Rockefeller’s manipulation of the American medical industry is pretty well documented. As the richest man in the world, he had been deprived of his oil industry monopoly and had then spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding the country’s most reputable medical schools, like Yale and the University of Chicago to start with. As long as they taught only allopathic medicine and advocated only pharmaceutical remedies, not homeopathic ones, he would continue his massive investments in them.      All pharmaceutical products are petroleum based, and John D. still had plenty of connections to that lucrative industry and was investing even more in pharmaceutical firms such as Germany’s I.G. Farben.      Today’s psychiatric drugs are also petrochemically based, and in the 1930s Rockefeller’s millions were invested to make sure that his new army of allopathic doctors were also trained as psychiatrists in the institutions his Rockefeller foundation was then funding. Between 1929 and 1949 the Rockefeller Foundation gave more than $16 million — $240 million in today’s market — to university psychiatry departments, psychiatry conferences, and individual grants for researchers in psychiatry.      But, he still had to educate the public on how happy they could be by consuming the upcoming array of petrochemical “happy pills” they were about to be introduced to. Rockefeller’s money then began funding a number of institutions specializing in “social science,” such as the American Institute of Human Relations and its British equivalent, the Tavistock Insitute of Human Relations.      “Social science” purported to study the ills that a modern society was facing, but psychiatrists needed to show that an individual mental condition was behind all humanity’s ills so they could justify prescribing the tsunami of happy pills the public was consuming by the 1950s. Alan Gregg was the Director of the Medical Sciences Division of the Rockefeller Foundation at that time and he was responsible for its massive funding for research in neurobiologic correlates of psychiatric illness.      People began to be told they could put their chemical imbalance back into balance with a little pill and they’d be happy. Today more than 80,000,000 Americans are taking those happy little antidepressants.      And Big Pharma is now a $1.5 trillion dollar industry, thanks to John D. Only those wealthy Eli Lilly, Merck and Pfizer execs don’t need any of those little happy pills to make them happy.

New Study Shows the More Trained the Psychotherapist, the Worse the Results October 16, 2026 – Robert Carter Enrico Gnaulati, PhD, is a clinical psychologist and a reformer of mental health practice and policy. Today he published an article on Mad in America which addresses the high number of people – around thirty percent — who are now discontinuing their psychotherapy. Half of these drop out after their first few sessions. Ironically, as these drop-out figures have risen, the number of psychotherapists who have undergone rigorous Ph.D. training in psychotherapeutic counseling has doubled. The more trained psychotherapists have become, apparently, the less effective they are in helping their clients. What are these doctoral programs teaching? Not the age old therapeutic values of true help. A full 75 percent of the counseling participants surveyed defined that help as “The most valuable aspect of therapy is sharing your thoughts and feelings without feeling judged or ashamed.” That client-validating approach is known in counseling circles as “alliance building” — good rapport rooted to relational sensitivity and responsiveness to client needs – and has been the cornerstone of any kind of successful one-on-one counseling for thousands of years. Only 17 percent of today’s doctoral programs require students to take an alliance building course, and only 13 percent of them even offer it as an elective. Instead, doctoral program psychotherapists are being trained almost exclusively in DSM-based descriptions of mental illness which prompt them to tell their clients what is wrong with them rather than listen to what the clients themselves say are their troubles. Labeling their clients – verbally or silently – is exactly what psychiatrists now do so they can write a prescription of risk-filled antidepressants or anti-anxiety medication. The DSM – the psychiatrists’ bible — has contaminated conventional psychotherapy. One other study that Gnaulati cites shows that a rigid adherence to protocol, therapist mis-attunement, and inert therapeutic relationships are three of the main reasons people drop out of toady’s psychotherapy so quickly. Advanced academic psychotherapy training is now replacing what was probably an innate desire to help and care for others by aspiring therapists with a rigid psychological system that forces otherwise well meaning folks into pigeon-holing their clients with DSM categories that are meaningless. That forceful type of evaluation only makes clients feel “judged or ashamed,” per their own words. Thankfully, thirty percent of today’s counseling clients see through this travesty of help and leave psychotherapy almost immediately.

Psychiatrists Believe You Are Only a Chromosome October 10, 2026 – Robert Carter For over one hundred years psychiatrists have been trying to treat the body to cure mental illness. First it was with insulin comas, then with electroshock treatments, and then with lobotomies. For the last seventy years their focus has been on a less visibly brutal treatment by one psychotropic drug after another. None of this has worked long term, and the “side effects” of these therapies have often been far worse than the original mental illness they were supposedly trying to cure. Psychiatrists apparently don’t know what they’re doing. In her recent Mad in America podcast, Brooke Siem, author of May Cause Side Effects, interviewed forensic scientist Selma Eikelenboom. Fifteen years ago Eikelenboom became interested in the possible connections between various DNA variants, psychotropic medications, and acts of violence. That research has been her focus ever since and she is now the forensic medical examiner working on cases involving psychoactive medication and acts of violence at Independent Forensic Services in Santa Fe, New Mexico. After all her years of research, she says no one has any idea about the physical connection between DNA, medication and violence. “I’m going to be honest,” she says in the interview. “We have no idea. Let nobody tell you otherwise. We have no idea how behavior comes about. I can come up with all kinds of stories, like the serotonin level is too high. They get serotonin intoxication, and it deranges the neurotransmitter, blah, blah, blah. We don’t know.” This is a more striking admission than the acknowledgment that there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance behind distressed mental behavior. Eikelenboom’s proclamation shows psychiatry’s total ignorance about the connection between physical structure, mental activity, and consequent behavior. Prior to psychiatrists taking over America’s asylums in the mid-1800s, “moral therapy” programs were being run successfully based on Quaker principles of the religious nature of individuals, disturbed or not. In fact every religion in the world is based on the innate spiritual nature of man. That concept is foreign to a soul-less psychiatry. These mental “doctors” have insisted on damaging human brain cells for over a hundred years in their savage attempts to eradicate mental illness. Perhaps, given Eikelenboom’s revealing statements, there is no final connection between the physical and the mental (the mind or spirit) and psychiatric treatment of the body alone through medication will produce only unwanted and dangerous effects on people. Eikelenboom insists people should be made aware of these risks to their well being. True informed consent for postnatal depression, per her, is to say to a troubled new mother  “Look. We can admit you and your child. We’ll give you 24/7 care. We will talk you through this. We will help you connect to your baby. But if you prefer medication, you could end up doing horrible things to your baby or to yourself. It’s your choice.” That’s modern moral therapy. It is necessary because so many poor souls have now been destroyed by psychiatry’s pharmaceutical violence and their belief that you are merely a spirit-less chromosome.

From Care to Cruelty: When Psychiatrists Are Put in Charge October 5, 2026 – Robert Carter By 1800 the growth of American cities had fostered a small segment of the newly urban population who were mentally or emotionally distressed. The only repositories for them at the time were in the shackles of prisons designed to punish criminals. Those quarters were filthy, the food was scarce, and the mentally disturbed endured verbal humiliation and physical punishment of ice baths, bloodletting and continual restraints. After the turn of the century humanitarian philanthropists began funding new “moral therapy” asylums that treated the mentally ill with kindness, structured routines, productive and meaningful work, and fresh air recreation and leisure periods. Prominent architects designed aesthetic buildings within landscaped grounds as part of this humane, Quaker based treatment. Recovery rates soared at retreats like McLean, started by Reverend John Bartlett just outside of Boston, because of the individual attention and beneficent treatment the residents received. With the rapid growth of America’s urban population in the burgeoning industrial age as agricultural refugees sought work in factories, more of the population suffered from mental health issues. The humane Quaker system was unprepared. Asylums soon became human warehouses for “the insane.” The government decided in the mid-1800s to put psychiatrists in charge of a now increasingly sordid and deteriorating system. By the end of the century psychiatrists had developed their theories of genetic and biological causes of mental illness, and their overcrowded institutions became cruel laboratories for insulin coma therapy, lobotomies and electroshock treatments. The inhabitants of these dark, repressive institutions were not publicly visible enough to require any voluntary consent for these brutal experiments, and psychiatry had a field day of human experimentation. Today the McLean campus still sits just outside Boston, its grounds looking nearly as pastoral as their earliest days when designed by renowned landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted. However, that calm, polished exterior of its buildings today hides the brutality of the 10,000 electroshock sessions that are given to its residents every year, courtesy of its staff psychiatrists. Rather than the original successful rehabilitation of its residents through moral therapy, today’s Mclean “graduates” include poets like Sylvia Plath, whose suicide occurred after her many insulin and electric shock treatments there. That’s a different kind of psychiatric “moral therapy” altogether.

Want to Know How to Perform a Prefrontal Lobotomy? September 25, 2028 – Robert Carter Psychosurgeon Walter Freeman enlisted the surgical expertise of James Watt in 1936 to help him perform the first prefrontal lobotomy in America. Freeman had become enamored with the work of Portuguese psychosurgeon Egas Moniz who had recently performed the first of these brutal brain surgeries. Muniz would later be awarded a Nobel Prize for it, but he was unfortunately shot thereafter by one of the schizophrenic patients whose brain he had removed part of. Freeman and Watts went to work on perfecting prefrontal lobotomies as well as broadly publicizing the barbaric procedure’s merits. However, one of their joint early lobotomies was on 23 year old Rosemary Kennedy. Their botched surgery left her permanently incapacitated and unable to speak coherently again. In 1942 Freeman and Watts directed the filming of a George Washington University instruction film showing exactly to how to perform their prefrontal lobotomy. It was published on YouTube nine years ago and has been viewed 1.3 million times and has accrued over 4000 viewer comments, virtually all expressing their horror at the procedure. The film shows that the lobotomy is done while the patient is awake with only a local anesthetic applied to the surface area of the incision into the skull. A patient can be made unconscious, however, if he or she is deemed too “uncooperative” beforehand. The film’s narrator comments dispassionately that the only moment when the fully conscious patient becomes “disoriented” is when the final nerve fibers in the brain are severed. Freeman used standard anesthesia for those “uncooperative” patients, but he also gave them an electroshock session so the voltage and grand mal seizure would make them unconscious for the lobotomy. The 1942 film shows how a chisel and hammer are used to mark the spot on the skull where the bore hole is to be made after the skin above is cut open. Then a series of larger and larger, hand-cranked boring tools are used to drill the hole itself through the patient’s skull bone. A pliers-like device is then used to pull away the bone and enlarge the hole. A second hole is then made across and up on the skull so that a neurologist can help the surgeon guide his nerve severing tool to the right spot of the prefrontal lobe. It was at this moment during the surgery, when the final nerves were cutt, that the patient became disoriented as the surgery “deletes you from your own memory,” as one YouTube commenter aptly put it. During this time Freeman was also developing his own transorbital lobotomy technique in which he passed an ice pick tool up under the eyelid and into the prefrontal lobe and then “swished” it around to sever the offending nerve issue. When Watt found out about Freeman’s new procedure, he told him it was too dangerous to be performed alone and insisted Freeman cease his new practice. Freeman refused and Watts ended their partnership. Freeman went on to deliver more than two thousand of his transorbital lobotomies himself while touring psychiatric hospitals cross country in his “lobotomobile” demonstrating his technique and teaching doctors its use. Freeman reported in 1953 that over 25,000 lobotomies had been performed. In the nineteen-fifties heavy antipsychotic medications like Thorazine were developed and approved by the FDA and they could be used to chemically lobotomize a patient without the surgical butchery involved in a lobotomy. Thank God for that little improvement in psychiatric torture.

When the Truth Is Too Inconvenient   September 11, 2026 – Robert Carter      Peter Gotzsche, renowned watchdog of medical and psychiatric corruption, posted on Substack this week about a rogue editorial comment by a Daily Mail editor which was inserted into a recent article by Katinka Blackford Newman. British documentary filmmaker Newman had come close to killing her two children after the psychiatric drugs she was taking turned her psychotic.      Newman had written her piece in response to the ongoing Lindsay Clancy trial to highlight that it was Clancy’s horrific number of prescriptions (thirteen) of psychotropic medication which precipitated her killing her children and not necessarily post partum “psychosis” itself. Newman chronicles the sequence of antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and sleeping medication Clancy was prescribed that led up to her children’s murder.      She writes that Clancy’s lawyer asked the judge to “let the jury consider ‘involuntary intoxication,’ arguing that the prescribed medication and the effects of stopping it could have contributed to her state of mind. The judge turned down his request.” An inconvenient truth to him, apparently.      Newman then goes on to tell her own story, so similar to Clancy’s. She too had suffered “a severe adverse drug reaction: I had beliefs and impulses utterly alien to me, including the conviction that I had killed my children, then aged 11 and 12.” Newman and her children survived, however. “When the drugs wore off,” she wrote, “those beliefs disappeared – and have never returned.”      She adds a corroborating quote from psychiatrist David Healy. “These drugs can produce states in which people with no history of mental illness do things that are completely out of character.” She then adds a statement that Peter Gotzsche himself had once made to her. “One of the best guarded secrets in psychiatry is that antidepressants increase the risk of violence, including suicide and homicide.”      There’s no doubt in her article of her indictment of psychiatric drugs and the horrific harm they can cause. She gives herself, Lindsay Clancy, and others as pertinent examples.      However, just before Gotzsche’s quote, this paragraph appears:        “We must be clear on this: psychiatric drugs can be lifesaving for some patients. But it’s also important to recognise that for a minority (approximately one in 100), they can be dangerous.”      Gotzsche read that paragraph and, quite startled, asked Newman about it. She said she would never have written that. Some editor at the Daily Mail had added it.      We could suspect that the editor had been given a free long weekend in Brighton by some Big Pharma rep, but that would be a bit too conspiratorial a theory. It’s more likely that Newman’s assertions in the article jarred too thoroughly with some unexamined idea in his own mind…probably some psychiatric marketing ploy he’d read so many times he believed it.      Newman’s truth became too inconvenient an idea to fit into that editor’s worldview. Unfortunately, by adding in that paragraph he or she – like too many other journalists – inadvertently perpetuated and reinforced that faulty myth to the broader public. Truth becomes inconvenient when measured against a fixed idea.      And that fixed idea becomes an inconvenient barrier for too many others for them to be able to view what the truth actually is.      ”We must be clear on this: psychiatric drugs can be lifesaving for some patients.”

Big Pharma Fear of Lost Income Underlies Their Scare Tactics September 6, 2026 – Robert Carter This week on Mad in America Dr. Yaakov Ophir, a clinical psychologist and a research associate at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, published a thoughtful overview of ADHD controversies in response to an ADHD UK rebuttal to a recently aired BBC program, The Great ADHD Myth. The ADHD UK attack made three major assertions: 1. “ADHD is not scientifically controversial.” 2. “ADHD is not a parlour debate. People die.” 3. ADHD is not a myth. It is not a social construct.” Dr. Ophir’s article provides a conscientious overview of relevant ADHD studies that support or contradict these three absolutes. An equally conscientious reader would be hard put after reading the article to see much validity at all in these three ADHD UK claims. Ophir is, of course, the author of the book ADHD Is Not a Disease and Ritalin Is Not a Cure. ADHD UK also voiced a public warning about the BBC program even before it was broadcast that claimed the program’s title and framing would cause harm. They said that “the broadcast would intensify stigma, deter people from seeking assessment and treatment, and put lives at risk,” per Ophir. Although Ophir does mention the spectacular rise in ADHD diagnoses over the years – from a nonexistent diagnosis in 1946 to one labeling up to 20 percent of children with ADHD – he does not note the equally spectacular rise in Big Pharma profit for ADHD  medications. Big Pharma giants like Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Novartis AG, and Eli Lilly generated around $15 billion in revenue last year alone from their ADHD products. That ADHD market is projected to grow to more that $23 billion over the next ten years. No wonder such scare tactics are being used against anyone threatening to reveal that the ADHD diagnosis emperor does not have any clothes on. No wonder, too, that they’ve gone on an aggressive attack — and not just a cautious defensive – to anyone questioning ADHD. They now put their public focus on all those poor souls who will be deprived of taking medication on the low end of the speed spectrum for an ADHD diagnosis that may or may not be the least bit valid, as Ophir’s article so nicely shows. It’s an attack Big Pharma has already honed while they have sought as much government funding as possible to educate the public about how many undiscovered citizens there still are out there who are in dire need of being prescribed medication to treat their undiagnosed depression and anxiety. They’re marketing experts, but medical impostors.

What Black Box Warnings Leave Out August 25, 2026 – Robert Carter In his August 23rd podcast this week, Dr. Josef Witt-Doerring speaks about the similarities between Lindsay Clancy and Tranyelle Harshman. These two women were both suffering from post-partum difficulties, both were prescribed psychiatric medications for their symptoms, and both ended up murdering their children and trying to commit suicide. Harshman was successful; Clancy was not. Each case involves careless prescriptions by psychiatrists and psychiatric nurse practitioners, but a striking detail in Dr. Josef’s coverage of these two is his revelation of what the terms “anxiety” and “dissociation” include when listed as psychiatric drug’s “side effects.” Dr. Josef knows. He was part of the original Jannsen Pharmaceutical team that ran the trials when they were developing Spravato, the nasal esketamine that Harshman was faultily prescribed. Two of the adverse reactions listed to what was then a trial drug were anxiety and dissociation. These two terms are listed in many of the Black Box warnings on SSRIs and benzos today, including what Lindsay Clancy was prescribed. However, as Dr. Josef reveals, these two terms have wrapped into them as psychiatric drug “side effecs” a subset of symptoms that are far more severe than mere anxiety or dissociation. The drug manufacturer’s use of anxiety includes not only fear and panic attacks, but also psychomotor hyperactivity. Today that is better known as akathisia, a movement disorder that causes an intense, uncontrollable internal restlessness and a compulsion to continuously move. Colloquially it is described as wanting to jump out of your skin, and it is a symptom connected to the uncontrolled homicidal impulses of many of today’s medicated school and workplace shooters. Dissociation includes not only depersonalization – which itself can remove a native sense of responsibility one has for one’s action – but also auditory, visual, and mixed hallucinations. These would include the “voices” heard in one’s head, like the commands Lindsay Clancy and Tranyelle Harshman felt they had received to kill their children. Although these risks are apparently included under the terms anxiety and dissociation, they are not the ones revealed in the frequently abridged informed consent protocol given patients these days by psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses. Revealing them in a full informed consent discussion would probably decrease the number of patients on these covertly lethal psychotropic drugs. It might also open up more and more medical practitioners to lawsuits by acknowledging the true risks involved with taking these drugs. Better to just leave these pesky details out, eh? In February 2025, , a Wyoming mother of four with no history of violence, shot her four daughters and then took her own life. Her family describes an event completely out of character for a loving mother. Husband stand s by her. Tranyelle sought help for postpartum depression in late 2024 and was prescribed ketamine lozenges to take at home.

Women Who Don’t Know Women: Lindsay Clancy’s Prescribers August 14, 2026 – Robert Carter Dr. Jennifer Tufts was the first of two psychiatrists and another two psychiatric nurse practitioners who prescribed Lindsay Clancy at least eleven different psychiatric medications over sixteen weeks for “post partum psychosis.” All were women. In January, 2023, at the end of that four month period, Clancy murdered her three young children and tried to take her own life. The defense at her current murder trial will claim that Clancy should be acquitted because she was made insane by the involuntary intoxication of so many conflicting psychotropic medications given to her in such a short amount of time by those prescribing staff at Aster Mental Health, just outside Boston. How could those four prescribing women be so that far removed from the reality of Clancy’s true condition and be so trigger happy with their prescription pads, even when Clancy herself said she was doing worse after taking some of these medications? You would think a woman would be more, not less, in tune with the struggles of another woman after she had given birth. Was it because the newly posted Tufts only met with Clancy via telehealth sessions and was therefore protected from experiencing first hand, face to face, the difficulty Lindsay was having in life and could therefore so easily just write a prescription? Was it because these four women were too indoctrinated by their training in the theoretical world of psychiatry which dictates the prescription of this SSRI or that benzo for some questionable diagnosis and the idea that those risky medications will solve everything? Remarkably, after Lindsay was sent to the Women and Infants Hospital in nearby Providence for further evaluation when she was not improving under the treatment of the Aster women, she was told she had been overmedicated. The Rhode Island facility that specializes in obstetrics, gynecology, and newborn pediatrics declared after eight hours of in-person interviews and testing that Lindsay was overmedicated and that her “post partum psychosis” symptoms were mostly the result of the crazy cocktail of drugs she had been on. This is a hospital run by women for women, and regardless of their academic or medical training, they were working in the real world, day in and day out, helping other women who might have difficulties before, during, or after giving birth. That’s a different culture altogether than Aster Mental Health, which is a psychiatric, not a medical facility. Both facilities have women practitioners, but apparently the natural human care and the “Do no harm” medical expertise had long ago been trained out of these psychiatric practitioners at Aster.