I bet they wouldn’t do the same for George Floyd protests.

Thank you a lot for those links. Your post has been very interesting and informative, I’ll probably take quite some time to review all of it.

You’re welcome :)

Some of the articles you linked are either peer reviewed by few people or have few citations.

Peer review by few people is not inherently scientific on it’s own; peer reviewed can be performed with biased reviewers.

Peer review is a technique to fix errors not found by the author of the studies.

On the other hand, especially #4 as a review article of several studies was very interesting. It also shows that there’s truth in your statement “Studies from drug companies have publication bias”, which I myself always suspected.

Yeah that’s unfortunate to find out.

Your links “only” show some of the medication isn’t effective or may cause long term harm, not all of them. The claim that “Psychiatric drugs are straight up placebos that cause harm[]” isn’t completely supported by your links. If you’d tone it down to “many psychiatric drugs are equally effective as placebos and most of them cause harm” I would be more inclined to support that claim.

Technically you’re right.

However, psychiatric drugs fundamentally cannot be effective in treating psychiatric disorders. Psychiatric disorders are formed from assertion and lack objective testing for potential disproval. (This is why Psychiatry is not a science.)

This is why I claim that all psychiatric drugs won’t be effective; we can’t test for their effectiveness on psychotic people, because psychosis lacks objective testing.

One example: Antipsychotics like Haloperidol are often used only for a very short time to keep patients from harming themselves or others and to stop the synapses from firing, so to speak.

First problem is

“often used only for a very short time”

Not really. Antipsychotics are used for way longer than “a short time”.

" keep patients from harming themselves or others"

Antipsychotics harm people; and they aren’t that effective.

" and to stop the synapses from firing, so to speak."

Synapses are supposed to fire; neurons pass signals to each other through synapses, so synapses are neccessary for the brain.

There’s some risk-reward tradeoff to be analysed there. If you say that all psychiatric drugs are ineffective, you also say that Haloperidol isn’t effective and giving people placebos would be the proper response in an acute psychosis,

I absolutely would.

which is probably something most clinical doctors in psychiatry wouldn’t agree with.

I disagree. As psychiatric disorders cannot be objectively falsified (through testing); humans cannot potentially disprove the claim that antipsychotics are effective at treating Psychotics.

Re #7: Is ADHD really a mental disorder? Isn’t it classified as developmental disorder or developmental disability? The site’s name is a bit unfortunately chosen, but apart from that their content seems to be at least worth a look.

ADHD is classified as a developmental disorder; but that doesn’t make it a developmental disorder. Otherwise, this would be a etymological fallacy.

1. ADHD lacks any objective testing, it relies on subjective testing; I cannot test for ADHD through objective scan.
2. ADHD does not require and use any objective analysis. For developmental disorders, there would be objective analysis to test for it’s existence in children.

• For example, Down Syndrome is a developmental disorder because it affects the development of a human, through a triplication of chromosome 21. The result is that DS affects the development of people different frrom regular development. As the cause of down syndrome is in chromosome 21, it can therefore be detected through genetic testing.

It’s the same reasoning for why I don’t consider Autism to be a developmental disorder.

I wish there was a simple table or list of all tested (types of) medication with their reported efficacy and a pro/contra list of using them, like the review article about antidepressants, but easier to digest. If you have more links and more information, I appreciate you throwing them my way. Maybe I’ll throw some of them into my own wiki.

Yep. Found some websites.

https://www.antidepressantstatistics.com/ https://rxisk.org/drug-search/

I don’t believe in chemical imbalance theory though.

I didn’t say that. I was just using the chemical imbalance theory as an example to show the fallacious reasoning in your argument (that evidence is unneccessary for mainstream claims): “I don’t need to give evidence for a claim this mainstream. Look it up yourselves.”

Yep! (I know some references are blog posts, but mad in america makes good summaries; and also I should get to work on compiling sources I used.)

General

• Studies from drug companies have publication bias.^[1]
• Most pro-psych studies cherry picked their samples to be drug addicts.^[2]
• Pro-psych studies did not account for the active placebo bias.

Antipsychotics

• Damage the brain.^[3]

Antidepressants.

• Are only as effective as placebo.^{[4] [5]}
• Chemical imbalance theory (it wasn’t even a theory tbh, it was just a marketed hypothesis) was disproved.^[6]

Stimulants.

• Under reputable clinical trials, stimulants do not have any real efficacy.^[7]
• Holy shit I’m just finding out that psycho-stimulants can cross the blood-brain barrier!^{[8] [9]} (I’m pissed about this one.)

As mental disorders cannot be objectively falsified through testing; it is impossible to discern a control group from people with a “mental disorder”. proper clinical trials unsurprisingly show this through the drugs being as effective as placebo.

I’ll edit this comment if I find flaws.

I don’t need to give evidence for a claim this mainstream.

So if Chiropratics were mainstream, then I wouldn’t need evidence to trust them. Chemical imbalance theory is mainstream in psychiatry, therefore I can just trust it! /s

Argumentum ad populum and also peak “tRuSt Me BrO”.

That’s anecdotal, not substantial, evidence.

Uh, how?

Psychiatric drugs are straight up placebos that cause harms.

Don’t take psychiatric drugs (edit: ever) is the real advice.

Control. It has to be control at this point; there is no other reason why they would do this…

People seriously still use Signal? lmao

Uh oh. I somehow blocked Dessalines and I can’t unblock them cuz they’re an admin.

I would not consider Matrix an alternatdve to Signal. The Matrix protocol is messy and I had a lot of " matrix moments™"

How is the matrix protocol messy? It had extraneous metadata, but it got removed in a version.

Also, what is a “matrix moment”?

XMPP with omemo is great, no need for a phone number and decentralised. I like it.

Why not just use that then?

What I mean is that obviusly is not as battle tested as PGP/GPG since is not that old and it’s not as spread as it, now.

That’s a problem when choosing security tools. How do you know the reliability of the tool if it hasn’t been battle tested enough?

But PGP is extremely complicated, overextended, with terrible defaults and backwards compatability with some stuff from the stone age.

I would need to scan the GPG source code to try to understand your point, but I don’t have the time or will to do so.

What terrible defaults though? GPG’s defaults seem fine to me. I might be missing stuff tho.

Effectively the same (through pass).

Did you read all of this page? It shows the alternatives. (Matrix, XMPP)

Their as not as old and extended as PGP but their are based on solid cryptography.

Explain.

And in terms of security the Signal protocol is the best with diferenre you can get out there.

https://dessalines.github.io/essays/why_not_signal.html#why-not-signal

SIgnal is just as bad as insecure western social medias.

Why do so many crypto bros favor Signal?

I’ll ask this again: Is age and signify battle tested?

It’s not a good look for the blog author when they suggested using Signal and WhatsApp, proprietary but open-source apps.

Is age and signify battle tested?

Why?

gpg

sigh GitHub? Of all places to post piracy software…

Try finding another SOCKS proxy site.