The main purpose of this blog is an approach that collects lots of unpublished data from existence research that uses measurements that combines together and averages multiple single symptoms. It collects together the data about the effects of treatments on single symptoms then uses software to make this data available to available to doctors to guide better treatment recommendations.
I have the tendency to overcomplicate things. Simply, if there’s a psychiatric (or medical) measurement that averages together the effects of treatments on multiple single symptoms then the data on single symptom effects should be collected together into a set of data then a software program makes it possible to make treatment recommendations based on single or specific presentations of multiple single symptoms. This approach has some purposes and possibilities but the simplicity is data collected from pre existing research then simple software makes it easy to use the data for treatment recommendations. It’s so simple and obvious that it’s probably already being done.
(I have only thought about the psychiatric measurement PANSS – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_and_Negative_Syndrome_Scale – but the theory is about using single symptom data instead of averages to create a set of data from which much can be achieved in the name of care and the spirit of democracy.)
(The main piece has not been published because I want to see if it’s worth carrying on and that is what this is about.)
This approach has many benefits.
1) science and treatment failure
2) care and liberty and free will
3) other things like it can be used around the world irrespective of different diagnostic criteria around the world and different ways doctors diagnose
1) the scientific method and treatment failure
The scientific method is by far the best way to give the right solution (or treatment) on the first attempt.
It’s amazing what science can do. You know that when you flip a coin it lands heads up or tails down 50% of the time. That’s what you know from the use of statistics and averages of the results of many coin tosses but you cannot predict the outcome of the next coin toss without the power of the scientific method. There’s an equation or equations that makes it possible to predict the outcome of every coin toss. With control over the forces involved in a coin toss it’s possible to guarantee that it always lands heads up.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_flipping#Physics
Science makes it possible for an artillery gun to fire a round 10,0000m away and know where it lands with accuracy of 10 metres. The gunner hits the right target from a long distance away every time or almost every time because of the power of science and the scientific method used correctly.
Even more amazing than this is that the advances of science have discovered that all the elements, materials, substances and compounds in this world come from single elements or a combination of elements. The periodic table is the most amazing thing because science has advanced to recognise that over a hundred elements are responsible for all the matter in the world (Wikipedia says over 100 million – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance#:~:text=An%20enormous%20number%20of%20chemical,and%20registered%20in%20public%20databases).
Look around you. How many different substances can you see? How many different materials surrounds you? They all come from either single elements or compounds of elements combined together but there are less than two hundred elements responsible for all the substances you see. That’s because of lots of progress achieved when the scientific method is used correctly. All the diversity of substances are explained as either the elements in the periodic table or a combination of these elements.
What is really extraordinary is that the diversity of substances and elements like iodine is understood. When iodine is heated it doesn’t turn into a liquid and it doesn’t burn. It sublimates which means it goes straight from being a solid to being a gas. Not only do scientists recognise this diversity of iodine but they also understand why it and other substances sublimates.
The scientific method used properly characterises the diversity of iodine. A medical diagnosis is like recognising the diversity of the phenomena that doctors label and treat. The look for things that characterises a diagnosis like scientists look for things that characterises a substance. These characteristics are how they know the difference between one diagnosis and another like how scientists the characteristics of substances.
In these terms a treatment is like something that changes a substance. A medication is something that changes the disease. For example recognise an iron deficiency by the characteristics of the diagnosis. Then they try to change it and that’s the what treatment does just like heating a substance turns it into a liquid or burns it or other things. But iodine is different so when it’s heated it turns into a liquid. It is not the oxidation process of burning that makes it turn straight into a gas. It’s like melting butter but instead of turning into a liquid iodine turns into a gas. This is like a treatment. A treatment changes the iron deficiency like heating butter changes it into a liquid. But iodine turns into a gas and not because it burns does it turn into a gas (whereas when you strike a match someone of the substances in a match turn into carbon dioxide gas and if I remember right then gaseous water is also created).
This precision of the scientific method makes it possible to identify that iodine changes by heating in a different way to other substances. The same way treatment changes something.
So the best treatment is found by using the scientific method the best way. That’s one reason why this approach is important. It achieves a higher level of precision by understanding multiple single symptoms and the effects of different treatments on different presentations of single symptoms.
At the moment there are psychiatric measurements that use the average of multiple single symptoms to decide if a treatment is successful. Their patients can have a range of symptoms with different severities. This is imprecise. The imprecision of psychiatry is that two victims (patients) of psychiatry can have only a few symptoms in common but they can have other symptoms that are not in common. This imprecision means that certain treatments work for some but not for others so the patient ends up facing failed treatment after failed treatment because of the poor use of the scientific method in psychiatry. After these failed treatments then psychiatrists end up relying on trial and error.
Clinical guidelines are created to use the available science to give doctors the best treatment recommendations (instead of relying on trial and error). They involve a lot of time, effort, work and expense. In psychiatry and in schizophrenia clinical guidelines the data they use is collected from the published data in clinical trials. These are the average of the effects of treatments on multiple single symptoms. This is imprecise so it leads to treatment failures.
The approach that is the main purpose of this blog is begins with collecting the data on single symptoms. The collection of data is simply by collecting data from researchers from pre existing trials. Then software is used to make the information about single symptoms available for doctors to use quickly and easily in clinical practice.
This creates a higher level of precision when assigning treatment recommendations. It uses the existing science to create something better than relying on averages. Different treatments have different effects on single symptoms and victims of psychiatry have different symptoms of the same diagnosis. So this approach provides the precision that comes from the scientific method used the right way given only the data from pre existing trials. When treatment fails then they have to rely on trial and error instead of the available science but with the approach I’m talking about in the main piece of this blog there’s the hope of the precision of the scientific method to assign treatments based on the specific presentation of multiple single symptoms and specific effects of treatments.
(Specifically in psychiatry I don’t think doctors know the cause of what they’re treating. Doctors would argue that the best thing possible is to treat the cause not just try to treat the symptoms. I’m agree with this but psychiatrists are treating things that are not illnesses. In psychiatry they don’t know the cause if they believe that they’re treating illnesses and the products of defective brains and biology. This is such a hard point to make because it’s about something that cannot be proven by mathematics, graphs and statistics. It’s simply intuitive to recognise natural mental experiences, natural mental diversity, natural types of the weak and natural mental pain. When it’s recognised as natural then any biological and biological brain differences are recognised as differences. The great tragedies of diversity, the weak and victims are when doctors cannot recognise the difference between a brain difference and a brain defect because they are still prejudiced against what is natural and part of natural diversity – when they’re prejudiced against natural mental diversity, the weak and pain they look at brain scans and misrepresent brain differences as brain defects. There are inordinate and massive harms caused by doctors who cannot recognise the difference between a brain difference and a brain defect. The definition of normalcy is something science cannot prove but when there’s pre existing prejudices of the monsters who call themselves the human race then doctors misrepresent brain differences as brain defects – the absolute worst harms justified as care are because doctors spend their time misrepresenting feeling suicidal as the meaningless symptom and product of a brain defect. How brutal are the monsters who call themselves the human race because in the centuries they’ve tried to care about suicidal individuals they’ve never stopped ignoring the severity of the suffering of suicidal individuals and the awfulness of feeling suicidal? I’m fighting for the protection of assisted suicide because I am victim of what brutalities and brutalities justified as care are done to me without remorse, mercy or limit because they care by ignoring my pain and what they make me feel. The care I face has everything in common with giving painkillers to a man being beaten to death but they won’t stop the beating and they’ll join in with all the merciless and unlimited brutalities necessary to make me feel suicidal in over half of the days in the last quarter century – this is only possible because the monsters who call themselves the human race have no capacity to feel empathy and no empathy is created by the efforts of doctors to misrepresent feeling suicidal as the meaningless symptom of a brain defect. If they are not so cruel and self serving in the name of care when they see mental illness then…? The difference is knowing why suffering against consent is meant to be prevented and limited versus the unfettered and unlimited brutalities that comes naturally to human nature – the former defines care, compassion and humane laws whereas the latter defines the sense of care I face as long as I live. The difference is knowing when to stop making me want to die – the proof of the truth about human nature is endless.)
(There are other flaws such as the lack of precision of psychiatric diagnosis and labels. They cannot tell the difference between powdered salt and cocaine – both are white powders. Most of all is they cannot recognise the difference between cruelty and care – I assert this from too many personal experiences.)
On the diagnosis side it’s actually impossibly hard and impractical to score multiple single symptoms of every patient given the current level of care, science and technology. But it’s certainly the best way to give the right solution on the first attempt when dealing with multiple symptoms. Using the data about every single symptom both in diagnosis and treatment leads the hope of getting the right solution on the first attempt but it is massively time consuming so I expect that only when treatment fails will every single symptom be measured but there are other purposes of this approach.
There’s other potential in this approach. For example collecting the single symptom data can find symptoms that are not yet being solved to then find new areas of research and development of new solutions (aka treatments) for these untreated problems (aka symptoms). Potentially treatments that have been dismissed as useless because on average they don’t work might be found to work on specific problems that current methods and treatments are failing to resolve. These failed treatments fail to reach statistically significant effects because their measure of success is based on the average of multiple effects but by looking at the single symptom effects then it’s possible that these methods and treatments are working to solve things that successful treatments (whose success is based on using averages) fail to solve. This then leads to the understanding of why these failed treatments do work for specific problems and symptoms.
(This software can also record the wishes of patients and individuals for the things they want treated and solved but are not comprehended in the current measurements used in psychiatric and mental health research. In the next part I talk a bit about free will and volition, choices of the individual and respect for what the individual refuses as an ethic not just of care but of democracy and human rights. In this approach there is a reach towards what makes democracy so much better than any other form of government and an effort to strive towards furthering the application of the fundamentals of human rights. It is so great when the scientific method can be used to serve these higher goals and objectives. What are the harms too great of a sense of care that doesn’t care about consent and what the victim refuses and refuses to be made to feel? I have the competency to answer this question with the truth more than anyone I’ve ever met and more. I cannot refuse their brutalities and brutalities justified as care because…? I know too much about the harms of being owned and not cared about by tyranny. My wishes, wants, needs and self interests have been completely ignored by those who purport to care about me so I am the endless victim of those who cannot recognise the difference between cruelty and care but their cruelty and control justified as care is absolutely flawless cruelty.)
Along the same lines as the point above it also might be possible to use single symptom data from measurements used in research into different diagnoses and treatment effects that have in common specific single symptoms. When you look at the use of anticonvulsant drugs that are now used to suppress the traits of victims of the label of bipolar and normalise this type of natural diversity it requires doctors noticing that a drug has other effects than their intended purpose. There maybe other unknown and undiscovered effects that will only be recognised by the best use of the scientific method.
This is a better way to use the scientific method to create better treatment, methods and solutions.
2) Care and liberty
The inception of this approach was because of someone who needed one thing to be solved most of all. She wanted her hallucinations to stop but those who purport to care about those who are victims of the label of schizophrenia could not give her the right solution/treatment.
(This is another example of treatment failure. This approach is the best way to solve these treatment failures. I cannot see any other way to solve this – can you?)
I believe that liberty and free will are things that doctors should care about – I know that this assertion seems crazy to those who cannot recognise the brutality of psychiatric and mental health care.(Psychiatric and mental health care and laws represents a level of tyranny and brutality that has absolutely nothing in common with a sense of care.)
This approach is for doctors who care about what their patient wants and what is the most important thing or things that needs to be solved. It is an approach for doctors who ask questions like “what is the most important thing to you?” because this should be a fundamental of care. A question like this is certainly in the spirit of democracy and only this approach of collecting single symptom data can harness the scientific method to answer this question (to recommend the best treatment for a single symptom or a few symptoms that are most important to the patient).
Care that functions by asking the questions
* what is important to you
* what is most important to you
* what’s the thing you most need solved and treated
* what can I do for you
* what don’t you want
* what do you refuse and complete refuse
* what do you want to feel
* what do you refuse to feel and be made to feel
(There are things more important than not making a suicidal individual want to die again and again? Only “yes” to this question by the standards of every single sadist and monster born and bred evil throughout history – the innate brutality of human nature for suicidal individuals has never changed throughout the existence of psychiatry and the prevail of seeing mental illness. To ignore all of the above as a basis for care it truly only ever serves the self interests in the proof of the truth about the evil, brutal, inhumane and monstrous nature of human nature.)
(The enemies and betrayers of my humanity ignore all of this as their basis for care – the truth about whose being is the most important thing? Who gets whatever they want by forcing someone to live to keep on making them want to die (and by their choices and actions justified as care)? Who is so brutal by nature that they ignore the severity of the suffering of suicidal individuals and the awfulness of feeling suicidal so they accept the severity of the suffering of suicidal individuals and the awfulness of feeling suicidal as their basis for care and laws? All evil and only evil.)
This is the spirit of democracy in these questions and it’s based on fundamentals that should never be ignored – certainly not ignored by doctors. This approach to psychiatric measurements helps serve some of the objectives of doctors who have the competency to care, protect and be humane. Part of the justifications for this approach are the fundamentals of democracy and human rights applied to the medical profession. This approach helps use the scientific method to give the patient what is most important to them and it’s not that expensive to have this democratic sense of care. (The victim of psychiatry who is who founded this line of thinking at the heart of this approach needed most of all for the hallucinations to stop but she would never get the precision of the scientific method used to give her what she needed from the imprecise use of the scientific method by psychiatrists. This approach of using single symptom data to find the best treatment based on what the victim wants and needs most of all is in the spirit of democracy if not medical ethics and compassion.)
These are the questions doctors ask when they are on the side of their patients. Psychiatry creates victims because doctors rule not care.
You can see the transition from brutality and brutality justified as care to care when you think about transgendered individuals. Victims of labels something like gender dysphoria disorder or gender identity disorder would be ruled over and treatment would seek to use the methods of normalisation or forced normalisation, forced treatment to fix the mentally ill. Doctors ruined lives this way and helped to make their victims want to die. (The prejudices of doctors leads to things like homosexuality being medicalised because of all that psychiatrists ignore.)
There’s the medical ethic of do no harm? But they were harming transgendered individuals with this brutality of their sense of care that their victims faced before the recognition of the normalcy and natural mental diversity of those who have – for want of better words – have a different mental gender and psychological gender to their physical gender, the gender they’re born with. They used to rule over transgender individuals and did the enormous harms of tyranny and tyrants and would justify the brutalities of their tyranny as care and in the name of the self interests of their victims.
(If anyone could recognise the difference between cruelty and care my life and how I feel would be completely different and I would never know why I should hate the human race as long as I live. You should know that they’re still not done making me want to die – that’s care?)
I don’t know what force or forces changed them to now have care based on the functions of care in the bullet points above. But now doctors perform sex change operations and treatments.
This approach is to use the information about single symptoms from existing studies so they can give their patient the best solution to their answer to the question that doctors should ask which is “what’s important to you” and the software side of this approach allows multiple choices and decisions about what is most important to the individual.
This is not just a way of thinking that’s fundamental to care. It’s fundamental to liberty, democracy and human rights. The converse of this approach includes helping someone who, for example, doesn’t want to be homosexual to not be homosexual – I completely understand why this is so awful a choice to homosexuals and those who have fought for the liberation of homosexuals and for homosexuality to be recognised as natural mental diversity.
(This is what I mean when I say that psychiatrists don’t know the cause of what they’re treating when they see mental illness.)
(Doctors they care by brutalising suicidal individuals instead of standing in harms way to protect suicidal individuals from brutalities justified as care and the brutalities that comes naturally to human nature to want to do. Have no doubt that this belief of a sense of care exists because of the great efforts of doctors to misrepresent feeling suicidal as the meaningless symptom of a brain defect, of a mental illness. So the best of the monsters who call themselves the human race at caring about suicidal individuals has absolutely no sense of harms too great to do to a suicidal individual so neither does the rest of the monsters who call themselves the human race.)
The approach in this blog involves using the information about multiple single symptoms so potentially it offers a menu of care objectives. By which I mean that every single symptom measured in psychiatric research and psychiatric measurements gives the patient the opportunity to choose what’s important to them then the approach uses the scientific method as it should be used to provide the best treatment and solution for what’s most important to the patient and individual.
This is a function of both care and democracy and human rights – obviously not explicitly but it should be explicit that the fundamentals of democracy and human rights should be fundamental to any sense of care including medical care.
3) other things
This approach of using single symptom data and software to help doctors make treatment recommendations works around the world and with different ways doctors diagnose
The efforts to put this approach into practice doesn’t just benefit the nation that decides to do this.
The approach relies on language to define diagnosis and single symptoms but these are easily translated into different languages. Fundamental to the approach is mathematics and numbers are the only universal language.
There are different diagnostic criteria around the world like ICD and DSM. Doctors also have different ways of making a diagnosis. This approach works with all of these different ways of diagnosing things because it is about single symptoms and the numbers of different single symptoms and treatment effects.
Many studies around the world are done and they’re published in different languages but mathematics is the universal language and this approach is based on mathematics.
There’s so much time, effort, work and expense put into all this research and there’s also a lot of work put into creating clinical guidelines. This approach only requires contacting researchers to get the data on the effects of treatments on multiple single symptoms.
But it’s an approach that works around the world.
The use of software makes this approach also serve the same needs and purposes of the way clinical guidelines are currently used
Without software it takes too long for doctors to use the information about multiple single symptoms in clinical practice.
Speed is one of the necessities of the way clinical guidelines are used to use the existing science. To rely on averages is quick and easy when relying on paper or single document based methods of providing the best treatment recommendations. The time of doctors is expensive and it would take too much time to go through all the information necessary to achieve this approach without the use of software.
The software allows for so many possibilities of rapidly using the information about best treatments based on collecting data from existing studies about single symptoms instead of relying on averages like how clinical guidelines currently work.
When you read the main piece of this blog you see a few possibilities not just for picking one single symptom to fix. The speed of accessing information about single symptoms to serve the objective of solving one thing important to the individual using software outclasses any other method but also the use of software makes other possibilities feasible and practical to use in clinical practice just like are the necessities of the current use of clinical guidelines. Both what is important to the doctor and the patient can be factored in and the software makes it quick and easy to do this. Not just one vitally important thing important to the patient or the doctor can be factored in – multiple selections of what is important can be factored in and the information about the right solution is quickly accessed because of the use of software to do this job better than how the current use of clinical guidelines works.
The primary amount of time and effort spent on this approach creates the data collected from researchers and existing studies about single symptom data. This would seem to be too much effort if the objectives are not recognised. But once this data is collected then it’s useful all around the world. This approach is different from the different diagnostic systems and criteria in different countries and around the world. It speaks the universal language of mathematics and numbers so irrespective of the variety of different (psychiatric) diagnostic systems, criteria and methods anyone around the world can use the data about single symptoms and use the software whatever the software approach is (translation of the terms of diagnosis and symptoms is easy and even easier when it’s web based so Google Translate can overcome the language barrier).
This approach of collecting single symptom data only requires one nation to do the data collection. The current work to create clinical guidelines for the same diagnosis around the world requires a lot of time and effort in every country. But this approach only requires one effort to create the set of data about single symptoms collected from researchers and existing research. Research in other countries can contribute to this set of data because the data from existing studies in other countries is in the language of mathematics and numbers. There will be a difference in the measurements used by which I mean that different psychiatric measurements used in research into the same diagnosis will involve some single symptoms in common but there will be differences. These differences are handled by simple software that allows the option to select either the average of all the different psychiatric measurements or just to select one measurement that a doctor believes is the right measurement.
The efforts to collect all this data pales in comparison to all the efforts to create clinical guidelines for the same diagnosis in different countries. This set of data is useful whether it’s psychiatrists who use the Chinese or British or American systems of diagnosis and measurements. The efforts of collecting data also pales in comparison to all the work done in the clinical trials that exists already. The software makes it viable and practical to use in clinical practice.
The objectives are as important as the solutions of this approach are.
Let me finish with a photo. Is it a fruit or a vegetable? It is part of diversity.
(Throughout the decade I’ve been thinking about this approach I face what a species of monsters born and bred evil wants to do to a suicidal individual because of what monsters born and bred evil who see mental illness can and cannot bear to do to a suicidal individual. Apathetic and limited when it comes to anything that resembles humane care but unlimited in the brutalities they want to do to a suicidal individual – this is the proof of the truth about the evil, brutal, inhumane and monstrous nature of human nature. The proof of the truth about human nature is a sense of care and laws that wants no limit to the brutalities that can be done to a suicidal individual – I know this from too many personal experiences of what happens because I live among a species of monsters born and bred evil. They accept the severity of the suffering of suicidal individuals and the awfulness of feeling suicidal even in the centuries they’ve tried to care about suicidal individuals and even as a consequence of choices and actions justified as care – that’s the proof of the truth about human nature. It’s the complete opposite of care. It’s a sense of brutality. Too many cannot recognise the difference between cruelty and care because they see mental illness so their care is apathetic but their cruelty is absolutely flawless cruelty.)
(How many suicidal individuals would choose a sense of care that understands why death by consent is not the worst thing possible? How much do suicidal individual want to face a sense of brutality that accepts the severity of the suffering of suicidal individuals and the awfulness of feeling suicidal as acceptable consequences, a sense of brutality that makes it worse than becoming suicidal, a sense of brutality that has no qualms or hesitation when inflicting further suicidal feelings and worsening things? There are things more important than not making a suicidal individual want to die again and again? Only “yes” by the standards of every single monster born and bred evil throughout history – the innate brutality of human nature for suicidal individuals has never changed throughout the existence of psychiatry and the prevail of seeing mental illness.)
(I think very little good has come from the existence of psychiatry and the prevail of seeing mental illness. The existence of these as a basis for care has done so much harm to me and harms done by enormous brutalities justified as care. It is a system of brutality I face that comes from seeing mental illness not a sense of (humane) care. I was not born to be normal and to this day the monsters who call themselves the human race have never wanted to stop brutalising me for this. They ignore my pain, what they make me feel and brutality – this is a sense of brutality but by the standards of the monsters who call themselves the human race this is a sense of care for suicidal individuals and a basis for laws in the centuries they’ve tried to care about suicidal individuals. The limit to my suffering and the limit to their brutalities they ignore but this is how they care about suicidal individuals in the centuries they’ve tried to care about suicidal individuals – that’s everything wrong with the existence of psychiatry and everything evil in seeing mental illness because it’s a sense of brutality based on ignoring the severity of the suffering of suicidal individuals and the awfulness of feeling suicidal as the meaningless symptoms of brain defects. I’m extremely anti-psychiatry. At the same time I believe in the individual’s choices and this approach tries to serve free will and what is important to the individual by using the scientific method as best as possible using only the pre existing research.)
A tormented soul and a journey of thinking a decade old - for the truth that neither care nor science exists whenever and wherever psychiatry exists. (I wasn't born to be normal and they have never stopped brutalising me because of this.) 