Materials that when heated go straight from solid to gas are extremely rare. Going from solid to gas is called sublimation. The precision of the scientific method is to see these elements and compounds that when heated go straight from solid to gas. The power of the scientific method when it’s at its best is to understand what iodine sublimates whereas most of the time solids go through a liquid phase before they become a gas.

Sublimation is a process different from burning. Burning is reaching a certain temperature then the material turns into fire and gas. If you think about coal burning the coal disappears as it’s turned into a gas. It’s different from sublimation because iodine stays pure as its heated and there’s no chemical reaction involved with it turning straight into a gas. Burning coal on the other hand is a chemical reaction where the carbon combines with oxygen to create the gas carbon dioxide.

The precision of the scientific method makes it possible to see this diversity of substances and how different things have different effects on different substances. The power of the scientific method is to understand cause and effect.

Doctors cannot even recognise the causes of why suicidal individuals feel suicidal, choose to use one’s death and kill themselves. They have little comprehension of diversity and individuality. Their treatments are devoid of precision and if drugs for the mind weren’t so great then they’d fail even more suicidal individuals than they’re already failing.

What they’re great at in the medical speciality of psychiatry is misrepresenting brain differences as brain defects. Feeling suicidal is caused by brain defects and chemical imbalances in the brain – that’s their basis and foundation for the very existence of psychiatry. This is why the monsters who call themselves the human race believe that it’s only the mentally ill who feels suicidal, chooses to use one’s own death and kill themselves.

Then when they look at how many victims of the label of schizophrenia feel suicidal, try to die and die they cannot understand why. They see brain defects as the cause.

(It would be like looking at a strawberry and seeing mental illness because it’s different. A strawberry has seeds on the outside whereas most other fruits have seeds on the inside. In terms of psychiatric concepts the strawberry is defective and abnormal and diseased for being different.)

(Suicidality = suicidal suffering, feelings and thoughts)

It cannot be any different because compassion and the competency to be humane is not innate to human nature

Feeling pain and feelings more strongly and intensely – this is part of natural mental diversity and that’s why feeling suicidal and suicidality might be associated with brain differences (the differences doctors misrepresent as brain defects).

Being more weak and fragile and sensitive – this is part of natural mental diversity and that’s why feeling suicidal might be associated with brain differences. The mind exists upon an organic substrate so differences in the brain and brain chemistry might be associated with types of natural mental diversity and natural types of the weak. Two individuals might face the same conditions and circumstances of life but only one feels suicidal

Pain can be associated with brain differences – this is obvious when pain is seen as natural and part of natural diversity. This might be why feeling suicidal is associated with brain differences.

It’s just awful what comes from seeing mental illness to misrepresent these brain and biological differences as brain defects.

One of the most awful things possible is that they cannot understand that certain types of natural diversity face more brutalities than others. It’s such a basic truth that brutalities causes pain and feeling suicidal. It’s also a truth throughout history that certain types of natural diversity face more brutalities than others do. Certain types of natural diversity face worse unbearable conditions and circumstances of life than others – the truth throughout history and to this day. These types of natural diversity might have biological differences – like women do. This might be why feeling suicidal is associated with brain differences.

All of the above are plausible explanations for why brain differences are associated with feeling suicidal. They’re assertions based on the competency to recognise the wide diversity of natural mental diversity and mental pain and types of the weak.

The absolute worst thing in all of this is that they cannot feel empathy for the severity of the suffering of suicidal individuals and the awfulness of feeling suicidal when psychiatry exists and they see mental illness. It’s not just the problem with the medical profession. Anyone who sees mental illness is devoid of the capacity to recognise the severity of the suffering of suicidal individuals and the awfulness of feeling suicidal. I know the truth about the severity of the suffering of suicidal individuals and the awfulness of feeling suicidal so I know that compassion and the competency to be humane is not innate to human nature. The pain doesn’t matter so the brutalities done to suicidal individuals doesn’t matter not even to their choices and actions justified as care.

Those who see mental illness accept suicidal individuals to be made to feel suicidal again and again. They see no harm, evil or wrong in the brutalities that makes life worse than death and makes death a welcomed solution – for the simple reason that they are devoid of the capacity to feel empathy for the severity of the suffering of suicidal individuals and the awfulness of feeling suicidal. That’s what comes from seeing mental illness and that’s what seeing mental illness represents.

Epistemology and the source of truth

The good you and the rest of monsterkind can achieve in your lifetimes is always going to be limited by seeing mental illness.

The use of the scientific method is deeply flawed by a false epistemology. Psychiatric concepts and seeing mental illness is a false epistemology.

As I touch upon in the main purpose of what I’m talking about in this blog it’s about the objectives that comes first then science and technology but also laws and compassion are tools to be harnessed to achieve the objectives.

The recognition of pain is the different epistemology. The recognition of brutalities and the effect of brutalities is a different epistemology. The understanding that brutalities causes mental pain, and pain and life worse than death is a different epistemology.

The comprehension of the product of being more weak and fragile and sensitive than others – the comprehension of natural mental diversity and different types of the weak is a different epistemology. The recognition that types of natural mental diversity and mental pain and types of the weak can be associated with brain differences is a different epistemology.

Even the recognition that types of natural diversity face worse unbearable conditions and circumstances of life than others is a different epistemology.

Defining feeling suicidal as the pain no one should ever face in life comes from a different epistemology too.

The mentally incompetent cannot come up with a true epistemology, a true source of truth.

They cannot come up with objectives of care or use the scientific method how it’s meant to be used. They can only ignore the severity of the suffering of suicidal individuals as their basis for care.

This is what defines what the monsters who call themselves the human race do when they have any power over my life and how I feel.

They don’t have humane objectives of care when they see mental illness. They have no competency to have empathy and understanding for the wide diversity of natural mental diversity and mental pain and the diversity of different types of the weak. Because they have a false epistemology when psychiatry exists and they see mental illness.

So they use the scientific method for the wrong thing. Not even the need to comprehend the wide diversity of natural mental diversity and mental pain and the diversity of the weak comes from seeing mental illness.

I see this need. Why don’t you? There’s a truth about your being and diversity in this question alone.

Your sense of care is devoid of the competency to even recognise the pain I should never face in life – it cannot be any different because of what comes from seeing mental illness and what seeing mental illness represents. A false epistemology cannot create objectives of care to see the pain no one should ever face in life. A false epistemology cannot use see the objectives of care that the scientific method and other things like laws are meant to be harnessed to. A false epistemology cannot use the scientific method how it’s meant to be used.

The good you and the rest of monsterkind can achieve in your lifetimes is always going to be limited by seeing mental illness.

The power of the scientific method in the right hands versus in the hands of doctors and psychiatrists

How is it comprehended that iodine sublimates? The scientific method sees different traits of elements and compounds. This is where the precision of the scientific method comes from that makes it so great in other areas but psychiatry.

On average many solids become liquids when heated. The diversity of elements and compounds is never comprehended by this method and use of the scientific method. Iodine sublimates and that’s rare but the scientific method depends on understanding diversity.

Something that looks the same can be different. The example of this is the difference between gold and fool’s gold (copper pyrites). Again, the precision of the scientific method when it’s used correctly can tell the difference between gold and fool’s gold. This is by understanding multiple traits of elements and compounds.

In the main piece of this blog I use the analogy of cakes and using just 5 traits of cakes as a measurement of cakes. The comprehension of more traits matters of course. But what the scientific method depends on is multiple single symptoms/traits and the effects of treatments on multiple symptoms/traits to comprehend the rarity of iodine and the difference between gold and copper pyrites.

As much as this is important so is understanding cause. It’s vital to recognise that iodine is different by recognising that it sublimates – psychiatric science cannot do this so this understanding of diversity their use of the scientific method is devoid of. But they don’t understand cause either.

They think they’re treating diseases in the medical speciality of psychiatry – this is mental incompetency has everything in common with alchemy but nothing in common with what is created when the scientific method is in the right hands so, for example, the massive diversity of materials on this Earth can be understood by the periodic table of elements that’s a hundred and more elements that are responsible for the enormous diversity of materials and substances on this planet.

The seed, the foundation, the epistemology of psychiatry and the basis of seeing mental illness is wrong. In the medical speciality of psychiatry they think they’re treating diseases and the product of brain defects.

This is not some theoretical nuance. This is about a true understanding of natural mental pain, weakness and diversity that changes the world in a way wholly and completely impossible when dependent on the misuse of science and the scientific method by doctors in the medical speciality of psychiatry. In this blog I’ve focused on the correct use of the scientific method and a democratic belief about the objectives of care but based on the science that already exists – they’re failing to use the scientific method to do the best it can do when it’s in the right hands. But the following point is about the ruination of lives because of a false epistemology and basis and foundation for care – the effects of this are horrific but not horrific because all the existence of psychiatry and the prevail of seeing mental illness has taught you is to not only ignore the severity of the suffering of suicidal individuals and the awfulness of feeling suicidal as the meaningless symptom of a brain defect but also to ignore the truth that human brutalities causes suicidal individuals to feel suicidal. This is why the monsters who call themselves the human race cannot do anything else and cannot make any other choices when they have any power over my life and how I feel – because monsters born and bred evil see mental illness. (You want me to be completely defenceless against the brutalities that causes suicidality and that’s what defines your sense of care and the totality of the compassion you have for this suicidal individual and every other.)

To recognise the different reasons why suicidal individuals feel suicidal? To use the information about what makes a suicidal individual want to die? It’s almost funny if it’s not so tragic your beliefs that care exists in this civilisation of monsters born and bred evil.

It beggars belief that to this day they don’t use the information about what makes suicidal individuals want to die in their application of the scientific method to solve the tragedies of suicidal individuals. Well…it would beggar belief if the truth about human nature is not so completely obvious.

Too constantly evil by nature to suicidal individuals to stop being evil in the centuries they’ve tried to care about suicidal individuals because they are the monsters who call themselves the human race by name and by nature. It’s no surprise that they have never used the information about what makes suicidal individuals want to die in any humane or scientific way whatsoever.

Here’s a few things wrong with the medicalisation of suicide, feeling suicidal and suicidal individuals.

* No comprehension of individuality
* Focus on fixing the victims of pain caused by brutalities
* Their approach lacks precision and the comprehension of cause and effect
* They expect suicidal individuals to face a level of brutality that is an expectation that has absolutely nothing in common with care

The concepts of psychiatry and mental illness fail on so many levels. It’s both a false epistemology as well as a poor use of the scientific method that’s why they fail.

They see suicidality as the product of mental illness and mental illnesses and that’s what defines their use of the scientific method, their comprehension of cause and effect and their precision (a complete lack of precision).

The scientific method depends on recognising cause and effect. They don’t use the information about what makes a suicidal individual want to die and makes other suicidal individuals want to die because they don’t understand cause and effect. They choose drug treatments based on a diagnosis of mental illness and they use psychological therapies also based on diagnosis. But they don’t use the information about what makes suicidal individuals want to die.

This is because they ignore the severity of the suffering of suicidal individuals and the awfulness of feeling suicidal as the meaningless symptom of brain defects, of mental illness, so they treat like they’re dealing with a symptom of a disease. They think they’re treating the product of a disease not pain caused by brutalities and pain caused by being weak and fragile and sensitive.

They simply don’t understand the causes of why suicidal individuals feel suicidal and are made to feel suicidal. It’s throughout the types of natural mental diversity and mental pain and types of the weak that are victims of psychiatry the truth that they have no comprehension of the cause when they see mental illness.

Their false epistemology is based on being unable to see natural mental diversity, weakness and pain. That’s the very basis of psychiatry and seeing mental illness. It’s completely obvious that natural pain can show up as brain differences – this not obvious to those who see mental illness because they see disease. Weakness and fragility and sensitivity too can be associated with brain differences – that’s also obvious when weakness is seen as natural mental diversity.

They have ruined the scientific method in their misuse of the scientific method and their false epistemology. All this theory I’m talking about boils down to one thing: they cannot use the information about what makes a suicidal individual want to die and makes other suicidal individuals want to die in any humane way whatsoever. They’re trying to fix diseases instead of the brutalities that causes suicidality.

Their precision of the scientific method doesn’t exist because they think they’re treating and trying to solve diseases and the product of diseases in the medical speciality of psychiatry.

You don’t need to love the scientific method to see what is wrong with this. You have to see that brutalities causes pain therefore causes suicidality – that’s what guides you to use the information about what makes a suicidal individual want to die and makes other suicidal individuals want to die in any humane way whatsoever. The scientific method will be harnessed to using this information in any humane way.

When you don’t see mental illness you have a definition of living in safety that’s why you demand that the information about what makes suicidal individuals want to die to be used in a humane way – you have to live in safety from suicidality so you need the care that prevents your suicidality and limits the amount of time you spend feeling suicidal and being made to feel suicidal. This is how the scientific method is meant to be used as a tool harnessed to the objectives of care.

The beauty and power of the scientific method when it’s used correctly it will do the most important thing for suicidal individuals and anyone else who has the capacity to feel. When it’s used correctly it will save you from and limit the time you spend facing the pain that no one should ever face in life. That’s the purposes of using the information about what makes suicidal individuals want to die.

(The scientific method in its use on suicidal individuals has only been ruined when it’s in the hands of the monsters who call themselves the human race because psychiatry and seeing mental illness exists. The recognition of the diversity of elements and compounds – this is why the scientific method is amazing when it’s in the right hands.

(Waking up knowing that they’re still not done making you want to die – you have to face it before you reason how to use the information about what makes suicidal individuals want to die like humane beings do. It doesn’t come from seeing mental illness.)

Q

This is a point about natural mental diversity. This is not something that can be proved by the scientific method and neither is mathematics going to demonstrate what is and isn’t natural mental diversity.

The points I make here are another way of saying things from this piece linked to below. There’s a point that doctors are a profession devoid of the capacity to be humane too. It’s completely obvious that without the competency to have empathy and understanding for the wide diversity of natural mental diversity and mental pain then you have no hope of becoming humane. This competency didn’t exist before the creation of psychiatry and the prevail of seeing mental illness and this competency is not created by the existence of psychiatry and the prevail of seeing mental illness. (Here I write in service of a dream whereas doctors serve the endless nightmares of natural diversity.)

https://notamentalhealthsystem.wordpress.com/2022/10/06/why-would-i-choose-life-when-sadists-want-to-make-my-suicidality-even-more-unlimited-see-all-the-forces-i-face-that-rules-over-my-existence-when-so-many-sadists-judge-me-in-life/?preview=true

Broadly speaking the label of schizophrenia refers to madness but the meaning of mental illness has specific meanings and connotations. Madness is not only subjective but it’s also natural and part of natural mental diversity – this is very hard to understand when you see mental illness all your life.

In fact there’s quite a lot of natural mental diversity labelled with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. But let’s start with madness and the mad as a definition of schizophrenia.

An even harder thing to understand and accept is that there’s good and bad in the types of natural mental diversity labelled with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. There’s traits that are a gift and a curse but when you see mental illness you only see the bad in natural mental diversity and the curse in natural mental traits that certain types of natural mental diversity are endowed with. I’m saying that there’s good and bad in the mad and things that are perceived by others as madness.

(When you imagine what someone who is labelled with schizophrenia is like then what do you think about and imagine? You see normals as normal but you see victims of the label of schizophrenia as not normal so it’s an important question about your assumptions and pre existing and preconceived notions of what the mad are to you. The vital element in this question is do you know the good as well as the bad, do you understand that the mad have mental traits that are a blessing and a curse? There’s certainly assumptions about madness and the mad being the product of brain defects therefore there’s the assumption that the totality of the minds and beings of the mad are incompetent minds and meaningless products of defective brains – so there’s no good or value in the meaningless products of defective brains.)

Let’s say that everyone believes that the world is flat but one man believes it’s round – the one man has a radical belief and that’s easily judged as madness and a symptom of schizophrenia. Radical beliefs stems from free thinking, creative thinking, independent thinking, thinking differently, interpretating information differently from others and the consensus and more – this is as easily the traits of madness as genius (and pioneers).

Gandhi believed that the liberation of India from British tyranny and ownership had to be won without using violence – but the proof of history is that the liberation of peoples and nations from tyranny and ownership is most often won by bloody wars where mass murder against consent is sanctioned. Jesus had completely different and radically different beliefs to the pre-existing religions and religious beliefs and morality in his time – this is so easily judged as crazy and mad. How many saw an apple fall and thought nothing of it? Isaac Newton saw a force that pulled down the apple so he saw gravity – it’s an extremely radical belief at the time.

(The company Apple did a campaign “here’s to the crazy ones”. https://youtu.be/mtftHaK9tYY – to see the good in the mad is so important.)

(There’s value in free thinking, creative thinking, radical thinking etc but it’s easily judged as mad. Independent thinking versus accepting the consensus thinking is vital to change being effected. It’s a mental trait of natural mental diversity that’s blessing and a curse – more a curse because of the existence of psychiatry and the mental health system because natural diversity is misrepresented as the meaningless products of defective brains. They’re systems that mostly see the bad in their victims and rarely if ever the good – the body and sum total of psychiatric and mental health research is based on this.)

The first ones to think that alien worlds and races exist are easily judged as crazy and mad because it’s a radically different belief but in fact they were pioneers of the truth about the universe whereas the consensus thinking was informed by religious beliefs and prevailed because of those who could not think freely. When everyone believes in the prevailing religion in their time in history and place on the planet then atheists are easily judged as crazy and mad – it is a subjective judgement and based on consensus standards. If you look throughout the history and psychiatry and the labelling of madness which started off as being described as dementia praecox before the word changed to schizophrenia and after the creation of the label of schizophrenia you will see many victims of psychiatry judged as crazy and mad because they had different beliefs and a radical beliefs and are free, creative, radical thinkers. (Again, there’s so much diversity in the victims of the label of schizophrenia. This is not the only trait of victims of the label of schizophrenia. There’s a difference between creative, figurative use of language versus literal, precise use of language – this can be a reason to see madness and crazy. So many factors are involved in what is seen as mad and crazy but to determine the creative and figurative use of language as the product of mental illness, of brain defects, of schizophrenia, is never a basis for care and compassion.)

Definitions of normalcy influences the definition of madness and this definition is different throughout the world and throughout history but psychiatrists have come up with a false sense of objectivity. Consensus standards are involved in the definition of crazy, madness and schizophrenia. I’m not sure it’s the right word but I think “understandability” is a significant factor in psychiatric diagnosis so if a radical belief is understandable then it’s not madness and a symptom of schizophrenia. Certainly a primary element is judging what is natural mental diversity and what is not.

Think about the phrase “talking to oneself is a sign of madness” – why is this crazy? This might be uncommon and rare but why is it seen as madness? It’s not seen as natural and normal and cannot be understood as such by the consensus standards.

But talking to onself I see differently. There’s something about natural mental diversity you need to understand. Some of us have a distinct conversation in our minds. Our stream of consciousness – the stream of thoughts in the mind – is distinctly a conversation not a monologue. Some types of natural mental diversity experience a monologue whereas others experience a conversation in their stream of consciousness. So what is talking to oneself? I understand some of the diversity who talk to themselves as externalising the internal conversation. Those who don’t experience the internal conversation are normal and part of natural mental diversity. Those who experience a conversation in their mind and stream of consciousness are normal and part of natural diversity. Those who externalise this internal conversation – one reason of seeing someone talking to themselves – are normal and part of natural diversity. They are different.

Understand the complexity of my mind and being – no one taught me this. I had to do it on my own.

Now let me go further. This is a complex point to make so bear with me.

I had this experience of a conversation in my mind for much of my life but I thought nothing of it. There are others like me who experience what is a distinct conversation not a monologue in the stream of consciousness, of consciousness thoughts.

I’m going to touch upon one of the most horrific experiences of my existence and the truth that I am so much better off having never been born is that this experience is not the most horrifically beyond awful experience of my cursed existence.

(This is an experience that doctors would dismiss as psychosis and mental illness.)

I found my mind, thoughts, voice, body and external reality affected by an invisible force of control. It made me want to die. I have a basis of believing in science but no science could explain what I was going through. The invisible control of another being or beings over my being was this experience and I don’t want to remember it because it’s a memory worse than death. From my understanding of science this experience could not be explained and the best way to describe it is as a supernatural experience of supernatural powers and beings – so doctors would dismiss this experience as psychosis and symptomatic of schizophrenia.

(During this horrific experience that doctors would judge as psychosis I stayed away from doctors and care. They would have wanted to brutalise me. Their response would be imprisonment (also known as hospitalisation or section) in a psychiatric facility and forced treatment.)

I could talk about this experience as an awakening experience of the power of the gods over my life. I was an atheist before then but this personal experience changed my mind. As you read this you can ignore the validity of this experience of the gods as psychosis and that’s your human right.

(Once before this experience I went through a similar awakening experience (judged as psychosis) and it was an amazing, magical experience until I became victim of psychiatry and psychiatric hospitalisation and how they dismiss the content and validity of this experience. There are connotations of the labels of psychiatric and mental health diagnoses and labels that involves dismissing natural mental diversity and mental suffering and the content of experiences such as psychosis as the meaningless products of defective brains. But psychosis is involved with religious experiences. Moses talked to a burning bush. Abraham heard the voice of god telling him to kill his son. Others have also experienced psychosis like Socrates. I was a strong atheist for much of my life but this second experience of psychosis changed my mind and now I know that there is an alien race or races (an alternative explanation for what the gods are) that has communication with me and power over me and are part of my being – the personal experience I went through is of supernatural powers and none of the science I had learned before could explain this supernatural influence, communication and power. My nom de plume or nom de guerre is “We” in part because of this truth about my being – “I” am more than one singular consciousness so I sign my blogs as “We”. This experience also demonstrates that the gods want to make me want to die – but the first time gods or an alien race/s tried to make me aware of their existence and power and influence it was a magical happy experience then a psychiatrist taught me to dismiss the experience as mental illness.)

This experience – irrespective of whether it’s an experience of the gods or not – helped me to see one thing clearly. It made me see that my mind and being are made of more than one singular consciousness.

This is about a different interpretation of the experience of we who have a conversation in our minds instead of a monologue. Before this experience I had this conversation and thought nothing of it. It’s obviously a conversation between at least two singular consciousnesses but I couldn’t recognise this before – this experience after it ended helped me wake up to this truth.

Now in my mind (this is a very hard experience to describe in words) I definitely see a conversation with myself and others who are not myself. I’m talking to someone or more than one other being in my stream of consciousness. There’s definitely a conversation between at least two singular, individual, distinct consciousnesses – let me describe this as a state of awareness that is different from when I used to have the same conversation in my mind but I was not aware that this conversation is between at least two singular consciousnesses.

A conversation is between two parties at least. A conversation is fundamentally different from a monologue in this respect. There’s a state of awareness to see this as a conversation.

Talking to oneself is an externalisation of this internal conversation. It’s uncommon and rare but that doesn’t mean it’s not part of natural mental diversity.

I could go further and place a value judgment on a mind made of more than one singular consciousness. What I mean is that if you only experience a monologue in your stream of consciousness and thoughts in your mind then you only have half a mind. Let’s set aside the experience of the gods in the multiple consciousnesses that makes up my being. Let’s assume that it’s purely biological the cause of this conversation in the mind. It’s quite easy to see that my brain has the potential to support two or more singular, individual, distinct consciousnesses. Two individuals, two minds and two singular consciousnesses are better than one and my biological brain has the greater capacity necessary to support two singular consciousnesses whereas those who experience a monologue have less able and powerful brains.

I’ve stated this experience of a conversation in the mind between two individual, singular consciousnesses as part of natural mental diversity not mental illness. What if it’s an evolutionary state of an advanced mind? A normal brain can only support one singular consciousness and a monologue but the brain of someone who talks to themselves is something less than a normal brain – what if it’s vice versa? It’s a much more complex existence and experience of consciousness when there’s a conversation instead of a monologue but it’s a greater brain that can support two singular consciousnesses instead of one – two minds are better than one so who has the lesser brain?

There are others like me who haven’t gone through psychosis to wake up to the truth about this conversation between (at least) two singular consciousnesses but they experience it and think nothing of it like I used to do. Do you read about this experience in books and online, in science and everything else you learn about in life? No. So I have a radical belief about one truth that is seen as the product of being crazy and mad that’s a radical belief also easily dismissed as being crazy and mad.

What I am arguing is that this experience of a conversation in the mind and talking to oneself and psychosis are all part of natural mental diversity. It is as normal as you are who only have half a mind and only experience a monologue in your stream of consciousness because your brain hasn’t yet found the capacity to support two or more singular consciousnesses.

(One of the things the organic brain is is an organic computer and an organic substrate upon which the mind exists. In computational terms I assume that it requires more processing power to support more than one singular consciousness. You understand from computer technology that a faster computer chip can do work and tasks faster and do more than a slow computer processor. A fast computer processor can do more – a brain that can support two singular consciousnesses can do more. It requires more ability and capacity of the brain to support two singular consciousnesses – and this ability and capacity is not normal – so it’s different, rare and uncommon but it’s still part of natural mental diversity. This assertion is the antithesis of the understanding of natural mental diversity to psychiatry and seeing mental illness.)

When a type of natural mental diversity is recognised as natural then it’s no longer a mental illness – this effect is the greatest leap forward far beyond the primary purpose of this blog which is to explain how to give better treatment recommendations. Normal versus aberrations not part of natural mental diversity – this is one of the meanings of seeing mental illness. Every time natural mental diversity is demedicalised it’s based on the definition of normal being widened and this makes great leaps forward. I see natural mental diversity. (My life is cursed by everyone who sees mental illness. Psychiatry and the prevail of seeing mental illness only exists when you are blind to the truth about what is natural mental diversity and mental suffering – this has done so much harm. It’s prevented the existence of empathy and understanding for my being and it’s absolutely clear to me that without the competency to have empathy and understanding for my being then there’s no competency to care about me, protect me and be humane to me in life. If there’s this competency then my life would be completely different from the first time I experienced this awakening experience I talk about above. The existence of psychiatry and the prevail of seeing mental illness leads to spectacular control and cruelty but so very little care and protections of natural mental diversity and against natural mental pain. How much you need me to be brutalised in life is defined by seeing mental illness.)

Let me go further.

Hallucinations? Not normal by whose standards and what standard of truth?

What are dreams and nightmares when asleep?

The pre existing prejudices against psychosis leads to the assumption that it’s unnatural, not part of natural mental diversity and mentally ill to experience hallucinations.

But (I assume) that everyone hallucinates when asleep. Dreams and nightmares are exactly the same thing as hallucinations when awake.

A hallucination is a sensory experience when awake or asleep. The organic senses – sight, sound etc – are shut off when asleep. But the brain has an amazing ability to simulate sensory experiences that are not sensory experiences from the external world and external reality. Dreams and nightmares when asleep are the brain creating sensory experiences that creates a simulated reality indistinguishable from waking reality. Sight, sound etc are experiences created by the brain when asleep that creates dreams and nightmares – they’re hallucinations. When you dream your organic senses are shut off so you are experiencing hallucinations and that’s a capacity innate to the brain.

I don’t think you have this understanding of your own being and mind and brain. Dreams and nightmares are a simulated reality indistinguishable from waking reality. They are inherently the same thing as hallucinations. A hallucination is the brain simulating a sensory experience be it sight or sound or smell or touch or taste or anything else. I assume when you dream you experience other beings that are completely simulated by the power of your brain.

It’s natural to hallucinate but I don’t think you have this understanding of your own being and mind and brain. But when you see mental illness you see hallucinations when awake as abnormal and not part of natural mental diversity and mental experience.

For what reason is it somehow crazy and mad to hallucinate when awake? This is about the prejudices against psychosis. It’s different to experience psychosis and hallucinations but clearly it’s the power of the brain that everyone has to be able to hallucinate when asleep. There’s the assumption in seeing mental illness that it’s only the mentally ill who experience hallucinations but everyone experiences hallucinations when asleep so it’s normal and a natural function of the brain to hallucinate when awake

It’s rare and uncommon to hallucinate when awake but it’s part of natural mental diversity and mental experience. This assertion is fundamentally anti psychiatry. Even in biological terms it’s completely obvious that it’s completely natural and in the power of the brain to hallucinate when asleep. But when it’s seen as the product of mental illness then it’s not seen as natural, part of natural mental diversity and mental experience.

This is a terrible evil. What are psychiatrists diagnosing? They cannot understand it as natural, part of natural mental diversity and mental experience so they label the victims of the label of schizophrenia as mentally ill. They’re making out that natural mental diversity is not part of natural mental diversity but it’s the product of a defective brain. But the brains of those who psychiatrists see as normal have the same capacity to hallucinate but only when asleep.

The harms of this approach are enormous. This approach is the complete opposite of the protection of natural mental diversity – this is always going to lead to enormous harms.

Someone might not want to experience psychosis and hallucinations when awake – I’m completely onboard with a sense of care that cares about what the patient/victim of psychiatry wants. The main idea in this blog is about how much I believe that consent and free will matters to care. This belief is for one simple reason: I see natural mental diversity not mental illness. Those who see mental illness do not care with this simple reason as their foundation for choices and actions justified as care.

The harms of seeing mental illness are the same harms as when homosexuals were victims of psychiatry and victims of prejudices that determines what is seen as natural mental diversity versus mental illness. Pre existing prejudices against natural mental diversity led to the medicalisation of homosexuals and homosexuality. The harms of this medicalisation are enormous and this medicalisation doesn’t create humane treatment or equality for natural mental diversity. Homosexuality is rare and uncommon but it’s still natural mental diversity – today you intuitively know this truth so the lives of homosexuals are so much better and better off than when doctors ruled over homosexuals. For example it’s only after the demedicalisation of homosexuals and homosexuality that is when the human rights step up to defend natural mental diversity and fight for equality – but they never step up for the victims of psychiatry and when homosexuality was medicalised.

To understand natural mental diversity as natural mental diversity – so much good and humane care and protections will come from this. Definitely in the case of homosexuals they face less and fewer brutalities than when doctors used to rule over homosexuals – this is so important to becoming humane. The difference is not limited to the difference between oppression versus protection.

Admittedly not everyone has something in common with the homosexual trait. But we do have in common some degree of madness and crazy – some more than others but if you believe that you don’t have some element of crazy and madness as part of your being then you are less because you lack the capacity to think freely, to think differently, to think creatively, to think radically different to what you are told to believe in and differently to the consensus morality (watch the Apple video linked to above because it makes this point about value). But we all have the capacity to love and this love is no less when you love someone of your own gender or a different gender – this sense of commonality with diversity is the difference between oppression and protection. (By far the greatest tragedy is you don’t see what you have in common with suicidal individuals such as fragility that leads you to have a limit to suffering against consent beyond which the pain of living becomes worse than death. “Only the mentally ill feel suicidal” – this is so extremely the most evil basis for care. Seeing mental illness is the difference between oppression versus protection.)

Let me go further and try to make you understand something even worse than I have already described.

Pain and the effect of pain and the consequences of pain

In this blog I’m talking about natural mental diversity that’s seen as abnormal and unnatural and the meaningless products of defective brains. I’m trying hard to not talk about the tragedies of suicidal individuals and focus on the non suicidal victims of the label of schizophrenia. (“Normal people don’t feel suicidal. Only the mentally ill feel suicidal” – this is the most evil basis for care possible.)

In the types of natural mental diversity and mental phenomena described as schizophrenia there’s the effect and consequence of pain. Seeing the victims of the label of schizophrenia as caused by mental illness and defective brains also applies to the understanding (the lack of understanding) of the consequences and effects of pain.

Again, this sense of normal and different is corrupted by the meanings and connotations of mental illness. Some suffer more than others – that’s obvious. Some are more weak and fragile and sensitive than others – this is obvious. Some react to pain differently to others and pain changes some more than others – this is obvious. What psychiatrists and others who see mental illness don’t understand is this. These statements are about normality and the expanse of the definition of normalcy.

I met a young man trapped in a psychiatric facility (I don’t see psychiatric facilities as hospitals so I talk about psychiatric facilities). He grew his hair long then drew it to cover over his face. This is seen as crazy and mad but it’s difference not disease. This difference he presented with I believe was the effect of pain and past brutalities. His pain and the brutalities he faced changed him – he didn’t react to these forces like others do but I still saw normality and commonality with his being. He didn’t want others to see his true face but this was because of something that changed him and what changed him was pain and brutalities too great.

I can recall my own childhood pain and how this affected me. One coping mechanism I found is to find a place in my mind I could withdraw into to survive the pain and brutalities of external reality. I had to find a way to detach from external reality because my pain and their brutalities were too great. By going into my mind to escape from the awfulness of external reality this changed me. Others would only see the outside and cannot have empathy for me or understanding of my being so they would see me as mentally ill.

(What is better than always being alone? Nothing but death or having never been born. That’s the proof of my existence.)

(It’s hard to accurately communicate this mental state of being a more internally focused mind. This is hard because common language hasn’t been invented yet to describe the internal of the mind. This more internally focused mind is not always the product of abuse that makes victims of abuse find this internal mind fortress to withdraw into to survive the horrific beyond awfulness of external reality. But I know that this internal focused mind is part of natural mental diversity. It’s also a more common natural mental trait and a higher level of this internalised mental state in the victims of the label of schizophrenia. Carl Jung considered this in a way similar to how I see just one factor of the natural mental diversity labelled with schizophrenia. Being more internally focused will lead to greater diversity because it’s a characteristic based on a lack of need to fit in with external standards. By which I mean that when your mind is focused on external reality then some part of your diversity is to try to fit in – in a way you are ruled by external standards. A more internally focused mind rejects these standards and is not limited by trying to fit in and finds one’s own standards – this creates greater difference and diversity. There’s masses of natural mental diversity that are labelled with schizophrenia and these few points made here are only about a very limited understanding of this massive diversity but the struggle is for diversity to be seen as part of natural mental diversity not mental illness. A mind not beholden to the standards of others is a more free mind and part of madness is this trait of minds who are more free than minds who tend to try to fit in with the standards of others and the standards that prevails in their time and place in history. On the front cover of Richard Bentall’s book entitled “Madness Explained” is a picture of van Gogh – a pioneering artist because of his free mind and a mad man because of his free mind.)

Entrenched in the meaning of mental illness is a sense of lack of understanding by which I mean that if the existing competency to have empathy and understanding for my being cannot understand what I am going through and what affects and changes my behaviour then they see mental illness.

What I see so clearly about the victims of the label of schizophrenia is the consequences and effects of facing more pain, being more weak (and fragile and sensitive) and being brutalised more than others – this changes the being and within the natural mental diversity labelled with schizophrenia there might be rare or uncommon or unusual presentations of the internal pain. The external presentation of all of these factors might be different to those of others but I see normal and different and diversity not mental illness. But the truth is in how many feel suicidal who are victims of the label of schizophrenia. (The psychiatric explanation for why so many victims of the label of schizophrenia feel suicidal is it’s part of the disease – this is the most evil basis for care for suicidal individuals.)

So many victims of the label of schizophrenia feel suicidal. It’s an assumption that also victims like me suffer great pain as well as the pain that makes death a welcomed solution. This pain changes the being but if the pain and consequences of pain are not understood then psychiatrists see madness and crazy and schizophrenia.

In my case I never want friends again – this is one effect of the pain and brutalities I face in life. To never want friends again is something that can be judged as crazy and mad because it’s not a common way to feel and think. It can be judged as crazy and mad because it’s not understood why I have become like this. It’s not easy to understand why I have changed from wanting friends to never wanting friends ever again and never look forward to seeing anyone ever again but why should this be a reason to pathologise this as madness and schizophrenia? If they lack understanding, if they lack the competency to have empathy and understanding for the wide diversity of natural mental diversity and mental pain, then there’s something wrong with me and I am not feeling and thinking how I am because it’s a natural reaction to the conditions and circumstances of life I face. They don’t understand the pain, why I am suffering too much and the effects and consequences of pain and brutalities that changes me – so they see mental illness. But they have never developed the competency to have empathy and understanding for my being because they see mental illness – but it’s by the standards of others that they’ve cared about me not brutalised me too much in life and by too many brutalities justified as care.

(The problems are not per se with my friends. The problems are with everyone I’ve ever met and more. The problem is with the monsters who call themselves the human race that’s why I never want to see anyone ever again and have stopped looking forward to human contact.)

(I recently put a post on Facebook about “A friend to tell me when/that the monsters who call themselves the human race have gone too far in their brutalities?” – the problem is with me and not their expectations of how much they expect/bear me to be forced to suffer and endure against my will in life? I know I am alone in knowing the pain I should never face in life because all are together in never knowing the brutalities too great to do to a suicidal individual. If I could have anything I want do you know what I would choose? To never be born.)

A normal reaction to my conditions and circumstances of life versus a mental illness – it’s a judgment based on understandabllity that defines what is seen as normal and part of natural mental diversity and mental pain. I used to want friends and look forward to contact with others but things have changed me and if this cannot be understood then it’s seen as mental illness but the judgement of understandability is based on the competency to have empathy and understanding for the wide diversity of natural mental diversity and mental pain – with this competency then it’s possible to understand it as a natural reaction but without this competency then it’s seen as mental illness and abnormal and unnatural.

I completely admit my own lack of competency to have empathy and understanding for the wide diversity of natural mental diversity and mental pain – but the question is about understanding. Understandability is entrenched in the judgements that leads to judgements of who is normal and who is mentally ill – but I blame myself for my lack of competency to have empathy and understanding that is why I fail to understand what those who are like me are going through. Some types of natural mental diversity react differently to masses of pain and/or brutalities differently to others and it changes some more than others – this is my understanding of some of the natural mental diversity and mental phenomena who are victims of the label of schizophrenia. But my lack of understanding is my fault – this is the opposite of seeing mental illness.

Terms like mad and crazy involve a judgement of normality based on understanding and understandability when they are the judgements of those who see mental illness. I see the expanse of natural mental diversity and mental pain and I see my failures are in lacking the competency to have empathy and understanding for the wide diversity of natural mental diversity and mental pain – this is extremely different from seeing mental illness. But I am not going to blame myself for feeling suicidal, suffering and being brutalised too much in life. I am not going to blame myself for the change from wanting friends to never wanting friends ever again.

(Words matter: “my type of diversity and my type of the weak” versus “diagnosis” and “mental illness”. One definition leads to the creation of pervasive competency to have empathy and understanding for the wide diversity of natural mental diversity and mental pain. What I’m saying is you need to get the competency to have empathy and understanding for the wide diversity of natural mental diversity and mental pain but you don’t seek to get this for minds and beings who are purported to be the creation of diseased and defective brains. You have a very restricted sense of normalcy and normality when psychiatry exists and you see mental illness – this does more harm than good on countless levels. You’re lacking a sense of commonality with one’s fellow being and this results in enormous harms to the victims of psychiatry because of this lack of sense of commonality alone. The harm to my existence is defined by being unable to answer the question “how’s he going to feel if we do this to him?” in any humane way whatsoever so I face unbearable, enormous harms and brutalities justified as care as long as I live. There’s a degree of theory in this piece but I know the enormity of the harms and the horrific beyond awfulness of being alive to be born to live when the competency to have empathy and understanding for my being doesn’t exist. They ignore my pain and what they make me feel even in what they can justify as care because they see mental illness – I know the enormity of the harms possible because of this by being victim but I also see the harms of a system of care and science based on a false epistemology. I know too much about a darkness of existence and pain no one should ever face in life. The truth I face is that they are the monsters who call themselves the human race and they are still not done making me want to die. They still accept feeling suicidal and being made to feel suicidal as acceptable consequences – they are never better when they see mental illness instead of learning the competency to have empathy and understanding for my being (and the competency to have empathy and understanding for the rest of the wide diversity of natural mental diversity and mental pain). You stand in harms way of the severity of the pain you can feel empathy for – again, words matter: “my type of diversity and my type of the weak” versus “diagnosis” and “mental illness”.)

I see normal and I see diversity not mental illness. Rainbow shield.

Today you see homosexuals and homosexuality as normal and part of natural mental diversity. This has become intuitive but this is not innate to human nature.

A symbol of the pro homosexual and homosexuality movement is the rainbow. The rainbow represents diversity and the liberation of homosexuals from medicalisation is based on the widening of the social and cultural definition of normalcy. When your diversity is protected you don’t know how invaluable this effect is that is the liberation from tyranny disguised as care.

But when doctors used to rule over homosexuals? What hell on Earth is it to be cared about by the brutalities of tyranny disguised as care?

First homosexuals and homosexuality was seen as evil by religious, social and cultural prejudices. Then the criminal justice system saw homosexuality as evil so brutalised homosexuals. (In certain Islamic nations homosexuals were beheaded.) The pain and brutalities homosexuals used to face because of these prejudices was enormous. Then the medicalisation of homosexuals and homosexuality was created and the prejudices continue. Doctors would rule over homosexuals with the brutality of tyrants when they were seen as abnormal and unnatural. This medicalisation was based on the prejudices against natural mental diversity of the people and the consensus morality as well as the prejudices of doctors. The medicalisation still led to too much pain and brutalities for homosexuals. (But the criminalisation and medicalisation of homosexuals and homosexuality are crimes against humanity.)

Today you can see the harms like you should. This is because of the shift towards the widening of the understanding of what is natural mental diversity.

The medicalisation of homosexuals and homosexuality only succeeded in caring about ruining lives. Now homosexuals and homosexuality are defended and protected like every other type of natural diversity because the definition of normalcy has been widened. This is the concept of the rainbow shield. When once diversity is meant to be oppressed and brutalitised by doctors the demedicalisation of homosexuality now leads to the opposite of psychiatry and that’s the protection of diversity.

It is the very definition of living free and in safety that is the concept of the rainbow shield – it is the opposite of this is psychiatry and seeing mental illness. Prejudices against homosexuals and homosexuality still exists of course – it takes centuries to change these prejudices that have existed and prevailed for millennia. But now homosexuals can live free and in safety because of demedicalisation and no longer being victims of medical tyranny.

The rainbow shield is based on the definition of normalcy versus the concepts of psychiatry and seeing mental illness. One is the protection of diversity and the other is the oppression of diversity by a tyranny of evil disguised as care and run by doctors.

To see homosexuality as part of natural mental diversity is not innate to human nature. But what is the force that’s why you know intuitively that homosexuals are normal and part of natural mental diversity? The fight for diversity.

The widening of the definition of normalcy and natural diversity is the great leap forward. The creation of the competency to have empathy and understanding for the wide diversity of natural mental diversity and mental pain, of mental phenomena and mental traits, creates the better future for one and all.

More and more live free and in safety not because the existence of psychiatry and the prevail of seeing mental illness. More and more live free and in safety because of what is the rainbow shield and this shield comes from the liberation of demedicalisation.

(This is the mission of hearts and minds (and souls if you believe you have a soul) based on a widening of the definition of normalcy that inexorably leads to the conclusion that we have more in common than we are different – this leads to the fight for all diversity to live free and in safety. Will you fight for the rainbow shield?)

(Homosexuals were undefended and unprotected by the criminalisation and medicalisation of homosexuals and homosexuality – because they’re not part of natural mental diversity. The rainbow shield only comes from demedicalisation and decriminalisation. The change is the existence of the competency to have empathy and understanding for the wide diversity of natural mental diversity and mental pain – this leads the fight for diversity against the pre existing prejudices of doctors and everyone else. The liberation of homosexuals was a fight necessary to win against the tyranny of evil disguised as care and run by doctors – it’s a harder fight to win when it’s a fight against doctors and what is care and compassion by the standards of the evil consensus morality. But it’s the fight that has to be won so more and more can live free and in safety and are protected by the rainbow shield by the widening of the definition of normalcy and the creation of the competency to have empathy and understanding for the wide diversity of natural mental diversity and mental pain. The worst thing possible is that this rainbow shield doesn’t exist for suicidal individuals of course – the greatest tragedy is why you see no reason why you want to live free and in safety from feeling suicidal and being made to feel suicidal. What does the existence of psychiatry and the prevail of seeing mental illness really do?)

(I see this so clearly because no saw that what they’re doing to me in the name of care is too brutal to do to anyone. I see this so clearly because no one spoke for me against the brutalities and brutalities justified as care I face as long as I live “he’s suffered too much already and been brutalised too much already” – so I know exactly what is so horrifically beyond awful as being completely unable to live free and in safety. They cannot even recognise the pain I should never face in life because suicidal individuals are seen as mentally ill. I know the immense harms of the evil behind the medicalisation of natural mental diversity and mental pain because no one fights for my type of the weak and diversity to live free and in safety. Intuitively you should know how much you completely refuse me to feel suicidal and be made to feel suicidal – that’s also the rainbow shield but it doesn’t exist because of the massive problems with human nature that led to and are perpetuated the existence of psychiatry and the prevail of seeing mental illness. To this day it’s in their power to not make me want to die but they don’t want to stop – so I see the need for the rainbow shield to exist so very clearly and I see the existence of the rainbow shield comes from the opposite of seeing mental illness and what is innate to human nature. A sentiment or mentality such as “what you are doing to him is too cruel to do to anyone” or “he’s suffered too much already and been brutalised too much already” is what I so desperately needed to stand in harms way so so many times – but I am a victim of psychiatry so I cannot live free and in safety. You don’t know why you need this concept behind the rainbow shield to exist for you to be able to live free and in safety but because I am a victim of psychiatry I do see the truth.)

(There is a fight for equality entrenched in a sense of commonality with one’s fellow being. This sense of equality would reduce the suffering of those who are victims of psychiatry. I can make an accurate guess that in the decades after the demedicalisation of homosexuals they suffer less than when they were victims of psychiatry and medical tyranny. The pain of living is less when you can live free and in safety – that’s my competency to have empathy and understanding for the wide diversity of natural mental diversity and mental pain that is a competency that no one who has power over my life and how I feel has. This competency is behind the concept of the rainbow shield.)

Firstly, “user involvement” is a term based on the worthless of the politically correct movement. The term “mental illness” or “mental disorder” was deemed to have a derogative inference to their meaning. So a meaningless effort led to the creation of a meaningless term “service user” to change the words. The meaning of “user” in user involvement is from the meaning of “service user” which basically means “someone who uses psychiatric and mental health care”. Though user involvement is a term used also for real (biological physical) illnesses its roots are specifically in the rebellion against psychiatric and mental health care.

In this blog I’m talking about how much consent matters to care. I’m thinking about what’s important to the individual. I’m talking about the scientific method of course. But I’m talking about what is important to the individual that’s fundamental to care and it’s a “but” because of how tyrannical psychiatric and mental health care is.

Doctors and others who see care in seeing mental illness rule over their victims of care. The user involvement movement was invented and created as a rebellion against coercive tyranny disguised as care, against control and cruelty justified as care.

User involvement means the users of care influence care instead of doctors ruling over their victims of psychiatric and mental health care. User involvement is a force that fights against medical tyranny – it’s one of the hardest battles for the prevail of the fundamentals of democracy and human rights because it’s a fight against tyranny disguised as care, against the tyranny of one of if not the most respected profession. It’s the tyranny of evil harder to begin to want to fight against because it’s the tyranny run by those who get so much automatic trust in them – the privilege of the medical profession is the pervasive faith that they are good and can be trusted to be humane.

It’s a harder tyranny to recognise is tyranny because it’s disguised as care and the minds of the rebels are decreed as mentally ill because they rebel against the standards of psychiatrists, against the sense of acceptable and unacceptable consequences of the medical tyranny of evil run by doctors. The mentality of doctors in the medical specialty of psychiatry has much in common with “it’s proof that you are mentally ill and mentally incompetent because you see wrong and evil in what we want to do to you in the name of care”.

Doctors don’t rely on words and persuasion in the medical speciality of psychiatry. They don’t give a damn about consent or free will or what are wholly unacceptable consequences to their victims of psychiatric and mental health care. They use any method no matter how brutal, evil and cruel it is and with complete disregard for how these brutalities justified as care are refused by the victims of psychiatry and with complete disregard for how their brutalities justified as care makes their victims feel – that’s the proof of the existence of psychiatry and of every single doctor I’ve ever met (and the rest of monsterkind’s sense of care).

It doesn’t matter what their victims refuse, would never choose or consent to, to their choices and actions justified as care. This is a basis for tyranny and ownership, for coercion and control and cruelty being justified as care. It’s most obvious in the purposes of the medicalised laws that have absolutely nothing in common with the protection of the weak because they are in no way based on a basis of empathy but they are extremely coercive than protective. It doesn’t matter what their victims refuse or refuse to be made to feel – that’s the basis of care in the medical specialty of psychiatry and the medicalised laws.

Psychiatric and mental health care used to be only about what are acceptable and unacceptable consequences to the medical tyranny of evil disguised as care – the invention and creation of user involvement began the fight against the medical tyranny of evil disguised as care. The history of psychiatry is the proof that doctors will resort to any method no matter how evil and cruel and sadistic the methods are – the user involvement movement was borne to fight against this evil sense of care and to fight for the prevail of the fundamentals of democracy and human rights when no one else wants these fundamentals fundamental to living free and in safety to exist for the victims of psychiatry. When everyone else believed “it’s not cruelty and tyranny it’s care” the user involvement movement fought for the unacceptable consequences to the weak and victims – a democratic force fighting against tyranny disguised as care. It’s most obvious in the functions and purposes of the medicalised laws throughout the existence of psychiatry that tyrants use any method no matter how cruel and brutal it is and with complete disregard for how much their victims refuse, would never choose or consent to the brutalities the medical tyranny of evil can justify as care. It is a sense of brutality that ignores brutality (the victims would never choose or consent to) in the name of care and ignores what brutalities justified as care makes the victims of psychiatry feel – this prevails even when the medical tyranny of sadists rules over suicidal individuals.

Obviously the victims fear care.

(They deprive me of so much happiness in the name of care and they care so much about brutalising me without mercy or limit and it doesn’t matter if their brutalities justified as care succeeds in making me want to die – to this day this is what sadists call care.)

In the creation of clinical guidelines there involves massive reviews of existing research. The same is true of large systematic reviews and meta analyses.

These reviews involve inclusion criteria because some types of research studies are more important than others. For example double blind randomised controlled trials are the most favoured type of single study and recent studies are preferred to older ones.

In the first iteration of the application of this method of collecting single symptom data from pre existing research the inclusion criteria limits the amount of work necessary. It does involve more work, time and effort than typically goes into the creation and updating of clinical guidelines but it’s a small percentage more effort.

At the same time the inclusion criteria can be varied. Not everyone agrees with the same inclusion criteria and qualities of research that they deem to a high standard of science to use to inform clinical decisions about treatment (solutions).

I am imagining how software would help using the science to use in clinical practice. Once the single measure data is collected from pre existing studies then the software would allow the user to choose their own inclusion criteria – simple drop down menus would, for example, allow the choice to use all studies or only randomised controlled trials and the most recent studies alone or older studies are included.

There are a lot of diagnostic labels in psychiatry. The most common ones have clinical guidelines but others don’t. But research does exist for the victims of uncommon psychiatric diagnoses and labels. Collecting the unpublished single measure data allows a hope of giving good solutions (treatments) for things that don’t yet have specific clinical guidelines.

There’s also another advantage when looking at treatments that fail to be proven to work but are successful at changing one single symptom (one trait or thing important to the individual to fix). As I explain elsewhere the averaging of multiple single symptom measures fails the specificity of the scientific method that makes it so successful in endeavours of science outside psychiatric science.

What I am saying is that there’s effort involved but it creates so many more possibilities to give the right solution (treatment) with the minimum of trial and error. The scientific method used correctly will give the right solution on the first attempt – this method I’m talking about here is one way to reach towards this goal. It is only a small way to reach towards yet another thing so important to the individual which is to get the right solution recommended on the first attempt.

Using the data collected there’s a way to make the application of science to clinical practice even better and that’s aligning multiple single symptoms with the solutions that are best for multiple symptoms. This requires much more time and effort in terms of human value. By which I mean it requires more time to measure the severity of every single symptom to then use the single symptom data to personalise the clinical recommendation – but this is only the time and effort of one of the monsters who call themselves the human race. Once the single symptom data is collected together then this possibility requires little more effort to create a software program where multiple single symptom measures can be inputted to give the best solution for the specific presentation of the individual.

(It’s not just the beauty of the scientific method I am trying to achieve here. It is also about how much consent and free will and voluntary choices about what is important should matter to care – it is the beauty of the democratic method (for all its flaws) I’m also trying to achieve. The concept of user involvement is a democratic force against medical tyranny.)