Mentally ill. As a child, in the school yard someone attacked me physically, ended with a serious fight where my head was smashed into a heavy iron lock. Did it harm my brain? Maybe. But it's not in any journal. As a young man, I had a tick gorging on my blood for more than one whole day, and I got tested for three subspecies of one type of infection. Then when the connection wasn't obvious, it was dropped and deleted from future healthcare approaches.
After various subtle but very concrete causes have been ignored and done away with, what we have left is some 'word-salad', some theories about why people experience chronic pain and depression and 'delusions of infections'. The 'word-salad' theories do not solve the problem, there are no proposed solutions, only theories about how these ailments can spring from nothing now that every reasonable cause has been 'debunked'.
And the psychiatric system is in place to manage lives "lost" to those useless theories. The patients are still alive, but they're in the ditch and no one is trying to carry them to anywhere else health-wise. Communication skills are very important for the nurses in psychiatry. They should be sweet and kind people so the total emptiness of their services will be tolerated by those in the ditch. They should believe in the big social project rather than in dedication to individuals (the latter would be Christianity and has been mostly eradicated from Europe over the past century). As long as statistics show that most people are mostly satisfied with their life, there is no need to ruminate over the few lost ones. Not in the mental world of believers in effective unchallenged socialized medicine.
All it takes for progressive politicians to decide to attack a private hospital: 1 hour of superficial primetime documentary.
What would it take for progressive politicians to denounce and dislodge psychiatry forever?
mandag den 18. december 2017
søndag den 22. januar 2017
Attack on my Authority
I want to email the authorities and ask them whether they ever took ethics courses. Because even if they are right that the tick didn't infect me with something, it's still blatant that the test is limited in several ways, for example the exclusion of non-borrelia infections. I don't support them in their certainty. So is it moral to completely sabotage my access to a standard course of antibiotics as well as my access to further/wider testing? Is it defensible, even if they're right, in a case where the patient is informed and disagrees with them?
The ultimate consequence of this 'moral loophole' is that my judgment has to be rendered delusional, or else they look bad for denying me what I ask for. My continued insistence that they rely on sketchy unreliable premises has been made central to my new diagnosis. It's a symptom. My insistence is a form of obsessive delusion typical of psychiatric patients. This way, the more I insist and speak about tick infections, the more mentally ill I appear to be.
The problem with this attack on me is that doctors agreed fully with my assessment, until the antibody detection test of the three subspecies came back negative from the laboratory. Then the doctors, following their guidelines, simply trusted their orders and declared me non-infected.
But why then is my journal full of mentions of a visible erythema migrans rash?
Why did a room full of doctors agree that an infection seemed likely and a spinal tap justified?
Why do lots of experts agree that reality has proven the test unreliable?
The main difference between my conviction and that of the authorities is that I don' trust the science backing the guidelines. Just like most 'lyme science' was criticized for being 'sub standard' by the danish guideline co-author Ram Dessau, I know that the old foundation for lyme policies has been criticized for being badly designed. (for example in the "No Small Thing" article series)
I think that more than three subspecies could possibly cause borrelia, or that some people may be without immune response to the infection, or that it could be a different pathogen altogether (that the 'know-it-all' modern scientists are too busy to examine). If you have a healthy imagination, you can get many more options for shooting the test down below "100% reliability".
And it's not revolutionary to do so, since many high-profile cases of private treatment have been in the media. Typically rich people with lots of spare time to see through their doctor's ten-minute survey. Ordinary people, and young people trapped in the socialized economy, do not have the resources to fight back. We live and we die by the system's capability for justice.
The ultimate consequence of this 'moral loophole' is that my judgment has to be rendered delusional, or else they look bad for denying me what I ask for. My continued insistence that they rely on sketchy unreliable premises has been made central to my new diagnosis. It's a symptom. My insistence is a form of obsessive delusion typical of psychiatric patients. This way, the more I insist and speak about tick infections, the more mentally ill I appear to be.
The problem with this attack on me is that doctors agreed fully with my assessment, until the antibody detection test of the three subspecies came back negative from the laboratory. Then the doctors, following their guidelines, simply trusted their orders and declared me non-infected.
But why then is my journal full of mentions of a visible erythema migrans rash?
Why did a room full of doctors agree that an infection seemed likely and a spinal tap justified?
Why do lots of experts agree that reality has proven the test unreliable?
The main difference between my conviction and that of the authorities is that I don' trust the science backing the guidelines. Just like most 'lyme science' was criticized for being 'sub standard' by the danish guideline co-author Ram Dessau, I know that the old foundation for lyme policies has been criticized for being badly designed. (for example in the "No Small Thing" article series)
I think that more than three subspecies could possibly cause borrelia, or that some people may be without immune response to the infection, or that it could be a different pathogen altogether (that the 'know-it-all' modern scientists are too busy to examine). If you have a healthy imagination, you can get many more options for shooting the test down below "100% reliability".
And it's not revolutionary to do so, since many high-profile cases of private treatment have been in the media. Typically rich people with lots of spare time to see through their doctor's ten-minute survey. Ordinary people, and young people trapped in the socialized economy, do not have the resources to fight back. We live and we die by the system's capability for justice.
onsdag den 4. januar 2017
Against the Nanny State
In 2016, I saw how a big tax-supported TV production ("Snyd eller borrelia") neglected a critique of danish diagnoses. The diagnostic methods for ALS, ME, fibromyalgia, skizophrenia were completely left out of the programme, and instead it ended on a note of closure when a man was told that his tick infection was a fraud and he instead got an ALS diagnosis. The documentary did not examine ALS at all, not the supposed science behind it, not the compared benefits and risks between the man's desired and current treatment versus the 'State Certified' ALS treatment.
I took extensive notes from the show, but the core of it was half a dozen anecdotes, so the question is how necessary it should be to add to its conclusion that 'false positives are a real thing, and you can't blindly trust private laboratories'.
One danish politician (a social democrat) was instant in her willingness to shut down the laboratory in question and perhaps go even further and 'safeguard' all patients by shutting down clinics all over Europe.
My hypothesis is that danish doctors downplay their own cognitive biases. Bias is often spoken of in terms of economic self-interest (for example, "the car dealer sold me a bad car, and he was so biased he walked away laughing"). But the danish welfare doctors are biased against 1) challenging the legal system/bureaucracy 2) expending too much mental and physical energy when they can sit back instead and call the problem simple and solved 3) going against colleagues and/or friends in other departments of the same organizational structures.
I'm so fucking done with this hypocrisy that I will never again support a move towards more taxation or more welfare. To me, welfare has become a tool to obfuscate the cost/benefits of an economic decision. If you want to obfuscate your uselessness as a politician, you can just throw money at welfare and get an easy pass for 'helping the weak'. If you want to really seem like a hero, add some free education to really lift the poor and the cursed out of their condition. No matter what their local conditions are, just throw a university degree at everyone.
I find it ridiculous that it's been so easy for me to get a psychiatric diagnosis, and meanwhile get attacked and oppressed for not being scientific. If anyone deserves the scientists' attacks and mockery, it would be the perpetrators of diagnosing citizens without proving or testing anything, except for a short talk and some weak correlations with other people who felt the same pain.
At least I have a chain of causal effects to explain my hypothesis. A tick-bite after 24 years of strength and vigor, 1 year after a successful trek along a Norwegian fjord with steep climbs, then after a few days in a forest garden, a sudden collapse into exhaustion and chronic pains.
Psychiatry doesn't explain that. They're deluded.
I read an article that asked the authorities why they still use a limited test. Their argument was that they trust the official report/manual. But why trust a limited test that only even looks for three subspecies of one type of infection. If I walk into a hospital and ask for antibiotics after a tickbite, I expect to be scientifically tested for tick-infections in general, and I certainly don't expect to be denied treatment on the basis of my immune system's response to three subspecies of one bacteria. To test me in such a preposterously limited way is not scientific. Especially given the lack of alternative explanations/hypotheses. And even more so given the actual rash that I presented and that doctors thought to be erythema migrans.
I should be a lot angrier and more hostile than I am. Because, I know the battle is lost. I know the system is built in such a way that it can never be moved by 'the little man', and can never be radically overturned on any scale.
My only hope right now is enough time and energy to closely read through meta-studies and/or investigative journalism and REALLY pick apart old foundations for the persisting recommendations. I want to tear down the wall between me and my right to buy medicine, my right to take a personal risk.
Further reading against the state:
https://c4ss.org/content/16623
https://www.libertarianism.org/explore/type/essays?searchquery=health
https://mises.org/library/whats-really-wrong-healthcare-industry
https://mises.org/library/myth-free-market-healthcare
https://archive.org/details/cu31924030333052
https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/era-expert-failure
I took extensive notes from the show, but the core of it was half a dozen anecdotes, so the question is how necessary it should be to add to its conclusion that 'false positives are a real thing, and you can't blindly trust private laboratories'.
One danish politician (a social democrat) was instant in her willingness to shut down the laboratory in question and perhaps go even further and 'safeguard' all patients by shutting down clinics all over Europe.
My hypothesis is that danish doctors downplay their own cognitive biases. Bias is often spoken of in terms of economic self-interest (for example, "the car dealer sold me a bad car, and he was so biased he walked away laughing"). But the danish welfare doctors are biased against 1) challenging the legal system/bureaucracy 2) expending too much mental and physical energy when they can sit back instead and call the problem simple and solved 3) going against colleagues and/or friends in other departments of the same organizational structures.
I'm so fucking done with this hypocrisy that I will never again support a move towards more taxation or more welfare. To me, welfare has become a tool to obfuscate the cost/benefits of an economic decision. If you want to obfuscate your uselessness as a politician, you can just throw money at welfare and get an easy pass for 'helping the weak'. If you want to really seem like a hero, add some free education to really lift the poor and the cursed out of their condition. No matter what their local conditions are, just throw a university degree at everyone.
I find it ridiculous that it's been so easy for me to get a psychiatric diagnosis, and meanwhile get attacked and oppressed for not being scientific. If anyone deserves the scientists' attacks and mockery, it would be the perpetrators of diagnosing citizens without proving or testing anything, except for a short talk and some weak correlations with other people who felt the same pain.
At least I have a chain of causal effects to explain my hypothesis. A tick-bite after 24 years of strength and vigor, 1 year after a successful trek along a Norwegian fjord with steep climbs, then after a few days in a forest garden, a sudden collapse into exhaustion and chronic pains.
Psychiatry doesn't explain that. They're deluded.
I read an article that asked the authorities why they still use a limited test. Their argument was that they trust the official report/manual. But why trust a limited test that only even looks for three subspecies of one type of infection. If I walk into a hospital and ask for antibiotics after a tickbite, I expect to be scientifically tested for tick-infections in general, and I certainly don't expect to be denied treatment on the basis of my immune system's response to three subspecies of one bacteria. To test me in such a preposterously limited way is not scientific. Especially given the lack of alternative explanations/hypotheses. And even more so given the actual rash that I presented and that doctors thought to be erythema migrans.
I should be a lot angrier and more hostile than I am. Because, I know the battle is lost. I know the system is built in such a way that it can never be moved by 'the little man', and can never be radically overturned on any scale.
My only hope right now is enough time and energy to closely read through meta-studies and/or investigative journalism and REALLY pick apart old foundations for the persisting recommendations. I want to tear down the wall between me and my right to buy medicine, my right to take a personal risk.
Further reading against the state:
https://c4ss.org/content/16623
https://www.libertarianism.org/explore/type/essays?searchquery=health
https://mises.org/library/whats-really-wrong-healthcare-industry
https://mises.org/library/myth-free-market-healthcare
https://archive.org/details/cu31924030333052
https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/era-expert-failure
Abonner på:
Opslag (Atom)