#1 ·
I don't know. Is there any actual evidence to back this up? It seems like we're just throwing theories at the wall at this point. Are we really expected to believe that these psychological mechanisms work exactly like this without any peer-reviewed data from a place like Cornell University or Weill Medical School? It feels like a lot of speculation. Where is the clinical validation? If the FDA hasn't weighed in on the implications of these specific behavioral patterns, shouldn't we be a bit more skeptical? I’m not saying it’s impossible, but let’s not pretend we have the full picture yet. Does anyone actually have a source for this, or are we just riding the wave of a popular idea?
I don't know who you think you're dealing with here, but I can assure you, it isn't me. Why on earth do you assume you're entitled to more leeway than everyone else? What exactly makes you think you can act like this toward me? Even before. She was deleting completely neutral posts, so why did she go scorched earth? Show me exactly what’s wrong with the posts I’ve already asked about across four different threads—the ones that got me slapped with warnings and partial bans! Stop hiding behind canned phrases and moderator censorship.
Quote : Rosey
1.)
And where exactly did you get the idea that this is some kind of personal conspiracy against me? You clearly have a solid grasp of what this topic is actually about. Cut it out with the attempts to discredit me by labeling me just another fringe conspiracy theorist from some basement forum. I back up my views with actual arguments—and honestly, that’s exactly where you guys are struggling.
2.)
One of those two deleted posts was actually a translated quote from a top-tier neurologist—someone who’s also a renowned activist and whistleblower fighting against the misuse of science and the promotion of pseudoscience. Ben Goldacre. The second one was basically just a collection of links featuring deep dives from other top-tier whistleblower experts—people actually willing to expose the truth about their own industries. So, you went ahead and deleted me too? Really?
Who do you think is actually qualified to interpret the state of psychiatry: the pill addicts, the dealers supplying them, pharmaceutical propaganda, or medicine itself?
Oh yeah, I could easily prove that this isn't just some "trolling" act—it’s the actual, unvarnished truth about psychiatry. But hey, feel free to keep doing what you're doing. You can keep trying to scrub my posts and silence me with sanctions if that makes you feel better. Or maybe that's just the hope you're clinging to?
3.)
And you didn't think it was worth your time to delete posts like this one? You know, the ones that immediately follow... Regarding my previous post...):
... which is how I responded:
So, apparently, you don't mind these little "rule violations" coming from someone who—by total coincidence—is an avid consumer of both legal and illegal substances (do you need me to drop links proving that?), and who also happens to share your exact views on the subject. But suddenly, casualharbor9's transgressions are the catalyst for this sudden burst of puritanical moderation in what used to be a colorful thread? And elsewhere too, I suppose?
4.)
To my previous thoughts on this subject, though I’ll be putting them into my own words this time around.You have an answer like this:
So, here’s the bottom line regarding all my justifications for being carded, deleted, and partially banned: if I write something about how flawed psychopharmacology is in its mass application, apparently I’m just "crusading" and "lamenting." But the moment I quote top-tier experts who actually agree with me? Suddenly, I’m "violating forum rules."
*****
Where exactly in the rules does it say you can call me "mouse," label me a "conspiracy theorist," and try to mock me with those weird linguistic quirks? You call that a "civilized discussion"?
So, you and your little circle feel entitled to throw around ad hominem attacks and engage in deception, but apparently, casualharbor9 is the only one who isn't allowed to?
*****
This is actually a decent discussion, free from any personal attacks.
(No, it isn't my fault that some guy who pops psychotropic drugs for every little thing + has been smoking weed daily for xy years, feels personally attacked just because I spoke out against the over-prescription of psychotropic drugs. As far as I'm concerned, people can medicate themselves with whatever they want, whenever they want; they just shouldn't do it at the expense of our collapsing healthcare system.)
*****
... moving on:
... blah blah blah...
So, let me get this straight; I’m the one who has "repeatedly proven unable to argue decently or with any sense of decorum"???
And apparently, Antik wasn't just trolling you all with his topics. 🤣
- My sincerest congratulations on your incredible insight. :there isn't a suitably grotesque smiley for this:
*****
By the way, when you silence, delete, and ban someone simply because they actually provide a coherent response, that isn't called a debate. It's just blatant censorship from a position of power. And honestly? That little tactic isn't going to fly with us anymore.
Rosey casualharbor9 said:So, what's the deal, mouse? 🙂...
I don't know who you think you're dealing with here, but I can assure you, it isn't me. Why on earth do you assume you're entitled to more leeway than everyone else? What exactly makes you think you can act like this toward me? Even before. She was deleting completely neutral posts, so why did she go scorched earth? Show me exactly what’s wrong with the posts I’ve already asked about across four different threads—the ones that got me slapped with warnings and partial bans! Stop hiding behind canned phrases and moderator censorship.
Quote : Rosey
Rosey casualharbor9 said:So, what exactly are these posts? Just copy-pasted articles ripped straight from the internet. If you had ever bothered to actually read the forum rules—or if you viewed them as anything more than mere suggestions—you would realize this isn't some grand conspiracy against you personally. We delete these posts because that’s the rule. Do you want to have a discussion? Fine. But do it in your own words and keep it civil. You’ve had plenty of opportunities to do just that, and once again, you've proven you're incapable of it.
1.)
And where exactly did you get the idea that this is some kind of personal conspiracy against me? You clearly have a solid grasp of what this topic is actually about. Cut it out with the attempts to discredit me by labeling me just another fringe conspiracy theorist from some basement forum. I back up my views with actual arguments—and honestly, that’s exactly where you guys are struggling.
2.)
One of those two deleted posts was actually a translated quote from a top-tier neurologist—someone who’s also a renowned activist and whistleblower fighting against the misuse of science and the promotion of pseudoscience. Ben Goldacre. The second one was basically just a collection of links featuring deep dives from other top-tier whistleblower experts—people actually willing to expose the truth about their own industries. So, you went ahead and deleted me too? Really?
Who do you think is actually qualified to interpret the state of psychiatry: the pill addicts, the dealers supplying them, pharmaceutical propaganda, or medicine itself?
Oh yeah, I could easily prove that this isn't just some "trolling" act—it’s the actual, unvarnished truth about psychiatry. But hey, feel free to keep doing what you're doing. You can keep trying to scrub my posts and silence me with sanctions if that makes you feel better. Or maybe that's just the hope you're clinging to?
3.)
And you didn't think it was worth your time to delete posts like this one? You know, the ones that immediately follow... Regarding my previous post...):
Is there anyone else out there who feels like they’re constantly fighting an uphill battle with their focus? I’ve been looking into Adderall lately, and honestly, the whole conversation around it feels incredibly messy. Does anyone actually know where to draw the line between "I need help" and "I just want an edge"? It’s a fine line, isn't it? casualharbor9 says:
So, let's talk about the current trends surrounding the use and, frankly, the blatant misuse of SSRIs here in America. It’s an interesting—if somewhat troubling—phenomenon to observe.
The latest editorial from the New England Journal of Medicine raises some pointed questions about how we approach medical evidence. It’s a dense read, but it gets to the heart of a growing tension in modern clinical practice: the gap between what high-level statistical data tells us and what actually happens when a doctor sits down with a patient in an exam room. Are we becoming too obsessed with the "average" result? The piece suggests that while large-scale randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for proving a drug works on a population level, they often fail to account for the messy, unpredictable reality of individual biology. We tend to treat these massive datasets as gospel, yet we ignore the fact that a single human being isn't a mathematical average. It brings up a valid point regarding the hierarchy of evidence. If a study shows a statistically significant benefit for a treatment, but that benefit is negligible for the specific person standing in front of you, has the science actually served them? Or have we just satisfied a requirement for publication? There is a subtle, almost dry critique here of how the medical establishment interprets success. We look for p-values and confidence intervals, but we rarely pause to ask if those numbers translate to meaningful quality of life in a way that a patient can actually feel. It’s a measured argument, perhaps a bit skeptical of the current trend toward hyper-specialized data modeling, but it serves as a necessary reminder that medicine is, at its core, a human endeavor, not just a statistical one.
... which is how I responded:
casualharbor9 casualharbor9 said:So, if I’ve managed to parse this entire thing—and honestly, I haven't exactly been reading every single word of this massive wall of text with religious devotion—here is my takeaway: the clinical psychiatry and psychopharmacology department over at Weill Medical School at Cornell University is basically casting doubt on the FDA's current recommendations. They’re questioning both the validity of those federal guidelines and the actual statistical methods used in various clinical trials that claim antidepressants lead to an uptick in suicide rates among patients. And their solution? They’re suggesting we should actually increase the consumption of psychotropic drugs. Is that really where we're landing here?
So, apparently, you don't mind these little "rule violations" coming from someone who—by total coincidence—is an avid consumer of both legal and illegal substances (do you need me to drop links proving that?), and who also happens to share your exact views on the subject. But suddenly, casualharbor9's transgressions are the catalyst for this sudden burst of puritanical moderation in what used to be a colorful thread? And elsewhere too, I suppose?
4.)
To my previous thoughts on this subject, though I’ll be putting them into my own words this time around.You have an answer like this:
Rosey casualharbor9 said:...
It’s like a total feeding frenzy whenever the conversation turns to psychopharmacology, psychiatry, or anything else that serves as a convenient playground for people to moan about the evils of psychiatry, Big Pharma, and those classic white-collar conspiracies.
So, here’s the bottom line regarding all my justifications for being carded, deleted, and partially banned: if I write something about how flawed psychopharmacology is in its mass application, apparently I’m just "crusading" and "lamenting." But the moment I quote top-tier experts who actually agree with me? Suddenly, I’m "violating forum rules."
*****
Where exactly in the rules does it say you can call me "mouse," label me a "conspiracy theorist," and try to mock me with those weird linguistic quirks? You call that a "civilized discussion"?
So, you and your little circle feel entitled to throw around ad hominem attacks and engage in deception, but apparently, casualharbor9 is the only one who isn't allowed to?
*****
This is actually a decent discussion, free from any personal attacks.
Is there any actual data on this? Or are we just circling the drain of anecdotal evidence again? casualharbor9 says:
...
This whole so-called "anti-psychiatry revolution" is a joke. It’s mostly just people venting their frustrations on forums and nothing more. Is anyone actually accomplishing anything? Not really. It's just a massive outlet for pure bitterness.
...
Find my previous post where I shared my niece's experience, then go read the comment casualharbor9 left on it. Honestly, it’s rock bottom. Who in their right mind would ever bother sharing a positive experience with psychotropic drugs after reading that? If you do, you’ll basically be labeled either a junkie or someone who's just paying for a fix in the next thread. It makes it impossible to actually say anything or build an argument. It’s a rigged game: if you have a good experience, you're an addict; if you have a bad one, it's "proof" the drugs don't work and they're just a way to fleece people for cash. What a fantastic discussion. Truly top-tier stuff.
Look, let’s call this what it is: this isn't censorship. This entire thread has just sunk below the gutter. Why is there so much sheer bitterness and vitriol being spewed here? Especially from certain individuals who clearly haven't stepped foot in a psychiatrist's office—though, honestly, maybe they should. This isn't a discussion. It’s an emotional exhaust vent. And that vent is incredibly insulting to anyone who has needed, is currently using, or will eventually need psychiatric help. If you lot want to go off and scream into the void, go find a celebrity gossip forum where people obsess over Taylor Swift or Selena Gomez. That’s clearly where you belong.
(No, it isn't my fault that some guy who pops psychotropic drugs for every little thing + has been smoking weed daily for xy years, feels personally attacked just because I spoke out against the over-prescription of psychotropic drugs. As far as I'm concerned, people can medicate themselves with whatever they want, whenever they want; they just shouldn't do it at the expense of our collapsing healthcare system.)
*****
... moving on:
Uširo said:...
You’ve really leaned into this messiah complex on this forum. It’s bordering on narcissism, if you ask me.
Get lost, kid...
Uširo said:martin007 said:That (that vague recommendation) is incredibly impractical and unclear... well, at least that much is obvious!
If you actually have proof someone is poisoning people? Report it to the District Attorney.👍
How is a person supposed to report anyone, or even to whom, when they think the whole thing is just one massive conspiracy involving the government and Big Pharma?🤣
Over in the "Fringe Science" subforum, they fight tooth and nail against conspiracy theorists, yet here you are promoting them?!
casualharbor9, make up your mind once and for all; are you left or right?🤣
No, you prefer going straight—headfirst into a wall.🙂
Tox said:john newman said:I don't think this is a discussion about conspiracy theories... at least, that's not how I see it.
And it isn't. This is a topic about personal resentment. ☕
... blah blah blah...
So, let me get this straight; I’m the one who has "repeatedly proven unable to argue decently or with any sense of decorum"???
And apparently, Antik wasn't just trolling you all with his topics. 🤣
- My sincerest congratulations on your incredible insight. :there isn't a suitably grotesque smiley for this:
*****
By the way, when you silence, delete, and ban someone simply because they actually provide a coherent response, that isn't called a debate. It's just blatant censorship from a position of power. And honestly? That little tactic isn't going to fly with us anymore.