Report comment

Yes, I think it would have been best to have called a spade a spade in this instance. Tea is a propagandist, not a journalist. (I don’t know why but I think it’s also a drink with jam a bread?)

Report comment

Report comment

Report comment

“Tea said she wanted to interview me, but I shall decline. It can only go wrong.” I hope you will rethink this, because if you give Tea some information to research into first, and say you’ll allow her to interview you, after she properly educates herself with the “alternative,” albeit, truthful view. It may go better than you think?

“But journalists? They must be among those with the lowest intelligence of all trades.” Well, I personally think that’s likely the psychologic industry – since I think they used to be the only industry that could get into grad school, without taking the GRE, albeit maybe I’m wrong about that, and that no longer seems to be the case.

Nonetheless, one journalist is somewhat my hero of mine, since he’s the one who pointed out the actual iatrogenic etiology of my “bipolar” misdiagnosis. But he seems to be modest enough to have people, rightfully, and even he is now pointing out systemic failures, within both the medical pharmaceutical industries and big media.

And, as a former economics and marketing major, I will say, both those industries are corrupted also. Just check out my favorite economics professor’s pointing out of the fraud of Keynesian microeconomic theory in his book:

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Bigness_Complex.html?id=PLsUeY_Q1doC

And all do need to wake up to the systemic fraud of the globalist banking system, including the Federal Reserve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmc8GDlyAQg&t=5s

Report comment

ADHD then, appears to me, a distillation of the behavioral issues associated with MBD, that seemingly respond positively to stimulant drugs (lack of attention and agitative behavior). If the sole purpose of the diagnostic label was to put children on drugs (and it seems like that, given the poverty of alternative therapeutic approaches), it would make sense for pharmaceutical companies to heavily lobby for the inclusion of the diagnosis as a way to both legally establish the practice of peddling drugs (coinciding with the mass-prescription of anti-depressants in the ’80s) and to colonize a new market and expand upon it.

Subsequently, the diagnosis would also serve to protect the interests of the shareholders since any use of stimulant drugs other than what has been authorized could quickly land you (the practician) in jail. Since the practice of drugging children had already emerged in school settings back in the ’60s and ’70s for the purpose of controlling children, it just made sense to define ADHD in such a way that adults could not qualify for it. Given the lack of any science, one had to rely on ad hoc reasoning which effectively forced them to come up with the idea that “children could outgrow it”. This turned ADHD into one of the very few psychiatric disorders that could be left behind.
This coincides with how ADHD was conceptualized back then, an issue of brain maturation that primarily affected the frontal cortex (if I’m not mistaken). Over the last couple years, the pharmaceutical companies, by whatever means, managed to establish the legal practice (again, not scientific) of putting adults on stimulant drugs. In order to justify that habit, of course, certain truths that remained unchallenged for over 3 decades had to be abolished. This includes the notion of children “outgrowing ADHD” as well as adults not having ADHD. Is this based in science? No. It begs the question then, who’s interested in putting adults on meth. Usually, people correctly identify the pharmaceutical industrial complex but that industry would, on its own, never have waited three decades just to start selling adult ADHD now.

Report comment