NOTICE (repeated again)

To any person whose name may be mentioned on this blog, or who is otherwise identified, past, present or future:

If I have written anything about you that is not true and you call me and tell me, I promise I will retract the untruth. If I insult you in a way that is unfair and you call me to complain, I promise I will pay attention politlely and amend what I have written to be more fair.

My cell phone is 847-370-5410. I will talk to anybody. I will never mention or reveal that you called me if you simply ask me not to. I only want the truth to be known and justice to be served. I believe that the overwhelming majority of people are well-intended and want to help others.

Monthly treatment plan reviews

TPRs, or "staffings" as they are called at EMHC, are supposed to be held every month for every involuntary "patient". This statutory requirement is elaborated under the Illinois Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code, 405 ILCS 5/1-100, et seq.

Section 2-102(a) of the Code reads:

A recipient of services shall be provided with adequate and humane care and services in the least restrictive environment, pursuant to an individual services plan. The Plan shall be formulated and periodically reviewed with the participation of the recipient to the extent feasible and the recipient's guardian, the recipient's substitute decision maker, if any, or any other individual designated in writing by the recipient. The facility shall advise the recipient of his or her right to designate a family member or other individual to participate in the formulation and review of the treatment plan. In determining whether care and services are being provided in the least restrictive environment, the facility shall consider the views of the recipient, if any, concerning the treatment being provided. The recipient's preferences regarding emergency interventions under subsection (d) of Section 2-200 shall be noted in the recipient's treatment plan.

Section 3-209 additionally requires that process to occur at least every 30 days:

Within three days of admission under this Chapter, a treatment plan shall be prepared for each recipient of service and entered into his or her record. The plan shall include an assessment of the recipient's treatment needs, a description of the services recommended for treatment, the goals of each type of element of service, an anticipated timetable for the accomplishment of the goals, and a designation of the qualified professional responsible for the implementation of the plan. The plan shall include a written assessment of whether or not the recipient is in need of psychotropic medications. The plan shall be reviewed and updated as the clinical condition warrants, but not less than every 30 days.

If a recipient has only one treatment plan review meeting in a four-month period despite being willing to attend monthly, the facility is obviously out of compliance with this statutory mandate. One meeting in four months does not reconcile with the legal scheme. Also, a team member's intentional creation (e.g., that of an N Unit social worker named Terriana Greyson) of conditions to impede the patient's participation, including his ability to have his chosen advocate or attorney present, is contrary to (at least) the spirit of the law.

What could be even more incriminating would be if the social worker were to threaten to create a misleading clinical record saying that the patient refused to participate in treatment planning, when he was only seeking meaningful participation with his attorney present.

RIP, Gabby

Back in 2022, I began writing about one female staff at EMHC who, based on credible reports, was sexually abusing (or "violating boundaries" with) a male patient. My first article was September 24 that year. It was satirical, but based in information I believed was true. I followed that first article up with several more related articles, repeating or implying the same or similar allegations. I still believe my allegations against this person were true or credible, but I was very sorry to hear that she recently passed away from cancer. I think she was only in her thirties.

How does someone die of cancer in their thirties? It seems highly unlikely or tragically unjust. I was reminded of an L. Ron Hubbard policy letter that every Scientologist knows, written in 1967. LRH gave an example for why it is so critically important that instructors ferociously challenge reports saying counseling techniques have been found "unworkable", when in fact those exact techniques are not only workable but invaluable or lifesaving. 

Given almost any opportunity or excuse, people can go off on crazy tangents for pure sensation and weird "entertainment" rather than just patiently doing their regular jobs and helping others. This unfortunate tendency is a sad part of the human condition. Those who want to help and create a better world have a natural duty to resist it in themselves and discourage it in their comrades.

The example given in the 1967 policy was about a group of students who went out of control into off-beat practices, landing themselves in moral and spiritual confusion. (I might speculate given the year, that maybe this incident involved psychedelics. But I don't know.) Hubbard wrote that these students, "were in a state of electrification on all these new experiences," and one student's wife died of cancer resulting from physical abuse. He lamented that a hard, tough instructor in that moment might have salvaged two confused students and saved a woman's life.

When I read this again (for perhaps the 1000th time), I wondered how some bit of moral and spiritual confusion might make anyone physically abuse his wife in some precise (hypothetically severe?) way to cause fatal cancer. The narrative seemed non-sequitur. How does that work? Does it actually happen? Nobody thinks of cancer as being caused by abuse, let alone spiritual or moral confusion. It's cellular, right?

But I thought about it some more and recalled that confusion and evil are related, perhaps inseparable. If a person is sufficiently confused, he/'she will be uncontrollable by self or anyone else, and will manifest evil. Parts of the body and cells seem inseparable from the whole person, so maybe they react similarly. Maybe cancer is confused cells. We certainly treat it medically as evil cells.

Psychiatry, especially the psychiatry I know very well at Elgin Mental Health Center, is the ultimate morass of confusion. Working in that morass, lying constantly, simultaneously participating in or seeing and failing to stop abuse, could be the perfect environmental setup to encourage cancer.

Gabby had people who loved her and who will miss her. She should rest in peace, and I am sorry this article is brutal. 

Psychiatria delenda est!

To live forever

My friend Rodney Yoder just told me a story that I don't remember ever hearing before, about a "psychoquack" (his regular term for a psychiatrist) who was known at Chester MHC as "Dr. Gaylias" because everyone observed that he was "flagrantly" homosexual despite the fact that he insisted upon remaining in the closet. (This was 25 years ago in Southern Illinois....) Anyway, Dr. Gaylias once asked Rodney during a monthly treatment plan review, "Do you believe that you are mentally ill?" to which Rodney honestly answered no. Dr. Gaylius triumphantly pounced, "See, that proves it!"

Rodney tells me he responded, "Doctor, do you believe you are gay?" which question was answered, "Certainly not!" Rodney smiled, "Well, there you are." And everyone in the room laughed out loud.

We had been discussing the Lindsay Clancy case, and the media and public reactions to it. I am optimistic that Clancy will either eventually be found guilty of murdering her children, thereby demonstrating the clear deterioration of social and jurisprudential patience with the insanity defense; or there will be so much negative blowback from the lack of a murder conviction that a cultural inflection point will be reached against psychiatry's dehumanizing and destructive power within our system of criminal law.

Rodney is ever the pessimist. In the past he was always right: I only hope he is wrong now. The difference between us is perhaps caused by the fact that he was a helpless victim of the nuthouse, tortured for thirteen years, to barely escape and rebuild his life with his own hands and his back and his sweat and his own mind. I on the other hand, was a privileged antagonist of the nuthouse, mostly immune from retribution because of my position as an officer of the Courts of the State Illinois which derived from wealth I never had to work very hard for myself. Rodney's son once remarked to my son (after saving his life in a snowstorm), "Your family's rich, mine's poor. That's the only difference."

The "proof" of mental illness by an accused ("diagnosed") person's denial alone is based in a concept called "anosognosia," which was originally a real neurological phenomenon not meant for conversion to the mechanism of psychiatric bullshit or gaslighted mind control that it has become. It is something I've written about before, on at least a couple occasions. This related to the Clancy case in our conversation today because Rodney and I make opposite estimates of the public's belief in what he calls "The Gospel of Psychoquackery." 

I say 10% of people do still believe, and he says only 10% don't believe, in the central elements of this Gospel: 1. Mental illness is a real disease; 2. Psychiatrists are real doctors; 3. Bad conversation and neuropoisons are real treatment for mental illness; 4. Bad behavior is caused by mental illness; 5. People called or calling themselves mentally ill are real patients; and 6. Denying any of this is a symptom of mental illness. I could probably write a whole article on each one of these points, but that sixth element is where "anosognosia" comes in.

We'll see what happens in the wake of People v. Clancy. If I can just live long enough to be sure that public belief in Rodney's "Gospel of Psychoquakery" is less than 10%, this will have been a victorious life for me. Whatever riches come to me by such victory will go to reparations, and I'll hope to walk away with nothing but the shirt on my back.

If I can do that, I'll live forever and work in eternity.

I hope she is convicted

Who can imagine that simple justice for the brutal murders of three children by their mother is less important than feminism or the opportunity to blame bad drugs and bad medical practice? I can't.

The eldest, Cora, was five when her mom strangled her. I remember being five. I knew my mother and my extended family. I communicated with them, trusted them all, and understood many things about my world along with them. Cora probably wanted to be like her mother. I doubt that she understood what was happening as she died in pain. To whatever degree she did understand, that must have made it worse.

Cora's younger brother Dawson was three when his mother put the cord around his neck. Maybe he first thought it was a game or some sort of odd caress, but then it was excruciating. And Callan, the baby, was eight months old. He was probably sitting up, maybe crawling a bit, focusing with big eyes, holding on to his mom, dad, brother and sister with chubby hands, trying to talk.

Many people I know would love to make an example of psychiatry: despite good insurance coverage, the "treatment" provided to these kids' mom was over-the-top terrible; psychiatrists quite literally turned her into an insane child killer with their drugs and their dehumanization, and she had never been evil until she was in their hands.

Some good friends argued around my dinner table earlier this week about how tragic it is that the trad-mom movement (the term is almost brand new to me, I had read it before but never heard it spoken) among younger conservative or evangelical women is just ruining all the progress brought by many decades of feminism.

I'd probably trade all feminist achievements and all public recognition of the truth about psychiatry to bring back three kids whom I never met.

Shake, Rattle & Roll (Unfit to Stand Trial at EMHC)

I have long suspected that many "patients" at EMHC who are supposedly there for "treatment" to make them fit to stand trial already are fit to stand trial. The taxpayers in Illinois are paying $1000/day/patient for "treatment" which is unnecessary and unwanted.

I was contacted recently by a patient (I'll call her Hortense) on Hinton Unit at EMHC, who gave me a confused story about family, various "doctors" (psychs), court personnel, police, and innocent bystanders. As best I can tell the short version is: she was mid-divorce (not her choice) and somebody decided the strategy against her should be to get her locked up as unfit, which might work just long enough to create an advantage. Meanwhile, Hortense managed to get charged with domestic battery and violation of an order of protection, which were not serious crimes in the circumstances, but enough to get her sold into psychiatric slavery for the time being.

Enter the slave overseers: Dr. Jehanzeb Sheikh ("Shake"), Dr. James Finn ("Rattle") and social worker Vita Robinson ("Roll"), respectively the psychiatrist, psychologist, and case worker on Hortense's "treatment" team. All three are on IDHS' payroll. Shake makes over $300,000, Rattle and Roll are also into the taxpayers for six figures each. One might think these guys were among the best at EMHC. But somehow, they are happy to prove their complete inability or unwillingness to simply do the job they're paid to do, which in this case is to get Hortense fit for trial.

I've attended two staffings for this "patient", and done my best to emphasize there are few specific components of fitness under Illinois statutes: a) the accused must understand the charges against her, the proceedings in court, consequences of a plea, judgment or sentence, and the functions of participants at trial; b) the accused must be able to observe, recollect and relate occurrences concerning alleged incidents, and able to communicate with her legal counsel; and c) the accused must be able to behave socially, remain oriented to time and place, recognize persons, places and things, and perform motor processes.

The short form of this is: you're fit if you can understand your legal situation and work with your attorney in your own defense. There is a written test for understanding the legal situation. Ability to work with counsel is more in the eye of the beholder. 

I can work with almost anyone no matter how crazy they are, or at least I like to think so. But some lawyers will only work with clients they like, or those who do exactly as they are told. Hortense has recently found it problematic to work with one or more attorneys, and she may not have financial resources to pay (or time to search) for one who is perfect for her. I knew one "UST" patient at EMHC who became his own crackerjack jailhouse lawyer fairly early in his confinement, yet he was held as unfit for at least a decade and a half. The EMHC overseers can probably keep anyone enslaved as "unfit" for more or less as long as they like, enabling her to be gotten rid of in the divorce. If the wrong people in the system don't like you or fear you, they'll say you're unfit, and they'll be believed.

Hortense is very well aware of her situation. She has repeatedly asked Rattle (the psychologist) to give her the written test to at least establish the first component of fitness. Rattle arrogantly told her this morning, "I can test you whenever I feel like it," which translates to, "I'll keep you here forever if you don't take Shake's drugs and convincingly swear allegiance to the mental health orthodoxy." Roll (social worker) continuously puts false reports in the (so-called) "chart" to turn everyone in court against Hortense and keep her enslaved.

If she doesn't get out of EMHC pretty quick, her chances for a decent life and any future relationship with her family will crash. Shake, Rattle & Roll! I believe you're doin' me wrong and now I know.

Psychiatry destroys families, that's one of its main functions.

Hiroshima, Cannae and Troy

Christopher Nolan's Odyssey is about an end of civilization brought on by the Greeks' violation of their gods' golden rule; but no simple "anti-MAGA" interpretation respects history, it only offends the gods anew. Homer probably believed Agamemnon's expedition was ruinous from its inception and Odysseus' trick with the horse-gift was ignoble; but no strategy to foreswear deception will redeem humanity, and treating others as you would be treated will never apply to enemies in war.

The sack of Troy was roughly a thousand years before the battle of Cannae, and roughly three thousand years before Hiroshima. But destructive war was frequent or almost continuous between and since those events, even as the hope was frequent or almost continuous, that humanity could someday, somehow, rise above such insanity. The lesson Homer offers is that people haven't changed and won't change. They think, feel, and behave exactly as they always have.

Against this enduring reality, we Westerners have recently settled upon what we call science, and a portion of it that we call medicine, as our best shot. Occasionally we are so enamored as to imagine that because of modern breakthroughs we are no longer kin to the king of Ithaca and his long-suffering bride, that we will never have to be slaughtered on a sweltering, stinking field, and that we ourselves did not and would not fly that airplane to Japan and incinerate all those people.

When we read about Achilles' rage at Patroclus' death and the golden urn containing their mixed ashes, or Penelope's proof that Odysseus was her returned husband by his simple knowledge of their great rooted bridal bed, Homer shows us we are progeny of the ancient people even as surely as we remember our own mothers and fathers. 

Our supposed upward progress from the horror of Cannae is belied by eerily comparable gore at Jonestown, Benedict Canyon, and Milwaukee. My father-in-law stood in radioactive dust on the outskirts of Nagasaki in August, 1945. He was 21 years old. Fifty years later I stood with my pre-teen children gazing across the beautiful graveyard above Omaha Beach. My youngest asked me, "Dad, who killed all these people?"

And then we encounter... psychiatry. It is a relatively recent endeavor that causes insanity, manufactures criminals and encourages war: the most destructive idea since the Inquisition, the cruelest system since chattel slavery, under a truly sick guise of "medicine".

We desperately hope the world isn't worse than ever before in history, but it's not much better. We are not saved.

I don't ask who is mentally ill, or for whom the bell tolls.