Yesterday afternoon as we set off for Birmingham I noticed that drugs had got into us, presumably from our lunch-time sandwiches. With the sandwiches I had coffee (but Dawn I think had a cup of tea, but made with the same water of course).
It strikes me (furthermore) that discontinuing my website - certainly my main website, leaving perhaps my Blogger blog to expose my complaints - might be very positive towards ending the drugging. I don't feel entirely happy with this idea, though, and I can see no reason why I should feel unhappy about it unless I have been urged through hypnotising words to continue it. The only benefit I get from it lies in the pleasure I get at the idea people are interested in what I have to say, and the people who matter in this regard are not the people who override my objections to being drugged. How many genuine readers I have I cannot tell.
Reflecting on this, it seems not at all unlikely that I suffered hypnotising words in the nighttime while away from home at the weekend (in a hotel, in fact) and those words are having a continuing effect now, days later. I have in hand portable means of detecting voicing at night for such occasions. Furthering that project seems the best way I can spend time now, therefore.
Pursuing the hypothesis of hypnotising voices last weekend: it explains very well my predisposition to go to Birmingham (twice so far this week), and explains how the almost certain preparedness for us at the main post office there on Tuesday was arranged. Dawn bought a lottery ticket in there on that occasion, and I shall be interested to see the outcome of that (the draw was last night but we do not know the result yet for her ticket).
It explains my persuading myself since the weekend of the merits of my website and that I should take trouble to continue its maintenance (eg with my present hosts 123-reg despite the fact they seem to accept payment only by plastic). It casts doubt on the coffee granules I bought at Whittards (the ones I have just chucked).
To speak hypnotising words to me in the nighttime is, as I have said before, an unusual way of communicating. I understand that it has grown out of my preceding history, but I ask myself what the basis is on which The Experiment wishes to continue it. If I were left entirely free I should no doubt continue much as I was in 1978 and 1979, and more likely than not given the availability now of personal websites put up my diary as a blog. I have been hoping to put up my diaries from past years including the 1970s, in fact. The reason for wanting to continue the hypnotising words presumably now (whatever was formerly the case) is not merely so that the perpetrators can continue in employment. It is slightly uncertain whether I would do as I say, that is publish my diaries as a weblog, and my guess has to be that the present-day Experimenters wish to guide me in certain directions (including publishing what I have to say in a form accessible to them). Unfortunately hypnotising voicing also enables them to guide me to take drugs I do not want to take, and given what has happened in the past this possibility makes me very much less trustful. The weekend bash has cost me a jar of coffee thus far, and also consternation in processing on what to do about the Water Rate demand ....
As I say, it is the unusual nature of the 'communication' offered which causes me concern. People who freely agree with each other to do things enter into a form of contract, and the law on contract - tried and tested over centuries - is very helpful in understanding the nature of free agreements between people. To try to persuade others using persuasion techniques which psychological theorists have dreamt up in the past century is not the same thing at all, and formerly, evidence that persuasion techniques were of interest to The Experiment has caused me to prefer the hypothesis that we were being made use of for military purposes. (To be honest, most psychological theory as it is now is worthless, just as the associated 'work' which psychiatrists do is worthless and should be left to rich movie stars and the like to pay out for as they may pay out for personal astrologers, instead of State funds being wasted. Of course I know from experience that what is perpetrated by State-employed psychiatrists is worse than worthless: it is a danger to their patients.)
The first thing I did this morning on getting up was type up a handwritten note as I said yesterday I intended. I translated this to HTML and have just inserted it into the basic file [for my [then] website barrass-brough.org.uk] for May (this month). As soon as I returned - in doing that - to the work of preparing the website update I became 'yawnative' for which now read bored. The reason, now I see clearly, is that doing this website update is not something I myself have planned out to do, but rather has been suggested (perhaps foisted is too strong) to me by the nighttime voicers. Drugged as I have been in the past I have followed their suggestions - for one thing life was empty without having at least that to do - but now I understand clearly I have more of a choice in the matter. Having this choice, and thinking out the best choice to make, itself lays down the scheme or plan following which should give rise to pleasure apart from what actually gets done as a result of the activity planned out.
The Experimenters have whatever interests they have - in recent months, politics and economics. I have my interests: that is, what I would freely choose to spend time on: that is, most significantly, computer modelling of perceptual processes. Who is to say what is the best use of my time? One man I worked with at Dudley Council - a PhD in history, actually - disagreed with my suggestion the activities of Isaac Newton were of greater significance than say the perpetrations of Prime Ministers. He disagreed presumably because of his educational background and the things that in turn depended on. What I would say here is that I ought to be free to pursue my own lines of enquiry, to the extent the economics of the time allow (in other words at other times in history I might have needed to work in the counting-house for twelve hours each day, but not so in the present context).
I see now, also, the origin of the things going on in my mind as I have written my notes - or typed them on my handheld device - in going about since the weekend. Basically the comments I have made (my own comments at one remove from the commentary 'requested' by the Experimenters) have centred on the distraction from being explicit at too low a level, that is too close to physical reality, or certainly explicit thus too early. Keeping one's ideas in mind instead of on paper allows them to have a persistence which gives rise to better higher-level abstractions from them. That is, it gives rise (ultimately) to better summarisations and theories. This is why science has a brevity and power almost unknown in the arts and certainly unknown to ‘social science’.
Thus I see that a lot of the wasteful distraction from what I should have been doing, since the weekend, has derived not so much from drugs as from the nighttime voicing. The conclusion for politicians who may take an interest is that hypnosis without the preceding consent of the one hypnotised, in a clear undrugged condition of mind, should be outlawed.
Thursday, 29 May 2008
From Monday 26 May 2008
Another part of the cost to us in being drugged is the waste of my time now trying to work these things out, the motivation being as I say to hope to avoid, or better avoid, in future such drugging, because we derive entirely disbenefit from it. Furthermore my time is wasted more than it would be by virtue of the fact my thinking is less efficient because of mind-altering drugs still in my metabolism this morning.
I have in the past had varying hypotheses why I - in particular - have suffered such drugging. One frequently cropping up has been that it was to assess the hurt to me from previous such drugging. I find this hypothesis again rearing up this morning, but dismiss it on the basis that I have had it over so many years that it cannot have been right then (because I - and now we - would not continue to suffer year after year for that purpose) so most likely is not right now.
Another major hypothesis was that it was to produce a simulacrum schizophrenia for research purposes, and I cannot so readily dismiss this same hypothesis now. What I myself suffered from the drugging yesterday - particularly in the thinking I was doing trying to sort out why we were delayed unnecessarily (as far as I could see) from the alterations to train timings due to Sunday engineering works - was very close to a condition of paranoia, and has been so but much worse in the past.
The third major hypothesis has been that the drugs were supposed to be an assistance to me because I was supposed to be schizophrenic and they were based on antischizophrenic medication (but with extras, presumably to try to counter ‘side-effects’). This hypothesis is one I have only quite recently entertained, because it seemed so ridiculous. It seemed ridiculous to imagine that psychiatrists presumably regarded as especially competent and presumably concerting together (that is, not just one of them making his own diagnosis) could make the mistaken diagnosis, and ridiculous to imagine the debilitating effect of the drug mixtures given could be missed and the view continue to be taken that the drugs were an assistance to me.
Therefore to convey the truth about the effect of the drugging - that it had entirely disbeneficial effects, for Dawn and for myself - I need to transmit this exposition (and presume it will be correctly understood) to those arranging for the drugs to be supplied. I have to say this is difficult firstly because I cannot be certain where the drugs were supplied. I cannot know how the authorisation has been given for the drugging. Those authorising the drugging - that is those writing the prescription and those organising for the railway coffee (it may well have been) to have drugs put in it - are remiss in not advising themselves adequately of the effects of the drugging, and further in causing me the frustration of needing to work out how best to transmit expositions such as this diary entry.
When I put this diary entry on my various websites it will reach a certain audience (including some MPs) but they may not have time to get to the truth of what I say and may have no particular interest in the subject of mental health. They may not cotton on to the degree of waste in my life - waste and horror for me over the years - so may not take the question sufficiently seriously. (On the other hand I am now kicking up such a fuss that I hope someone with influence may intervene.) Apart from this ‘broadcasting’ in the hope someone with influence may assist me - and really it should be my own MP - I think it might be well to send this exposition to the management of the Premier Inn chain (on the basis that the tea and coffee we drank in the Wakefield hotel may well have contained drugs) and to the management at Doncaster railway station.
We have been drugged on railway stations before (Doncaster in particular) and in hotel rooms before, and those arranging the drugging - who almost certainly read my websites if few others do - may simply be continuing established practices with only a lackadaisical notion why they are doing so. If mechanisms are in place allowing us to be drugged in these ways, ‘the Experimenters’ - to refer to them thus - having only vague ideas (almost certainly being trained in subjects related to psychiatry) may make use of the mechanisms without over-much reflection. I have to say this is wrong - in fact a disaster - that is (this is it basically) to allow antischizophrenic drugs to be prescribed so lackadaisically.
¬¬¬
There is quite an industry of people employed nowadays to ‘help out’. Such people as Social Workers (in Western countries like Britain) depend for their employment on people - some inhabitants of the country - being in a bad way. Moreover nowadays (for reasons which I would do well to think about) the work people do - when it is assessed for purposes of remuneration, or in academic circles reputation - is measured to a large degree by quantity. Scientists - and other academics, I presume - are judged according to the number of papers they publish. It is argued that the papers are scored (by assessors from the peer group) before publication so that counting them counts only worthy publishings. Readers may be aware what I think of this system as applied to psychiatric ‘scientists’, who form what I can call only a mutual admiration society comparable to the clique of theologians in mediaeval times.
Thus it is that with the motivation of wishing for continuing employment (and extending into ‘empire building’) employees of the State - and in particular, Social Workers and similar (possibly including psychiatrists although I would think they deceive themselves more and are less cynical) - feel they need to do ‘work’ in quantity. They need to have a large case-load and they need to take action in each case. Applied to my own ‘case’ this maybe is what leads to continuing use of the mechanisms for drugging me - including perhaps access to those who supply tea and coffee (or the water used) in hotel rooms.
This is an unfortunate state of affairs, as insufficient account is taken - in measuring the ‘work’ - of success or otherwise in achieving aims. Intervention by Social Workers sometimes (I myself do not know whether the statistic is around 50% of cases or is greater) makes matters worse not better. But this is not ordinarily measured. Only the quantity (the number of cases) is ordinarily measured. In extreme cases (such as death of a child) some effort may be made to gather more information on the ‘work’ done.
I have produced ideas in past months on the explanation for the irreversible growth of State intervention - ‘big government’ - and usually I would accept that nothing is to be done, and merely regret the facts. In my own ‘case’ though, because State intervention of this species has led me to suffer so badly, I have been motivated to strive to make an alteration, which comes down lately to publishing words in places they are put in the way of people with influence.
I have in the past had varying hypotheses why I - in particular - have suffered such drugging. One frequently cropping up has been that it was to assess the hurt to me from previous such drugging. I find this hypothesis again rearing up this morning, but dismiss it on the basis that I have had it over so many years that it cannot have been right then (because I - and now we - would not continue to suffer year after year for that purpose) so most likely is not right now.
Another major hypothesis was that it was to produce a simulacrum schizophrenia for research purposes, and I cannot so readily dismiss this same hypothesis now. What I myself suffered from the drugging yesterday - particularly in the thinking I was doing trying to sort out why we were delayed unnecessarily (as far as I could see) from the alterations to train timings due to Sunday engineering works - was very close to a condition of paranoia, and has been so but much worse in the past.
The third major hypothesis has been that the drugs were supposed to be an assistance to me because I was supposed to be schizophrenic and they were based on antischizophrenic medication (but with extras, presumably to try to counter ‘side-effects’). This hypothesis is one I have only quite recently entertained, because it seemed so ridiculous. It seemed ridiculous to imagine that psychiatrists presumably regarded as especially competent and presumably concerting together (that is, not just one of them making his own diagnosis) could make the mistaken diagnosis, and ridiculous to imagine the debilitating effect of the drug mixtures given could be missed and the view continue to be taken that the drugs were an assistance to me.
Therefore to convey the truth about the effect of the drugging - that it had entirely disbeneficial effects, for Dawn and for myself - I need to transmit this exposition (and presume it will be correctly understood) to those arranging for the drugs to be supplied. I have to say this is difficult firstly because I cannot be certain where the drugs were supplied. I cannot know how the authorisation has been given for the drugging. Those authorising the drugging - that is those writing the prescription and those organising for the railway coffee (it may well have been) to have drugs put in it - are remiss in not advising themselves adequately of the effects of the drugging, and further in causing me the frustration of needing to work out how best to transmit expositions such as this diary entry.
When I put this diary entry on my various websites it will reach a certain audience (including some MPs) but they may not have time to get to the truth of what I say and may have no particular interest in the subject of mental health. They may not cotton on to the degree of waste in my life - waste and horror for me over the years - so may not take the question sufficiently seriously. (On the other hand I am now kicking up such a fuss that I hope someone with influence may intervene.) Apart from this ‘broadcasting’ in the hope someone with influence may assist me - and really it should be my own MP - I think it might be well to send this exposition to the management of the Premier Inn chain (on the basis that the tea and coffee we drank in the Wakefield hotel may well have contained drugs) and to the management at Doncaster railway station.
We have been drugged on railway stations before (Doncaster in particular) and in hotel rooms before, and those arranging the drugging - who almost certainly read my websites if few others do - may simply be continuing established practices with only a lackadaisical notion why they are doing so. If mechanisms are in place allowing us to be drugged in these ways, ‘the Experimenters’ - to refer to them thus - having only vague ideas (almost certainly being trained in subjects related to psychiatry) may make use of the mechanisms without over-much reflection. I have to say this is wrong - in fact a disaster - that is (this is it basically) to allow antischizophrenic drugs to be prescribed so lackadaisically.
¬¬¬
There is quite an industry of people employed nowadays to ‘help out’. Such people as Social Workers (in Western countries like Britain) depend for their employment on people - some inhabitants of the country - being in a bad way. Moreover nowadays (for reasons which I would do well to think about) the work people do - when it is assessed for purposes of remuneration, or in academic circles reputation - is measured to a large degree by quantity. Scientists - and other academics, I presume - are judged according to the number of papers they publish. It is argued that the papers are scored (by assessors from the peer group) before publication so that counting them counts only worthy publishings. Readers may be aware what I think of this system as applied to psychiatric ‘scientists’, who form what I can call only a mutual admiration society comparable to the clique of theologians in mediaeval times.
Thus it is that with the motivation of wishing for continuing employment (and extending into ‘empire building’) employees of the State - and in particular, Social Workers and similar (possibly including psychiatrists although I would think they deceive themselves more and are less cynical) - feel they need to do ‘work’ in quantity. They need to have a large case-load and they need to take action in each case. Applied to my own ‘case’ this maybe is what leads to continuing use of the mechanisms for drugging me - including perhaps access to those who supply tea and coffee (or the water used) in hotel rooms.
This is an unfortunate state of affairs, as insufficient account is taken - in measuring the ‘work’ - of success or otherwise in achieving aims. Intervention by Social Workers sometimes (I myself do not know whether the statistic is around 50% of cases or is greater) makes matters worse not better. But this is not ordinarily measured. Only the quantity (the number of cases) is ordinarily measured. In extreme cases (such as death of a child) some effort may be made to gather more information on the ‘work’ done.
I have produced ideas in past months on the explanation for the irreversible growth of State intervention - ‘big government’ - and usually I would accept that nothing is to be done, and merely regret the facts. In my own ‘case’ though, because State intervention of this species has led me to suffer so badly, I have been motivated to strive to make an alteration, which comes down lately to publishing words in places they are put in the way of people with influence.
Friday, 23 May 2008
Closer Understanding
The night before this night just ended - that is, the night between Wednesday and Thursday - I got up in the middle of the night and flushed a lot of bread down the toilet, mainly Hovis bought a day or two previous from Sainsbury’s Merry Hill. I did this because I felt effects of drugs - a combination of stimulant and ASM [antischizophrenic medication] - and not understanding why I should continue to be drugged, was fearful - certainly suspicious - that the intention was to entrap me in continuing drugging such as I have suffered in the past. The way this has been perpetrated was to reduce my ability to think for myself, that is my ability to take into account longer range considerations in forming decisions what to do. Certain mixtures of stimulant and ASM have this effect on me, of reducing or zeroing my ability to take account of longer range considerations. It is the antischizophrenic component of the mixture which causes this problem, and with no stimulant admixed (or insufficient stimulant) I become very little active because I find little to motivate me. Under ordinary circumstances - that is, undrugged - the motivations I find for taking action relate exclusively to longer range considerations, that is longer term into the future. I know there are other motivations to be found - for example enjoyment of food - and when I have been on some combinations of drugs - notably in the early years of the new Millennium, that is from about the year 2000 on for a year or two - I have performed activities based on such motivations. Unfortunately I was nowhere near as happy under those circumstances, that is without my usual longer range motivations.
A further problem arising out of my particular history, from being given drugs which deprive me of longer range motivations, is that I become too subject to advice given by speaking to me when I am less than fully aware. (I have reason to believe such advice has been given when my awareness has been subdued - for example I have been heavily asleep, perhaps - by a drug like opium.) Because I have no genuine motivations arising within myself (that is, because the drugs I have been given when this has occurred have removed the motivation available from longer range considerations), when I am given stimulant drugs affecting me in the waking period (usually the daytime but sometimes I have been kept wakeful at night) which give me a feeling of drive which if not put into effect causes frustration (which can manifest in angry outbursts) and certainly distraction (in that the stimulant while in my metabolism puts me constantly on the look-out for action I might take), if I am given suggestion akin to hypnotic suggestion I act on that suggestion too readily.
Thus what has happened is that my ability to think for myself has been reduced near to zero with antischizophrenic drugs and then the actions I take have been too subject to the suggestion I have mentioned, akin to hypnotic suggestion. This suggestion has been used to persuade me to purchase foodstuffs which have been drugged, this leading to continuation in the entrapment I refer to. It has been more difficult to evade the entrapment when there have been fewer choices of places to shop for food: for example in the Harworth area of Nottinghamshire where we (my wife and I) had our park home and where we came close to settling permanently. Where we are living now in Kingswinford, there are so many easily accessible food stores that slight randomisation in our purchasing of food has a very beneficial effect in negativing any ‘hypnotic’ suggestion. The upshot is that those wishing to persuade me to continue to take in drugged foods and drinks find it impossible. Sometimes still when I do not see things as clearly as this morning I have fear of entrapment, for example through drugging of our water supply from South Staffs Water (which I am sure is a thing capable of being done and which has been done in months past).
The question why these people wish me to continue to take drugs of this nature - reducing near to zero my ability to think for myself - is one I find difficulty answering, and I suppose there must be complex factors arising out of my history. I was first given antischizophrenic drugs in the 1970s as part of a scheme to try to ‘treat’ the schizoid personality I had, which those giving the drugs seemingly felt was undesirable in itself (it is a widely held view that to be sociable is desirable) and probably felt might lead to schizophrenia with ‘positive’ symptoms which would be more widely agreed to be undesirable. Unfortunately they had insufficient understanding of the effects of the drugs given, as well as insufficient understanding of schizoid personality and of schizophrenia, and moreover they were very negligent in not assaying (at all, it seems to me, incredible though this may sound) the effects in practice of giving me the drugs surreptitiously.
The consequence of this sequence of drug administration - first surreptitiously, as I say, and in 1980, and subsequently, by compulsion (this leading through the effect on my ability to think for myself to continued acceptance by me of the abusive drugs) - was that I was under treatment with these drugs for almost twenty-five years.
In 2003 after my parents died I left the town where I had lived since the age of three and went to live in Retford in Nottinghamshire (although I have now returned to Kingswinford). Regrettably the people following the course of the treatment I had been receiving (successors to the original perpetrators from the time I was a student at Cambridge University) took the view that I needed to have antischizophrenic medication. I presume the reasons they had were not unethical reasons but rather were related to their mistaken way of understanding schizophrenia and its treatment. The sequence which followed from the time I started living in Retford was that in 2004 I was given powerful stimulant drugs which (in combination with antischizophrenic drugs given at the same time) caused me to behave in a confused and sometimes aggressive-seeming manner which resulted in the September in my arrest in Bristol and conveyance (under circumstances which I myself deplore extremely) back to Nottinghamshire and in fact to detention in Bassetlaw Hospital.
While in hospital there I met Dawn who is now my wife. The people following the course of my life and who had power (evidently) to order that I be given drugs, sometimes surreptitiously and sometimes by compulsion (when I was under a ‘section’ of the Mental Health Act improperly applied, in my view), seemingly felt that my choice of Dawn as a marriage partner was undesirable. Factors accidentally arising - for example the ‘talking-therapy’ treatment which had been applied around Easter of 2004 to a friend I had made on the internet (Caroline, who lived in Bristol) which had most unfortunate consequences for her and for me (again blameable on the mistaken way psychiatrists in Britain - including those promoting ‘talking-therapy’ treatments, evidently - have of understanding schizophrenia) - led now to a sort of panic in those following the course of my life (mistakenly believing I was schizophrenic and that they were gathering knowledge of the life of someone schizophrenic under treatment for schizophrenia in an ordinary British scheme of treatment). This is the best way I can find to explain events. In 2004 I had lost a lot of money online gambling, this resulting from the drugs I had been given (and possibly from ‘hypnotising’ advice in combination), and as I say Caroline had been caused a lot of heartache and general distress from the foolish treatment she had been subject to, so the perpetrators must have panicked, coming close to realising the error of their ways and (perhaps having the mens rea as I have suggested recently and surely having regret for the sequence resulting from their inadequate understanding) feeling they must brave things out and try to promote (or prove, as they may have presented it to themselves) the diagnosis I had of schizophrenia thus justifying the treatment I had been meted.
My fears change according to the mixtures of drugs I am given from time to time, but this morning I feel that surely what is going on now is not a further attempt to entrap me but rather an endeavour to obtain evidence, directly on the effects of drugs given to me surreptitiously (for example in recent days in bread) and further from what I say about events over the years, and from documents I produce (and publish on the internet) relating to what has happened over the years.
A further problem arising out of my particular history, from being given drugs which deprive me of longer range motivations, is that I become too subject to advice given by speaking to me when I am less than fully aware. (I have reason to believe such advice has been given when my awareness has been subdued - for example I have been heavily asleep, perhaps - by a drug like opium.) Because I have no genuine motivations arising within myself (that is, because the drugs I have been given when this has occurred have removed the motivation available from longer range considerations), when I am given stimulant drugs affecting me in the waking period (usually the daytime but sometimes I have been kept wakeful at night) which give me a feeling of drive which if not put into effect causes frustration (which can manifest in angry outbursts) and certainly distraction (in that the stimulant while in my metabolism puts me constantly on the look-out for action I might take), if I am given suggestion akin to hypnotic suggestion I act on that suggestion too readily.
Thus what has happened is that my ability to think for myself has been reduced near to zero with antischizophrenic drugs and then the actions I take have been too subject to the suggestion I have mentioned, akin to hypnotic suggestion. This suggestion has been used to persuade me to purchase foodstuffs which have been drugged, this leading to continuation in the entrapment I refer to. It has been more difficult to evade the entrapment when there have been fewer choices of places to shop for food: for example in the Harworth area of Nottinghamshire where we (my wife and I) had our park home and where we came close to settling permanently. Where we are living now in Kingswinford, there are so many easily accessible food stores that slight randomisation in our purchasing of food has a very beneficial effect in negativing any ‘hypnotic’ suggestion. The upshot is that those wishing to persuade me to continue to take in drugged foods and drinks find it impossible. Sometimes still when I do not see things as clearly as this morning I have fear of entrapment, for example through drugging of our water supply from South Staffs Water (which I am sure is a thing capable of being done and which has been done in months past).
The question why these people wish me to continue to take drugs of this nature - reducing near to zero my ability to think for myself - is one I find difficulty answering, and I suppose there must be complex factors arising out of my history. I was first given antischizophrenic drugs in the 1970s as part of a scheme to try to ‘treat’ the schizoid personality I had, which those giving the drugs seemingly felt was undesirable in itself (it is a widely held view that to be sociable is desirable) and probably felt might lead to schizophrenia with ‘positive’ symptoms which would be more widely agreed to be undesirable. Unfortunately they had insufficient understanding of the effects of the drugs given, as well as insufficient understanding of schizoid personality and of schizophrenia, and moreover they were very negligent in not assaying (at all, it seems to me, incredible though this may sound) the effects in practice of giving me the drugs surreptitiously.
The consequence of this sequence of drug administration - first surreptitiously, as I say, and in 1980, and subsequently, by compulsion (this leading through the effect on my ability to think for myself to continued acceptance by me of the abusive drugs) - was that I was under treatment with these drugs for almost twenty-five years.
In 2003 after my parents died I left the town where I had lived since the age of three and went to live in Retford in Nottinghamshire (although I have now returned to Kingswinford). Regrettably the people following the course of the treatment I had been receiving (successors to the original perpetrators from the time I was a student at Cambridge University) took the view that I needed to have antischizophrenic medication. I presume the reasons they had were not unethical reasons but rather were related to their mistaken way of understanding schizophrenia and its treatment. The sequence which followed from the time I started living in Retford was that in 2004 I was given powerful stimulant drugs which (in combination with antischizophrenic drugs given at the same time) caused me to behave in a confused and sometimes aggressive-seeming manner which resulted in the September in my arrest in Bristol and conveyance (under circumstances which I myself deplore extremely) back to Nottinghamshire and in fact to detention in Bassetlaw Hospital.
While in hospital there I met Dawn who is now my wife. The people following the course of my life and who had power (evidently) to order that I be given drugs, sometimes surreptitiously and sometimes by compulsion (when I was under a ‘section’ of the Mental Health Act improperly applied, in my view), seemingly felt that my choice of Dawn as a marriage partner was undesirable. Factors accidentally arising - for example the ‘talking-therapy’ treatment which had been applied around Easter of 2004 to a friend I had made on the internet (Caroline, who lived in Bristol) which had most unfortunate consequences for her and for me (again blameable on the mistaken way psychiatrists in Britain - including those promoting ‘talking-therapy’ treatments, evidently - have of understanding schizophrenia) - led now to a sort of panic in those following the course of my life (mistakenly believing I was schizophrenic and that they were gathering knowledge of the life of someone schizophrenic under treatment for schizophrenia in an ordinary British scheme of treatment). This is the best way I can find to explain events. In 2004 I had lost a lot of money online gambling, this resulting from the drugs I had been given (and possibly from ‘hypnotising’ advice in combination), and as I say Caroline had been caused a lot of heartache and general distress from the foolish treatment she had been subject to, so the perpetrators must have panicked, coming close to realising the error of their ways and (perhaps having the mens rea as I have suggested recently and surely having regret for the sequence resulting from their inadequate understanding) feeling they must brave things out and try to promote (or prove, as they may have presented it to themselves) the diagnosis I had of schizophrenia thus justifying the treatment I had been meted.
My fears change according to the mixtures of drugs I am given from time to time, but this morning I feel that surely what is going on now is not a further attempt to entrap me but rather an endeavour to obtain evidence, directly on the effects of drugs given to me surreptitiously (for example in recent days in bread) and further from what I say about events over the years, and from documents I produce (and publish on the internet) relating to what has happened over the years.
Wednesday, 21 May 2008
Includes cost to the economy
In the 1990s I had a number of pen-pals who I had got in contact with through the NSF (the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, by the old name it was then called). Possibly one of these, or possibly it was someone who came on TV with his story, explained what had happened to him: he had developed schizophrenia (according to doctors) and had been treated with antischizophrenic drugs. His mental organisation had become totally disrupted: whereas before he had been (I think) a Civil Servant, or anyway in some position needing ability to think clearly, afterwards he was totally incompetent. He himself believed the mental disorganisation was due to the illness, and presumably those treating him did.
I must be about the only person treated with such drugs for schizophrenia (or as if for schizophrenia) who already knew a good deal about the illness. I knew from the start that my mental disorganisation was nothing to do with symptomatology of schizophrenia, and in fact I knew the truth, that it was due to the drugs. How it comes that no one else has understood this I find difficult to unravel. Those testing the drugs seemingly don’t measure the right things, in measuring the effects. They don’t measure the effect on ‘mental organisation’: for example (to harp on again) Armond said that antischizophrenic drugs do not affect intelligence, so I think testers of these drugs must test the effect on IQ and conclude that the drugs don’t affect mental capacity because they don’t have a measurable effect on IQ.
The effect they have (on mental organisation) is as I have said comparable to the effect of lobotomoy. I saw a TV programme about a man in the United States who had had a brain injury destroying part of his prefrontal cortex. Whereas before he had been a high-powered legal executive, afterwards he could only hold down a job as a petrol-pump attendant. This is what happened to me given these drugs: beforehand I was highly regarded as a trainee accountant (for example at Round Oak Steelworks, and for a while at Dudley Council) but afterwards I was what I would call totally incompetent.
It may be - and I hope it is - that someone sensible recently, because of events, has cottoned on to these allegations I make about the effects of antischizophrenic drugs. If they have cottoned on and find a way of testing the truth of what I say (which, if I have been adequately observed, will already be well on the way to being done for my own case) they will discover it is true, and that giving these drugs incautiously results not only in horror for the treated individuals (which they naturally blame on their illness) but deprives the economy of useful workers.
I must be about the only person treated with such drugs for schizophrenia (or as if for schizophrenia) who already knew a good deal about the illness. I knew from the start that my mental disorganisation was nothing to do with symptomatology of schizophrenia, and in fact I knew the truth, that it was due to the drugs. How it comes that no one else has understood this I find difficult to unravel. Those testing the drugs seemingly don’t measure the right things, in measuring the effects. They don’t measure the effect on ‘mental organisation’: for example (to harp on again) Armond said that antischizophrenic drugs do not affect intelligence, so I think testers of these drugs must test the effect on IQ and conclude that the drugs don’t affect mental capacity because they don’t have a measurable effect on IQ.
The effect they have (on mental organisation) is as I have said comparable to the effect of lobotomoy. I saw a TV programme about a man in the United States who had had a brain injury destroying part of his prefrontal cortex. Whereas before he had been a high-powered legal executive, afterwards he could only hold down a job as a petrol-pump attendant. This is what happened to me given these drugs: beforehand I was highly regarded as a trainee accountant (for example at Round Oak Steelworks, and for a while at Dudley Council) but afterwards I was what I would call totally incompetent.
It may be - and I hope it is - that someone sensible recently, because of events, has cottoned on to these allegations I make about the effects of antischizophrenic drugs. If they have cottoned on and find a way of testing the truth of what I say (which, if I have been adequately observed, will already be well on the way to being done for my own case) they will discover it is true, and that giving these drugs incautiously results not only in horror for the treated individuals (which they naturally blame on their illness) but deprives the economy of useful workers.
Monday, 19 May 2008
Trespass
When I was a kid I had all sorts of ideas for gadgets, for example making use of transmission of information over a distance. I saw a TV programme about the invention of telegraph and - whether specifically suggested by the programme I can’t remember - afterwards made a telegraph of my own by winding a solenoid myself using ordinary low-voltage wire (probably supplied with a Philips Electronic Engineer kit I had) and arranging it to swing a needle to indicate dot or dash (or whatever) as in Morse code. Today I have been using my versatile intelligence (as I might call it) for practical purposes - security of our home - rather than (yesterday) writing intellectual (the word I use) or philosophical stuff. I mention the telegraph I made as a kid because nowadays wireless devices are easily affordable, and I am pleased with what I have achieved this morning along the lines of transmitting information from home to a handset I shall carry about with me when I am out and about.
Having achieved pretty competent security, my self-questioning asks the question, does anyone genuinely ever enter our home illicitly, or rather: have they in the past? On one occasion, in January 2007, we returned to the bungalow here in Kingswinford having been away in Nottinghamshire and there was slight damage in the bathroom. It seems very likely someone had entered, and at the time the only alternative I could envisage was that there had been a minor earth tremor. We called in the police but they simply took note, and took note (as we ourselves did not till later, and phoning the police found they had been aware of it) that the breakage of the bathroom window was the internal pane of the double-glazing (arguing the damage was indeed done from inside).
It seems not unlikely (for example because of the legal position that an Englishman’s home is his castle, which would require some special permission presumably in each case, for ‘illicit’ entry) that the advantage taken of us is more by way of (something like) drugging us into a heavy sleep and then walking in through open doors (to drug water stored in bottles in the kitchen, in January this year for example). The law might well regard that as little more serious than trespass.
I have to say the law is wrong and should be changed. The hurt in such a case lies in the drugging. Even being drugged with something like a ‘Mickey Finn’ (something almost certainly perpetratred on us) gives rise to headache in the hangover. And if it is used to further drug us, with drugs which are seriously offensive - say putting antischizophrenic drugs into bottles of water - the offence is severe. The hurt does not so much consist in physical ‘side-effects’ (like headache) as in the effect on one’s mind (certainly speaking for myself). Medical people are hopeless at measuring such hurt - consider for example Armond’s assertion that antischizophrenic drugs ‘do not affect the intelligence’ as though all mental capacity is measurable as ‘intelligence’ or its absence - and it is wrong to allow psychiatrists who are especially foolish medical people to prescribe mind-altering drugs with so little limitation or control on them.
Having achieved pretty competent security, my self-questioning asks the question, does anyone genuinely ever enter our home illicitly, or rather: have they in the past? On one occasion, in January 2007, we returned to the bungalow here in Kingswinford having been away in Nottinghamshire and there was slight damage in the bathroom. It seems very likely someone had entered, and at the time the only alternative I could envisage was that there had been a minor earth tremor. We called in the police but they simply took note, and took note (as we ourselves did not till later, and phoning the police found they had been aware of it) that the breakage of the bathroom window was the internal pane of the double-glazing (arguing the damage was indeed done from inside).
It seems not unlikely (for example because of the legal position that an Englishman’s home is his castle, which would require some special permission presumably in each case, for ‘illicit’ entry) that the advantage taken of us is more by way of (something like) drugging us into a heavy sleep and then walking in through open doors (to drug water stored in bottles in the kitchen, in January this year for example). The law might well regard that as little more serious than trespass.
I have to say the law is wrong and should be changed. The hurt in such a case lies in the drugging. Even being drugged with something like a ‘Mickey Finn’ (something almost certainly perpetratred on us) gives rise to headache in the hangover. And if it is used to further drug us, with drugs which are seriously offensive - say putting antischizophrenic drugs into bottles of water - the offence is severe. The hurt does not so much consist in physical ‘side-effects’ (like headache) as in the effect on one’s mind (certainly speaking for myself). Medical people are hopeless at measuring such hurt - consider for example Armond’s assertion that antischizophrenic drugs ‘do not affect the intelligence’ as though all mental capacity is measurable as ‘intelligence’ or its absence - and it is wrong to allow psychiatrists who are especially foolish medical people to prescribe mind-altering drugs with so little limitation or control on them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)