When I first saw Laura Delano’s story was being published by Penguin, a major publisher, I knew that we were on the brink of change by way of the public narrative around mental health in the west.
當我第一次看到Laura Delano的故事由Penguin這家大型出版社出版時，我就知道我們正處於西方心理健康(public narrative around mental health in the west)公共敘事即將改變的邊緣。
Here was Laura, a powerful and honest voice, recounting her story of being “psychiatrized,” as she calls it; diagnosed with bipolar in her teens just like I was, and then subjected to countless treatments that caused her a tremendous amount of iatrogenic harm.
這裡是Laura，一個強而有力且誠實的聲音，講述她被「精神科化」(psychiatrized)的故事，正如她所稱；她在青少年時期被診斷為躁鬱症(bipolar)，就像我一樣，然後接受無數治療，造成她大量的醫源性傷害(iatrogenic harm)。
Laura and I were born right around the same time. She and I were also diagnosed with bipolar, right around the same time in the ‘90s. Laura spent over a decade on various cocktails of prescription drugs. Descendants of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt, her family had the means to get her the best in care, which is exactly what they tried to do.
Laura和我大約在同一時間出生。她和我也在90年代大約同一時間被診斷為躁鬱症(bipolar)。Laura花了十多年時間服用各種處方藥雞尾酒(cocktails of prescription drugs)。作為Franklin Delano Roosevelt的後裔，她的家族有能力為她提供最好的醫療照護，這正是他們試圖做的。
Laura declined, in spite of having access to what was considered top quality care: the therapists, psychiatrists, drugs, and even in-patient facilities. At one critical juncture in her journey, she recounts, “For years, I’d been classified as treatment resistant, but a spark had ignited in me: it was time to resist treatment.”
儘管能接觸到被認為是頂級品質的照護：治療師、精神科醫師、藥物，甚至住院設施，Laura還是惡化了(declined)。在她旅程中一個關鍵時刻，她回憶道：「多年來，我被歸類為治療抵抗的(treatment resistant)，但我內心點燃了一個火花：是時候抵抗治療(resist treatment)了。」
When I saw her words in print, I knew something had shifted. Laura’s book has since been reviewed in The New York Times, among other major publications, and she’s making her rounds on the podcast circuit accruing millions and millions of views.
Laura is clear in her message: we’ve been told a story for decades: that mental illness is the result of a “chemical imbalance,” and “lifelong brain disorders. We’ve been told that psychiatry is objective science when in reality, she and so many others have held it up to a microscope only to discover that it is pseudoscience created and supported to fund the pharma industry itself.
When I read Laura’s book, Unshrunk, I was shocked to discover that I too had been prescribed prescription drugs as a teen that had never been tested on people my age. That I had been told by psychiatrists that I’d need a lifetime of “medications” that in reality provided no therapeutic benefit, countless horrendous side effects, and had never been tested on any human over the long term.
She goes on to explain how the industry itself has propped up expert “scientists” to essentially be the mouth pieces for big pharma, and advocate for widespread and long term “medicating” of “disorders” like ADHD, bipolar, and borderline personality disorder, among countless others, when in reality there is absolutely no objective criteria for making these diagnoses or for “curing” or “treating” them with so-called medications.
當我看到她的話印成文字時，我就知道有些事情已經改變了。Laura的書從那時起在The New York Times以及其他主要出版物中被評論，她正在podcast circuit上巡迴，累積了數百萬甚至數千萬的觀看次數。
Laura的信息很明確：我們已經被講述了一個持續數十年的故事：心理疾病是「化學失衡」(chemical imbalance)的結果，以及「終生腦部障礙」(lifelong brain disorders)。我們被告知精神科(psychiatry)是客觀科學，但事實上，她和許多其他人將它放在顯微鏡下檢視，只發現它是為了資助製藥產業(pharma industry)本身而創造和支持的偽科學(pseudoscience)。
當我閱讀Laura的書《Unshrunk》(Unshrunk)時，我震驚地發現我自己在青少年時期也被開了從未在同齡人身上測試過的處方藥。我被精神科醫師告知需要終生服用「藥物」(medications)，但事實上這些藥物沒有提供任何治療益處，只有無數可怕的副作用，而且從未在任何人身上進行長期測試。
她繼續解釋產業本身如何撐起專家「科學家」(scientists)來基本上成為大製藥(big pharma)的代言人，並倡導對像ADHD、躁鬱症(bipolar)和邊緣型人格障礙(borderline personality disorder)等無數其他「障礙」(disorders)進行廣泛且長期的「藥物治療」(medicating)，但事實上根本沒有客觀標準來做出這些診斷，或用所謂的藥物來「治癒」(curing)或「治療」(treating)它們。
Like Laura, I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder at age seventeen. Over the next two decades, I cycled through seven psychiatric hospitalizations. Each time, the interventions were the same: more diagnoses, more medications, more illness and dread.
Not once in all those years did a medical doctor ask about my trauma history. Not once did any psychiatrist test my hormones, assess my gut health, take labs and evaluate my bloodwork, or talk to me about how nutrition, sleep, social situations, or blood sugar could be influencing my mood and state of mind.
And not once was I told by a conventional psychiatrist that there might be another way.
For a long time, I believed I was broken, and that I’d have to settle for a life of being partially disabled. I had learned helplessness through being fed this narrative that my brain was “disordered,” and that narrative did not empower me in any way, shape, or form to take charge of my wellbeing.
But in 2022, after a major psychiatric crisis, I began to pull the threads. This was my seventh hospitalization, and after once again being faced with this dehumanizing experience of forced drugging and lost functioning, I decided that this would be the last time.
就像Laura一樣，我在十七歲時被診斷為躁鬱症(bipolar disorder)。在接下來的二十年裡，我經歷了七次精神科住院(psychiatric hospitalizations)。每一次，干預措施都相同：更多診斷、更多藥物、更多疾病和恐懼(dread)。
在所有那些年裡，從來沒有一次醫生詢問我的創傷史(trauma history)。從來沒有任何精神科醫師測試我的荷爾蒙(hormones)、評估我的腸道健康(gut health)、進行實驗室檢查(take labs)並評估我的血液檢查(bloodwork)，或是跟我討論營養(nutrition)、睡眠(sleep)、社會情境(social situations)或血糖(blood sugar)如何影響我的心情(mood)和心智狀態(state of mind)。
而且從來沒有一次傳統精神科醫師(conventional psychiatrist)告訴我可能有另一種方式。
很長一段時間，我相信自己是壞掉的(broken)，我必須接受部分殘疾(partially disabled)的生活。我透過被灌輸大腦「失調」(disordered)的敘事而習得無助(learned helplessness)，而那個敘事在任何方式、形式或樣態下都沒有賦權(empower)我來掌控自己的福祉(wellbeing)。
但在2022年，一次重大精神科危機(psychiatric crisis)之後，我開始抽絲剝繭(pull the threads)。這是我第七次住院，在再次面對這種非人化(dehumanizing)的強迫用藥(forced drugging)和功能喪失(lost functioning)經驗後，我決定這將是最後一次。
I found an array of providers who believed I could get better, and understood that mental health was not a lifelong, genetic brain disorder. I slowly tapered down on the drugs, and replaced them with a medicinal lifestyle: making intentional upgrades to my nutrition, movement, and rest. I made every effort to surround myself with supportive people. And I’ve healed; not overnight and not without effort, but I’ve healed and today I feel the energy and vitality that I once had, before my own psychiatrization began as a teen.
Laura Delano went on from her journey to create an organization dedicated to the deprofessionalization of mental health. She runs a company specializing in guiding people to safely taper off of meds, and to reclaim their identities as normal human beings and not psychiatric patients.
I stumbled upon Laura’s book when I was in the final stages of editing my own. Laura’s book is mainly memoir, recounting how she shifted her philosophies and providing a robust evidence base for why those philosophies make more sense than the pseudoscience we’ve all been fed. I was so moved by Laura’s line about treatment resistance that I gave her an epigraph in one of my chapters.
I wrote my book, Mental Health Reclaimed, because I want people to know what I wish someone had told me at seventeen: You are not broken. You are not your diagnosis. And you can get better.
Laura’s story making its way into mainstream conversation feels like a crack in the dam. For years, voices like hers, and mine, have been dismissed as fringe, anti-science, or dangerous. But the danger is not in questioning the system. The real danger is what happens when we don’t.
The truth is that the chemical imbalance theory was debunked long ago. Psychiatric diagnoses are not medical diseases and they’re not based on objective data. They’re clusters of symptoms, often reported and evaluated subjectively, and often shaped more by insurance billing codes than science.
我找到了一群相信我能好轉的提供者，他們理解心理健康(mental health)不是終生的遺傳性腦部障礙(genetic brain disorder)。我慢慢地減少藥物(tapered down on the drugs)，並用醫藥式生活方式(medicinal lifestyle)取代它們：在營養(nutrition)、運動(movement)和休息(rest)方面做出有意的升級。我盡一切努力讓自己被支持性的人包圍。而且我已經癒合(healed)；不是一夜之間，也不是沒有努力，但我也癒合了，今天我感受到我曾經擁有的能量(energy)和活力(vitality)，在我青少年時期的精神科化(psychiatrization)開始之前。
Laura Delano從她的旅程中繼續創建了一個致力於心理健康去專業化(deprofessionalization of mental health)的組織。她經營一家專門指導人們安全減少藥物(taper off of meds)的公司，並重新奪回他們作為正常人類(normal human beings)的身份，而不是精神科患者(psychiatric patients)。
當我正處於自己書籍的最終編輯階段時，我偶然發現Laura的書。Laura的書主要是回憶錄(memoir)，講述她如何轉變她的哲學(philosophies)，並提供一個強健的證據基礎(robust evidence base)，說明為什麼那些哲學比我們都被灌輸的偽科學(pseudoscience)更有道理。我被Laura關於治療抵抗(treatment resistance)的台詞(line)深深感動，以至於我在自己的一章中給了她一個題辭(epigraph)。
我寫了我的書《Mental Health Reclaimed》(Mental Health Reclaimed)，因為我想讓人們知道我希望有人在十七歲時告訴我的：你不是壞掉的(broken)。你不是你的診斷(diagnosis)。而且你能好轉。
Laura的故事進入主流對話(mainstream conversation)感覺像是大壩中的一道裂縫(crack in the dam)。多年來，像她和我這樣的聲音一直被駁斥為邊緣(fringe)、反科學(anti-science)或危險的。但危險不在於質疑系統。真正的危險是當我們不質疑時會發生什麼。
事實是，化學失衡理論(chemical imbalance theory)很久以前就被揭穿(debunked)了。精神科診斷(psychiatric diagnoses)不是醫學疾病(medical diseases)，它們不是基於客觀數據(objective data)。它們是症狀群(clusters of symptoms)，通常是主觀報告和評估的，並且往往更多是由保險計費代碼(insurance billing codes)而非科學塑造的。
And while drugs may be helpful for some in the short term, they also carry serious risks, especially long term, and by and large the public is not responsibly informed about what the real risks may be, and how common those risks actually are. I could make you a laundry list of negative health consequences I’ve suffered from a cascade of drugs I was prescribed that had never been subjected to any testing in conjunction with one another.
Yet this information rarely reaches the people who need it most. We’re not given informed consent. We’re not told about root-cause healing. We’re told to comply. To quiet down. To take our pills, and to accept the label and the lifelong prescription.
But finally, the tide is turning, and this couldn’t have happened soon enough.
People are beginning to ask questions. Parents are wondering why their kids are being prescribed stimulants, SSRIs, and antipsychotics at alarming rates. Adults are realizing that what they’ve been told about their brains doesn’t match their lived experience.
Survivors of the system are finding their voices, and we are also finding each other.
Perhaps psychiatry has helped some people, and I do believe that there are kind and well-meaning clinicians doing their best within a broken framework. But this doesn’t excuse the harm, and it’s time for the truth to be told.
We need a reckoning, not just with psychiatry, but with our willingness to hand over our agency to systems that profit from our oppression.
而且雖然藥物(drugs)可能在短期內對某些人有幫助，它們也帶來嚴重的風險，尤其是長期來說，而且總體而言，公眾並沒有被負責任地告知真正的風險可能是什麼，以及那些風險實際上有多常見。我可以給你列出一長串負面健康後果(laundry list of negative health consequences)，這些是我從一連串被開的藥物(cascade of drugs)中遭受的，那些藥物從未一起進行過任何測試(in conjunction with one another)。
然而，這個資訊很少傳達到最需要它的人那裡。我們沒有被給予知情同意(informed consent)。我們沒有被告知根源療癒(root-cause healing)。我們被告知要順從(comply)。要安靜下來(quiet down)。要吃我們的藥(take our pills)，並接受標籤(label)和終生處方(lifelong prescription)。
但終於，潮流正在轉變(tide is turning)，這再及時不過了(couldn’t have happened soon enough)。
人們開始提出問題。父母們在想為什麼他們的孩子以驚人的速率(alarming rates)被開興奮劑(stimulants)、SSRI和抗精神病藥(antipsychotics)。成年人正在意識到他們被告知關於大腦的事與他們的親身經歷(lived experience)不符。
系統的倖存者(survivors of the system)正在找到他們的聲音，我們也在找到彼此。
也許精神科(psychiatry)幫助了一些人，我也相信有善良且善意的臨床醫師(clinicians)在一個破損的框架(broken framework)內盡力而為。但這並不能原諒傷害(harm)，現在是說出真相的時候了。
我們需要一個清算(reckoning)，不僅是對精神科，而是對我們願意將我們的代理權(agency)交給從我們的壓迫(oppression)中獲利的系統。
It’s time for us to ask: Who benefits from the disease model of mental health? Who profits when people are told they’re permanently ill?
And on the other hand, what happens when we begin to believe that healing is possible? And what’s possible when we realize that our entire lives are intertwined with our mental health, and that we are empowered to make informed choices that can deeply impact our own mental wellbeing?
I believe that stories like Laura’s and like mine are rising to the surface for a reason. We’re at a turning point. The pandemic, rising rates of mental distress, and the cracks in the current paradigm are forcing us to look more deeply. To question the narrative. To find better ways forward.
Healing and wellbeing aren’t just possible. I believe that they are our birthright.
We are living in a time of profound mental, emotional, and spiritual disconnection. And while drugs may have a place, this cannot be the only tool in the toolbox. We need to look at nutrition, sleep, trauma, relationships, community, purpose, and we have an evidence base to support the importance of doing so.
No, these lifestyle-based solutions aren’t being marketed to us en masse on slick TV commercials like their chemical counterparts, but we have the data now to understand that there is nothing inherently wrong with humanity that has brought about the epidemic levels of mental suffering we’re witnessing right now. The problem, as we’ve seen, has grown in proportion to the growth of the industrial “mental health” complex.
We need to return to the basics of being human.
The cat is out of the bag. And now that it is, we have a choice.
We can keep clinging to outdated stories about broken brains and chemical cures. Or we can lean into the discomfort of unlearning and choose a new story; one rooted in truth, dignity, and the radical idea that people can get better.
現在是我們提出問題的時候了：誰從心理健康的疾病模式(disease model of mental health)中受益？當人們被告知他們永久生病(permanently ill)時，誰獲利(profits)？
另一方面，當我們開始相信療癒(healing)是可能的時，會發生什麼？當我們意識到我們整個生命與我們的心理健康(mental health)交織在一起，而且我們被賦權(empowered)來做出能深深影響我們自身心理福祉(mental wellbeing)的知情選擇(informed choices)時，又有什麼可能？
我相信像Laura和我這樣的故事浮出水面(rising to the surface)是有原因的。我們正處於一個轉折點(turning point)。大流行(pandemic)、心理困擾(mental distress)上升的比率，以及當前範式(current paradigm)中的裂縫，正在迫使我們更深入地檢視。要質疑敘事(narrative)。要找到更好的前進方式(ways forward)。
療癒(healing)和福祉(wellbeing)不僅僅是可能的。我相信它們是我們的與生俱來權利(birthright)。
我們正生活在一個深刻的心理(mental)、情感(emotional)和靈性(spiritual)斷連(disconnection)的時代。而且雖然藥物(drugs)可能有其位置，但這不能是工具箱(toolbox)中唯一的工具。我們需要檢視營養(nutrition)、睡眠(sleep)、創傷(trauma)、關係(relationships)、社群(community)、目的(purpose)，而且我們有證據基礎(evidence base)來支持這樣做的必要性。
不，這些基於生活方式的解決方案(lifestyle-based solutions)並沒有像它們的化學對應物(chemical counterparts)那樣在大眾(en masse)中透過光鮮的電視廣告(slick TV commercials)被行銷給我們，但我們現在有數據(data)來理解，人類並沒有什麼本質上的錯誤(inherently wrong)導致我們現在目睹的流行病級別(epidemic levels)的心理痛苦(mental suffering)。正如我們所見，問題隨著工業「心理健康」(mental health)複合體(complex)的成長而成比例地增長。
我們需要回歸人類的基本(basics of being human)。
貓已經從袋子裡出來了(The cat is out of the bag)。既然已經如此，我們有選擇。
我們可以繼續緊抓過時的故事，關於壞掉的大腦(broken brains)和化學療法(chemical cures)。或者我們可以投入(unlearning)的不適中，並選擇一個新故事；一個根植於真相(truth)、尊嚴(dignity)和人們能好轉的激進想法(radical idea)的故事。
