I have a massive gripe with reductive "politicization" of mental health

I've spent the past 5 years talking to these people, both on and off line, and their position is crystal clear.

This is the quality of research being used to promote PTMF: https://retractionwatch.com/2022/10/20/what-happened-when-a-psychology-professor-used-a-peer-reviewed-paper-to-praise-his-own-blog-and-slam-others/

They say in the PTMF that psych meds can be used, but with informed consent. You need to understand what they mean by "Informed" - they've said that we need to tell patients that meds do not work and that meds cause harm. If you tell someone that eg bipolar doesn't exist, that lithium does not work and that lithium causes harm is your aim to support that person to take the meds or is your aim to prevent that person from taking the meds?

At the same time as affirming people’s right to describe their difficulties as they wish, we
affirm the equally important principle that professionals, researchers, trainers, lecturers,
charities, policy-makers and others involved in the mental health field should use language
and concepts that have some claim to be descriptively accurate and evidence-based.
Because psychiatric diagnosis does not meet these standards, it follows that it can no longer
be considered professionally, scientifically or ethically justifiable to present psychiatric
diagnoses as if they were valid statements about people and their difficulties.

They don't want doctors to diagnose bipolar because that would mean medication for bipolar becomes available. Without the dx medication is not available, because this is how licencing works.

Also from the PTMF

Informed choice depends on receiving comprehensive and accurate information in
the first place, and the mode of action of psychiatric drugs needs to be understood
and explained differently. The PTM Framework is consistent with psychiatrist Joanna
Moncrieff’s contrasting descriptions of the ‘disease-centred’ and the ‘drug-centred’ models
of drug action. Medication development and use in general medicine often aims to
reverse, partially reverse or compensate for, the assumed biological causes of disease and
bodily symptoms (e.g. replacing the body’s insulin supply, destroying cancerous tumours,
killing bacteria, and so on). This ‘disease-centred’ model, while not always applicable in
medical practice, does not apply at all within psychiatric practice because the diagnostic
clusters give us no information about biological causes. Rather, the action of psychiatric
drugs conforms to the ‘drug centred’ model, in that they have a range of general effects
such as sedation or emotional blunting on both ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ states of mind
(Moncrieff, 2008). In fact, claims that the drugs correct ‘chemical imbalances’ are rapidly
being retracted by senior figures in the field (Pies, 2014). A more accurate analogy is
drinking alcohol as a relief for anxiety in social situations, rather than, say, insulin to
restore a physiological deficit. The PTM Framework suggests another analogy: intense
grief after the death of a partner may be greatly relieved by short-term use of medication
to aid sleep, but we would not describe this as ‘treatment’ for a ‘disease’. Neither the PTM
Framework nor the drug-centred model of action justify telling people that psychiatric
drugs are essential to prevent or treat ‘illness’, or pressurising or coercing them into taking
them against their will.

The drug-centred model acknowledges that the abnormal brain states induced by
psychiatric drugs may be experienced as helpful by some people in some circumstances.
Some service users have described being better able to cope with overwhelming anxiety
or hostile voices. Others have described a difficult trade-off between beneficial and
unpleasant effects (Carrick et al., 2004). Many have testified to unbearable feelings of
emptiness, dread and agitation which may be worse than the difficulties for which the
drugs were prescribed (Moncrieff et al., 2009). The problem is that although psychiatric
drugs may help to control feelings and behaviour, this comes at a price, because they
also block the systems that regulate engagement, motivation, pain, and pleasure (van
der Kolk, 2014, p.225–227). Similarly, while these drugs can sometimes enable access to
therapy or be of help in the initial stabilisation stage, they can also hinder longer-term
therapeutic work by cutting off access to emotions and impairing motivation. Van der Kolk
(2014) summarises the pros and cons of different classes of psychiatric drugs in working
with people who have experienced adversities and traumatic events, and recommends a
careful negotiation to determine what might be most helpful in particular situations. The
principles of drug-centred prescribing are outlined in Yeomans et al. (2015).
Further implications of drug use within a PTM Framework are:
●● Misleading terms like ‘antipsychotics’, ‘anti-depressants’ and ‘mood stabilisers’ should
be abandoned since they do not describe the mode of action, and help to set the scene
for automatic prescription in response to certain difficulties.
●● Professionals urgently need up-to-date information about the emerging evidence of
limitations and harms potentially caused by all classes of psychiatric drugs, and to
receive training on the use of medication within a drug-centred model. This applies not
only to psychiatrists, GPs and psychiatric nurses, but, as suggested in the 2008 NIMHE
report ‘Medicines management: Everybody’s business’, to all professionals who work in
settings where psychiatric medication is used. Any of these people may be inadvertently
giving inaccurate messages or failing to challenge poor practice (NIMHE, 2008).
●● Psychiatric drugs should be prescribed on the basis of fully informed choice, with
service users as equal partners in the decisions (Deegan, 2007, 2010).
●● Support to come off psychiatric drugs needs to be routinely available within mental health
services, through information leaflets, professional advice, support groups and so on.
●● Particular disquiet have been expressed about psychiatric drug use in Intellectual
Disabilities to sedate, manage and control people (Public Health England, 2015).
Similarly, the misuse and overuse of neuroleptics in Older Adults with dementia for the
control of behaviour has been the subject of a Department of Health report (Bannerjee,
2009). In both these relatively less powerful populations, prescribing is common even in
the absence of any psychiatric diagnosis, existing cognitive impairments are likely to be
exacerbated, and lives may be shortened. This is a matter of urgent concern.
Adoption of these principles would be likely to lead to substantial reduction, and hence
cost savings, in the use of psychiatric drugs, whether prescribed by GPs or psychiatrists.
Even greater savings can be envisaged in the future, given the growing amount of
evidence that all classes of psychiatric drugs may be less effective than has been assumed
(e.g. Bentall, 2009; Kirsch, 2009; Moncrieff, 2015) and may actually increase disability
over the long term (Viola & Moncrieff, 2016; Whitaker, 2010) up to and including brain
degeneration and early death (Hutton et al., 2014). There is a curious reluctance to

This last point, about people with LD is telling. We have the programme STOMP (Stop Over Medicating People with Learning Disability). It's right to mention this, LeDeR reviews tell us that over-medicalisation in this group causes severe harm. But that programme is joined with STAMP (Supporting Treatment and Appropriate Medication in Paediatrics). Why mention the programme that seeks to reduce medication but not the one that seeks to increase appropriate medication?

These people are all active on social media, go ask Moncreiff, Bentall, Double, Kinderman, Johnson etc about their views.