Who made this page, and why
Who makes this
My name is Petros Chatzianastasiou. I am not a doctor, a psychiatrist, a psychologist or a pharmacist — I am an engineer and have worked in the technical field for decades. I have no financial or professional relationship with pharmaceutical companies, with psychiatric services, or with organisations campaigning against them.
That means two things: I have no stake in what you conclude — and I am not asking you to take anything on my word. Every claim on this site cites its primary source, and you can check it without me.
What this page is, and what it is not
This page is not anti-psychiatry. The distinction is not diplomacy; it is the whole of its credibility.
It is against specific practices that were documented, and against those who carried them out or promoted them. That is why you will not find the phrase "psychiatrists" anywhere here. You will find names, institutions, companies, dates and document numbers.
There is a second, more substantial reason. Most of these practices were stopped by psychiatrists. Insulin coma therapy collapsed because a doctor published that it did not hold up. The criticism of DSM-5 quoted here comes from the man who chaired the previous edition. Wherever a piece of evidence was brought to light from inside, the name of the person who did it stands beside it — not out of courtesy, but because that is part of the evidence.
No page here tells you to stop treatment, refuse care, or distrust your doctor. If you are reading because this concerns you or someone close to you, the purpose is that you leave informed, not frightened.
How it was made
Four rules, without exception:
- Primary sources only. Every claim carries a DOI, a PMID, a court case number or an official report number. Secondary sources were used only to find the primary one — and where that happened, it is stated.
- Whatever is scientifically or legally open is presented from both sides, with each side's citations. Where a practice has since been banned or reformed, that is said in the same paragraph.
- Conflicts of interest are declared for the sources that suit us too. A researcher who serves as an expert witness in litigation does not stop being useful — but they stop being neutral, and we write that down.
- Campaigning organisations were explicitly excluded as a source of documentation. No proof on this page comes from a body that decided its conclusion in advance.
Before anything was published, every claim went through two checks: verification against the primary source, and then an adversarial review — the question "what would an expert who wants to demolish this page say?". What did not survive was not published. What was important but did not survive went into the Unverified section, with the reason for the failure written out.
That section exists deliberately. The most-cited experiment against psychiatric diagnosis sits there, as debunked. A page that publishes only what suits it does not deserve trust — not even when it is right.
Artificial intelligence tools were used to locate sources; no claim was published without verification against the primary source itself. If you find an error, please send me a message — corrections are recorded.
This site has no advertising, sponsors or revenue, and collects no visitor data.
The evidence here was not found by critics of psychiatry. It was produced by judges, inspectors and doctors — and published by them. All this page does is refuse to let it be forgotten.