I heard her complete biography on the radio yesterday. I was quite surprised that the media can relate her information without likely even asking her. I was impressed with her experience but it felt like a breach of privacy to relate this to millions of listeners, when she likely had no knowledge of them doing so.

My only agenda is talking about something that nobody seems concerned about. Privacy. Yes, our border is lax, but this is another issue. There really is no agenda, just a point of view. But many people today don't seem too concerned about privacy, do they.

Just one more comment. Honestly, if I were this poor lost linguist, I wouldn't remember who I was either. Imagine being as highly accomplished as she is, then discredited in the most vile of fashions with a quite recent slur of schizophrenia that any old doctor can manufacture out of thin air. It's not like there is a blood test for the diagnosis. It depends entirely on the good doctor's subjective appraisal, what s/he ate for breakfast, what s/he thinks of gender bias, what s/he can expect from the current government in terms of raises in income due to political associations, and so on. After all, remember that psychiatry is not a medical science. It is a behavioural science -- think Skinner and Rorschack and Pavlov -- Descartes even. The only reason psychiatrists must acquire an MD degree before getting their behavioural science degree after that is so they can prescribe medications, those poisonous, DNA-destroying anti-psychotic and other mind-destroying medications.

From my experience working at the edges of the field, I don't believe there is any such thing as a mental illness of schizophrenia. I think there may be genetic predispositions to respond in one way or another to certain environmental triggers, that there may be certain structural brain disorders that cause hallucination and delusion and the horrid acts of violence we too often associate with the label of schizophrenia. But I think that, in the end, science will determine an organic cause to schizophrenia that may have adjunct chemical properties but that is not of primarily genetically determined chemical aetiology as is now assumed. What I observed psychiatrists in the pay of government diagnose as schizophrenia were two types of behaviours. The first were victims of child abuse that, at the time was not strictly criminal and that, if prosecuted, would cost too much. Those people are pensioned off, lead isolated lives, impoverished and reviled, and die younger than they should from malnutrition and inadequate housing and shelter. The other group of behaviours are those violent criminal behaviours that a label of schizophrenia will be useful to defend in a court of law with a NCR and/or unfit for trial appraisal by another associated government-paid psychiatrist. I think the label should be scrapped. It may interest anyone who has read this far that Freud called the symptoms "dementia praecox" and said the patients who suffered the disorder could recover if the authority figures in their lives, mostly men -- fathers, husbands, sons -- quit abusing them financially, psychologically, sexually and physically. He only developed his blame-the-victim diagnostic system after the powerful authority figures who funded his practice, the fathers, husbands, sons of his patients, told him if he didn't, they would find someone else to fund who would not hold them responsible for the symptoms they paid the good Freud to treat, to make go away. Why should the powerful give up their sport, they reasoned. Why indeed?