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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Conflicts of interest are declared for every source, whether it supports or contradicts what is written here. 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.
4. 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 was checked against its primary source and then tested against the strongest objection to it: what would still stand if someone who knows the field disputed it. 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 confirms its position does not deserve trust — not even when it is right.

Artificial intelligence tools were used for the research and 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.

Legal note

I am not a lawyer and what follows is not legal advice. It is the stated practice by which this page is written.

1. People and organisations are named only as a public document names them. A judgment, an inquest conclusion, an official inspection report, a published scientific paper, or a document filed in litigation. Nothing is attributed to anyone beyond what that document itself states, and the citation always sits beside it.
2. Where something is disputed, the dispute is given in the same paragraph — not in a footnote and not elsewhere. The same applies to conflicts of interest: they are declared for the sources that support what is written here too.
3. Historical events are written in the past tense and imply nothing about the present conduct of any person, institution or company. Where a practice has been banned, reformed or abandoned, that is written alongside the finding.
4. Judgement is separated from fact. Facts carry a citation. Anything that is assessment or comment is expressed as such.
5. No medical or legal advice. This page neither recommends nor discourages any treatment, examination, hospitalisation or legal step, for you or for anyone else. If something you read here concerns you, speak to a doctor or a lawyer.
6. Right of reply. If you are a person or organisation named here and consider something inaccurate or incomplete, write to me. What is evidenced is corrected and the correction is noted; what remains disputed is published together with your position. Nothing is deleted silently.
7. No commercial relationship. This page has no advertising, sponsors, revenue or donations, sells nothing and collects no visitor data. I have no financial or professional relationship with pharmaceutical companies, psychiatric services, or organisations campaigning against them.

This page is published from Greece and read internationally. If you find material that does not meet the above, I want to hear about it before anything else — a correction is cheaper for everyone than a dispute.

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.