>Being able to make and break the human mind are two sides of the same coin.

Do you have reason to believe that this is true specifically for the mind? I can't think of any other scenario where you would need to be able to make something in order to break it.

I would suspect the claim is using a specific understanding of "break". Obviously you can break a human mind with a bullet or a chisel through the eye socket, but there are certain types of breakage that are not possible without much more nuanced understanding of how the mind functions.

In general, I think the idea is that when we learn to create a type of thing, we also learn a great deal about new ways to destroy it.

But OP is claiming that some of the techniques used to break minds can be used to cure PTSD. Some of us are skeptical, and OP gives no reason to think that the 'two sides of the same coin' adage is applicable here.

The most bizarre aspect of mental illness is a few of them can actually be treated by drugs which are a huge blunt instrument. While nothing is going to be a panacea it seems possible possible for TMS to aid in a subset of mental problems for at least a subset of patients.

I think the larger concern is people overselling any treatment. That’s especially true for anything even slightly experimental. Which is why Medicine is mostly taught from rote memorization over experimentation. That may occasionally fail some people, but as a system it’s avoiding a host of issues.

> The most bizarre aspect of mental illness is a few of them can actually be treated by drugs which are a huge blunt instrument

It’s never seemed bizarre to me. You could treat a broken leg using only morphine if you wanted to. The pain will probably go away, but the leg won’t get less broken.

Pharmaceuticals to treat mental illness are limited, but they're better than just palliative (morphine for a broken leg).

Morphine for a broken leg would be a symptomatic treatment in most cases (unless you were expected to die without recovering from it, then it would be palliative). As far as I can tell most medications for mental illnesses are also symptomatic. If somebody had general anxiety issues, and they started taking benzodiazepines, their anxiety issues would be expected to return if they stopped taking them. Unless they had also undertaken other non-pharmaceutical treatments during that time.

> unless you were expected to die without recovering from it, then it would be palliative).

I understand that palliative care has developed a connotation of "this is what we do for you when you're dying..." but the definition is e.g.

palliate verb (used with object), pal·li·at·ed, pal·li·at·ing. to relieve or lessen without curing; mitigate; alleviate.

Strictly speaking that’s what palliate means, but palliative care almost always refers to symptomatic care for people with life threatening conditions (see the WHO definition[0]). If you look at the way the phrase is most often used in medical literature, you can see it’s qualitatively different from general symptomatic treatment, as the potential side effects are assessed differently. You’d be much less concerned about a patient developing an opioid dependence if they’re terminally ill. For instance the standard[1] from BC describing guidelines for opiate prescriptions states:

> This standard does not apply to active cancer care, palliative care, and management of substance use disorders. Physicians are expected to follow relevant clinical guidelines and established best practices in managing patients with these conditions. Nothing in this standard interferes with a physician’s obligation to provide aggressive symptom management to patients with active cancer, or nearing the end of their lives.

[0] https://www.who.int/cancer/palliative/definition/en/

[1] https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/pdf/PSG-Safe-Prescribing.pdf

Ugh. Semantic arguments. From your link:

> is applicable early in the course of illness, in conjunction with other therapies that are intended to prolong life, such as chemotherapy or radiation therapy, and includes those investigations needed to better understand and manage distressing clinical complications.

...

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000536.htm

> Palliative care can be given at the same time as treatments meant to cure or treat the disease. Palliative care may be given when the illness is diagnosed, throughout treatment, during follow-up, and at the end of life.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/what-are-palliative-care-and-...

> Doctors can provide treatment to seriously ill patients in the hopes of a cure for as long as possible. These patients may also receive medical care for their symptoms, or palliative care, along with curative treatment.

But, this is an aside. When we're talking about any given treatment medication / treatment-- it can be a likely cure; it can halt or slow the progression of the disease itself; it can merely provide symptom relief. The latter is often called a palliative.

> it can merely provide symptom relief. The latter is often called a palliative.

Because some times it is, but sometimes it isn’t. Which is why the document I linked detailing prescription guidelines for opioids (medicines which exclusively treat symptoms), specifically states that the guidelines do not apply to palliative care. If all treatment of symptoms was palliative treatment, then that standard would never apply in any situation.

If you have to keep taking something, the treatment is palliative and not curative.

If treatments are applied based on symptoms rather than an understanding of the cause, they also tend to be palliative.

Palliative's primary meaning is to treat or mask symptoms rather than the disease itself, and it has nothing to do with duration. Current antiretroviral therapy for HIV is for life, as far as we know, but this does actually treat the disease itself by controlling the virus. Painkillers for a broken leg are generally only needed until it heals, but they are not causal in that healing, and are properly called palliative.

One cannot make a case that any given treatment for mental illness is merely palliative on the basis of duration.

Lifelong treatments are indeed not curative, but they are better than palliative care, which is better than nothing.

> Being able to make and break the human mind are two sides of the same coin. The ability to thoroughly break and rebuild any human mind has been a trade secret of our intel agencies for about 40 years now.

I'm not convinced. What about the side effects? I doubt you can break and rebuild someone's mind without lasting psychological damage. It's something intelligence agencies don't need to care about, but it's of crucial medical importance.

>a secret that they will never admit to

what evidence makes you think that this is the case? what's the technology to fix PTSD that you're speaking of?

You're talking about psychological manipulation, behaviorism, conditioning, NLP... that sort of thing? It's not like any of it's secret; it's just fragmented, buried and dismissed by mainstream culture because most people do not want to believe in a lack of independent human will or the idea that core behavior or beliefs can be intentionally manipulated. The idea makes most people so uncomfortable they won't even seriously consider the possibility. However, it seems that good political operatives and marketing people have a pretty good understanding of some parts of it. So do some police and military personnel, especially in other countries (like China) with less interest in ethics or human rights. So do people obsessed with animal training (although that can't use the language part of the equation). So do psychologists, in theory (they should, being psychologists), although most psychologists resort to higher-level therapeutic strategies that are really some suboptimal combination of low level behavior/conditioning/NLP strategies which are primarily what works.

For those who are still lurking the comment chain and "Want to Know More," I'll leave you all this name only and wish you good luck on your trip down the rabbit hole: Fritz Springmeier, rest in peace.

Another bit from the article of great concern is the use of this new protocol on active duty personnel! Of course, as you noted, this is not a new thing as all branches have treated rank and file active duty as potential guinea pigs.

Legitimately do not think the MK ultra experiments are relevant to this. It was 60+ years ago, and it was the CIA - a civilian, not mil agency - in league with major universities.