This is part 2 of this post – Misdiagnosed with bipolar type II for 7 years: How I beat the darkness and reclaimed my life

A psychiatrist once thought they knew enough to label me as sick. Their label cost me significantly in life, as I detailed in the above post.

Once I fought through the clouds of darkness, fought the incorrect labelling and managed to win back my life, I didn’t just stop there. I continued to research mental health, psychosis, psychiatry and medicine itself.

Part of the reason why I chose to do that was to win back my own life, but another equally important driving factor was several close relatives who were suffering from severe mental disorders, including Schizophrenia and other forms of psychosis.

I learnt a lot. In fact, I’m sure that I have reduced nutrition down to a simple formula that’s scalable and universally applicable. Alongside that, I also learnt that the foundations of psychiatry are far from irrefutable and leave extensive space for errors and interpretations.

I put together a few questions that I asked of a psychiatrist who chose not to answer them. I’ve shared them here, along with some hard-learned insights, in the hopes that I get to put them in front of another psychiatrist in the future who’s more open to answering difficult questions.

Shared reality

Psychiatry calls psychosis a break from shared reality. They claimed that it shows up as:

1. Disorganized thinking
2. Fixed false beliefs (delusions), and
3. Seeing/hearing things that aren’t there (hallucinations)

Gaps in the definition

‘Shared reality’ is a term without boundaries. Anyone not defining it or assuming it does not need a definition is not addressing the actual problem at all.

I was once scammed as a part of a cult. It was and still remains a huge scam cult in the country today. People in that scam cult try to recruit you sometimes in the name of QNet, sometimes by other names.

Qnet is owned by Malaysian businessman Vijay Eswaran, and often struggles with explaining its authenticity, along with a history of being banned several times. They have put up a disclaimer on their website (https://qnet.net/scam/), but continue to do extremely little for their in-person marketing events in Dubai, where > 50% of the audience is a scam victim.

Why I bring it up again is because people in that cult deeply believe in the shared reality of the cult, which portrays Vijay Eswaran as a god who knows all and fixes all, but needs your money to make it happen. In reality, half of the listed products are Chinese garbage reject products sold alongside fake hope. One big-ticket popular item is a circular glass disk that supposedly removes every negative chemical from a cigarette just by rubbing it on the disk once. It sells for several thousand rupees and is a popular garbage product.

The people who know it’s a scam sometimes skip the garbage product sales and just perform the cult’s brainwashing material in exchange for taking your money. But for most others, who believe it to be true, it’s their actual shared reality.

A white supremacist cult deeply believes that America must free itself from immigrants immediately, using whatever means necessary to save America. A black power cult, at the same time, deeply believes they have equal rights to America and must struggle through whatever pains and torture are thrown at them so that their claim to the land remains.

Right-wing extremist political organisations deeply believe the country is under attack by left-wing alliances, and it is a justifiable cause to use violence. The left-wing intellectual organisations believe that the country is under a serious threat of violent capture by uneducated, stupid right-wing gun fanatics.

Again, all of these groups fully believe in the reality of their situation, which to an outsider is the complete opposite of their reality.

So, the important question becomes: Who do you share your reality with?

An important follow-up question is, can you choose to share your reality with some of them or none of them?

Religion

Every Muslim’s shared reality of Islam tells them Allah is the one and only superior God, and every other non-believer can be killed or humiliated to preserve Allah.

Every Christian’s shared reality of Christianity tells them Jesus is the one true God, you must fear God, he dies for your sins, and Bible has all the answers.

As per the psychiatrist who called psychosis a break from shared reality, no sane person can ever be sane in the company of a Christian and a Muslim person together, because believing one of them automatically converts another’s beliefs into a delusion.

Secondly, as a Hindu who often has to share public physical spaces with Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians, do I have any tools that safeguard my version of reality and prevent it from contamination by their version of reality?

The answer is no.

It’s easy to label something as a break from shared reality, but if you can’t define shared reality, you really mustn’t be basing any diagnosis on that.

History of psychiatry

Why does psychiatry exist? What purpose does it serve?

Psychiatry started several hundred years ago. At first, it treated any deviation from the ‘normal’ as a mental illness caused by possession of demonic forces and divine punishment, so exorcism was used as a treatment.

A couple of hundred years later, they started considering ‘abnormals’ as more humans, so anyone with any deviation from the ‘normal’ started being considered a patient and not a devil.

Then came the Freud era, linking all deviations from normal as later effects of childhood experiences, and offered talk therapy as a solution, while simultaneously dabbling in shock therapy and lobotomy.

Then came modern medicine’s cognitive-behavioural therapy and psychedelic medication-led treatment.

The field of psychiatry has always been debatable for its unethical actions, such as abuses through lobotomies and forced institutionalisation. Modern debates focus on overmedication and coercive treatment.

In either case, psychiatry remains a field for the existing power control structures to ‘correct’ or ‘subdue’ anyone showing any deviation from the ‘shared reality’ to bring them back to the ‘normal’ through whatever means necessary, available and acceptable.

Attempts to blame AI and LLMs

Some psychiatrists tried to blame AI and LLMs for creating psychosis in patients. This is a false assertion that couldn’t be further from the truth.

In fact, it echoes the sentiment of the Chancellor of Oxford University when he claimed in early 2026 that LLMs are a threat to democracy.

What troubles psychiatrists and people at Oxford is that language models like Grok allow the British people to have conversations, ask questions and get answers. While these seemingly are innocent, victimless, harmless, and in fact can be helpful activities, they actually disempower the control structures of their society, where language itself is the control mechanism. Who can speak at what point and when is the controlling mechanism that rules over the British people.

LLMs have accelerated the thinking process for several people. They have allowed people who were previously handicapped with a lack of knowledge to acquire said knowledge in a stress-free manner and become more capable and self -sufficient.

LLMs don’t manufacture thoughts or text. It’s a technology that reads, compiles and predicts. However, what LLMs seem to have run afoul of is giving people power to really unshackle themselves through language, which is the real battle.

The old power centres that feel the loosening control seek to label this loss as an illness caused by the technology; some psychiatrists are trying to build cases of AI-led psychosis, but all it really is is a business opportunity for expansion of medicine and an attempt to keep the power locked centrally.

The power of language

You know how terrorist attacks take place? Terrorist handlers lock in certain sets of beliefs through language that allow the terrorists to do acts of brutal violence which are otherwise unimaginable for someone who hasn’t gone through language washing like them.

You know how religious propagation takes place? Religious handlers or people accused of performing conversions lock a certain set of beliefs in their ‘convertees’, which rewires them forever.

Both of those are examples of the power of language.

When LLMs offer solutions, they share power with the user and make them self-sufficient, which breaks the locks built in by psychiatrists, religious handlers or anyone else with an interest in keeping you convinced of a particular set of beliefs.

Thinking from first principles and the ability to reason

I read the results of a recent study that ran an experiment on doctors and their effectiveness. It selected 100 slightly tricky patient case files and ran the experiment in three steps.

In step 1, they gave the case files to a panel of doctors and asked them for their diagnosis.

In step 2, they gave the case files to the panel of doctors, but equipped them with the latest LLM and asked them to use the LLM to support their diagnosis.

In step 3, they digitised the case files and ran all 100 of them directly through the LLM tool which was given to the doctors in step 2.

Can you guess the scores?

Shockingly, and perhaps more unshockingly, the panel of doctors from step 1 just got 70 cases correct out of the 100. In step 2, where the panel of doctors was equipped with the latest LLMs, they performed marginally better and got 76 cases correct out of the 100 case files.

AND, in a result that supports the overall theme of this article, in step 3, where all the cases were digitised and directly given to the LLM, the LLM got a whopping 98 cases correct out of the 100!

This study by Stanford researchers proved an important point beyond doubt that the field of medicine has an intrinsic problem.

Since it produces doctors who are expected to know everything about the patient and the illness better than the patient, the goal of providing treatment that aligns with the patient’s life can easily be replaced by selecting a course of treatment that the doctor thinks is best, irrespective of whether it aligns with the patient’s life.

The allegation extends more strongly to psychiatry, where, often, instead of problem-solving, the psychiatrist sets out to rewire the patient as per their view, which can overwrite the very reality of the patient.

Imagine asking for help because your iPhone has persistent low brightness, but the shopkeeper hits it with a hammer and sells you a new iPhone model, telling you this one doesn’t have brightness issues. Sure, it doesn’t have brightness issues, but you really weren’t looking to lose all your mental data and have your current phone destroyed, that too without your permission!

Takeaways

The medicine field suffers from a bubble of its own superiority, much like a cult, and the Stanford study proved exactly that.

I’ve used both ChatGPT and Grok, and I’ve worked as a consultant for both ChatGPT and Grok. The difference could not be clearer.

OpenAI has huge problems in being unable to distinguish fact from thought. It accurately reflects the founder’s own persona, who seems lost in the face of simple grounding questions and has, often, arguably been caught lying in publicly available interview clips.

Grok is built by hardcore engineers, who have a long and deep rooted connection to reality and building functional, machines that work in the real world. Grok reflects the persona of its founder where it’s rooted in fact, science and evidence.

I use Grok; I recommend Grok; there is not even the slightest bit of comparison possible between it and ChatGPT, and doctors aren’t your friends. Help yourself before you submit yourself to medicine.