Delusional Disorder Discussion
Shaun Burns Visit 1 - Feb 22 2021
first meeting - Feb 22 2021 - my notes below video
"Sent some materials ahead of time" This is what I had sent - Delusional Disorder Memo (pdf)
0:20 His first question is something along the lines of "I take it you don't agree with the delusional disorder diagnosis"
In order to be diagnosed with delusional disorder, you must have delusions. I don't have delusions, therefore I cannot have delusional disorder. This is my position.
Doctor asks me what I think was going on. I say it's a cover for crime.
1:25 "test for it" - I'm talking about the wireless medical implant network.
2:30 "I've shown evidence to support what I'm saying" - DSM-V defines illusions as "fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conficting evidence." The idea that conflicting evidence would be presented seems implicit in that definition, but very little conflicting evidence has come to me from medical sources, and none has come from anyone who diagnosed me with delusional disorder. My position is that you cannot reasonably diagnose me as having delusions if I've presented valid evidence in support of my assertions and you've provided no evidence against them.
2:54 Dr Burns here refers to the implants as "tracking devices" compelling me to explain that my concern is much less about tracking and more about ongoing physical damage
4:28 "chronic nosebleeds" - Doctor Burns probably had asked me about when this started. I also explain to him about the programmed dreams.
5:50 "My daughter was implanted at Mad River Hospital in Arcata" - this is deductive reasoning based on other things that were going on with regards to the hospital, my experience of childbirth, and my daughter
6:40 Dr Burns begins to ask more questions about my parents. I tell him I limit my contact with them because they lie (constantly). He starts to ask about my childhood, something that I consider irrelevant to the question of whether or not I have "fixed beliefs unamenable to change in light of conflicting evidence"
7:34 I explain what I think is going on with my family and frequency-based mind control as well as the community harassement and trafficking. This is made a bit more complex by the fact that some family members have been involved in trafficking both as traffickers, and in being medically trafficked. I suspect that part of the reason trauma based mind control subjects might become backroom allies with hospital systems, etc, is Stockholm Syndrome and/or a desire to avoid the worst risks or effects of being trafficked.
8:35 "This is a trauma-based mind control system... they're taught to victimize each other"
9:23 "That has very little bearing on this situation" Dr Burns is asking me about my childhood. I feel that it's a bit of a distraction because the core issue at hand is whether I do or do not have delusions.
10:22 "Can't work because of harassment" - I elaborate on that a little bit. I've documented this in other ways as well.
10:45 I filed a Title IX complaint because of the systematic harassment I experienced at Portland Community College
11:20 I've seen what appear to be lens glints at the base of the glass tube in fire sprinklers and there has been other evidence of cameras, especially in fire sprinklers and smoke alarms
11:33 "trafficked from exam rooms" this has gone on a lot - it's surveillance trafficking. My medical care is also manipulated.
12:30 reward/punishment and trauma (conditioning)
13:11 back pain
14:40 "these aircraft are not being reported on radar trackers" Dr Burns in his notes mischaracterizes this statement about unreported aircraft as being about "unregulated drones" - which is not what I said or what I think. I think there is some kind of regulation. I've just noticed that the aircraft are not being reported as most aircraft are, via radar trackers. They're covert.
15:11 Dr Burns is trying to steer the direction of the conversation to the mental or emotional effects that this situation (or from his alleged perspective, my beliefs) - he then asks me about people entering the apartment
16:41 "I've been subjected to biological attacks" this is true
17:26 "patterns of assisinations in my family" - I think it's notable that this assertion was not mentioned in the doctor's notes, since it's a pretty big and important assertion. It is one of the things I'm saying that if true (and it is true) could mean that I and my daughter are in a lot of danger (we are). So why would this assertion be left OUT of the visit notes?
18:00 I make the claim that police, FBI, hospital system, and universities are allowing/facilitating this system of trafficking, torture, and murder, and that because of this complicity across institutions, the trafficking system is growing and spreading.
18:44 evidence for surveillance of children seen via evidence of drone activity - evidence of drone activity is easily seen on Google Maps streetview images, many of which have a history going back to 2007. I've shown this in several YouTube videos.
20:03 I explain I think I'm being called delusional to prevent me from getting help (to cover up and facilitate the crime)
20:23 Burns makes a reference to my "enemies" - I explain I've never seen this as being about enemies. My sense is he's trying to frame my assertions as a type of persecutory paranoia (and in fact that's what he ends up doing in the end)
20:07 "You can force me to defend my ideas - I don't have a problem with that" - in fact this is something I would want and expect to do, but in a logical way. This is the kind of thing you're trained to do in college and graduate school and it's a way to uncover what is and is not true. In fact, no one has engaged with me in this way.
21:10 "Don't say I'm delusional simply because my ideas seem strange" - Dr Burns ultimately does exactly this - but here he claims he's giving me "the benefit of the doubt" and I respond by saying that is exactly what I don't want. If I say something that isn't believed, per the "delusions" definition as stated in DSM-V I should be given the opportunity to provide evidence for my assertion and to have that evidence challenged, and then to respond to that challenge, before being declared delusional.
21:44 Dr Warrington must asked when I was first called "delusional"
23:09 "I called the police" - this was a significant event both because of who was involved and because of the choices that were made
25:25 "I did get kidnapped later on and held" - I am using the term kidnapping deliberately and accurately, even though the kidnapping was carried out by sherriffs, firemen, and a hospital, and even though, I later learned, family members colluded in the event
26:01 I attempt to explain why it is I think there is so much consistency with regards to the medical misrepresentations
27:16 not sure what Dr Burns asked exactly - but I'm explaining some of what I understand about trauma-based mind control
29:20 I describe here what I think the goals are of creating dissociative personalities through deliberate application of trauma - and the example I give is that of a performer. While I think this is correct, I also think that the dissociative personality is used to create abusers and assassins, and that in many cases, the abuser/assassins are also performers in the entertainment industry. That the entertainment industry relies heavily on this system and it is a reason that so many performers in the entertainment business die young. (There are other reasons as well, but all of them are linked to this system and premature deaths of performers or the family members of performers are largely murders.)
29:48 the visit was marked on MyChart as being scheduled for 15 minutes but Dr Burns says it was in fact 1/2 hour
30:00 I explain why it this diagnoses is not just false, but damaging in that it gives people an excuse not to take my assertions and accusations seriously. I have been trying to report and get protection from a very serious crime.
30:20 Dr Burns, a psychologist, has just explained to me that the issue of removing the diagnosis is "way above my pay grade" - I find this strange, especially since the diagnosis was first made by a police officer who was trying to avoid taking a crime report, and then later picked up by a series of family practitioners.
In a subsequent visit, he claimed that what he meant was that removing the diagnosis from ALL my records was above his pay grade. I don't believe this, because he claimed that he agrees with the diagnosis - so why would removing older instances of the diagnosis even come up? Burns claims he didn't speak with anyone else before deciding to support the diagnosis, but I've seen a lot of stuff in my medical records to indicate that all of my doctors are coordinating their care of me with an unnamed outside entity.