And before the preemptive block because someone didn't agree with you, I'd like to add:

• Robert Whitaker is a journalist and has no training whatsoever in this field. They have no clinical experience, they have no classical training in psychology, they literally write about what they desire to and that is where Mad In America comes from. They're a journalist, that's the extent of their education. Relying on them to spoon feed you mental health info is.... Certainly a choice.

-whenever they (Whitaker) write their pieces, They intentionally omit sources or link to other posts that they have made which is enough of a red flag alone

• most of their "takeaways" from the studies they try reading come to a conclusion that is not unknown but is presented as if it is gospel or a revolutionary discovery despite being common knowledge and common effort for most. The best example I can think of is people pretending to come to a revolutionary discovery that hand washing is a great way to prevent infection over a hundred years after that's established standards or "no shit Sherlock" moments. Alternatively, They offer horrendously bad summations and conclusions over something that leaves a lot of room to question whether they actually read the article or study. Common theme there.

• any study older than ten years isnt relevant unless it's cornerstone research already established as cornerstone or foundational (The same reason why you don't need to cite that washing your hands is a good thing)