How an attack based on alleged danger is turned into an offensive

A statement by the Federal Association of Survivors of Psychiatry and the Werner-Fuss-Center:
There is no such thing as psychiatric knowledge
Knowledge is described as a true, well-founded belief. Crucially, knowledge must meet the criterion of truth. Coercive psychiatry cannot meet the criterion that a psychiatric statement is true, and not merely that it is declared as such. Since mental illnesses* do not exist if one does not want them to, there can be no knowledge about this individual and subjective need without an objective basis (see our FAQ).

The lack of psychiatric expertise is particularly evident in these two violent crimes committed last year – two incidents, one pattern:

•     the homicides in Leipzig’s pedestrian zone on May 4, 2026,
•     the knife attack on May 23, 2025, at the Hamburg Central Station, in which a woman injured 18 people.

Both perpetrators had one thing in common: they had recently been released from psychiatric facilities at their own request.
This temporal proximity is no coincidence, but rather a symptom of a fundamental problem: psychiatry claims to possess knowledge regarding the causes, the danger posed by, and the prognosis of mental illnesses – yet reality shows that it cannot fulfill any of these claims.

The Hamburg Case: 32 Admissions, No Findings
The facts from the Hamburg proceedings are clear; see here:

•     The woman had been hospitalized for psychiatric treatment 32 times.
•     She was repeatedly discharged, even though she had drawn attention to herself on multiple occasions.
•     She had an axe on a train (February 2024)
•     She attacked her father, saying, “Now a murder is going to be committed” (January 2025)
•     She was discharged from the psychiatric hospital one day before the attack.
•     The clinic stated that there were “no medical grounds” justifying further hospitalization.
•     The judge rightly said: “As long as no such a serious crime is committed, we have little recourse to lock up mentally ill people.”

The lawyer objected:

•     Several motions were filed to secure permanent housing for the woman.
•     The psychiatric department rejected this.
•     They cited a misjudgment.

What does this contradiction reveal? That psychiatry lacks objective criteria! That the same records, the same symptoms, and the same behaviors lead to conflicting assessments. That psychiatric diagnoses are interpretations, not findings.

The Leipzig Case: The Same Pattern
In Leipzig, too, the perpetrator became violent shortly after his release from a psychiatric hospital. The parallel is striking:

•     Psychiatric diagnosis.
•     Psychiatric treatment.
•     Release from the psychiatric hospital.
•     After the incident, the psychiatric department stated that they “could not have foreseen it.”

The public keeps hearing the same phrases over and over again: “mentally ill,” “hearing voices,” “loss of touch with reality,” “unpredictable.”
But these terms explain nothing. They are labels applied after the fact that pretend to have predicted something.

Why Psychiatry Has No Knowledge
No Knowledge of the Causes:
Psychiatry claims to be able to explain behavior through “illnesses.” However:

•     There are no biological markers for schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, etc.
•     There are no tests that can measure the level of risk.
•     There are no objective criteria to guide decisions regarding discharge.

The Hamburg clinic stated:
“There were no medical findings that justified further inpatient treatment.” This means: There are no findings that reliably indicate anything.

No possibility of prediction.
If psychiatry had the knowledge, it would have to be able to predict:

•     Who is dangerous.
•     Who is stable.
•     Who can be discharged.

But both cases show that psychiatry can do nothing about it.
The 32 previous hospitalizations of the woman from Hamburg are not evidence of knowledge, but of helplessness.

No consistency.

• The judge says: “We have hardly any options.”
• The lawyer says: “There were several motions for her permanent institutionalization.”
• The psychiatrist says: “No diagnosis.”

Three institutions, three contradictory interpretations – based on the same facts. That is not knowledge. That is interpretation under the influence of power.

The epistemic gap:
Psychiatry only explains things in hindsight.
Psychiatric diagnoses work like horoscopes:

•     Before: no prediction.
•     After: Suddenly, everything falls into place.

The woman from Hamburg “heard voices.” The perpetrator from Leipzig “had mental health issues.” But these attributions only explain the act after it has happened. Beforehand, they had no consequences. Otherwise, neither of them would have been released.

The political consequence: We act blindly.
If an institution:

•     neither knows the causes,
•     nor can make predictions,
•     nor has uniform criteria,

then it does not generate knowledge, but merely engages in the management of uncertainty. Society believes that psychiatry can prevent dangers. Reality shows: It cannot!

The acts are not proof of “mental illness,” but merely demonstrate the failure of a supposed “knowledge” system.
These two cases are not proof of “mental illness.” They are proof that psychiatry:
•    does not know what it is diagnosing,
•    does not know whom it discharges,
•    does not know whom it can protect,
•    does not know what it is doing.
These acts do not demonstrate the failure of individual clinics. They demonstrate the failure of a system that claims to possess knowledge but in fact possesses none.

When an act results in harm or guilt, the rule of law provides a response regarding what should happen to the perpetrators. If such an act cannot be reliably prevented in advance, this hope must remain unfulfilled. The only hope lies in the fact that people to whom the perpetrator confided before the act can influence him so persuasively that the plan is abandoned before it is carried out. A fundamental prerequisite for this is that the relationship is based on trust and that neither coercion nor the threat of violence – let alone its actual use – is employed. However, only a non-violent psychiatric facility or a clergy bound by a vow of confidentiality can claim to offer this. The Cockpit pilots’ association has also made strict confidentiality without conflicts of interest a prerequisite for any support it offers. It considers only peer support to be appropriate, based on voluntariness, confidential conversations, trained peer counselors, resources and contact channels, as well as, if necessary, emergency contacts, crisis intervention training, and pastoral care. They consistently reject any disclosure of information to an employer or an aviation authority. The very purpose of guaranteed confidentiality is to enable pilots to seek help without fear of consequences.

This prohibition against violence becomes particularly urgent when the legal principle of “in dubio pro reo” (in case of doubt, in favor of the accused) is taken into account, which means that it is better to acquit ten guilty people than to convict one innocent person.**
On top of that, psychiatry would have to be honest with itself, admit its ignorance, and shed its arrogance.
It has every reason to finally abandon its self-deception.

——————–

* Furthermore, the claim of the existence of a “mental illness” is based on a category mistake: speaking about reasons is fundamentally and categorically different from speaking about causes. Causes are explained within a causal context that can usually even be experimentally replicated in order to understand them. Logically speaking, causes can be located within a space-time coordinate system. They follow compelling if-then and only-if laws. Reasons, on the other hand, are free in the sense that the most diverse things can be done for the same reasons, just as the same thing can be done for the most diverse reasons. Reasons are conditionally free. Psychiatric claims, on the other hand, are attributions created and then discarded through consensus within psychiatric societies and simply defined as “diseases”—“diseases” such as drapetomania (the urge to run away from slavery), homosexuality, etc. – without being able to meet the essential criteria for a disease. Statements that contain a category mistake are logically flawed and cannot lay claim to truth.

**  As stated by William Blackstone in Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book IV, Chapter 27  : “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”