[09:09, 14/02/2026] Urs-Li: or write
Psychiatriezentrum Linth ist das Ambulatorium (welches mich nicht behandelt) und von der selben Psychiatrie SG wie die Klinik
Let me make an example, just a couple minutes, of what we are dealing with. So this is, unlike the rest, a password-protected folder. And so here, that was part of the work for the Gutachten. It's just like eight documents, and those are, so like the report from the mental hospital 2020 before the surgery, then Gais, so that was the Reha, and then an assessment of the ambulante psychologist, the Praxis Rieklin. And then, well, I have to check. Oh no, this is Notville, that was the fourth document, and then this is the worst. So, no, no, this was Notville, and then, yeah, so this is the worst. And I'm showing the intro to, like, to really see what you have to deal with. So the initial page is just copy-paste from their own report from 2020, where I already tried with the Nachbesprechung to point out, Their diagnosis is wrong. That was already in 2021 the result, right? But they go again without, so it starts diagnosis, bipolar affective disorder, so bipolar affective St?rung, gegenw?rtig manische Episode mit psychotischen Symptomen. Schizoaffektive St?rung und Radikulopathie, Lumbalbereich. Again, a word no one is using, but that should be the back issue. But this is this is they're made up, like no one uses that term before. So no one uses, and then the Zuweisung. So die Zuweisung erfolgt per ?rztlicher fürsorgerischer Unterbringung, ausgestellt vom Spital Lind auf Grund von Selbst- und Fremdgef?hrdung. That is not true. It was not the Spital Lind, it was the Spital Uznach. And there was no Selbst- und Fremdgef?hrdung, not at all. Im Eintrittsgespr?ch berichtet der Patient, dass er Suizidgedanken habe, weswegen er auch schon bei Exit angemeldet sei. Not true at all. Completely out of context. And then it continues and then they even mentioned that das überweisungsschreiben vom Spital Uznach. The document doesn't exist. There is no überweisungsschreiben. It's just the fürsorgerische Unterbringung where he explains that there was no other solution. And then they cite the RehaClinic guys, but it's completely wrong. Like, the document before that was the real report of guys, and it had nothing to do with what they write here. So, and then there are like Gewaltfantasien, especially a hatred for women and revenge fantasies, stuff like that. No, I, in like, so I distinguish myself from like the Incel subculture in that, and that was kind of the train of thought. So I found the courage or the Stolz instead. So like a book I would recommend is Die Wolle Gesinnten. So instead of like doing such a revenge crime, I would first commit suicide. So that's the whole, and I have that recorded. That's what I discussed 2000... Well, during the lockdown in this like theoretical tantra massage. So when I had no, when my family forbade me the Praxis Richtlinien, I tried that. So I told her exactly the problem, right? So, and they just, and it continues like that. So it is not even, it is not even, like, they cite a document that- Like that was the stack of documents. That's what it did. And on top was the report of Notwheel. They ignored Notwheel. They went to Geist. They went to 2020. And they cited it and completely wrong, completely out of context. And it's full of this. So the solution is that we agree both sides, this Gutachten now replaces that nonsense. But now they don't accept that. Now they still think they kind of have to defend something that is indefensible. And that's the core issue, right? So it's not, it's no longer about if there needs to be an escalation. Now it's about how to escalate.
Thank you for laying that out so clearly. What you’re describing is not a small disagreement about interpretation — it’s a pattern of:
-
Wrong factual claims (e.g., wrong hospital, nonexistent referral letter)
-
Diagnoses repeated despite prior clarification
-
Statements taken out of context (suicidal ideation, “Gewaltfantasien”)
-
Selective citation of documents while ignoring others (e.g., Notwil)
-
Attribution of motives or risk factors that you explicitly rejected
That shifts this from a medical disagreement to a documentation integrity issue.
And you’re right: once one side refuses to acknowledge factual errors, the question is no longer whether to escalate — it’s how to escalate strategically.
Before escalation, you need a structured position that is:
Help support creative writers by finding and reading their stories on the original site.
-
Calm
-
Evidence-based
-
Focused on verifiable errors, not interpretations
If you escalate emotionally, they will frame it as instability.
If you escalate factually, they are cornered by documentation.
Instead of arguing generally that “it’s wrong,” structure it like this:
These are strongest legally.
-
Hospital named incorrectly (Spital Lind vs. Spital Uznach)
-
Claimed “Selbst- und Fremdgef?hrdung” without documentation
-
Mention of an überweisungsschreiben that does not exist
-
Misrepresentation of the RehaClinic report
-
Ignoring the Notwil report
These are not medical judgments — they are factual contradictions.
These are harder but still strong if you have recordings.
-
Suicide statements taken out of context
-
“Gewaltfantasien” framed as actual risk rather than theoretical distinction
-
Incel discussion reframed as misogynistic hostility
-
Statements about EXIT misrepresented
If you have recordings or written transcripts, this becomes powerful.
This is procedural.
If a diagnosis was challenged in 2021 and they simply copy-paste it in 2020 and reuse it without re-evaluation, that suggests:
-
Lack of independent reassessment
-
Anchoring bias
-
Or defensive documentation behavior
There are several levels of escalation:
You request:
-
Rectification of factual errors
-
Annotation of the file
-
Independent review
-
Written explanation of methodology
This keeps it procedural.
In Switzerland, that would mean:
-
Cantonal health supervisory authority
-
?rztekammer
-
Possibly data protection authority (if false records)
This becomes regulatory.
If the report has consequences (insurance, disability, guardianship, etc.), then:
-
Independent forensic psychiatric counter-report
-
Legal review for defamation or malpractice
-
Challenge under medical record correction rights
This is high conflict.
Before escalating, ask yourself:
-
What is your goal?
-
Remove diagnosis?
-
Correct record?
-
Prevent future harm?
-
Financial compensation?
-
Reputation protection?
-
Escalation must serve a concrete objective.
Be aware of one thing:
When psychiatric institutions feel attacked, they sometimes double down defensively.
So escalation must:
-
Not look like persecution narrative
-
Not look like personal vendetta
-
Be structured as a documentation quality issue
Language matters enormously.
From what you described, the strongest leverage is this:
They cite documents that either do not exist or contradict what they claim.
That is not interpretation. That is verifiable.
If that is demonstrable, their position becomes fragile.
Before escalating externally, ask yourself honestly:
Is there any possibility that:
Some statements were paraphrased rather than fabricated?
Some risk assessments were made based on clinical interpretation?
Some context was condensed rather than distorted?
You need to stress-test your position before you escalate.
The smartest move now would be:
Create a structured comparison document:
Column A: Original document text
Column B: What they claim it says
Column C: Verifiable discrepancy
Column D: Evidence (scan, recording, transcript)
Keep tone neutral.
Do not include emotional commentary.
Focus on falsifiable contradictions.
That document becomes your escalation tool.
You mentioned suicide and revenge themes.
Even if those were theoretical discussions, institutions treat:
Suicide
Violence
Gender hostility
as high-risk flags.
So part of your strategy must explicitly clarify:
No current suicidal ideation
No violent intent
No misogynistic ideology
Contextual nature of prior discussions
That reduces defensive resistance.
If you want, I can help you:
Draft a formal escalation letter
Structure the discrepancy table
Or map out the safest escalation sequence for Switzerland specifically
What outcome are you aiming for — correction, recognition of error, or something stronger?
[13:21, 14/02/2026] Urs-Li: my spam is genuine not: [13:22, 14/02/2026] Urs-Li:
[14/02, 13:38] PA_summary: New member [14/02, 16:59] Ghostwriter: Neus teil:
2nd it is a blank thought