Somatic & Physical Literacy
Share
Chloe Elise Felder
Founder of Somatic & Physical Literacy™
The first formal corpus on appearance-first phenomenological description.
Why did I turn what happened with my psychiatrist into a research program and public archive?
Because I documented everything.
The emails. The recorded encounter. The medical record. The medication history. The contradictions. The chronology.
And when I began asking what accountability looked like inside North Pointe, I confronted another problem: Dr. Asad Islam is the practice president, and I identified no independent internal review mechanism through which my concerns about his own conduct and documentation could be adjudicated.
So my question became bigger than “What happened to me?”
It became: What happens when a patient challenges the person who holds institutional authority over the record and the practice itself?
And then I discovered something I hadn't expected: public Google reviews going back years before my experience, with other reviewers describing problems that overlap with parts of what I had already documented.
That's where Video 3 begins.
See the archive and research:
AsadIslamPatientExperience.com
https://substack.com/
OSF - https://osf.io/mxfa5
Why did one experience with my psychiatrist become a research program and a public archive?
Because I documented everything.
Emails.
The recorded encounter.
The medical record.
Medication history.
Chronology.
Discrepancies.
Then I had to ask a much bigger question:
What happens when the doctor whose conduct you’re challenging is also the president of the practice—and you identify no independent internal accountability process?
And then came the part I hadn’t expected.
After documenting my own experience and building the research program, I discovered years of earlier public Google reviews describing problems that overlap with parts of my documented experience.
That’s Video 3.
AsadIslamPatientExperience.com
https://substack.com/Sophie Litow
OSF - https://osf.io/mxfa5
Why did I report my psychiatrist, Dr. Asad Islam, to the police?
Because I had receipts.
A recording.
Contemporaneous emails.
Prescription evidence.
Witness evidence.
And the medical record itself.
When I compared those sources, I found evidence that I believe raises serious questions about psychiatric reframing and possible intentional falsification within my medical record.
So I reported my concerns.
Then I did something else:
I made the record public.
Not just my conclusions. The evidence. The chronology. The contradictions. The unanswered questions. The institutional responses. And the scholarly research that grew from examining what happened.
You don’t have to take my word for it.
Examine the record yourself.
AsadIslamPatientExperience.com
OSF Project
https://osf.io/mxfa5
Substack
https://substack.com/Sophie Litow
My allegations remain allegations. I distinguish documented evidence from inference and from matters requiring determination by the appropriate authorities.
Why did I report my psychiatrist, Dr. Asad Islam, to the police?
That’s a great question. I’d love to tell you.
I recorded the encounter at the center of this case. I preserved the emails. I obtained my medical record. I documented the prescriptions. I identified witnesses.
Then I compared the evidence.
What I found raised serious enough questions—including questions about whether my self-advocacy was reframed as psychiatric pathology and whether portions of my medical record were intentionally falsified—that I reported my concerns to the appropriate authorities.
But I didn't stop at telling my side of the story.
I built a public archive.
The evidence, chronology, medical-record analysis, unanswered questions, institutional responses, and scholarly papers examining the case are available for other people to inspect.
You don't have to take my word for it.
Look at the record yourself.
AsadIslamPatientExperience.com
OSF research project:
https://osf.io/mxfa5
SPL on Substack:
https://substack.com/
My allegations remain allegations until an appropriate authority makes a finding. The public archive distinguishes evidence from inference and identifies what remains unresolved.
08/11/2026
I reported my psychiatrist to the police because I believe he reframed my self-advocacy as psychiatric instability.
That experience eventually became much bigger than one complaint.
I created an entire research program examining the patient-rights and visibility gaps exposed by this one well-documented case. I built a website archiving the recorded events. I preserved the emails, records, chronology, and questions surrounding what happened.
The project: https://osf.io/mxfa5
The website: www.AsadIslamPatientExperience.com
The newsletter: https://substack.com/
Then I reached the next problem:
Okay. Now who needs to know?
A medical board?
Police?
A journalist?
An attorney?
A researcher?
A patient-rights organization?
An archive?
And what exactly should each of those people receive?
Those questions sound simple until you are the patient trying to answer them while simultaneously preserving evidence, filing complaints, tracking deadlines, and figuring out which institutions actually have authority to do something.
So while creating the outreach plan for the Dr. Asad Islam Visibility Preservation Project, I built an entire operating system for it.
And then I realized:
Other patients should not have to invent this from scratch.
So I turned it into a public, case-neutral template.
SPL Accountability Outreach Operating System — Public Template v1.0 https://sophylit.gumroad.com/l/spl-accountability-outreach-os
It is designed to help people organize potential outreach when they are navigating patient self-advocacy, formal complaints, possible police reports, institutional accountability, journalism, research, advocacy, and evidence preservation.
It helps answer questions like:
Who actually has jurisdiction?
Who only has influence?
Who should receive primary evidence?
What should wait?
What needs verification before contacting anyone?
What happens if a regulator acts—or doesn’t?
How do you preserve visibility without sending everything to everyone?
It is not legal advice.
It is a tool for structure, evidence discipline, timing, provenance, and visibility preservation.
I built it because navigating accountability should not require every patient to become an institution unto themselves.
Now I’m sharing it.
08/08/2026
Patient rights are not real if they only work for the patient who can build an archive.
I keep returning to this because it may be the biggest thing my experience with Dr. Asad Islam forced me to see.
I happened to be able to document.
I saved emails. I preserved timestamps. I retained recordings and prescription information. I requested records. I compared representations. I built chronologies. I researched the systems involved. I created a public archive. And when one question produced another, I built an entire scholarly project around the problems the record exposed.
But what about the patient who cannot do all of that?
What about the patient who is sick, exhausted, disabled, frightened, overwhelmed, technologically excluded, financially constrained, unable to remember exact dates, uncomfortable challenging a physician, or simply unaware that something in the record may later matter?
A right to access a record is not the same thing as being able to see what changed.
A right to request correction is not the same thing as having the evidence and stamina required to prove why correction matters.
A complaint pathway is not the same thing as a usable accountability system.
And the absence of a patient-built counter-record cannot safely be treated as proof that the institution-authored account is complete or correct.
That is what means to me.
My documented experience became the starting point for a much larger SPL research project about what patients need in order for their experiences, records, disagreements, and rights to remain visible.
This project does not ask readers to treat my interpretation as an official finding. It preserves the evidence, the disagreements, the unanswered questions, the proposed reforms, and the boundaries between them.
Explore the project:
OSF research archive: https://osf.io/mxfa5
SPL Newsletters: https://substack.com/
Case archive: https://asadislampatientexperience.com
08/07/2026
A list of names is not an accountability strategy.
While building the public-accountability side of the Dr. Asad Islam project, I started with what looked like a simple problem: find the people and institutions who might care about the evidence.
Very quickly, that became something much larger.
A recipient can exist and still be the wrong recipient. Someone can have expertise without authority, authority without investigative jurisdiction, or influence without any appropriate reason to receive the same evidence packet as someone else.
So I stopped building a contact list and started building an outreach operating system.
The resulting architecture distinguishes roles from people, authority from expertise, available routes from activated routes, and evidence from the specific ask a recipient is actually positioned to answer. It also includes something accountability campaigns can easily neglect: stopping conditions.
That led to one of the clearest distinctions to emerge from the project:
visibility ≠ routability
Evidence can be preserved, public, and important—and still have no intelligible path to someone capable of doing the appropriate thing with it.
My newest SPL newsletter explains how that problem became an operating system, and why I’m developing the resulting accountability-outreach template as a reusable public resource.
Read: When Outreach Becomes an Operating System
https://sophylit.substack.com/p/when-outreach-becomes-an-operating
When Outreach Becomes an Operating System Role Ontology, Routing, and the Governance of Accountability Outreach
08/03/2026
One case. Many questions.
The second newsletter in Dr. Asad Islam SPL series is now live. It introduces the 28-paper research program that grew from one documented psychiatric-care experience and the broader questions it disclosed about patient rights, documentary visibility, and institutional accountability.
Read, review, and discern for yourself.
Papers: https://osf.io/mxfa5
Newsletter: https://sophylit.substack.com
Chloe Elise Felder | Substack Founder and principal theorist of Somatic & Physical Literacy™, an appearance-first descriptive corpus that stabilizes language through distinction integrity and classification stability | SophyLit.com. Click to read Chloe Elise Felder on Substack. Launched 2 months ago.
08/01/2026
Some records document care.
Others become instruments through which the patient is re-described, displaced, and made less credible.
SPL’s newest 19-paper series began when a documented psychiatric-care dispute required the framework to govern its own author. The result is not a personal grievance enlarged into theory. It is an examination of what becomes visible when a patient must preserve the chronology, evidence, and contradictions of her own care—and when the institutional record cannot be assumed to preserve them faithfully.
The series examines patient-side visibility preservation, medical-record integrity, self-advocacy pathologization, documentary burden, treatment-status contradiction, record provenance, institutional receipt, and the conditions under which accountability becomes practically possible.
One documented case cannot establish prevalence. It can reveal a vulnerability clearly enough that it should no longer remain unnamed.
This newsletter introduces the series, the case-derived questions that generated it, and the methodological discipline required when the framework must also govern the person writing through the experience.
Newsletter:
https://substack.com//note/p-208866224?r=1fibet&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
Paper series:
https://osf.io/mxfa5
When the Framework Had to Govern Its Author How a Documented Patient Experience Led to the Patient Welfare Visibility Record
Click here to claim your Sponsored Listing.