The true face of psychiatry

33

CiaranMT wrote: »

It seems to be pretty clear that you still have the Scientology Cult's ideas in your head when talking about psychiatry, even though they've been debunked.

Now, provide a reasonably unbiased example of this 'mad science' that you refer to.

Try this.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7498197.html

More than a dozen Houston-area physicians have lost three or more patients to accidental prescription overdoses in recent years — including doctors accused of running pill mills and some of the state’s top prescribers of pain pills and anti-anxiety drugs, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis. Doctors previously targeted for disciplinary action by the state medical board for pill mill activity or prescription-related problems were often the sources of drugs found at multiple death sites, a review of medicines given to more than 200 people who accidentally overdosed in Harris County in 2008 and 2009 shows.
She had her license temporarily restricted — barred from prescribing controlled substances — by the Texas Medical Board in December. A board attorney described her practice as exhibiting “hallmarks of a pill mill, the knowing scheme to distribute for profit narcotics and dangerous drugs through a known medical office facade.”

Three others who died in accidental overdoses got prescriptions signed by Dr. Gerald Ratinov, a 76-year-old neurologist based in downtown Houston who formerly served as medical director at several so-called pill mills. He faces an on-going medical board disciplinary inquiry involving complaints about those clinics. Ratinov has not been charged with any crime, but hired a Houston criminal defense attorney to represent him and is cooperating in an ongoing pain clinic probe. Lawyer Robert J. Fickman declined to comment on patients’ deaths but said Ratinov has disassociated himself from pain clinics.


or this

To the outside world she was a respected NHS hospital doctor who lived in a £500,000 home and sent her children to private schools.

But Nigerian-born Florence Olaye was carrying out an extraordinary deception using two identities.

She used a fake name to retake an English test required to practise medicine in Britain – and officials are not even sure she was a proper doctor.

She supplied the bogus passport to join an employment agency in October 2007, which led to five months working in general adult psychiatry at Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. This contract was worth around £30,000.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372416/Nigerian-doctor-used-fake-identity-documents-work-British-hospitals-jailed.html#ixzz1JvkKly00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKZXH7MOwjI

Laisurg

whiteonion wrote: »

Risperdal is a highly addictive drug, famous for causing weight gain, leading to type2 diabetes. Anyone who puts children on psychoactive drugs should be considered a drug dealer and thrown in prison.

Anyone who puts anybody on risperdal should be put in prison, i've seen people who have been put on this drug who looked fine beforehand and afterwards looked almost like heroin addicts, and the physical addiction is similar as well, i saw the withdrawls myself and it was nothing short of terrifying, it doesn't even work, all it does is essentially ruin people lives, at least some and i've seen this with my own eyes.

33

http://www.examiner.com/women-s-health-in-detroit/swat-team-faces-off-against-detroit-mom
It has been noted that Child Protective Services had called in police when Ms. Godboldo refused to give her daughter the medication Risperdal, which is listed as an anti-psychotic medication know to cause serious side effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risperidone

clever_name

You were asked this

CiaranMT wrote: »

Now, provide a reasonably unbiased example of this 'mad science' that you refer to.

And replied with this

33 wrote: »

To the outside world she was a respected NHS hospital doctor who lived in a £500,000 home and sent her children to private schools.

But Nigerian-born Florence Olaye was carrying out an extraordinary deception using two identities.

She used a fake name to retake an English test required to practise medicine in Britain – and officials are not even sure she was a proper doctor.

She supplied the bogus passport to join an employment agency in October 2007, which led to five months working in general adult psychiatry at Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. This contract was worth around £30,000.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372416/Nigerian-doctor-used-fake-identity-documents-work-British-hospitals-jailed.html#ixzz1JvkKly00

How does this prove that psychiatry is bad?

Posting a Daily Mail article when asked for something reasonably unbiased... really? The main thrust of the story is that a non-white non-british woman told lies.

Its looking more and more like you are just searching for "psychiatry is bad" and posting whatever links appear.

Another reason I say that, the video you posted.

33 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKZXH7MOwjI

This video has a commentary by Fred A. Baughman Jr, I'm pressuming that is the reason you posted, the same Fred A. Baughman Jr that consulted for the CCHR, remember them?

33 wrote: »

OK cchr are a scientology front and not to be trusted, they have an agenda

Please take a minute to think about what sources you accept.

CiaranMT

*sigh*

Neither of your articles below refer to the scientific method, which is what I asked you for.

Your articles instead look at single cases of medical malpractice and generally dodgy dealing.

33 wrote: »

Try this.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7498197.html

More than a dozen Houston-area physicians have lost three or more patients to accidental prescription overdoses in recent years — including doctors accused of running pill mills and some of the state’s top prescribers of pain pills and anti-anxiety drugs, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis. Doctors previously targeted for disciplinary action by the state medical board for pill mill activity or prescription-related problems were often the sources of drugs found at multiple death sites, a review of medicines given to more than 200 people who accidentally overdosed in Harris County in 2008 and 2009 shows.
She had her license temporarily restricted — barred from prescribing controlled substances — by the Texas Medical Board in December. A board attorney described her practice as exhibiting “hallmarks of a pill mill, the knowing scheme to distribute for profit narcotics and dangerous drugs through a known medical office facade.”

Three others who died in accidental overdoses got prescriptions signed by Dr. Gerald Ratinov, a 76-year-old neurologist based in downtown Houston who formerly served as medical director at several so-called pill mills. He faces an on-going medical board disciplinary inquiry involving complaints about those clinics. Ratinov has not been charged with any crime, but hired a Houston criminal defense attorney to represent him and is cooperating in an ongoing pain clinic probe. Lawyer Robert J. Fickman declined to comment on patients’ deaths but said Ratinov has disassociated himself from pain clinics.

Did you even read the article? There is one psychiatrist involved in this case.

I fail to see how this story is any different to the Michael Neary case a few years back. There are bad apples in every profession. You're not going to stop attending your doctor's appointments because there are cases in court of G.P.s being negligent to their patient, are you?

or this

To the outside world she was a respected NHS hospital doctor who lived in a £500,000 home and sent her children to private schools.

But Nigerian-born Florence Olaye was carrying out an extraordinary deception using two identities.

She used a fake name to retake an English test required to practise medicine in Britain – and officials are not even sure she was a proper doctor.

She supplied the bogus passport to join an employment agency in October 2007, which led to five months working in general adult psychiatry at Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. This contract was worth around £30,000.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372416/Nigerian-doctor-used-fake-identity-documents-work-British-hospitals-jailed.html#ixzz1JvkKly00

As above, this article has nothing to do with the scientific method, which is what you were asked for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKZXH7MOwjI

Same as what clever name posted.

Now, I ask you again. Do you actually doubt that the psychiatric profession does not base its work on scientific research? Remember, to say yes would also be to doubt that the medical profession as a whole bases its work on science.

33

Ok lets take this from the beginning, firstly there is no test to diagnose mental illness, there are no blood tests or brain scans available that will detect mental illness, only diagnosis from a professional person, who evaluates the patient and gives his or her diagnosis, these diagnosis differ from one professional to another.
In america the american psychiatric association publish a book called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx

Theres another WHO version called ICD-10, chapter V.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICD-10_Chapter_V:_Mental_and_behavioural_disorders

These and only these are the worldwide guide books on how to diagnose mental illness by psychiatrists.

The analogy I would give the mental health profession is like that of a skilled marksman given a rifle and shown a target, then he is blindfolded spun around and told to shoot the target.
Maybe he will hit the target by pure luck, but more likely he will not hit the target, he may shoot in the general direction, but not knowing exactly where the target is he cannot be expected to get a clean headshot, and he doesn't and nobody really expects him to either.

Lets have a look at the american version of the mental health guide book, 3.3 Cautions
Further, a shared diagnosis or label may have different causes or require different treatments; for this reason the DSM contains no information regarding treatment or cause. The range of the DSM represents an extensive scope of psychiatric and psychological issues or conditions, and it is not exclusive to what may be considered “illnesses”.

So there is no magic formula to diagnosing mental illness, it leaves "extensive scope" and "it is not exclusive to what may be considered illnesses"

So hopefully you are becoming aware that it is not the pinpoint accurate profession some may think it is, it's far from it and admits it.

4 Criticism

Validity and reliability
The most fundamental scientific criticism of the DSM concerns the validity and reliability of its diagnoses. This refers, roughly, to whether the disorders it defines are actually real conditions in people in the real world, that can be consistently identified by its criteria.
It is accepted, however, that there is an "enormous" range of reliability findings in studies, and that validity is unclear because, given the lack of diagnostic laboratory or neuroimaging tests, standard clinical interviews are "inherently limited" and only a ("flawed") "best estimate diagnosis" is possible even with full assessment of all data over time.

Critics, such as psychiatrist Niall McLaren, argue that the DSM lacks validity because it has no relation to an agreed scientific model of mental disorder and therefore the decisions taken about its categories (or even the question of categories vs. dimensions) were not scientific ones; and that it lacks reliability partly because different diagnoses share many criteria, and what appear to be different criteria are often just rewordings of the same idea, meaning that the decision to allocate one diagnosis or another to a patient is to some extent a matter of personal prejudice.

Superficial symptoms
As DSM-III chief architect Robert Spitzer and DSM-IV editor Michael First outlined in 2005, "little progress has been made toward understanding the pathophysiological processes and etiology of mental disorders.
If anything, the research has shown the situation is even more complex than initially imagined, and we believe not enough is known to structure the classification of psychiatric disorders according to etiology."

The DSM's focus on superficial symptoms is claimed to be largely a result of necessity (assuming such a manual is nevertheless produced), since there is no agreement on a more explanatory classification system. Reviewers note, however, that this approach is undermining research, including in genetics, because it results in the grouping of individuals who have very little in common except superficial criteria as per DSM or ICD diagnosis.

Drug companies and medicalization
It has also been alleged that the way the categories of the DSM are structured, as well as the substantial expansion of the number of categories, are representative of an increasing medicalization of human nature, which may be attributed to disease mongering by pharmaceutical companies and psychiatrists, whose influence has dramatically grown in recent decades. Of the authors who selected and defined the DSM-IV psychiatric disorders, roughly half had had financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry at one time, raising the prospect of a direct conflict of interest. In 2005, then American Psychiatric Association President Steven Sharfstein released a statement in which he conceded that psychiatrists had "allowed the biopsychosocial model to become the bio-bio-bio model".

Political controversies
There is scientific and political controversy regarding the continued inclusion of sex-related diagnoses such as the paraphilias (sexual fetishes) and hypoactive sexual desire disorder (low sex drive). Critics of these and other controversial diagnoses often cite the DSM's previous inclusion of homosexuality, and the APA's eventual decision to remove it, as a precedent for current disputes.
Disputes over inclusion or exclusion can underscore the fact that reevaluation of controversial disorders can be viewed as a political as well as scientific decision. Indeed, Robert Spitzer, a past editor and leading proponent of scientific impartiality in the DSM, conceded that a significant reason that certain diagnoses (the paraphilias) would not, in his opinion, be removed from the DSM is because "it would be a public relations disaster for psychiatry".

Consumers
A Consumer is a person who has accessed psychiatric services and been given a diagnosis from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Some consumers are relieved to find that they have a recognized condition to which they can give a name. Indeed, many people self-diagnose. Others, however, feel they have been given a "label" that invites social stigma and discrimination, or one that they simply do not feel is accurate. Diagnoses can become internalized and affect an individual's self-identity, and some psychotherapists find that this can worsen symptoms and inhibit the healing process.

Some links

http://allpsych.com/disorders/dsm.html

http://www.psych.org/

http://www.rethink.org/about_mental_illness/how_is_mental_illness_diagnosed/

So I hope you can see the lack of scientific model concerning mental health diagnosis.

And don't ask questions that can be found in any of the links I gave.

33

Don't be shy getting back boys.

CiaranMT

33 wrote: »

Ok lets take this from the beginning, firstly there is no test to diagnose mental illness, there are no blood tests or brain scans available that will detect mental illness, only diagnosis from a professional person, who evaluates the patient and gives his or her diagnosis, these diagnosis differ from one professional to another.
In america the american psychiatric association publish a book called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

33, I'm a student of psychology. I'm well aware of the DSM and other manuals like it. I'm well aware of the inherent biases and issues with it. So don't worry, I've read all these critiques before. I've done debates as part of my course on the merits of the DSM.

To tackle your first point above, there are no blood tests because there are no symptoms of mental illness which show up in blood. Mental illnesses have their symptoms manifest not in physical change, generally, but in behavioural changes and cognitive capacity.

However, there are illnesses which can be diagnosed through brain scans. If you'd looked at something like Schizophrenia for instance, you would have seen that levels of brain activity can be used to indicate presence of the illness, as shown here:



More here.

Now, to take a second example, Alzheimer's. It can also be diagnosed with the help of a brain scan. It can also help to distinguish between Alzheimer's and Dementia.

These and only these are the worldwide guide books on how to diagnose mental illness by psychiatrists.

There's a reason for that. If there were tonnes of differing books offering varying symptoms for conditions, it would be a lot harder to properly diagnose someone.

I don't think you realise how much work goes into gathering information, and accurately and properly describing a condition in the DSM. Years and years of research goes into these conditions, carried out all over the world by literally thousands of health professionals. Submissions are reviewed to the very letter. This means that what you read in the DSM in, say, borderline personality disorder, has been scrutinised over and over, until a consensus was reached by people qualified to do so.

The analogy I would give the mental health profession is like that of a skilled marksman given a rifle and shown a target, then he is blindfolded spun around and told to shoot the target.
Maybe he will hit the target by pure luck, but more likely he will not hit the target, he may shoot in the general direction, but not knowing exactly where the target is he cannot be expected to get a clean headshot, and he doesn't and nobody really expects him to either.


So I hope you can see the lack of scientific model concerning mental health diagnosis.

That really is an awful analogy. You haven't a notion if you seriously believe there's no scientific basis for what appears in the DSM.

That or you've your fingers in your ears.

33

If your a student of psychiatry your not reading your books correctly or just can't take it all in, have a look at this from PubMed no less.




Schizophrenia
A psychiatrist should perform an evaluation to make the diagnosis. The diagnosis is made based on a thorough interview of the person and family members.
No medical tests for schizophrenia exist. The following factors may suggest a schizophrenia diagnosis, but do not confirm it:

• Course of illness and how long symptoms have lasted
• Changes from level of function before illness
• Developmental background
• Genetic and family history
• Response to medication

CT scans of the head and other imaging techniques may find some changes that occur with schizophrenia and may rule out other disorders.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001925/

And "indicate" does not equal "positive diagnosis"

33

Alzheimer's guidelines revise diagnostic criteria (from today)
New Alzheimer's guidelines in the U.S. reflect changes in understanding how the disease gradually develops.

For the first time in nearly 30 years, the National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association released revised diagnostic criteria for the mind-robbing disease that affects 500,000 Canadians.

For example, brain changes such as amyloid buildup can be detected with PET scans and cerebrospinal fluid analysis can be used in some people. No one knows what the risk of progression to Alzheimer's dementia is in these cases, and not all cases progress to dementia.

Panellists said the guidelines are flexible enough to incorporate changes that could come from emerging technologies, advances in understanding the disease process itself, and biomarkers that researchers use to detect onset of disease and track progression. Biomarkers can't be used in clinical diagnosis without more testing and validation.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/04/19/alzheimer-stages.html

CiaranMT

33 wrote: »

If your a student of psychiatry your not reading your books correctly or just can't take it all in, have a look at this from PubMed no less.

Psychology. Not psychiatry.

Read what I wrote. If you'd done this properly beforehand we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Schizophrenia
A psychiatrist should perform an evaluation to make the diagnosis. The diagnosis is made based on a thorough interview of the person and family members.
No medical tests for schizophrenia exist. The following factors may suggest a schizophrenia diagnosis, but do not confirm it:

• Course of illness and how long symptoms have lasted
• Changes from level of function before illness
• Developmental background
• Genetic and family history
• Response to medication

CT scans of the head and other imaging techniques may find some changes that occur with schizophrenia and may rule out other disorders.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001925/

And "indicate" does not equal "positive diagnosis"

What you wrote does not contradict what I wrote.

I wrote that there are no physical tests, like blood tests, for diseases like this. All you can use is what is used above.

Answer me this. What exactly is wrong with the method used above in your quote?

CiaranMT

33 wrote: »

Alzheimer's guidelines revise diagnostic criteria (from today)
New Alzheimer's guidelines in the U.S. reflect changes in understanding how the disease gradually develops.

For the first time in nearly 30 years, the National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association released revised diagnostic criteria for the mind-robbing disease that affects 500,000 Canadians.

For example, brain changes such as amyloid buildup can be detected with PET scans and cerebrospinal fluid analysis can be used in some people. No one knows what the risk of progression to Alzheimer's dementia is in these cases, and not all cases progress to dementia.

Panellists said the guidelines are flexible enough to incorporate changes that could come from emerging technologies, advances in understanding the disease process itself, and biomarkers that researchers use to detect onset of disease and track progression. Biomarkers can't be used in clinical diagnosis without more testing and validation.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/04/19/alzheimer-stages.html

I don't know why you're posting this if you think it's going to debunk my point.

This is an example of science at work. The guidelines are changed to incorporate new methods which can help detect Alzheimer's.

I fail to see what the problem is. Seriously, read what's written there.

33

CiaranMT wrote: »

Psychology. Not psychiatry.


What you wrote does not contradict what I wrote.

I wrote that there are no physical tests, like blood tests, for diseases like this. All you can use is what is used above.

Answer me this. What exactly is wrong with the method used above in your quote?

Sorry my mistake, psychology it is so.

Answer me this, why the change of tune, you said "However, there are illnesses which can be diagnosed through brain scans."


You tell me whats wrong with the method used in my quote?

And your the one contradicting yourself here, not me, you.

33

CiaranMT wrote: »

I don't know why you're posting this if you think it's going to debunk my point.

This is an example of science at work. The guidelines are changed to incorporate new methods which can help detect Alzheimer's.

I fail to see what the problem is. Seriously, read what's written there.

Like I said it's like New DAZ is better than OLD DAZ, just look at these whites, then next year another NEW DAZ comes out and todays new is tomorrows old, and old never really got it white, psychiatry is the same, so to believe they are not the blindfolded marksman is silly, maybe he's getting closer to the target, but didn't manage to actually hit it yet.

clever_name

33 wrote: »

Ok lets take this from the beginning

I think most would prefer not to, it would be nice to make progress, maybe if you responded directly to questions asked we would not need to go back to square one.

As you again show an inability or unwillingness to respond to other posts I feel the following may be wasted.

However we work with what we have, allow me to post in the manner that has been demonstrated.

33 wrote: »

Ok lets take this from the beginning, firstly there is no test to diagnose mental illness, there are no blood tests or brain scans available that will detect mental illness

Except for these!

http://www.myhealthnewsdaily.com/blood-test-possibly-detects-schizophrenia-0552/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070306101139.htm

http://theuniquemind.blogspot.com/2008/03/blood-tests-and-mental-illness.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3297681/Blood-tests-to-diagnose-mental-illness.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23337532/ns/health-mental_health/

http://newideas.net/anxiety-disorder-blood-test

33 wrote: »

Ok lets take this from the beginning, firstly there is no test to diagnose mental illness, there are no blood tests or brain scans available that will detect mental illness

Try this

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/18/health/psychology/18imag.html

http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/archives/002120.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_MRI_brain_scan_tell_if_you_have_mental_illness

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/18/health/psychology/18imag.html

33 wrote: »

only diagnosis from a professional person, who evaluates the patient and gives his or her diagnosis, .these diagnosis differ from one professional to another

This works for everything from accountants to zoologists.

33 wrote: »

The analogy I would give the mental health profession is like that of a skilled marksman given a rifle and shown a target, then he is blindfolded spun around and told to shoot the target.

That should read " the analogy I would give as someone with no knowledge beyond what I have found from google".

Also even if we go with you "analogy" who has a better chance of hitting a bullseye regardless of circumstances - someone who has read a little on the internet about guns or "a skilled marksman"?

33 wrote: »

So hopefully you are becoming aware that it is not the pinpoint accurate profession some may think it is, it's far from it and admits it

Who thinks its pinpoint accurate?... its the human brain...anybody with one knows that its imperfect.

And to be clear you believe that psychiatry admits it is not a perfect science?


As for most of what you posted, I can not respond as you have chosen not to post links, so thats why I will not be responding to most of what you posted.

QUOTE=33;71790263]
Consumers
A Consumer is a person who has accessed psychiatric services and been given a diagnosis from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Some consumers are relieved to find that they have a recognized condition to which they can give a name.
[/QUOTE]

Thats good news then.

See I have responded to everything much as you have done, downside is it has advanced the debate about -50% by diverting away from important points.

There are two main reasons I posted this , first so I might highlight the point that simply because its on the internet does not make it worth knowing.

Second I am fairly sure you will ignore everything posted and carry on riffing on the the google search for "doctors are bad, natural is good"

33 wrote: »

Don't be shy getting back boys.

Congratulations you win! well done! you have been awarded 450 internet points!

I had better pre-edit this to include the instruction that the last comment was intended to have mild sarcasm.

BTW its not a competition, if it was the only way to win would be to turn off the computer knowing more than when you turned it on.

From your posts that would be hard for you to do unless you found an alt-medicine site with a guide to where the off button is.

CiaranMT

33 wrote: »

Sorry my mistake, psychology it is so.

Answer me this, why the change of tune, you said "However, there are illnesses which can be diagnosed through brain scans."


You tell me whats wrong with the method used in my quote?

And your the one contradicting yourself here, not me, you.

The change of tone is because you are either failing to grasp, or intentionally ignoring what I am writing.

I should have said that they help to diagnose. There is a difference, granted.

You're the one alleging this profession to be based on false pretences. It's up to you to point out the flaws, not me.

So, again, point out what's wrong with the following method:

A psychiatrist should perform an evaluation to make the diagnosis. The diagnosis is made based on a thorough interview of the person and family members.
No medical tests for schizophrenia exist. The following factors may suggest a schizophrenia diagnosis, but do not confirm it:
Course of illness and how long symptoms have lasted
Changes from level of function before illness
Developmental background
Genetic and family history
Response to medication

33 wrote: »

Like I said it's like New DAZ is better than OLD DAZ, just look at these whites, then next year another NEW DAZ comes out and todays new is tomorrows old, and old never really got it white, psychiatry is the same, so to believe they are not the blindfolded marksman is silly, maybe he's getting closer to the target, but didn't manage to actually hit it yet.

Another horrible analogy.

Cleaning products and blinded, gun-toting marksmen.

Really?

33

clever_name wrote: »

I think most would prefer not to, it would be nice to make progress, maybe if you responded directly to questions asked we would not need to go back to square one.

As you again show an inability or unwillingness to respond to other posts I feel the following may be wasted.

However we work with what we have, allow me to post in the manner that has been demonstrated.


Except for these!

http://www.myhealthnewsdaily.com/blood-test-possibly-detects-schizophrenia-0552/


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070306101139.htm

http://theuniquemind.blogspot.com/2008/03/blood-tests-and-mental-illness.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3297681/Blood-tests-to-diagnose-mental-illness.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23337532/ns/health-mental_health/

http://newideas.net/anxiety-disorder-blood-test



Try this

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/18/health/psychology/18imag.html

http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/archives/002120.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_MRI_brain_scan_tell_if_you_have_mental_illness

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/18/health/psychology/18imag.html



This works for everything from accountants to zoologists.



That should read " the analogy I would give as someone with no knowledge beyond what I have found from google".

Also even if we go with you "analogy" who has a better chance of hitting a bullseye regardless of circumstances - someone who has read a little on the internet about guns or "a skilled marksman"?



Who thinks its pinpoint accurate?... its the human brain...anybody with one knows that its imperfect.

And to be clear you believe that psychiatry admits it is not a perfect science?


As for most of what you posted, I can not respond as you have chosen not to post links, so thats why I will not be responding to most of what you posted.

QUOTE=33;71790263]
Consumers
A Consumer is a person who has accessed psychiatric services and been given a diagnosis from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Some consumers are relieved to find that they have a recognized condition to which they can give a name.


Thats good news then.

See I have responded to everything much as you have done, downside is it has advanced the debate about -50% by diverting away from important points.

There are two main reasons I posted this , first so I might highlight the point that simply because its on the internet does not make it worth knowing.

Second I am fairly sure you will ignore everything posted and carry on riffing on the the google search for "doctors are bad, natural is good"



Congratulations you win! well done! you have been awarded 450 internet points!

I had better pre-edit this to include the instruction that the last comment was intended to have mild sarcasm.

BTW its not a competition, if it was the only way to win would be to turn off the computer knowing more than when you turned it on.

From your posts that would be hard for you to do unless you found an alt-medicine site with a guide to where the off button is.

2 links the same, edit it, then read it and show where it says scans show illness, your the only person buying scans see illness, and if they can't do it today I can't see how they did it 6 years ago.

If it were a competition, your well gone.

From your first link.
A new blood-based test may help with that effort.

CiaranMT

33 wrote: »

2 links the same, edit it, then read it and show where it says scans show illness, your the only person buying scans see illness, and if they can't do it today I can't see how they did it 6 years ago.

If it were a competition, your well gone.

I see that you really aren't grasping it then.

The scans pick up levels of brain activity and they are then compared to normal levels to see if they differ.

You can't 'see' the illness. You can see its effects. Do you understand?

clever_name

33 wrote: »

2 links the same, edit it, then read it and show where it says scans show illness, your the only person buying scans see illness, and if they can't do it today I can't see how they did it 6 years ago.

If it were a competition, your well gone.

From your first link.
A new blood-based test may help with that effort.

I put the same link in twice just to see if you did read any other posts, so you did read (skim?) my post you just did not understand it.

No problem, try again another time.

33

CiaranMT wrote: »

I see that you really aren't grasping it then.

The scans pick up levels of brain activity and they are then compared to normal levels to see if they differ.

You can't 'see' the illness. You can see its effects. Do you understand?

But activity does not explicitly point to diagnosis does it, it could be something totally different or a number of different reasons that the activity registers as it does.

I think your the one who should be worrying about understanding, not me, if your hoping to be a professional and an armchair amateur like myself can show you up like I did.

33

clever_name wrote: »

I put the same link in twice just to see if you did read any other posts, so you did read (skim?) my post you just did not understand it.

No problem, try again another time.

Haha, your links and assumptions are wrong, no tests, either blood or scan show up any mental illness, nobody has ever been diagnosed using only blood or scan, and as I just said to your pal, there are hundreds of reasons why brains MAY show abnormal activity, none of which can pin point anything on its own.

Humans and interpretation are all thats needed, and both can and are regularly WRONG.

CiaranMT

33 wrote: »

But activity does not explicitly point to diagnosis does it, it could be something totally different or a number of different reasons that the activity registers as it does.

I think your the one who should be worrying about understanding, not me, if your hoping to be a professional and an armchair amateur like myself can show you up like I did.

This is becoming laughable.

As you corrected me earlier, the scan is used to help diagnose illness.

Of course it's not used on its own to diagnose a patient.

It is used along with a method similar to what you posted earlier. If a patient has a number of symptoms, and a brain scan also indicates the illness, then they receive the diagnosis.

And again, I ask, what is wrong with this method?

A psychiatrist should perform an evaluation to make the diagnosis. The diagnosis is made based on a thorough interview of the person and family members.
No medical tests for schizophrenia exist. The following factors may suggest a schizophrenia diagnosis, but do not confirm it:
Course of illness and how long symptoms have lasted
Changes from level of function before illness
Developmental background
Genetic and family history
Response to medication

EDIT: Cutting in your latest reply here.

33 wrote: »

Haha, your links and assumptions are wrong, no tests, either blood or scan show up any mental illness, nobody has ever been diagnosed using only blood or scan, and as I just said to your pal, there are hundreds of reasons why brains MAY show abnormal activity, none of which can pin point anything on its own.

Humans and interpretation are all thats needed, and both can and are regularly WRONG.

Like I said above, of course they're not used on their own. This isn't measles or TB we're talking about here.

Of course the interpretation can be wrong. How does this invalidate the method?

You should note that in the vast, overwhelming majority of cases, the diagnosis is correct. You may not think so, but this is likely due to the serious nature of misdiagnoses, and the coverage they get.

Someone being misdiagnosed with a cold instead of 'flu won't make headlines because it's a benign condition. A misdiagnosis of borderline personality disorder when the person actually has an A.S.D. is far more serious, and this is why it gets coverage in the media. But that is ridiculously rare.

clever_name

33 wrote: »

Haha, your links and assumptions are wrong, no tests, either blood or scan show up any mental illness, nobody has ever been diagnosed using only blood or scan, and as I just said to your pal, there are hundreds of reasons why brains MAY show abnormal activity, none of which can pin point anything on its own.

Humans and interpretation are all thats needed, and both can and are regularly WRONG.

Please provide evidence to show the links I posted re brain scans are wrong.

33

clever_name wrote: »

Please provide evidence to show the links I posted re brain scans are wrong.

I did already, go back a few posts and read.

I dont repeat myself, you show me something up-to-date that shows scans show mental illness, they DON'T, ask your buddy psychology student.

CiaranMT

33 wrote: »

I did already, go back a few posts and read.

I dont repeat myself, you show me something up-to-date that shows scans show mental illness, they DON'T, ask your buddy psychology student.

Saying something is wrong, believe it or not, doesn't make it so.

In twenty years time you'll look a right fool, with the advancements in technology.

CiaranMT

Actually, f**k this, I'm going to bed. 33, you're clearly not picking up what we're writing. Find a book on the scientific method for yourself.

33

Ok so we're all on the same page now are we?, we all agree that psychiatry isn't really as accurate as some would have us believe, and human error can and does happen often, the medical mafia play a big part in "training" you "students" don't they, do you have any "branded" pens in school that you use?

33

CiaranMT wrote: »

Actually, f**k this, I'm going to bed. 33, you're clearly not picking up what we're writing. Find a book on the scientific method for yourself.

Nite,Nite, sleep tight..the rest will do you good for school, take the wax out of your ears.

33

CiaranMT wrote: »

Saying something is wrong, believe it or not, doesn't make it so.

In twenty years time you'll look a right fool, with the advancements in technology.

In 20 years time you's will not understand the brain any better than you's did 30 years ago, although the variety of medication will be a lot more exotic.

clever_name

33 wrote: »

I dont repeat myself, you show me something up-to-date that shows scans show mental illness, they DON'T, ask your buddy psychology student.

You do repeat yourself,if possible take a step back and look at your posting history.

As for proving that links I have posted are wrong, I must reply, but you failed to show where anything they say is wrong, so what exactly that they say is wrong.

Answer that!