Psychiatry is bogus

Naikon

Ok, I may be opening a can of worms here and I do understand the issue might be a tad too serious for AH, but due to the very recent depression thread promoting "reaching out" to "professionals" for mental health issues, I just want to get the gist of AH'ers on this issue. Do you acknowledge the complete lack of a verifiable scientific basis for pretty much every disorder listed in the DSM manuals? I have done research and I can't find any facts indicating a scientific basis for any of the conditions I read about a month ago. The "chemical imbalance" theory is complete bogus for example. Sounds good for making a quick buck though.

I think we are heading down a very, VERY slippery slope if we allow the momentum of this industry spiral out of control. Labels on a whim aren't the answer. There is no "normal" person. This entire industry appears to be built on nothing more than plain subjective opinion to the detriment of society at large. Honestly, the entire section rings true to me as the Religious order of the medical profession. Again, the recent recession is going to increase the number of prescriptions out there. But what will the true cost be? Pseudoscience at it's worst.

Offy

Naikon wrote: »

Ok, I may be opening a can of worms here and I do understand the issue might be a tad too serious for AH, but due to the recent depression thread promoting "reaching out" to "professionals" for mental health issues, I just want to get the gist of AH'ers on this issue. Do you acknowledge the complete lack of a verifiable scientific basis for pretty much every disorder listed in the DSM manuals? I have done some research and I can't find any facts indicating a scientific basis for most of the conditions I read about a month or two ago. The "chemical imbalance" theory is complete bogus for example.

I think we are heading down a very, VERY slippery slope if we allow the momentum of this industry spiral out of control. Labels on a whim aren't the answer. There is no "normal" person. This entire industry appears to be built on nothing more than plain subjective opinion to the detriment of society at large. Honestly, the entire section rings true to me as the Religious order of the medical profession. Again, the recent recession is going to increase the number of prescriptions out there. But what will the true cost be? Pseudoscience at it's worst.

+1

orourkeda

Are you trained in the field.

If not' how can you diss a whole field of study on little more that a whim? The human mind and brain are extremely complicated devices and understanding and unlocking their secrets is not easily done.

brummytom

I think psychiatry's far more useful to those considered 'abnormal' (medically) than drug therapy. It tries to get to the cause of the problem, rather than just mask the effects.

I think a culture so reliant on drugs to hide everything is far more dangerous.

Saila

Conspiracy Theories is calling this thread I think, can you hear it?

policarp

It does my head in.

starbelgrade

And how does that make you feel, OP?

Dave!

Are you L Ron Hubbard in disguise?

Saila

orourkeda wrote: »

Are you trained in the field.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say..no

orourkeda

Saila wrote: »

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say..no

I think you may be correct

Aoifey!

Saila wrote: »

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say..no

I'll second that.

Naikon

orourkeda wrote: »

If not' how can you diss a whole field of study on little more that a whim?

tl;dr of my post - No scientific basis for many of the conditions listed. I can conduct scientific experiments to measure the characteristics of a semiconductor. Real science. "Avoident social disorder" - Not so much. At most, that label is subjective opinion. You don't have to be a medical professional to actually research the issue and find inconsistancies and holes in their ropey arguments.

"Internet addiction disorder" - Yeah, really deserves a place in the latest DSM revision. Anyone who is here right now would probably be branded with this label by DSM standards. Is that really Science? I am speaking from the perspective of drug culture btw. You know, drugging someone who isn't doing well at school is questionable. Masking the problem isn't the solution.

I have internet addiction disorder, probably because my livelyhood depends on working with computers. Doc/specs->online for the most part.

Buceph

Psychiatric definitions of diseases do have scientific basis. The disease becomes a problem when it starts seriously impeding someone's life, generally over six months.

And it's also testable, in the sense that when certain things are applied to said ailments, there is a statistically significant outcome.

You don't need to know the cause to measure the effect and to act on the effect. Much of physics is measuring certain effects and extrapolating what the cause is. That isn't an out there way of conducting science.


You're either ignorant of what psychiatry is, or conspiracy theory nutter.

Edit: You posted before I responded with my answer, but aye, it looks like you're ignorant of what psychiatry actually is (although that doesn't rule out that you're a conspiracy theorist.)

ascanbe

Naikon wrote: »

Ok, I may be opening a can of worms here and I do understand the issue might be a tad too serious for AH, but due to the very recent depression thread promoting "reaching out" to "professionals" for mental health issues, I just want to get the gist of AH'ers on this issue. Do you acknowledge the complete lack of a verifiable scientific basis for pretty much every disorder listed in the DSM manuals? I have done research and I can't find any facts indicating a scientific basis for any of the conditions I read about a month ago. The "chemical imbalance" theory is complete bogus for example. Sounds good for making a quick buck though.

I think we are heading down a very, VERY slippery slope if we allow the momentum of this industry spiral out of control. Labels on a whim aren't the answer. There is no "normal" person. This entire industry appears to be built on nothing more than plain subjective opinion to the detriment of society at large. Honestly, the entire section rings true to me as the Religious order of the medical profession. Again, the recent recession is going to increase the number of prescriptions out there. But what will the true cost be? Pseudoscience at it's worst.

Freudian slip.

AlmightyCushion

I take the "the" out of psychotherapist.

starviewadams

If psychiatry actually was bogus I would probably be dead now.
I'd been to my GP lots of times about feeling very depressed/self harming/suicidal ideation and every time he insisted that I'd snap out of it,finally got referred to a psychiatrist and she diagnosed me with bi-polar disorder.

She didn't play me with drugs either which is another misconception about psychiatrists,but sent me to a psychologist,him and her then came up with a treatment plan for me,to just dismiss it as bogus is ridiculous and actually harmful to fragile people who are currently under the care of psychiatrists.

orourkeda

Naikon wrote: »

tl;dr of my post - No scientific basis for many of the conditions listed. I can conduct scientific experiments to measure the characteristics of a semiconductor. Real science. "Avoident social disorder" - Not so much. At most, that label is subjective opinion. You don't have to be a medical professional to actually research the issue and find inconsistancies and holes in their ropey arguments.

"Internet addiction disorder" - Yeah, really deserves a place in the latest DSM revision. Anyone who is here right now would probably be branded with this label by DSM standards? Is that really Science?

Given the complexity of the human brain it will take hundreds of years to fully understand its workings. To poo poo this area is a little infantile if you dont mind my saying so.

Just look at the advances in medical science in the last 50 to 100 years. Where would we be now as a species if we'd said in 1911, screw this medical lark, our knowledge is ropey,let's not do any more study in the area.

starbelgrade

Naikon wrote: »

You know, drugging someone who isn't doing well at school is questionable.

I wish I'd been drugged for free in school, but I had to buy my own stuff.

Kids these days. Fucking spoiled brats.

im invisible

anyone who willingly goes to a psychiatrist needs their head examined...

orourkeda

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I take the "the" out of psychotherapist.

a proper skullf*ck

brummytom

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I take the "the" out of psychotherapist.

That's going on the front of my psychology folder.

skelliser

OP explain and quantify scientifically emotions?


Just because we have yet to fully understand the brains complete function doesnt mean we should dismiss a whole facet of medical science.

As we see in quantum mechanics the universe is everything but a yes/no true/false equation.

OutlawPete

The infamous Tom Crusie interview where he called psychiatry a "pseudo science" ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc_wjp262RY

starbelgrade

OutlawPete wrote: »

The infamous Tom Crusie interview where he called psychiatry a "pseudo science" ..

The "Respect The Cock" rant was miles better.

Naikon

orourkeda wrote: »

Are you trained in the field.

If not' how can you diss a whole field of study on little more that a whim? The human mind and brain are extremely complicated devices and understanding and unlocking their secrets is not easily done.

I never said they weren't. I am just stating the lack of objective methods of evaluation for determining conditions. The DSM authors are jumping the gun to speak. We don't know everything, I take that as a given. Walk into a doctor and how is he going to determine you have depression for example? A nice chat? Hardly a proper establishment of fact. Won't show up on an MRI.

orourkeda

Naikon wrote: »

I never said they weren't. I am just stating the lack of objective methods of evaluation for determining conditions. The DSM authors are jumping the gun to speak. We don't know everything, I take that as a given. Walk into a doctor and how is he going to determine you have depression for example? A nice chat? Hardly a proper establishment of fact.

But the field itself isn't that old. Things are bound to improve with time as knowledge and understanding are expanded.

Naikon

skelliser wrote: »

OP explain and quantify scientifically emotions?


Just because we have yet to fully understand the brains complete function doesnt mean we should dismiss a whole facet of medical science.

As we see in quantum mechanics the universe is everything but a yes/no true/false equation.

You could make the same arguments for religion tbh.

Donal Og O Baelach

Naikon wrote: »

The "chemical imbalance" theory is complete bogus for example.

Very surprised at this comment. Sometimes I can almost feel them swishing about in my brain. Can you please explain why it is a bogus theory?

Naikon

Donal Og O Baelach wrote: »

Very surprised at this comment. Sometimes I can almost feel them swishing about in my brain. Can you please explain why it is a bogus theory?

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?:pac:

skelliser

Naikon wrote: »

I never said they weren't. I am just stating the lack of objective methods of evaluation for determining conditions. The DSM authors are jumping the gun to speak. We don't know everything, I take that as a given. Walk into a doctor and how is he going to determine you have depression for example? A nice chat? Hardly a proper establishment of fact. Won't show up on an MRI.

you do know what Neurotransmitters are?

ever dropped a yoke?
the come down the next day will give you an insight into how depressed people feel.

While medical science is making progress not all about Neurotransmitter and other receptors in the brain is yet understood.

orourkeda

Naikon wrote: »

You could make the same arguments for religion tbh.

In astronomy etc scientists are dealing with the physical as opposed to the spiritual. As humans can only prove or disprove what they can see, it's not an entirely fair comparison.

skelliser

Naikon wrote: »

You could make the same arguments for religion tbh.

you could but then you would be ignoring scientific experiments and theories just like you are doing with a whole field of medicine!

tbh i think your out of your depth with this.

just to clarify are you dismissing Psychiatry as a science?

yes/no

dlofnep

OutlawPete wrote: »

The infamous Tom Crusie interview where he called psychiatry a "pseudo science" ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc_wjp262RY

One of the few sensible things Cruise has ever said. He's right.

Donal Og O Baelach

Naikon wrote: »

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?:pac:

No

orourkeda

skelliser wrote: »

you could but then you would be ignoring scientific experiments and theories just like you are doing with a whole field of medicine!

The obvious difference is that the human brain can be studied quite readily.

How can we study something that we cannot see at the moment or have not seen yet?

Naikon

skelliser wrote: »

just to clarify are you dismissing Psychiatry as a science?
yes/no

Yes

orourkeda

dlofnep wrote: »

One of the few sensible things Cruise has ever said. He's right.

Are you a scientologist?

orourkeda

Naikon wrote: »

Yes

Surely not? Are you dismissing any other areas of the study of the brain or mind?

Why psychiatry specifically?

Logical Fallacy

Naikon wrote: »

Won't show up on an MRI.

You need to try and research a bit harder.

http://www.encognitive.com/node/10324

So there you go, your whole argument brought down by one quick Google search.

dlofnep

orourkeda wrote: »

Are you a scientologist?

An atheist, but thanks for asking. What he said makes perfect sense.

skelliser

orourkeda wrote: »

How can we study something that we cannot see at the moment or have not seen yet?

here, get a dictionary and look up the word "science"


FFS, did everyone's IQ drop in this rescession along with the price of houses!

orourkeda

skelliser wrote: »

here, get a dictionary and look up the word "science"


FFS, did everyone's IQ drop in this rescession along with the price of houses!

I know what the word science means.

Get back down off your high horse and explain to the retard here what is so stupid about what I said.

skelliser

Naikon wrote: »

Yes

fair enough!


another question, do you beleive in creationism?

if not, explain why

Naikon

skelliser wrote: »

fair enough!


another question, do you beleive in creationism?

if not, explain why

I am an atheist. It's all bull****.

whiteonion

How do you scientifically measure mental illness, it's all an arbitrary excessive in labeling people based on behavior. It was once considered that homosexuals were mentally ill. That's just an arbitrary label.

orourkeda

dlofnep wrote: »

An atheist, but thanks for asking. What he said makes perfect sense.

Drugs may not be the answer. Theres a certain truth in what he says there, but what are the alternatives or solutions?

whiteonion

orourkeda wrote: »

Drugs may not be the answer. Theres a certain truth in what he says there, but what are the alternatives or solutions?

A ban on psychiatric drugs.

Naikon

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

You need to try and research a bit harder.

http://www.encognitive.com/node/10324

So there you go, your whole argument brought down by one quick Google search.

"Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals"

HHHMMMM. Seems legitimate Wonder who represented that study at the University. Aren't there other factors influencing the scan results? Emotional state isn't the only factor here. You bet your barney these studies are rigged, at least to some degree.

WalterMitty

Just because science hasnt yet shown in all cases how mental illness is caused doesnt mean there is no physical problem with the brain leading to disorder.
The mind is both the physical brain and its operation. In something so complex as a brain it only takes small genetic differences or mutations to make someone unwell or at one of the extreme ends of "normalness".

Brains and minds are made of neurons,neurotransmitters, receptors, synapses, all interconnected. Psychiatry just tries to treat disorder in that system that may be due to environment or nature or both.

Logical Fallacy

dlofnep wrote: »

One of the few sensible things Cruise has ever said. He's right.

**** Tom Cruise, my Beta Blockers help me no end. Believe what you want tbh.

Logical Fallacy

Naikon wrote: »

"Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals"

HHHMMMM!

Ah cool, now i see where you are coming from. I'll leave you to it.