Psychiatry is bogus

jtsuited

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is a classic diversion tactic which is practiced by people who feel threatened in their beliefs, don't like alternative view points and basically try to deny reality.

You move the debate away from the substance of the article and instead try to discredit the authors.

You effectively say 'I don't want to talk about the findings I want to talk about the people who made the findings'

You do yourself no favours by taking this path, honestly.

I believe it's called an ad hominem fallacy.

AND FOR THE LAST TIME, THE FINDINGS FOUND EXACTLY WHAT EVERY OTHER META-ANALYSIS DONE ON THE SUBJECT EVER DID!!!!!!!!!!

You do no favours by not actually reading the data yourself ffs.

Chuck Stone

jtsuited wrote: »

yeah me and most of the world's medical establishment are clutching at 'belief' when it comes to mental illness...

feck thousands and thousands of trials and all that, we're up against a psychology phd writing in the Huffington Post. May as well wave the white flag now. :rolleyes:

This is not an argument.

Millions of people believe in God, heck they'll even lay down their lives or kill for thier beliefs - that doesn't make God any more real than an all seeing all knowing flying spaghetti monster.

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

Convincing people to take drugs that work no better than a placebo for the most part has the potential to cause even more harm once the person grows attached to the perception that the drug isn't doing anything. Depression is more than just a simple clinical illness as far as I am concerned. Depression is influenced by socioeconomic factors far outside the grasp the "drug em, move em along" policy most Psychiatrists appear to subscribe to today. To peddle the idea that the problem is purely "chemical" is wrong. The Chemical imbalance theory does not really have any basis in conventional scientific practice, as evidenced by the links I provided. I will try to dig up some more research related to this point.

thanks Dr. Naikon. I look forward to reading more of your ideas in the BMJ. Keep up the good work.

My whole point is that people spouting their own little theories about what little they know of psychiatry causes people who are genuinely ill to not seek help from people who have gone through years of med school, years of clinical training and have a proper knowledge of the area.

jtsuited

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is not an argument.

Millions of people believe in God, heck they'll even lay down their lives or kill for thier beliefs - that doesn't make God any more real than an all seeing all knowing flying spaghetti monster.

ah, so the medical establishment is just completely wrong on this yeah? Doctors are just as stupid as the general public despite the fact that ironically they have one of the highest proportions of atheists for a profession?

Good stuff.....when I get cancer or aids I make sure I'll avoid them so.

jtsuited

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is not an argument.

Millions of people believe in God, heck they'll even lay down their lives or kill for thier beliefs - that doesn't make God any more real than an all seeing all knowing flying spaghetti monster.

the rebuttal to the god myth is simple.......Dawkins, Darwin, Carbon Dating, Fossil REcords, etc, etc, etc,

The rebuttal to psychiatry is a handful of dodgy quacks writing in the Huffington Post mis-interpreting trial data.

And that's why, it IS an argument.

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

And anyway, in their conclusion, they found the exact same thing as every other meta-analyses did on the subject (which i'm imagining they would have known if they were medical doctors) but just put a very slightly different slant on it.

No, they did not. This article is not just a simple paraphrase of earlier research. Read the conclusion again. Does it not invoke some form of thought? It's pretty interesting to note that the proposed benefits of the drugs are mild, even for serverely depressed people, not because of an increase in drug effectiveness, but simply due to the fact that severely depressed patients are less sensitive to the placebo. Look at the graphs for the baseline severity. The difference is very small. Where is the formula to calculate a baseline chemical balance for which the drugs are supposed to be fixing? The truth of the matter is that the theory does not hold true, because it has no real mathematical basis to support the idea. This research is a nail in the coffin.

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

No they did not. This is original research. This article is not just a simple paraphrase of earlier research. Read the conclusion again. Does it not invoke some form of thought? It's pretty interesting to note that the proposed benefits of the drugs are mild, even for serverely depressed people, not because of an increase in drug effectiveness, but simply due to the fact that severely depressed patients are less sensitive to the placebo. Look at the graphs for the baseline severity. The difference is very small. Where is the formula to calculate a baseline chemical balance for which the drugs are supposed to be fixing? The truth of the matter is that the theory does not hold true, because it has no real mathematical basis to support the idea. This research is a nail in the coffin.

er, do you know what a meta-analysis is?

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

thanks Dr. Naikon. I look forward to reading more of your ideas in the BMJ. Keep up the good work.

My whole point is that people spouting their own little theories about what little they know of psychiatry causes people who are genuinely ill to not seek help from people who have gone through years of med school, years of clinical training and have a proper knowledge of the area.

The burden of proof does not lie solely on my shoulders. Had I been making this stuff up, fair point, but there is hard research to support my stance if you look for it. You referenced Pub Med earlier as a place for proper research, yet you are skeptical of the link Chuck provided simply because it questioned an assumption.

jtsuited

what?
First of all I never recommended pubmed.

Secondly, I have no problems with the results of the study that was linked. I do have a problem with the conclusions drawn.

Dudess

Naikon wrote: »

Convincing people to take drugs that work no better than a placebo for the most part has the potential to cause even more harm once the person grows attached to the perception that the drug isn't doing anything. Depression is more than just a simple clinical illness as far as I am concerned. Depression is influenced by socioeconomic factors far outside the grasp the "drug em, move em along" policy most Psychiatrists appear to subscribe to today. To peddle the idea that the problem is purely "chemical" is wrong. The Chemical imbalance theory does not really have any basis in conventional scientific practice, as evidenced by the links I provided. I will try to dig up some more research related to this point.

I had a housemate who had hallucinations and heard voices telling her to harm herself - once she took medication, this stopped. It wasn't a placebo - it actually got rid of something tangible. Both lives for her were hellish, but the one on medication was the better of the two.

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

er, do you know what a meta-analysis is?

The article still qualifies as original, even if it's just a collation of existing research. A collective summary analysis of existing analysis. It's still an original contribution. Sweat of the brow doctrine.

jtsuited

the reason it's not called a meta-analysis is because frankly, it doesn't draw good enough conclusions.

It's a badly done meta-analysis, but because it most likely hasn't been submitted to peer-reviewing in the medical community it probably hasn't come up the fact that it has covered ground that has been well trodden in medicine.

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

Ok then......
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10362442

You linked this article. I can only infer from linking the above article from PubMed that you believe it to be credible.

Naikon

Dudess wrote: »

I had a housemate who had hallucinations and heard voices telling her to harm herself - once she took medication, this stopped. It wasn't a placebo - it actually got rid of something tangible. Both lives for her were hellish, but the one on medication was the better of the two.

Maybe the drug is merely acting as a sedative? If you don't mind me asking, has the drug worked long term? Anyway, the basic fact remains: As of 2011, there is no credible non drug company influenced peer reviewed research to back up the chemical imbalance theory. The theory is up there with Unicorns and The Loch Ness Monster. I can't find anything. Not even a mathematical function for the perceived "balance". I would be happy if anybody can provide a link to prove otherwise.

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

ah, so the medical establishment is just completely wrong on this yeah? Doctors are just as stupid as the general public despite the fact that ironically they have one of the highest proportions of atheists for a profession?

Good stuff.....when I get cancer or aids I make sure I'll avoid them so.

Cancer and Aids have solid scientifically proven pathologies backing the diseases though. I don't think anybody would be rushing to the doctor to seek help for "Fetishism". Cancer and Aids left untreated can kill you though.

CiaranMT

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is a classic diversion tactic which is practiced by people who feel threatened in their beliefs, don't like alternative view points and basically try to deny reality.

You move the debate away from the substance of the article and instead try to discredit the authors.

You effectively say 'I don't want to talk about the findings I want to talk about the people who made the findings'

You do yourself no favours by taking this path, honestly.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is not an argument.

Millions of people believe in God, heck they'll even lay down their lives or kill for thier beliefs - that doesn't make God any more real than an all seeing all knowing flying spaghetti monster.

Was going to post on these but jt has done so already.

Naikon wrote: »

Cancer and Aids have solid scientifically proven pathologies backing the diseases though. I don't think anybody would be rushing to the doctor to seek help for "Fetishism". Cancer can kill you.

Again, disorder/disease. Try to keep it in mind.

Naikon

CiaranMT wrote: »

Was going to post on these but jt has done so already.



Again, disorder/disease. Try to keep it in mind.

Disorder classification has the potential to be abused though. Disorder is generally used within a social context. Take civil unrest for example.

CiaranMT

Naikon wrote: »

Disorder classification has the potential to be abused though. Disorder is generally used within a social context. Take civil unrest for example.

What?

That's the same difference between theory and scientific 'theory'.

That's a non-issue - a matter of semantics.

Naikon

CiaranMT wrote: »

What?

That's the same difference between theory and scientific 'theory'.

That's a non-issue - a matter of semantics.

The main point is that a disorder classification does not require a clear underlying pathology. It's possible to invent a bogus disorder like ODD. Try "inventing" a disease. It can't be done.

Dudess

Naikon wrote: »

Maybe the drug is merely acting as a sedative? If you don't mind me asking, has the drug worked long term?

Yeah she was on it and other drugs for years. I haven't heard from her in a long time though and don't know how she's doing now - she doesn't reply to texts anymore. The last time I spoke to her she was in St Pat's. Your assertion that mental illness is only perceived as being deviant might be somewhat applicable to milder conditions, but if a person is so ill they could harm themselves/others than surely it's not just perception that this is undesirable?

Anyway, the basic fact remains: As of 2011, there is no credible non drug company influenced peer reviewed research to back up the chemical imbalance theory. The theory is up there with Unicorns and The Loch Ness Monster. I can't find anything. Not even a mathematical function for the perceived "balance". I would be happy if anybody can provide a link to prove otherwise.

Well fair enough re the "chemical imbalance" thing, but you'd use that to dismiss all of psychiatry?

CiaranMT

Naikon wrote: »

The main point is that a disorder classification does not require a clear underlying pathology. It's possible to invent a bogus disorder like ODD. Try "inventing" a disease. It can't be done.

ODD? OCD i'm guessing is what ya meant.

Which is a very real disorder.

You offering your opinion up to say that it's bogus isn't going to change that, either.

Naikon

CiaranMT wrote: »

ODD? OCD i'm guessing is what ya meant.

Which is a very real disorder.

You offering your opinion up to say that it's bogus isn't going to change that, either.

No, Oppositional defiant disorder. It's bogus. OCD could be bogus, but I have yet to research the disorder in depth. What I do know, is that there are quite a number of silly "disorders" listed in the DSM-IV and ICD-10 that are basically made up. The burden of proof does not rest on my part, it's up to Psychiatry to substantiate the existence of disorders such as Fetishism, ODD, Internet Addiction Disorder, ADHD, and Nightmare disorder among other arbitrary labels designed to decieve people that they may have an "illness" which requires clinical treatment.

Naikon

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah she was on it and other drugs for years. I haven't heard from her in a long time though and don't know how she's doing now - she doesn't reply to texts anymore. The last time I spoke to her she was in St Pat's. Your assertion that mental illness is only perceived as being deviant might be somewhat applicable to milder conditions, but if a person is so ill they could harm themselves/others than surely it's not just perception that this is undesirable?

Even if the person is ill to the point of causing serious harm, is that really an illness? Is a criminal automatically ill because the very concept of killing someone else is alien to most people? You kill yourself, you are sick. You kill someone else, you are EVIL. Where do we draw the line? Breaking a social norm is not enough to qualify a diagnosis for an illness, at least in conventional terms.

Dudess wrote: »

Well fair enough re the "chemical imbalance" thing, but you'd use that to dismiss all of psychiatry?

Dismiss the clinical practices of prescription and arbitrary classification methods. I am not so sure mental problems such as Depression should be looked at as basically a chemical problem. ECT is another major problem, which basically infringes on fundamental human rights.

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

Maybe the drug is merely acting as a sedative? If you don't mind me asking, has the drug worked long term? Anyway, the basic fact remains: As of 2011, there is no credible non drug company influenced peer reviewed research to back up the chemical imbalance theory.

right i'm done arguing in this thread but ffs will you go to the cochrane library???? I've linked you to a billion things that show that there is a significant chemical element to major depression.

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

Maybe the drug is merely acting as a sedative?

Sedatives stop hearing voices urging self harm??? No, SSRIs and antipsychotics do.....and neither are particularly known for their sedative effects.

Again, you don't have a clue.

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

right i'm done arguing in this thread but ffs will you go to the cochrane library???? I've linked you to a billion things that show that there is a significant chemical element to major depression.

Link to some articles that support chemical imbalance theory and I will eat my words. I don't discredit severe problems like depression. Untreated Depression can generally lead to suicide. What I don't agree with, is the notion that it's mostly a chemical "problem" that Psychiatrists can treat by simply taking a drug. Depression is very complex. btw, would you agree that Drapetomania is a bull**** label and not an illness. "Slaves running away" is not an illness, it's an observation. Just like ODD.

Dudess

Naikon wrote: »

Even if the person is ill to the point of causing serious harm, is that really an illness? Is a criminal automatically ill because the very concept of killing someone else is alien to most people? You kill yourself, you are sick. You kill someone else, you are EVIL. Where do we draw the line? Breaking a social norm is not enough to qualify a diagnosis for an illness, at least in conventional terms.

What if they hear voices telling them to do it? It has been established there are drugs that stop these voices.

ECT is another major problem, which basically infringes on fundamental human rights.

I'd have thought that too, yet that same girl spoke really highly of ECT.

Naikon

Dudess wrote: »

What if they hear voices telling them to do it? It has been established there are drugs that stop these voices.

I need to look further into this, but if it worked for your friend, it deserves a mention. I am more concerned with mass prescription and classification of disorders, rather than giving individual advice and claiming mental illness is not a problem. Granted, the intial thread title does not reflect that. I am NOT a medical doctor, so like any conspiracy theory, any advice on individual cases is not allowed. The thread is more about finding holes in conventional Psychiatry theory and practices. I not trying to proclaim mental illness is not a problem. It's a very serious problem. Psychiatry should not be held as the primary solution though. I will have a look at the research for these drugs when I get a chance.

More research and effort should be put into alternatives to the mass drugging we see today. I have known someone(like most people I reckon) who killed themselves as a result of losing confidence in Psychiatry. Had the individual in question not have been treated as just another person to medicate, maybe the outcome could have been different?. Apart from severe mental illness, is the drug culture enforced by Psychiatry really a good idea in the long run? Maybe we should rethink how we deal with severely depressed individuals. What if these drugs end up in the bin like Lobotomies?

Dudess wrote: »

I'd have thought that too, yet that same girl spoke really highly of ECT.

I won't discredit what you are saying. Individual experience is very different from a basic general consensus. Enforcing ECT without specific consent is a problem though. That ECT paper a linked a while back is pretty grim when you consider the effects are a very mixed bag for the most part. I suspect ECT will eventually go the way of lobotomies. There is no real granular control with ECT, you are basically punching someone very hard in the head. That is the best analogy I can think of. That is not a problem if you agree with the "treatment", but two Psychiatrists can basically override your wishes based on a subjective observation of your symptoms. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0324/1224292956677.html Forced ECT is a violation of basic human rights. No question.

What do you make of the conclusions within the following paper? https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/67884/156548.pdf


More specifically: "There is no evidence at all that the treatment has any benefit for anyone lasting beyond a few days. ECT does not prevent suicide. The short-term benefit that is gained by some simply does not warrant the risks involved".

And from PubMed: "Given the strong evidence (summarised here) of persistent and, for some, permanent brain dysfunction, primarily evidenced in the form of retrograde and anterograde amnesia, and the evidence of a slight but significant increased risk of death, the cost-benefit analysis for ECT is so poor that its use cannot be scientifically justified." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21322506

Chuck Stone

Here's some more,

Perspectives on the Efficacy of Antidepressants for Child and Adolescent Depression [CAD]


Conclusions Top

Given all of these limitations, patients and physicians should demand stronger evidence for the efficacy of antidepressants for CAD.
Some advocates assert that rather than using medication with side effects and low effectiveness, children should be offered interventions that produce therapeutic effects on depression without the medical side effects and associated risks. However, clinicians and laypeople must apply comparable standards for evaluating the efficacy of drug and psychotherapy data. Whereas medical drug research occurs in a formally regulated, albeit imperfect, environment, safety and efficacy in psychotherapy research are largely unregulated. Moreover, unlike drug assays, psychotherapy studies do not typically report adverse events, their meta-analyses are sparse, and their experimental design lacks a placebo condition.
Finally, although antidepressants undoubtedly affect brain biochemistry, interpreting these neural changes is controversial, and a risk-benefit analysis of side effects and long-term health risks may cast a long shadow on the current preference for antidepressants as first-line treatment for CAD. Only more studies, and the passage of enough time to examine the putative long-term effects, will determine the efficacy of antidepressants in CAD. Clinicians, patients, families, and the public should be cognizant of these issues and exercise critical judgment as they make informed decisions.


Full publication below.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0030009#pmed-0030009-b15

More inconvience for the 'the chemicals in your head need to be balanced out' fans.

Naikon

CiaranMT wrote: »

Which is a very real disorder.

I have never disputed the existence of Depression or OCD. I have however criticised the classifications criteria used by Psychiatrists to justify the invention of bogus disorders. Mental Illness is not tied to Psychiatry, I am sure you are aware of that if you study Psychology. Looking at the problem outside of mass prescription might do some good in the long run. Neurology operates on the assumption that any problem must have scientific evidence to back up the classification. This is not the case for Psychiatry. Why is this?