Psychiatry is bogus

CiaranMT

Naikon wrote: »

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?

Dude, you already replied to that post.

And tbh, you're talking through your hat at this stage. This has all been discussed already. It has, really. Look back through the thread.

Anyway, like jt, I'm out.

Chuck Stone

jtsuited wrote: »

ah, so the medical establishment is just completely wrong on this yeah?

Not the medical establishment. Psychiatric practices which cling to the brain disease fantasy. I doubt psychiatrists are looked upon by all other medics as experts.

Can you link me to any piece of evidence that supports the bio-medical theory?

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?

How you talk of the general public stinks - why do you have so much disdain for the general public?

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

Please do not compare the treatment of AIDS and cancer with psychiatric medicine. AIDS and cancer treatments are verifiable scientific intervention.

Naikon

CiaranMT wrote: »

Dude, you already replied to that post.

And tbh, you're talking through your hat at this stage. This has all been discussed already. It has, really. Look back through the thread.

Anyway, like jt, I'm out.

Are you intentionally ignoring the ECT issue? Just wondering.

You have to repeat yourself when accused of claiming that general mental illness does not exist. That was never up for debate. Where did I mention OCD? Anyway, I will spend more time during my free time to find credible links to question the statements both yourself and jsuited have made. You are correct that this thread has shifted to mindless bitching, so lets step it up a notch. From here on out, each post will include a minimum of one credible source to support your stance. I post a link and make a claim. You attempt to discredit it. Fair deal?

I am going to start with the chemical imbalance theory. Can you provide any reputable sources to support the notion that the chemical imbalance theory is in any way scientific? "Mental Ilness" is a very loose term if I may add.

Naikon

CiaranMT wrote: »

What?

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

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

It's a HUGE issue. A "theory" is mostly valid if it can be shown to be reliable. A disorder classification can be fabricated. Try fabricate a disease. Can you see the abuse problem? ODD is not an illness.

Take Hooke's law for example.

F = -kx

The extension of the spring is proportional to the applied load, where x is the displacement, F is the restoring force, and k is constant. Anybody is free to conduct a simple experiment to verify that the proportionality holds true for the given material. This is pretty basic science. Now, how can we describe the chemical imbalance theory using plain mathematics? Answer: Not possible! I am aware a possible chemical imbalance derivation would probably be far more complex, but where is the formula/derivation to support the theory?

From those previous chemical imbalance links, it's looking more like the prescribed drugs are operating on a logarithmic basis, whereas they are marketed on exponential terms.

Take these propoganda samples for instance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vfSFXKlnO0 EDIT - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTZvnAF7UsA*

Naikon

Case in point: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Drapetomania

Now, would you consider ODD or any of those fake disorders have at least the slightest chance of being fabricated? No empirical evidence for these "disorders" either.

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

Well until there is a clinical test, we'll have to do with psychiatry.

So you agree that Psychiatry has some pretty questionable practices? Lying is very easy on the net. This much I know from experience. Can you trust everything I have said to be true? Never. Neither can Psychiatrists. Evidence is all that matters in the end. I have scanned that Library you mentioned, yet no credible published results for the chemical imbalance theory can be found. You have not published any links to support the claim either. I am putting that theory in the bin, along with Jesus and the Ron L Hubbards ideas. These Companies/Psychiatrists are simply lying to you. It's quite simple. Zoloft does not correct any "chemical imbalance". Fraud. Found this video a few mins ago. Have a look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsglDXW34yo

Naikon

I win

dissed doc

Next time you knock back 4 shots of whiskey, your mood temporarily improves, yet later you become irritable and disinhibited, make sure to tell yourself: the effects of alcohol on GABA< serotonin, dopamine and other neurotransmitters and receptors (of which there are many) is completely bull****. You are fine to drive home. Drugs have no effect on these magic chemical things. Like bacteria, they are too small to be seen, so must be bogus.

New treatment to management symptoms of schizophrenia: leeches for 14 days followed by payment of tithes to the church to cast out the devil.

No wonder mental health services struggle to get funding when these attitudes and beliefs exist.

Why on earth do you think you will understand ~ 30 years of psychopharmacology in a google search? What are you up to next weekend? Disproving nuclear fusion?

Naikon

Feel free to question any specific points I have made. I am questioning the general practices of Psychiatry. Depression is more than just a psychopharmacology related problem. Much to the dismay of Psychiatrists and drug companies.

Nuclear Fusion is backed by credible research. Where is the credible research for "disorders" such as "Enuresis"? I like the fact that book is sold as a scientific document, when it's little more than a book consisting of labels derived from simple checklist symptoms.

It's obvious drugs influence people. What isn't so clear, is the complete lack of credible research to support the chemical imbalance theory, yet it's used to justify prescription of these drugs to people that don't know any better. This is morally questionable.

If it can't be measured, it should not be defined in a manual. Simple.

dissed doc

Naikon wrote: »

It's obvious drugs influence people. What isn't so clear, is the complete lack of credible research to support the chemical imbalance theory, yet it's used to justify prescription of these drugs to people that don't know any better. This is morally questionable.


If it can't be measured, it should not be defined in a manual. Simple.

What is this theory you keep banging on about? Your criticising something that no-one is defending because "chemical imbalance theory" doesn't have an entry in any psychiatry textbook or training system.

Naikon

dissed doc wrote: »

What is this theory you keep banging on about? Your criticising something that no-one is defending because "chemical imbalance theory" doesn't have an entry in any psychiatry textbook or training system.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056238317&page=2

CiaranMT

Naikon wrote: »

I win

Sure ya do.

Naikon

CiaranMT wrote: »

Sure ya do.

Take a point I have made and try to fully refute it. I dare you.

CiaranMT

Naikon wrote: »

Take a point I have made and try to fully refute it. I dare you.

I have, jt has. You don't see it that way, so we've had to just leave you to it.

Naikon

CiaranMT wrote: »

I have, jt has. You don't see it that way, so we've had to just leave you to it.

You have failed to address the ECT issue. It's your choice to engage though. I respect that.

Naikon

dissed doc wrote: »

What is this theory you keep banging on about? Your criticising something that no-one is defending because "chemical imbalance theory" doesn't have an entry in any psychiatry textbook or training system.

I was not aware drug company reps have the ability to prescribe mind altering substances. I don't think you can really argue that because the term isn't clearly defined(that is my problem), Psychiatrists don't hold account.

The mere fact there is no clear definition as you mentioned yourself, seeks to reaffirm my initial fears about the use of serotin deficiency as a justification for prescribing SSRI's.

jtsuited

dissed doc wrote: »

Next time you knock back 4 shots of whiskey, your mood temporarily improves, yet later you become irritable and disinhibited, make sure to tell yourself: the effects of alcohol on GABA< serotonin, dopamine and other neurotransmitters and receptors (of which there are many) is completely bull****. You are fine to drive home. Drugs have no effect on these magic chemical things. Like bacteria, they are too small to be seen, so must be bogus.

New treatment to management symptoms of schizophrenia: leeches for 14 days followed by payment of tithes to the church to cast out the devil.

No wonder mental health services struggle to get funding when these attitudes and beliefs exist.

Why on earth do you think you will understand ~ 30 years of psychopharmacology in a google search? What are you up to next weekend? Disproving nuclear fusion?

Honestly, best post in the thread......Naikon, seriously, know when you've been completely and utterly owned.

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

Honestly, best post in the thread......Naikon, seriously, know when you've been completely and utterly owned.

Involuntary ECT isn't a violation of basic human rights so. Oh, and the chemical imbalance theory is well evidenced at this stage too:rolleyes: I have no problem if you want to dodge the questions.

I can only lead a horse to water with the material I have presented. If you can't be arsed to actually counter the statements with facts and not mere opinion, that is fine by me.

Comparing Nuclear Fusion to the "science" of AD medication prescription? I am a bit shocked to hear that from a Doctor. Nuclear Fusion is mathematically well defined, unlike the efficacy behind these questionable drugs. Zoloft in particular. The advertising I linked is basically misleading the consumer. Not very ethical if you ask me.

jtsuited

why are you calling it zoloft?????

here's why..... because you're not reading proper literature on the subject so you are unaware of its actual name (sertraline) or its name in this part of the world (lustral).

Shocked to hear a doctor tell you you're talking rubbish? Really? Because the general consensus of psychiatry as a whole (made up of doctors) and in fact general practice as a whole (again, doctors) will tell you you are completely and utterly talking out of your arse.

But what do they know......what with the 4-6 years of medical school, minimum of one year internship, at least 3-4 years SHO, and all that jazz. You've got google.

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

why are you calling it zoloft?????

here's why..... because you're not reading proper literature on the subject so you are unaware of its actual name (sertraline) or its name in this part of the world (lustral).

Shocked to hear a doctor tell you you're talking rubbish? Really? Because the general consensus of psychiatry as a whole (made up of doctors) and in fact general practice as a whole (again, doctors) will tell you you are completely and utterly talking out of your arse.

But what do they know......what with the 4-6 years of medical school, minimum of one year internship, at least 3-4 years SHO, and all that jazz. You've got google.

Did you read the literature cited in this thread? Stop trying to downplay the points I have raised by citing that these professionals have to go through school. Most people go to college these days. It's nothing special. I don't know the technical name, so what? I don't honestly care. The fact is, the research I have provided raises valid questions about these drugs. You have not provided research to counter the original links. Telling me I don't have a clue over and over isn't going to further the topic of discussion.

I suggest looking at the chemical imbalance myth and ECT in particular. Point me to some research that these drugs are far more effective than a simple placebo such as a sugar pill. Do you believe involuntary ECT is a safe practice? Also, being a "professional" and bearing competance isn't always the case. You should know this, otherwise I am guessing you have never been mistreated by these all knowing professional doctors(not just psychs) you keep referring to. Why do doctors have medical insurance?

Read the conclusion here: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045

Drug–placebo differences in antidepressant efficacy increase as a function of baseline severity, but are relatively small even for severely depressed patients. The relationship between initial severity and antidepressant efficacy is attributable to decreased responsiveness to placebo among very severely depressed patients, rather than to increased responsiveness to medication.

Any clearer? Zoloft is intentionally misleading to the benefit of the company. Who prescribes zoloft? Laypeople?

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

Did you read the literature cited in this thread? Stop trying to downplay the points I have raised by citing that these professionals have to go through school. Most people go to college these days. It's nothing special. I don't know the technical name, so what? I don't honestly care.

the reason you don't know the technical name is because you haven't been reading actual medical literature........where it is rarely if ever referred to as its brand name.

'Most people go to college these days, it's nothing special'.

Maybe it's because I'm one of the lucky few to get into med-school (as of last week actually) that this sentence is so funny.

My WHOLE point from when I first read this thread is that people, if they want to go against the consensus of modern medicine, would want to have DAMN GOOD EVIDENCE and intellectual standards before they open their mouth. And at least know simple things like the actual names of the drugs they're professing to have a clue about.

Look at how 10% of children in Ireland aren't being vaccinated.....absolutely no reason other than believing the media's absolutely retarded take in relation to the matter. Direct result of one specific doctor (the now struck-off Andrew Wakefield) and a whole world of people who aren't qualified to talk on the subject, talking on the subject.

At least in this thread, you've been so categorically owned over and over again (hilariously on the same issues) that anybody who is even mentally ill can see it, so won't be sucked into the whole 'psychiatry is bogus/mental illness doesn't exist' idea.

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

Any clearer? Zoloft is intentionally misleading to the benefit of the company. Who prescribes zoloft? Laypeople?

Certainly nobody in this part of the world. LOL.

Naikon

Can you point to where I mentioned mental illness didn't exist? I have told you over and over that it's not a debate about the existence of any individual mental illnesses. It's mostly about the unscientific practices used by Psychiatry to categorize individuals, along with the overprescription of drugs which are basically no better than a placebo in many cases.

What do you make of the conclusions in this research paper? What do you think of companies publishing many of the positive studies, yet the negative studies are mostly overlooked? 86% of the negative studies were not published. Compare this to 96% for the positive trials.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa065779
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/health/17depress.html?ref=health

We wish to clarify that nonsignificance in a single trial does not necessarily indicate lack of efficacy. Each drug, when subjected to meta-analysis, was shown to be superior to placebo. On the other hand, the true magnitude of each drug's superiority to placebo was less than a diligent literature review would indicate.

Link me to some research supporting the chemical imbalance theory and I will eat my words. There is little scientific justification for prescribing these drugs, even in cases where the depression is severe. I have no problem if you want to intentionally dodge the ECT issue, but you cannot argue forced ECT is humane in a progressive society. Stop saying I don't know what I am talking about, you are the one not providing evidence to counter my arguments.

Take a look at Figure 3: What conclusion to you come to when you compare the overall effect size between the FDA published sources along with the journal sources? Everything is hunky dory? Cut out the petty insults and at least try to counter these findings.

Naikon

Have a read of this: http://www.zurinstitute.com/dsmcritique.html

From the article linked:

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

the reason you don't know the technical name is because you haven't been reading actual medical literature........where it is rarely if ever referred to as its brand name.

'Most people go to college these days, it's nothing special'.

Maybe it's because I'm one of the lucky few to get into med-school (as of last week actually) that this sentence is so funny.

My WHOLE point from when I first read this thread is that people, if they want to go against the consensus of modern medicine, would want to have DAMN GOOD EVIDENCE and intellectual standards before they open their mouth. And at least know simple things like the actual names of the drugs they're professing to have a clue about.

Look at how 10% of children in Ireland aren't being vaccinated.....absolutely no reason other than believing the media's absolutely retarded take in relation to the matter. Direct result of one specific doctor (the now struck-off Andrew Wakefield) and a whole world of people who aren't qualified to talk on the subject, talking on the subject.

At least in this thread, you've been so categorically owned over and over again (hilariously on the same issues) that anybody who is even mentally ill can see it, so won't be sucked into the whole 'psychiatry is bogus/mental illness doesn't exist' idea.

Point out where I have been "owned". You are talking through your arse. Either make a valid point to counter the numerous research links I have presented or stop posting, because I am sick of people not addressing questions I have asked, while having to endure mere opinion without any supporting evidence. Like your post for instance.

Chuck Stone

Much as they'd like to they can't land a knockout blow on you Naikon.

Must be very frustrating for people who claim to be experts.

This conversation will go on for as long as psychiatry is a questionable endeavour imo.

jtsuited

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Much as they'd like to they can't land a knockout blow on you Naikon.

You can't land a knockout blow on somebody who has repeatedly knocked themself out.

jtsuited

This is genuinely hilarious......Naikon, you posted this.....

"We wish to clarify that nonsignificance in a single trial does not necessarily indicate lack of efficacy. Each drug, when subjected to meta-analysis, was shown to be superior to placebo. On the other hand, the true magnitude of each drug's superiority to placebo was less than a diligent literature review would indicate."

YOU POSTED THAT, and then asked for evidence for how these drugs were better than placebo...........which leads me to believe that you aren't actually reading what you are citing!!!!!!!!!!
Nearly every actual proper bit of evidence you have cited has actually proved MY POINT.....namely that......and I'm quoting a source you just posted.....

"Each drug, when subjected to meta-analysis, was shown to be superior to placebo.".....Naikon, a few posts above here, 2011.

I actually can't believe that when the citation standards were raised in this thread that rather than not citing ANYTHING, you actually chose to reference material that categorically states that

"Each drug, when subjected to meta-analysis, was shown to be superior to placebo."

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

Point out where I have been "owned". You are talking through your arse. Either make a valid point to counter the numerous research links I have presented or stop posting, because I am sick of people not addressing questions I have asked, while having to endure mere opinion without any supporting evidence. Like your post for instance.

HAHAHAHA, every bit of evidence you have posted that is actually from a reputable source has answered your own question!!!!! namely that.....

"Each drug, when subjected to meta-analysis, was shown to be superior to placebo."

Embarrassed?

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

This is genuinely hilarious......Naikon, you posted this.....

"We wish to clarify that nonsignificance in a single trial does not necessarily indicate lack of efficacy. Each drug, when subjected to meta-analysis, was shown to be superior to placebo. On the other hand, the true magnitude of each drug's superiority to placebo was less than a diligent literature review would indicate."

YOU POSTED THAT, and then asked for evidence for how these drugs were better than placebo...........which leads me to believe that you aren't actually reading what you are citing!!!!!!!!!!

I asked you to take a look at the effect sizes in figure 3. Are you even reading the questions I asked? Evidently not. You are ignoring the broader implications of prescribing mind altering drugs that work marginally better than a placebo. That isn't even accounting for the fraud of not publishing valid research. Read my post again - carefully. You have not provided any evidence to counter or at least bring those statements into question, either.

How do you account for the fact the "success rate" is "achieved" when half of the basically arbitrary symptoms subside? Even then, this "success" was only measurable in much less than two thirds of the patients? Explain that. There is a marginal difference between the people on the placebo versus the actual anti depressant drugs. How is this NOT a problem? Won't be easy countering the findings of a reputable source like The New England Journal of Medicine.

Psychiatrists are either ignorant, or worse, actually compelled to propogate the myth that Depression can be effectively "cured" with these drugs. Vested interests between these medical "professionals" and the industry imo.