Psychiatry is bogus

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

HAHAHAHA

Less of the HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH bull4hit, more research links to support your(mostly unevidenced) assertions.

jtsuited

less of the posting evidence that disproves your point and you're on to a winner.

I'm not going to go trawling through thousands of meta-analyses that all find the same thing, to be rebutted with identical studies which also say the exact same thing.

I'm also not going to argue anymore with somebody about SSRI data when they don't know the actual name of the drug.

I'm sure psychiatrists and general practicioners are completely unaware of all of these studies.....you should get in contact with them to let them know of their glaring ommissions.

After all, 'everyone goes to college these days, it's no big deal'.

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

less of the posting evidence that disproves your point and you're on to a winner.

I'm not going to go trawling through thousands of meta-analyses that all find the same thing, to be rebutted with identical studies which also say the exact same thing.

I'm also not going to argue anymore with somebody about SSRI data when they don't know the actual name of the drug.

I'm sure psychiatrists and general practicioners are completely unaware of all of these studies.....you should get in contact with them to let them know of their glaring ommissions.

After all, 'everyone goes to college these days, it's no big deal'.

If you want to back down into submission while ignoring the questions I have asked, that it fine by me. Nice talking to you. The links already provided should evoke at least some sort of critical thinking in those that aren't convinced. It's not as clear cut as you are lead to believe. Honestly. Read over the links and publications added to this thread.

If those papers don't lead to some sort of questioning on your behalf, I fear for the future of conventional medicine as a whole. Prove that ECT "treatment" and The Chemical Imbalance theory aren't mostly bulls4it. You won't. I will agree to disagree here. I won't reply to posts without valid points from now on.

Brown Bomber

jtsuited wrote: »

less of the posting evidence that disproves your point and you're on to a winner.

I'm not going to go trawling through thousands of meta-analyses that all find the same thing, to be rebutted with identical studies which also say the exact same thing.

I'm also not going to argue anymore with somebody about SSRI data when they don't know the actual name of the drug.

I'm sure psychiatrists and general practicioners are completely unaware of all of these studies.....you should get in contact with them to let them know of their glaring ommissions.

After all, 'everyone goes to college these days, it's no big deal'.

This has got to go down as a shock. The doc out maneauvered into submission by the layman into an embarrassing defeat.

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

There is a marginal difference between the people on the placebo versus the actual anti depressant drugs. How is this NOT a problem?

It's not a problem because thousands of different drugs perform marginally better than placebo (for everything from osteoporosis to rheumatoid arthritis to any number of other conditions) and are still prescribed every day, and in many cases save lives.

Go read through any drug trials and you'll find the exact same thing happening all over the place.
Marginally better than placebo is enough to get FDA regulation, and marginally better than another drug is enough to get to market.

I'm not a fan of big pharma by any extent, and I'm the one who in this thread was the one to mention Pfizer's misbehaviour in the Sertraline drug trials.....I'll be the first one to criticise the bullsh1t that came along with the SSRI marketing and the absolute nonsense that was peddled....

However, I'm also someone who can look at sertraline's efficacy versus similar SSRIs and those very same SSRIs versus placebo and all of those figures versus baseline levels of severity.......And the conclusion that I draw (in my completely unqualified opinion I hasten to add) is the very same that nearly every doctor and both the general practice and psychiatry and epidemiology communities come to.....

which is that Sertraline is one of the best antidepressants for severe cases of Major Depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder (and a few other serious psychiatric conditions).

Does it mean that Pfizer aren't absolute cúnts?? Absolutely not. They are.

Does it mean they didn't get up to all sorts of bullsh1t in trying to overstate the efficacy of Sertraline (for mild to moderate cases) and present a ridiculously reductionist explanation of mental illness in order to medicalise normal parts of the human condition? Again no....they did all that and more.

Were they paying off doctors left, right and centre so that it could get to the top of the multi-billion dollar SSRI market? Yeah they did, but that practice is not limited to general practice or psychiatry by any stretch of the imagination.

See it ain't a black and white issue....not by a long shot.
SSRIs work. SSRIs are massively over-prescribed to people who don't need them. SSRIs save lives. SSRIs can cause more problems than they solve in certain patients. Pharmaceutical companies are trying to medicalise every day life in order to sell SSRIs (Social Anxiety disorder). Increased SSRI prescription causes a drop in suicide rates in most given demographics.

ALL OF THESE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE. And by writing off psychiatry as bogus based on a few google searches, and drawing blanket conclusions about how it's all a pseudoscientific racket is harmful because as I've said before, people die because of their ignorance about how psychiatry works.

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

It's not a problem because thousands of different drugs perform marginally better than placebo (for everything from osteoporosis to rheumatoid arthritis to any number of other conditions) and are still prescribed every day, and in many cases save lives.

Go read through any drug trials and you'll find the exact same thing happening all over the place.
Marginally better than placebo is enough to get FDA regulation, and marginally better than another drug is enough to get to market.

I'm not a fan of big pharma by any extent, and I'm the one who in this thread was the one to mention Pfizer's misbehaviour in the Sertraline drug trials.....I'll be the first one to criticise the bullsh1t that came along with the SSRI marketing and the absolute nonsense that was peddled....

However, I'm also someone who can look at sertraline's efficacy versus similar SSRIs and those very same SSRIs versus placebo and all of those figures versus baseline levels of severity.......And the conclusion that I draw (in my completely unqualified opinion I hasten to add) is the very same that nearly every doctor and both the general practice and psychiatry and epidemiology communities come to.....

which is that Sertraline is one of the best antidepressants for severe cases of Major Depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder (and a few other serious psychiatric conditions). As regards people dying due to ignorance, people die everyday for various reasons.

Does it mean that Pfizer aren't absolute cúnts?? Absolutely not. They are.

Does it mean they didn't get up to all sorts of bullsh1t in trying to overstate the efficacy of Sertraline (for mild to moderate cases) and present a ridiculously reductionist explanation of mental illness in order to medicalise normal parts of the human condition? Again no....they did all that and more.

Were they paying off doctors left, right and centre so that it could get to the top of the multi-billion dollar SSRI market? Yeah they did, but that practice is not limited to general practice or psychiatry by any stretch of the imagination.

See it ain't a black and white issue....not by a long shot.
SSRIs work. SSRIs are massively over-prescribed to people who don't need them. SSRIs save lives. SSRIs can cause more problems than they solve in certain patients. Pharmaceutical companies are trying to medicalise every day life in order to sell SSRIs (Social Anxiety disorder). Increased SSRI prescription causes a drop in suicide rates in most given demographics.

ALL OF THESE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE. And by writing off psychiatry as bogus based on a few google searches, and drawing blanket conclusions about how it's all a pseudoscientific racket is harmful because as I've said before, people die because of their ignorance about how psychiatry works.

Prove it. The exact "science" behind these drugs(SSRI's in particular) remains pretty shaky at best. The reductionist theory is used by psychiatrists. How else would they justify prescription? ECT - I won't even go there.

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

Prove it. The "science" behind these drugs(SSRI's in particular) remains shaky at best. ECT - I won't even try to justify.

Miss the point much....every statement there is referencing something either me or you posted a reputable link to in this thread.....as other people have told you, we've done this already, and repeatedly.

Guarantee you didn't even know what an SSRI was til about a month ago.

ECT - nobody's asking you to justify it. The medical consensus is that it's beneficial in many cases but is used only after many other things have failed. And every year, some quacky anti-psychiatry tool tries to have it banned, and every year it comes up for review, and every year it's not made illegal. I know this is the conspiracy theory forum but ffs why haven't any countries outlawed it?
And why are the WHO expressly fine with it once it is consented to?

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

Miss the point much....every statement there is referencing something either me or you posted a reputable link to in this thread.....as other people have told you, we've done this already, and repeatedly.

Point out the links. We shall compare them to the links I have posted.

jtsuited wrote: »

Guarantee you didn't even know what an SSRI was til about a month ago.

You are wrong. I don't bother with trivial technicalities when evaluating the overall picture.

jtsuited wrote: »

ECT - nobody's asking you to justify it. The medical consensus is that it's beneficial in many cases but is used only after many other things have failed. And every year, some quacky anti-psychiatry tool tries to have it banned, and every year it comes up for review, and every year it's not made illegal. I know this is the conspiracy theory forum but ffs why haven't any countries outlawed it?
And why are the WHO expressly fine with it once it is consented to?

What about the numerous articles discrediting the use of these drugs(SSRI's in particular, which have been known to actually INCREASE suicide rates link) Beneficial to the pockets of vested interests I agree. Looking at one side of the argument while ignoring the other is a pointless exercise in futility.

Who cares what the WHO says, they have no say on the ECT issue here. Involuntary ECT is legal in this country, which is a violation of your fundamental human rights. Link to one shred of irrefutable scientific proof that ECT is effective. I will see pigs fly before that happens. Finally, the anti-psychiatry movement is not really an issue here. Are you trying to say that the research already presented isn't credible enough for you? I hope not.

jtsuited

I'm leaving with this......the evidence that is reputable that you have posted (as in from proper sources), has categorically and repeatedly stated that SSRIs have a significant efficacy compared to placebo. End of story.

Involuntary ECT is not a human rights violation or any such nonsense. If you show up to hospital unconcious and in need of leg amputation to save your life, then medical ethics say that it's perfectly fine for a doctor to cut it off.
If you are so seriously depressed that ECT is the only way to save your life, again medical ethics says it's fine to administer the treatment without your consent.
As I've said time and time again, if you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with medical ethics, not psychiatry (which before this thread you were unaware of as being a medical specialty made up of qualified physicians).

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

Point out the links. We shall compare them to the links I have posted.



You are wrong. I don't bother with trivial technicalities when evaluating the overall picture.



What about the numerous articles discrediting the use of these drugs(SSRI's in particular, which have been known to actually INCREASE suicide rates link) Beneficial to the pockets of vested interests I agree. Looking at one side of the argument while ignoring the other is a pointless exercise in futility.

Who cares what the WHO says, they have no say on the ECT issue here. Involuntary ECT is legal in this country, which is a violation of your fundamental human rights. Link to one shred of irrefutable scientific proof that ECT is effective. I will see pigs fly before that happens. Finally, the anti-psychiatry movement is not really an issue here. Are you trying to say that the research already presented isn't credible enough for you? I hope not.

Good Lord, you ACTUALLY DID IT AGAIN....you posted a link purporting to support your case but I actually read it and look what I found on page 45...

"The sensitivity analyses did not yield a meaningful difference in the magnitude of the
estimated risks."

Btw, the question of suicidality and SSRIs is pretty interesting because as soon as somebody severely depressed starts showing signs of remission (with or without drugs being involved), their suicide risk goes up. So next time you read about how people on SSRIs are more likely to commit suicide following initial treatment, please take note of the already perfectly understood mechanism as to why this happens. It's actually because their condition improves but dangerously gives them enough energy to carry out what they may have been planning for the days previous.

If you had actually watched the Sapolsky video I posted earlier you would have been able to deduce this.

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

Looking at one side of the argument while ignoring the other is a pointless exercise in futility.

So are tautologies. Bye now.

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

I'm leaving with this......the evidence that is reputable that you have posted (as in from proper sources), has categorically and repeatedly stated that SSRIs have a significant efficacy compared to placebo. End of story.

Involuntary ECT is not a human rights violation or any such nonsense. If you show up to hospital unconcious and in need of leg amputation to save your life, then medical ethics say that it's perfectly fine for a doctor to cut it off.
If you are so seriously depressed that ECT is the only way to save your life, again medical ethics says it's fine to administer the treatment without your consent.
As I've said time and time again, if you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with medical ethics, not psychiatry (which before this thread you were unaware of as being a medical specialty made up of qualified physicians).

Are you serious?

jtsuited

yup. As is the international medical community, and the international medical legal community (who ALL share the consensus that involuntary ECT is perfectly fine when is necessary) - just as a quick insight into the legal side of it take a look at the New York State assembly report on the issue.....it's pretty much par for the course in relation to every report done on ECT. http://assembly.state.ny.us/member_files/125/20020416/
Funnily enough, the big issue about ECT is that some of the older machines might be a bit dangerous and many national psychiatric associations have called for a hell of a lot more funding so they can get rid of the wonky ones.

Ironically of course, the rate of ECT administering has severely dropped not because of any ethical or safety issue, but because of the efficacy of modern drugs means its not worth the risk and cost of ECT for the vast majority of patients. And even more ironically, the most significant risks from ECT nowadays are the risks posed by general anaesthetic.
Btw, and you'll love this Naikon, remember when I was saying there have been loads of different drugs about which the exact mechanism is not known but whose effectiveness is evident (similar to SSRIs)?.......well here's the motherload..........

General Anaesthesia - yup that's right, we don't really know how they work. And the reason? Because it involves the brain and consciousness - an area where medical science can only theorize and take shots in the dark and then hypothesise.
If by your logic, psychiatry has a 'shaky scientific basis', then anaesthesia has the exact same problem....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_general_anaesthetic_action

studiorat

JT makes a good point here regarding anaesthesia and one I've been considering since reading the thread. Particularly the comparison of measuring the characteristic of a semiconductor as empirical, (I'm paraphrasing) against psychiatry not being empirical.

Any how, if process the same argument for measuring the semiconductor enough we come to the same conclusion. We don't really understand what's happening although we can measure it and attempt to quantify it as well as harness it's usefulness without totally understanding fully the mechanics of the process.

My point being that all sciences are theoretical at the end of the day.

Chuck Stone

jtsuited wrote: »

I'm leaving with this......the evidence that is reputable that you have posted (as in from proper sources), has categorically and repeatedly stated that SSRIs have a significant efficacy compared to placebo. End of story.

Significant against what? How would they compare with morphine or speed or getting punched in the back of the head?

Involuntary ECT is not a human rights violation or any such nonsense.

Involuntary ECT is simply violence. Kidnapping, restraining, depriving someone of their liberty and placing electrodes on their heads and passing electricity thru their brain, against their will - it's violence.

I'm lucky enough to never have been in such a situation but I really think I'd rather die than be kidnapped, restrained, and have my brain shocked.

If you show up to hospital unconcious and in need of leg amputation to save your life, then medical ethics say that it's perfectly fine for a doctor to cut it off.

You see what you're doing there? You're comparing medical necessity with violence. Involuntary means forced against ones will (with the threat of violence in the case of ECT). You really seem to hold some bizarre views I have to say.

As I've said time and time again, if you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with medical ethics, not psychiatry (which before this thread you were unaware of as being a medical specialty made up of qualified physicians).

There is no consensous on ECT and medical ethics change. It used to be thought of as being medically ethical to sterilise people who were deemed 'feeble minded' (eugenics ftw) now that is considered barbaric and a gross violation of bodily integrity.

jtsuited

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You see what you're doing there? You're comparing medical necessity with violence. Involuntary means forced against ones will (with the threat of violence in the case of ECT). You really seem to hold some bizarre views I have to say.
.

Yeah me and the medical establishment do hold bizarre views......best avoiding Western Medicine completely.

Involuntary ECT can be a medical necessity according to Western Medicine. That's the official stance in every country in the world afaik.
Hence the reason it is done. And hence the reason it is legal.

I'm actually echoing the sentiments of good old boring standard medicine here. I'm sorry if it disappoints you but my 'bizarre' views are mostly identical to the overwhelming consensus amongst doctors the world over.

You might find such a standard and boring perspective to be bizarre, but please don't single me out.....go down your local hospital and get stuck in.

jtsuited

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Involuntary ECT is simply violence. Kidnapping, restraining, depriving someone of their liberty and placing electrodes on their heads and passing electricity thru their brain, against their will - it's violence.

As is cutting off someone's arm. As is pulling ribcages open to perform heart surgery. As is defibrillating an unconcious person. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Seriously, if you genuinely think it's nothing more than a violent assault, contact your local political representative about having it made illegal. In 2008 it came up in the Seanad. Needless to say it went bloody nowhere.

humanji

It's probably worth pointing out that "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" isn't a correct representation of ECT, and this is how most people would view it. You're not hooked up to the mains while kicking and screaming (in fact, you're sedated and feel nothing).

And I'm not sure if anyone knows otherwise, but I was under the impression that the Irish laws on this were similar to the UK laws, where it's illegal to perform ECT involutarily, unless under extreme circumstances.

Chuck Stone

jtsuited wrote: »

Yeah me and the medical establishment do hold bizarre views......best avoiding Western Medicine completely.

No way there's concensous on ECT in the 'medical establishment' and I bet outside the psychiatric feild it's thought of as a highly dubious 'treatment'. I'm willing to bet that surgeons are way more respected than psychiatrists within the medical establishment (for good reason too).

Involuntary ECT can be a medical necessity according to Western Medicine. That's the official stance in every country in the world afaik.
Hence the reason it is done. And hence the reason it is legal.

So much fail.

The WHO, in its 2005 publication "Human Rights and Legislation WHO Resource Book on Mental Health," specifically states, "ECT should be administered only after obtaining informed consent."

Emergency treatment should not include ECT, depot neuroleptics and irreversible treatments such as psychosurgery or sterilization procedures (p60)

Countries may decide to enact legislation to protect people against abuses in the use of certain treatments such as major medical and surgical procedures, ECT, psychosurgery or other
irreversible treatments (p62)

http://www.who.int/mental_health/policy/resource_book_MHLeg.pdf

I'm actually echoing the sentiments of good old boring standard medicine here.

No you're not - your trying to hitch your wagon to legitimate medical endeavour. You keep pushing this 'trust-us-were-from-the-medical-establishmnet' line.

I will not trust you. I will not respect you. I will not believe you. You must win my trust, respect and cooperation and you can only do this with strong evidence and non-coercion - which is evidently beyond you.

I'm sorry if it disappoints you but my 'bizarre' views are mostly identical to the overwhelming consensus amongst doctors the world over.

See above.

studiorat

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No way there's concensous on ECT in the 'medical establishment' and I bet outside the psychiatric feild it's thought of as a highly dubious 'treatment'.

Fair enough, I'll bet it's not.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm willing to bet that surgeons are way more respected than psychiatrists within the medical establishment (for good reason too).

Cool, I'll take that wager too.

rat - 2
chuck stones - 0

jtsuited

Can I get in those wagers too?

Tasty value.

jtsuited

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No way there's concensous on ECT in the 'medical establishment' and I bet outside the psychiatric feild it's thought of as a highly dubious 'treatment'. I'm willing to bet that surgeons are way more respected than psychiatrists within the medical establishment (for good reason too).



So much fail.

The WHO, in its 2005 publication "Human Rights and Legislation WHO Resource Book on Mental Health," specifically states, "ECT should be administered only after obtaining informed consent."





http://www.who.int/mental_health/policy/resource_book_MHLeg.pdf



No you're not - your trying to hitch your wagon to legitimate medical endeavour. You keep pushing this 'trust-us-were-from-the-medical-establishmnet' line.

I will not trust you. I will not respect you. I will not believe you. You must win my trust, respect and cooperation and you can only do this with strong evidence and non-coercion - which is evidently beyond you.



See above.

Somebody in a catatonic state is not capable of giving legal consent or dissent. Hence the reason, when ECT may save somebody's life, legal permission is granted for the involuntary administering of it.

That is the case right now in this country (and pretty much every country). If you genuinely believe what you say about the practice of ECT (voluntary or otherwise), then surely it's your civic responsibility to attempt to get this barbaric practice outlawed, post haste.

How's that for coercion?

Chuck Stone

studiorat wrote: »

Fair enough, I'll bet it's not.



Cool, I'll take that wager too.

rat - 2
chuck stones - 0

jtsuited wrote: »

Can I get in those wagers too?

Tasty value.

More fail. Double fail.

I'll let you amatuers off this time.

What medical students think about psychiatrists
Psychiatrists are regarded by medical students as interested in people, but as unclear thinkers and emotionally unstable (Buchanan & Bhugra, 1992). Psychiatric patients were regarded by students and doctors alike as ‘not easy to like’. Psychiatry as a vocation was regarded by students as unscientific, imprecise, ineffective and low in status.

http://www.1decada4.es/profsalud/experiencia/docs/Mental%20illness%20-%20stigmatisation%20and%20discrimination%20within%20the%20medical%20profession.pdf

jtsuited

haha....the argument has now descended into just saying 'full of fail'.

Oh and your link there is from 2001 (and the relevant citation is from a work in 1992) and due to the concentrated effort to destigmatise mental illness in the public in general since then, is fairly irrelevant.

If you are going to use the opinion of medical students as a basis for your argument, I should probably declare that I'll be a medical student in 3 months time.

Chuck Stone

jtsuited wrote: »

Somebody in a catatonic state is not capable of giving legal consent or dissent. Hence the reason, when ECT may save somebody's life, legal permission is granted for the involuntary administering of it.

Those are not my laws. I would never give consent for ECT to be carried out on anyone I cared for.

If you genuinely believe what you say about the practice of ECT (voluntary or otherwise), then surely it's your civic responsibility to attempt to get this barbaric practice outlawed, post haste.

How's that for coercion?[/QUOTE]

That is not a belief of mine - it's merely descriptive - you are the one working with belief not I.

I'm not against voluntary ECT. I'm against involuntary ECT.

I'm arguing my point here on a public forum and maybe it will underscore the weakness in your arguments which are terribly weak.

If it goes to vote (not that I believe that voting changes much) then I will vote for bodily integrity and persuade my friends and family to also.

jtsuited

but why should you have a say when you're not a doctor? (Btw, that's the reason it'll never go to a vote.)

jtsuited

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Those are not my laws. I would never give consent for ECT to be carried out on anyone I cared for.

You've evidently never seen someone you cared for be on death's doorstep in a catatonic state of suffering you can never even begin to imagine.

Because when ECT can save that life, you'll be damn glad that there are legal provisions there to allow it to happen without the consent of the severely ill person.

Chuck Stone

jtsuited wrote: »

haha....the argument has now descended into just saying 'full of fail'.

Well my words were taken literally in an attempt to embarass me (which failed) so I think 'fail' is appropriate on this occasion.

Oh and your link there is from 2001 (and the relevant citation is from a work in 1992) and due to the concentrated effort to destigmatise mental illness in the public in general since then, is fairly irrelevant.

Yet again you attack the message rather than consider it's content. You keep doing this because you'd rather that than face what these studies say.

There have been more studies recently highlighting the dubious nature of pharmacological psychiatry - perhaps the attitude has worsened?

If you are going to use the opinion of medical students as a basis for your argument, I should probably declare that I'll be a medical student in 3 months time

.

What bearing has this on anything? Please learn the difference between individual subjectivism and rational investigation of attitudes.

Chuck Stone

jtsuited wrote: »

You've evidently never seen someone you cared for be on death's doorstep in a catatonic state of suffering you can never even begin to imagine.

Because when ECT can save that life, you'll be damn glad that there are legal provisions there to allow it to happen without the consent of the severely ill person.

This is disturbing. Do not tell me what experiences I have had or witnessed and do not tell me I'd be glad to submit a loved one for ECT.

Please refrain from personalising this issue.

Chuck Stone

jtsuited wrote: »

but why should you have a say when you're not a doctor? (Btw, that's the reason it'll never go to a vote.)

Because I value my bodily integrity and nobody should have the right to initiate force against me against my will.

It may not go to a referendum but forced ECT could well be outlawed on the grounds it violates individual rights of which is bodily integrity is included. Medics have been slapped down before for being paternalisitc and there's no reason it can't happen again.

I get the feeling you'd much rather be forwarding your views in a chemo-fawning echo chamber.