Psychiatry is bogus

Android 666 · 02-06-2011 2:50pm

33 wrote: »

Some say I'm trapped somewhere between madman and genius, the fine line, it gives me some comfort, the genius bit.

Who say that? The voices in your head? You should get that checked out mate. It's not a good sign…

Chuck Stone · 03-06-2011 2:09pm

Android 666 wrote: »

Who say that? The voices in your head? You should get that checked out mate. It's not a good sign…

Not cool.

Naikon · 03-06-2011 11:51pm

jtsuited wrote: »

Naikon, I, and many others from the very beginning of this thread (was reading from the start for the lulz) have 'had you' soooooo many times that I'm genuinely curious about a malfunction in your browser when you go to actually click on the evidence being linked.

There have been numerous concrete and reputable links posted over and over and over and over and over again that say the exact same thing......in fact you've repeatedly posted evidence that proves the efficacy of the SSRIs also.

Ffs, STOP doing quick googles and then bringing the ideas to this thread when a good few of us have all heard the same stuff a billion times before.

Psychiatry is a medical specialty, remember that......if you look at almost any medical condition and do a quick google on cures for it, I can guarantee you will hit an absolute wall of nutritionists and alternative quacks peddling nonsense about how big pharma are evil dickheads and how every drug for every condition is essentially an addictive poison used to buoy up pharmaceutical companies' massively volatile share prices.

Without being facetious, if anybody out there has any doubts about the chemical element of human happiness, take some mdma. The vast majority of people report a profound and real happiness as it hits the serotonin and dopamine pathways and the next day, an often crippling sense of loss as the brain attempts to re-balance.

While you might take this as some sort of nutter telling people to take yokes and go on a mad one, remember the development of LSD was a huge moment in medical science as it so accurately mimicked the symptoms of schizophrenia.

Certain recreational drugs (although mdma was a psychotherapeutic drug before it hit the clubs and streets) have given huge insight into the working of the human brain.

the subjective experience of pure unadulterated happiness (ain't called ecstasy for nothing) caused by a tiny 100mg dose of a drug that specifically targets the serotonin receptors is one hell of a clue into what actually constitutes what we call happiness.

But crucially, the comedown the next day is so absolutely mind-blowingly similar to what one would call depression in the technical sense, that it would be absolutely impossible to not at least acknowledge that the chemical basis for depression is at least existent.

(1) Show me some reputable research supporting ECT as a means for handling severe depression
(2) Show me some reputable research supporting the chemical imbalance theory.

jtsuited · 04-06-2011 10:15am

ECT.... http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/6/1/155.pdf

Interestingly, each on of the graphs also support the chemical imbalance theory of depression, although the report is on ECT efficacy not antidepressant efficacy so they don't go into detail.

Proper paper right there....accurate statistical publication (including p values etc).

If that report isn't enough, i don't know what will be.

oh and btw, notice how well conducted the meta-analysis was......and compare that to the shoddy not-a-meta-analysis-but-essentially-a-meta-analysis done by that huffpo psychology phd earlier (i know it was on a different subject but standards are standards).

What you're reading there is psychiatry. Proper medical psychiatry. Not Pfizer trying to inflate profits by talking bullsh1t. And not the media being a conduit between the public and the science, and in the process screwing everything up.

All academic literature is not created equal.

Naikon · 04-06-2011 5:03pm

jtsuited wrote: »

ECT.... http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/6/1/155.pdf

Interestingly, each on of the graphs also support the chemical imbalance theory of depression, although the report is on ECT efficacy not antidepressant efficacy so they don't go into detail.

Proper paper right there....accurate statistical publication (including p values etc).

If that report isn't enough, i don't know what will be.

oh and btw, notice how well conducted the meta-analysis was......and compare that to the shoddy not-a-meta-analysis-but-essentially-a-meta-analysis done by that huffpo psychology phd earlier (i know it was on a different subject but standards are standards).

What you're reading there is psychiatry. Proper medical psychiatry. Not Pfizer trying to inflate profits by talking bullsh1t. And not the media being a conduit between the public and the science, and in the process screwing everything up.

All academic literature is not created equal.

The fact that they intentionally left out those with "moderate improvement" in the discussion as a means to skew the results is a bit of a red flag. If you replace "moderate improvement" with "little or no" improvement, we might be going places.

Why only one SSRI trial? Should the SSRI's not be the primary comparison point(28) when comparing the actual efficacy of antidepressants to ECT? SSRI's are the most commonly prescribed, right?

These results tell me nothing about how the tests were administered, nor effects over time. What if the apparent benefits with ECT were only temporary? A bit simplistic. It does not help that this "research" is backed by the APA - The people who author the DSM.

Naikon · 05-06-2011 3:54pm

jtsuited wrote: »

ECT.... http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/6/1/155.pdf

Interestingly, each on of the graphs also support the chemical imbalance theory of depression, although the report is on ECT efficacy not antidepressant efficacy so they don't go into detail.

Proper paper right there....accurate statistical publication (including p values etc).

Pfizer

Pfizer shares the same bed with the APA. Therefore, these results cannot be trusted. They don't even try to hide the fact!

You can even apply for a "research" position to doctor the results and make the company some well deserved profit. Nice.

You are running out of steam if the above link is the best you can source...

shanered · 06-06-2011 11:32am

Some serious interests and reputations will have to be defended here, and no really explanortory research has ever been carried out independantley about this, exept for those who have vested interests in making money off shifting the idea's onto the mostly unsuspecting public.
Why would anybody else do the needed research?
There would not be any incentive to do so, no profit, only a small moral victory over big pharma.
Its a pity the way the world works.

Naikon · 07-06-2011 3:18am

What if these drugs have the capacity to increase the rate of diseases such as breast cancer over time? While the following link is not conclusive, it does raise a valid point: link

"Both the pre-clinical and clinical data are mixed in terms of showing an association between AD use and breast and ovarian cancer. The possibility that ADs may exhibit a bi-phasic effect, whereby short-term use and/or low dose antidepressants may increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancer, warrants further investigation. Industry affiliations were significantly associated with negative conclusions regarding cancer risk. The findings have implications in light of the 2009 USPSTF guidelines for breast cancer screening and for the informed consent process."

jackiebaron · 08-06-2011 9:44am

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.

Well I'd sooner that some of these troubled souls and confused/depressed/suicidal people have someone to talk to rather than being drugged up to the eyeballs making their condition all the more acute when the medication wears off. I'd sooner they have a shoulder to cry on or a sympathetic ear rather than undergoing the treatments of the past such as locking them away in wondrous facilities like Grange Gorman and Bethlem and being restrained by clueless and sadistic porters or having their brains zapped if they screamed too much in panic.

Android 666 · 08-06-2011 11:44am

jackiebaron wrote: »

Well I'd sooner that some of these troubled souls and confused/depressed/suicidal people have someone to talk to rather than being drugged up to the eyeballs making their condition all the more acute when the medication wears off. I'd sooner they have a shoulder to cry on or a sympathetic ear rather than undergoing the treatments of the past such as locking them away in wondrous facilities like Grange Gorman and Bethlem and being restrained by clueless and sadistic porters or having their brains zapped if they screamed too much in panic.

Sorry, is your entire knowledge of psychiatry based on watching 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' twice?

Naikon · 08-06-2011 2:15pm

Android 666 wrote: »

Sorry, is your entire knowledge of psychiatry based on watching 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' twice?

Have you read up about the history of Psychiatry? His point is still valid: being reliant on drugs of questionable efficacy is a problem. Those incidents actually happened.

Popular media should not be dragged into this. The point is, ECT is dangerous because they don't really have a clue what it is doing to the patient. This "treatment" can lead to brain damage. ECT should be resigned to the same bin as the lobotomy once was. It's not much of a "solution". The mere fact involuntary ECT still exists, serves to undermine your most basic human rights. Show me some evidence that ECT is well understood, or that it even works long term.

Android 666 · 08-06-2011 2:46pm

Naikon wrote: »

Have you read up about the history of Psychiatry? His point is still valid: being reliant on drugs of questionable efficacy is a problem. Those incidents actually happened.

The history of psychiatry is a different world to psychiatry today as is the history of surgery or medicine in general. It's one thing to give a person a sympathetic ear when they are suffering from depression, it's an entirely different matter when a person is in the middle of a full blown psychotic episode.

Naikon wrote: »

Popular media should not be dragged into this. The point is, ECT is dangerous because they don't really have a clue what it is doing to the patient. This "treatment" can lead to brain damage. ECT should be resigned to the same bin as the lobotomy once was. It's not much of a "solution". The mere fact involuntary ECT still exists, serves to undermine your most basic human rights. Show me some evidence that ECT is well understood, or that it even works long term.

But the person was using cliches from the betrayal of psychiatry in popular media and the notion that all a person in a delusional state needs is a shoulder to cry on or a sympathetic ear is simplistic at best.

I can't make an argument for or against ECT as I don't know enough of the subject but hasn't it not been already stated that involuntary ECT is a method of last resort with stringent legal restrictions? That hardly undermines your basic human rights, does it?

jackiebaron · 08-06-2011 3:57pm

Android 666 wrote: »

Sorry, is your entire knowledge of psychiatry based on watching 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' twice?

You should be sorry. That glib little dig was banality at its finest. Are you proud of yourself?

jackiebaron · 08-06-2011 4:05pm

Android 666 wrote: »

The history of psychiatry is a different world to psychiatry today as is the history of surgery or medicine in general. It's one thing to give a person a sympathetic ear when they are suffering from depression, it's an entirely different matter when a person is in the middle of a full blown psychotic episode.

But the person was using cliches from the betrayal of psychiatry in popular medicine and the notion that all a person in a delusional state needs is a shoulder to cry on or a sympathetic ear is simplistic at best.

I can't make an argument for or against ECT as I don't know enough of the subject but hasn't it not been already stated that involuntary ECT is a method of last resort with stringent legal restrictions? That hardly undermines your basic human rights, does it?

You know Android you would do well to read what it was I was responding to before you throw out your childish Cuckoo's Nest remark. I was responding to the very original post. Nothing about ECT was mentioned at that point and neither was psychosis, schizophrenia, bi-polarity, whatever. I was simply responding to the notion that psychiatry and psychiatrists were a sham.

And what "cliches" did I use, exactly?

I've seen your posts before. You barf out an adolescent quip for a cheap laugh and then try to backtrack when you're called on it.

Android 666 · 08-06-2011 4:52pm

jackiebaron wrote: »

You know Android you would do well to read what it was I was responding to before you throw out your childish Cuckoo's Nest remark. I was responding to the very original post. Nothing about ECT was mentioned at that point and neither was psychosis, schizophrenia, bi-polarity, whatever. I was simply responding to the notion that psychiatry and psychiatrists were a sham.

I was responding to what Naikon said about ECT and if you're going to discount psychosis, schizophrenia and bi-polarity then I'm sure it's very easy to dismiss psychiatry as a sham.

jackiebaron wrote: »

And what "cliches" did I use, exactly?

You said:

I'd sooner they have a shoulder to cry on or a sympathetic ear rather than undergoing the treatments of the past such as locking them away in wondrous facilities like Grange Gorman and Bethlem and being restrained by clueless and sadistic porters or having their brains zapped if they screamed too much in panic.

I bolded the cliches to help you find them.

jackiebaron wrote: »

I've seen your posts before. You barf out an adolescent quip for a cheap laugh and then try to backtrack when you're called on it.

And I have no idea what you're on about… are you a Beady Eye fan or something?

jackiebaron · 09-06-2011 1:49am

Android 666 wrote: »

I was responding to what Naikon said about ECT and if you're going to discount psychosis, schizophrenia and bi-polarity then I'm sure it's very easy to dismiss psychiatry as a sham.

You said:

I bolded the cliches to help you find them.

And I have no idea what you're on about… are you a Beady Eye fan or something?

How are these underlined pieces "cliches"? A cliche is some tired worn out, overused, slogan such as "better the devil you know" or "all's fair in love and war" or some other such crap. People were banged up in these wretched places like Grange Gorman and Bethlem. How is mentioning that a cliche?

Android 666 · 09-06-2011 4:10pm

jackiebaron wrote: »

How are these underlined pieces "cliches"? A cliche is some tired worn out, overused, slogan such as "better the devil you know" or "all's fair in love and war" or some other such crap. People were banged up in these wretched places like Grange Gorman and Bethlem. How is mentioning that a cliche?

Merriam-Webster defines cliche as this:
a hackneyed theme, characterization, or situation

cliche

What you said about sadistic posters and people getting there brains zapped is a cliche straight out of One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest.

There are people who benefit from counselling or medication or a combination of both. Others are so psychotic or delusional that a sympathetic ear or a shoulder to cry on is going to be of no benefit to them until they can be stabilised. While people can be sectioned or ECT I think enough has been said about the legal restrictions applied to these practices that imo they can hardly be called infringements of human rights.

Psychiatry is still an evolving science (as are all areas of medicine) and while a lot of people here might dismiss it as bogus I've seen the benefits its had with both friends and family in helping them to deal with issues ranging from depression to schizophrenia and how it's helped them get back to leading a normal life.

Naikon · 09-06-2011 5:49pm

Android 666 wrote: »

legal restrictions applied to these practices that imo they can hardly be called infringements of human rights.

Involuntary ECT contravenes your most basic human rights. Not even a murderer here would face anything like even remotely similar to the ECT brain sledgehammer.

Android 666 wrote: »

Psychiatry is still an evolving science (as are all areas of medicine) and while a lot of people here might dismiss it as bogus I've seen the benefits its had with both friends and family in helping them to deal with issues ranging from depression to schizophrenia and how it's helped them get back to leading a normal life.

Psychiatry/Psychology == Mostly a form of mass political control/correctness masquerading as hard science

Psychiatry should not be sold to the public as a hard medical science.

Naikon · 09-06-2011 6:06pm

Right, back to evidence. Less wishy washy arguments from on please:)

First up: Show me some hard research supporting ADHD as a real disease, and not just some wishy washy label assigned to kids that have trouble following authority figures. Contempt for authority does not actually mean you are "ill", now does it? "Drapetomania" should be resurfaced here. "Slaves running away" is not a mental illness, it's an observation. There is a difference between a real disease and some made up label.

Android 666 · 09-06-2011 6:15pm

Naikon wrote: »

Psychiatry/Psychology == Mostly a form of mass political control/correctness masquerading as hard science

Psychiatry should not be sold to the public as a hard medical science.

Ah right so when my friend’s sister was giving medication (after being sectioned at the request of the family) to help her deal with the delusions she suffered from schizophrenia it wasn't to enable to help her to live her life to its fullest (which she has - she is now a qualified doctor) it was so she could be controlled and made politically correct? Rrrright…

09-06-2011 6:27pm

Android 666 wrote: »

Ah right so when my friend’s sister was giving medication (after being sectioned at the request of the family) to help her deal with the delusions she suffered from schizophrenia it wasn't to enable to help her to live her life to its fullest (which she has - she is now a qualified doctor) it was so she could be controlled and made politically correct? Rrrright…

A schizophrenic doctor, that explains a lot!

jtsuited · 09-06-2011 6:44pm

wow, stigmatising sufferers of schizophrenia AND doctors.

nice.

thread's a farce. let's hope nobody who is seriously ill reads the inane ramblings of Naikon and decides psychiatry is a fraudulent profession inhabited by doctors hell bent on social coercion and profit.

No fcukin wonder there is still a stigma about mental illness in this country. People who don't have a clue feel they have a right to shout their completely unqualified opinion loudly and repeatedly even when presented with evidence.

Naikon, you have looked for HARD EVIDENCE many times in this thread. You have been presented with HARD EVIDENCE many times in this thread.

Which ironically raises some questions about your state of mind.

Naikon · 09-06-2011 7:29pm

jtsuited wrote: »

wow, stigmatising sufferers of schizophrenia AND doctors.

nice.

thread's a farce. let's hope nobody who is seriously ill reads the inane ramblings of Naikon and decides psychiatry is a fraudulent profession inhabited by doctors hell bent on social coercion and profit.

No fcukin wonder there is still a stigma about mental illness in this country. People who don't have a clue feel they have a right to shout their completely unqualified opinion loudly and repeatedly even when presented with evidence.

Naikon, you have looked for HARD EVIDENCE many times in this thread. You have been presented with HARD EVIDENCE many times in this thread.

Which ironically raises some questions about your state of mind.

You left out the word credible. Research funded by the APA does not count btw.

Even at over 30 pages in length, you have not show any credible evidence to back up your assertions. The ECT research you linked is beyond comedy.

psycjay · 09-06-2011 7:32pm

Ok, First off I havn't read this full thread so I appologise if I'm repeating what others have already said.

From what I have see the main argument that psychiatry and psychology are bogus is the lack of evidence for a biological basis for mental disorders.

However I will make a few points about this.

Many people in this thread are under the impression that the only way to study the brain (and mental problems) is through biology, and that anything else is not science. Well this is a lack of understanding about what science is. Behaviour can be studied scientifically, and has been since the 20's. Behavioural experiments have led to scientific laws (yes there are laws in psychology!) such as classical and operant conditioning. These laws form the basis of behavioural theories of anxiety disorders such as phobias and social phobia. The laws have also enabled the development of effective treatments for these common psychological problems.

Cognitive science, where the brain is viewed as a "black box" has shown that things such as memory, perception, and decision making can be modeled without the requirement of biology. In recent years many of these models have been mapped on actual brain structure, but the point is that biology is only one level of analysis for the scientific study of the brain.

Another argument is that people could be malingering because there is no objective test for something like depression. No "hard evidence" for the exsistance of the disorder at all. I agree that there often is no objective test for many disorders, i also agree that the chemical imbalance theory is unsupported (see my thread on the subject), I also agree that the DSM is very problematic, however I do not believe people are lying.

The modern theory of how psychological problems arise is through a combination of genetic vulnerability and environmental stressors - (the diathesis-stress model). Large scale analysis of thousands of people show that there are patterns in predisposing factors, stressors and symptoms. This means that there are two possibilities.

1. That psychological problems are real, but as of yet untestable.
2. That people are lying but by some coincidence have similar histories and symptom patterns.

The first is more probable than the second of course. The second is possible, but those who really understand science know that the objective of science is not certainty it is probability.

Now in regard to the use of medication in the treatment of mental problems. I agree that there are major problems in this area, meds are being overprescribed and many people are being peddled incorrect accounts of how these things work. However they are useful. Fact is, some people are just too distressed to excersise or get CBT etc. Despite what has been suggested there is evidece that medication offers relief from symptoms over placebo, I'll provide refereces if required. Also studies have shown that a combination of medication and therapy can be more beneficial than either on its own (in certain circumstances). It is a mistake to rule them out completely.

Naikon · 09-06-2011 7:45pm

psycjay wrote: »

Ok, First off I havn't read this full thread so I appologise if I'm repeating what others have already said.

From what I have see the main argument that psychiatry and psychology are bogus is the lack of evidence for a biological basis for mental disorders.

However I will make a few points about this.

Many people in this thread are under the impression that the only way to study the brain (and mental problems) is through biology, and that anything else is not science. Well this is a lack of understanding about what science is. Behaviour can be studied scientifically, and has been since the 20's. Behavioural experiments have led to scientific laws (yes there are laws in psychology!) such as classical and operant conditioning. These laws form the basis of behavioural theories of anxiety disorders such as phobias and social phobia. The laws have also enabled the development of effective treatments for these common psychological problems.

Cognitive science, where the brain is viewed as a "black box" has shown that things such as memory, perception, and decision making can be modeled without the requirement of biology. In recent years many of these models have been mapped on actual brain structure, but the point is that biology is only one level of analysis for the scientific study of the brain.

Another argument is that people could be malingering because there is no objective test for something like depression. No "hard evidence" for the exsistance of the disorder at all. I agree that there often is no objective test for many disorders, i also agree that the chemical imbalance theory is unsupported (see my thread on the subject), I also agree that the DSM is very problematic, however I do not believe people are lying.

The modern theory of how psychological problems arise is through a combination of genetic vulnerability and environmental stressors - (the diathesis-stress model). Large scale analysis of thousands of people show that there are patterns in predisposing factors, stressors and symptoms. This means that there are two possibilities.

1. That psychological problems are real, but as of yet untestable.
2. That people are lying but by some coincidence have similar histories and symptom patterns.

The first is more probable than the second of course. The second is possible, but those who really understand science know that the objective of science is not certainty it is probability.

Now in regard to the use of medication in the treatment of mental problems. I agree that there are major problems in this area, meds are being overprescribed and many people are being peddled incorrect accounts of how these things work. However they are useful. Fact is, some people are just too distressed to excersise or get CBT etc. Despite what has been suggested there is evidece that medication offers relief from symptoms over placebo, I'll provide refereces if required. Also studies have shown that a combination of medication and therapy can be more beneficial than either on its own (in certain circumstances). It is a mistake to rule them out completely.

Great contribution. I don't believe that imposing a drug culture under the guise of mostly unproven assumptions about how the brain lacks certain chemicals is fair to society at large. The taxpayer is potentially footing the bill after all. What is the point in funding drugs that work marginally better than a placebo? The DSM is branding people willy nilly, which is another problem in itself. There is a fundamental difference between "hard" and "soft" science.

How would you compare Neurology to Psychiatry In terms of scientific rigour? Could Neurologists publish their "DSM" and get away with subjective labelling? I doubt it.

Naikon · 09-06-2011 7:52pm

jtsuited wrote: »

Which ironically raises some questions about your state of mind.

Man, these comebacks just keep getting weaker and weaker. Attack the posts, not the poster. It's in the charter.

I refuse to lower myself to your level of petty insults. If you can't add anything of value, stop moaning.

Chuck Stone · 09-06-2011 8:00pm

psycjay wrote: »

Behavioural experiments have led to scientific laws (yes there are laws in psychology!) such as classical and operant conditioning. These laws form the basis of behavioural theories of anxiety disorders such as phobias and social phobia. The laws have also enabled the development of effective treatments for these common psychological problems.

Disputed if not debunked.

Psychological Laws (Revisited)

by: Mark Bauer

Erkenntnis doi:10.1007/s10670-009-9196-4 Key: citeulike:6233724

View FullText article

DOI, SpringerLink, Pubget, PubMed (Search)

Abstract

Abstract It has been suggested that a functionalist understanding of the metaphysics of psychological typing eliminates the prospect for psychological laws. Kim, Millikan, and Shapiro have each separately argued that, if psychological types as functional types are multiply realized, then the diversity of realizing mechanisms demonstrates that there can be no laws of psychology. Additionally, Millikan has argued that the role of functional attribution in the explanation of historical kinds limits the formulation of psychological principles to particular taxa; hence, psychological laws applicable to any cognitive being are not possible. Both arguments against the possibility of psychological laws, I want to suggest, only succeed at showing that certain types of empirical principles will not be laws. I will suggest that a further type of empirical principle, grounded in the general constraints on the sustainability of population types, remains in the running as a candidate law. Importantly, the formulation of these principles presupposes a functionalist understanding of psychological typing.

.

Naikon · 09-06-2011 8:12pm

Ok, Psychiatry may not be entirely useless. I am aware there is a difference between Applied and fundamental Science. Contrary to the thread title, Psychiatry does have merit(as evidenced by the numerous people visiting these professionals). There are gaping holes that need to be addressed though, as psychjay has mentioned.

Only an idiot would claim the symptoms of depression aren't serious. Depression is more than just a biological illness. It's offensive to people suffering from the disorder that the way to treat it is through mostly questionable psychotropic substances. A mostly unproven reductionist approach won't do any good. The problem isn't a chemical one, it's mostly environmental.

They don't know what these drugs are doing to the body long term. When you weigh up all the benefits and risks associated with both ECT and these drugs, should we continue falsely believing biopsychiatry is the way to go, or should alternative work be carried out?

The primary problem I have lies mostly with these drugs, which implies the problem is basically chemical, which in turn leads back to the biopsychiatry argument. It's not an exact science, and the drug prescriptions should not mislead people. Those Zoloft commercials for instance. "Talk to your doctor". They even have payment plan on their website. If that does not reek of bull****, I don't know.

Naikon · 09-06-2011 8:17pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Disputed if not debunked.

.

Those aren't electrons flowing through my computer, there're "Chuck Stones":cool:

They even have faces!

Naikon · 09-06-2011 8:28pm

Android 666 wrote: »

Ah right so when my friend’s sister was giving medication (after being sectioned at the request of the family) to help her deal with the delusions she suffered from schizophrenia it wasn't to enable to help her to live her life to its fullest (which she has - she is now a qualified doctor) it was so she could be controlled and made politically correct? Rrrright…

It's distressing and possibly dangerous, sure. Still does not qualify as an illness in conventional terms though. "Delusion" is a very broad term. Are religious people suddenly ill and/or stupid by default? I don't think so.

Delusions may be brought on by neurological illness, but that is not enough to say the delusion in itself is an illness. It could simply be an adaptation to the surrounding environment. Take shell shocked soldiers fighting in a war for instance. Their "distress" is an adaptation, not an illness.

If you don't mind me asking this, did the delusions actually prevent normal cognative functioning?

Psychiatry is bogus

Comments