Psychiatry is bogus

Saila

Naikon wrote: »

Evidence of absence.

good, now apply the same logic to your arguement and the ones the others have put forward

Naikon

Buceph wrote: »

Are you saying people can't be happy or sad?

Not in an exact measurable manner, no.

WalterMitty

Naikon wrote: »

The very concept of "happiness" is entirely subjective and does not have any grounding in science.

so if i feel subjectively much better most of the time as a result of a psychatric medication and get worse whenever i stop said medication that doesnt count as science? Psychiatry never claims to be yet an exact science, research into what are called mental illnesses are still at an early stage. Genetic testing/engineering , and functional imaging should give much greater evidence in decades to come.

Buceph

Naikon wrote: »

Not in an exact measurable manner, no.

Are you saying it can't be acted upon?

Chuck Stone

Buceph wrote: »

First off, you asserted that schizophrenia doesn't exist because some people see a difference between someone hearing voices and a religious person hearing god. I told you why even churches rarely make that distinction. And so your assertion was false.

How can I assert that schizophrenia does or doesn't exist when I don't know what the word means?

Secondly, you're the one proposing something running contrary to science, you should prove your point. Especially as you seem to take the views of some religious people (who are not noted as being the most scientific of people) as proof of your claim. Something I easily refuted.

No. You can't cite the application of the scientific method as a means that something doesn't exist - that makes no sense - you can only use the scientific method to measure the existence of a detectable phenomenon. That's what I'm doing - asking you to provide scientific evidence of the benefits of psychiatric practices (which you cannot).

Finally, I can't give an exact definition of schizophrenia, I am not a psychiatrist.

If you can't give a definition of schizophrenia then why are you criticizing my horse-tree-song analogy?

And you still have given me no reason to doubt the information I do know.

What do you know? You know very little - what you think you know is belief not scientific reality. If you want to believe something because you believe it then don't present it as a rational argument - just say 'I believe'.

Belief is not science.

jtsuited

jesus bloody christ.......the amount of absolute nonsense in this thread is blood boiling.

First off, psychiatrists are doctors. They have to qualify as doctors before they even begin training as a psychiatrist. If it was unscientific quackery, I'm fairly sure all those newly qualified doctors would have a serious problem throwing out the scientific method as soon as they specialise.

Secondly, the type of people who deny mental illness are up there with the conspiracy theorists and creationists in their stunning level of ignorance and nonsensical gibberish.

Thirdly, the suicide rate/mental illness stigma is not going to be helped by a load of ignoramuses propagating the idea that mental illness is somehow a fabrication of profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies and quacks peddling pseudoscience.

So, if you're not a doctor, shut the fcuk up with this type of bullsh1t. If we were discussing AIDS, there wouldn't be so many ignorant people thinking they have a qualified opinion on the subject.......yet there are plenty of AIDS conspiracy theorists out there who maintain that Aids is brought on by the anti-retrovirals given to people with HIV (go look it up if you don't believe me).

If you sincerely doubt the existence of mental illness, walk into any acute psychiatric ward and watch the progress of any patient over a short period of time.

I've had friends who were mentally ill who killed themselves. They refused to get proper psychiatric treatment because they had seen too much of the type of bullsh1t on this thread and believed it.

On the other hand, I've seen mentally ill people recover fully from life-threatening disorders and go on to live perfectly full and happy lives.

The over-medicalisation of modern society is indeed a major issue in psychiatry at the moment, but to write off a medical specialty because a few pharma companies have tried to pathologise shyness (social anxiety) inappropriately is beyond stupid and is indeed seriously harmful.

Buceph

Chuck Stone wrote: »

How can I assert that schizophrenia does or doesn't exist when I don't know what the word means?

So you don't know what schizophrenia is, yet you can say it doesn't exist? Something that's not quite correct there.

No. You can't cite the application of the scientific method as a means that something doesn't exist - that makes no sense - you can only use the scientific method to measure the existence of a detectable phenomenon. That's what I'm doing - asking you to provide scientific evidence of the benefits of psychiatric practices (which you cannot).

First off, there's plenty of science on things which we can't prove to exist. Secondly, experience can be acted upon. Unless you're going down the other route of saying happiness and sadness don't exist.

If you can't give a definition of schizophrenia then why are you criticizing my horse-tree-song analogy?

First off, didn't you just say you don't know what schizophrenia is. So how can you make an analogy of its effects.
Secondly, I do know what schizophrenia is, in general, I can't give a scientific definition. And if I was to attempt to and got it wrong, you would use my inadequte definition to claim support for your supposition. Something I won't allow.

Chuck Stone

Plautus wrote: »

And as for the poster earlier asking for the 'proof' - scientific enquiry proceeds inductively. You start with a hypothesis and then make observation. There's little 'proof' at the start of anything. You find out. Trial and error ...

Trial and error (ab)using humans is highly immoral. People with emotional problems don't go looking to be tested upon they go looking for expertise - not experimentation.

If you are advocating that psychiatrists test their medicines on vulnerable people then you are a callous individual.

If any medic tests medicines on any patient without the consent of the patient then they are a criminal imo.

Buceph

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Trial and error (ab)using humans is highly immoral. People with emotional problems don't go looking to be tested upon they go looking for expertise - not experimentation.

If you are advocating that psychiatrists test their medicines on vulnerable people then you are a callous individual.

All medication is tested on patients suffering from an ailment.

If any medic tests medicines on any patient without the consent of the patient then they are a criminal imo.

A complete non-sequiter. No-one mentioned or alluded to patients being tested on without their permission. You're injecting that implication to add weight to your shoddy assertions.

Plautus

How can I assert that schizophrenia does or doesn't exist when I don't know what the word means?



No. You can't cite the application of the scientific method as a means that something doesn't exist - that makes no sense - you can only use the scientific method to measure the existence of a detectable phenomenon. That's what I'm doing - asking you to provide scientific evidence of the benefits of psychiatric practices (which you cannot).



If you can't give a definition of schizophrenia then why are you criticizing my horse-tree-song analogy?



What do you know? You know very little - what you think you know is belief not scientific reality. If you want to believe something because you believe it then don't present it as a rational argument - just say 'I believe'.

Belief is not science.

Look, prima-facie, your argument is not going to be engaged with because it's coming across a bit holier than thou. You've sort of proved this while I was writing as now you've gone off on a tangent suggesting I support violating the Nuremberg convention on medical testing ... look, you silly goose, hypothesis testing of medication happens all the time. With consenting individuals. Medications don't reach the market until they're approved.

But sure don't miss a chance to call me callous. Anyway ...

Beliefs come in the flavour of 'Justified True Belief', and can be informed by science. But you seem to have an axe to grind here and so when anyone drops the 'b' word you resort to the type of arguments you might use against religious people ...

It's also lazy - if you want to be disabused of the idea that psychiatry hasn't helped people then do your own reading. There is a vast literature out there. Wiki Schizophrenia too. It's you that has to do the work here of showing why we ought to shut down psychiatric medicine and stop classifying people with very serious difficulties as having an illness. Not the other way around.

The more adroit question we have to ask of people here who are anti-psychiatry is this: do (or do not) people with suicidal thoughts, who hear voices, who no longer look after themselves, who are obsessive-compulsive, who have visual delusions, who are incredibly aggrieved and are crying constantly, who are throwing up food because they believe they're fat, who have terrible nightmares, who have palpitations and sweat with fear ... do or do not these people have something amiss with them? Are you suggesting their pain is made up? That nothing should be done for it?

That's the bottom line on this one.

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

jesus bloody christ.......the amount of absolute nonsense in this thread is blood boiling.

First off, psychiatrists are doctors. They have to qualify as doctors before they even begin training as a psychiatrist. If it was unscientific quackery, I'm fairly sure all those newly qualified doctors would have a serious problem throwing out the scientific method as soon as they specialise.

Secondly, the type of people who deny mental illness are up there with the conspiracy theorists and creationists in their stunning level of ignorance and nonsensical gibberish.

Thirdly, the suicide rate/mental illness stigma is not going to be helped by a load of ignoramuses propagating the idea that mental illness is somehow a fabrication of profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies and quacks peddling pseudoscience.

So, if you're not a doctor, shut the fcuk up with this type of bullsh1t. If we were discussing AIDS, there wouldn't be so many ignorant people thinking they have a qualified opinion on the subject.......yet there are plenty of AIDS conspiracy theorists out there who maintain that Aids is brought on by the anti-retrovirals given to people with HIV (go look it up if you don't believe me).

If you sincerely doubt the existence of mental illness, walk into any acute psychiatric ward and watch the progress of any patient over a short period of time.

I've had friends who were mentally ill who killed themselves. They refused to get proper psychiatric treatment because they had seen too much of the type of bullsh1t on this thread and believed it.

On the other hand, I've seen mentally ill people recover fully from life-threatening disorders and go on to live perfectly full and happy lives.

The over-medicalisation of modern society is indeed a major issue in psychiatry at the moment, but to write off a medical specialty because a few pharma companies have tried to pathologise shyness (social anxiety) inappropriately is beyond stupid and is indeed seriously harmful.

Irrespective of profit incentives, my assertion still stands though. Psychiatry is not a scientific practice.

WalterMitty

The human mind is subjective but the human mind creates science. Is science subjective? Does anything objectively exist? Meanwhile if im suffering for a long period i take the consensus of the medical experts of the day because i have no choice really when all else has failed even though i know the consensus is likely to be not wholly accurate.

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

Irrespective of profit incentives, my assertion still stands though. Psychiatry is not a scientific practice.

really? evidence bases of efficacy, double-blind placebo controlled trials, etc. are not scientific practice?

Chuck Stone

Buceph wrote: »

So you don't know what schizophrenia is, yet you can say it doesn't exist? Something that's not quite correct there.

I have no idea what schizophrenia is - the symptoms that are described as schizophrenic seem to be deemed relatively normal in some people and 'insane' in others. People will pay good money to psychics who hear dead loved ones speak to them but they are not considered schizophrenic and will not be incarcerated. So how do we determine what is schizophrenic? Surely not opinion?

First off, there's plenty of science on things which we can't prove to exist.

Examples?

Secondly, experience can be acted upon. Unless you're going down the other route of saying happiness and sadness don't exist.

What do you mean by happiness and sadness?

Console

wanna know what Psychiatry is?
Its paying someone money for the privledge of bringing yourself to a realisation.

But who am I, or anyone else, to say its totally wrong if by the process helps/heals someone.

But at the same time only a fool will say psychiatry is 100% needed. Like quitting smokes (for a basic example) its all about the person and the will power needed. Not everyone needs psychiatry.

Plautus

Console wrote: »

wanna know what Psychiatry is?
Its paying someone money for the privledge of bringing yourself to a realisation.

But who am I, or anyone else, to say its totally wrong if by the process helps/heals someone.

But at the same time only a fool will say psychiatry is 100% needed. Like quitting smokes (for a basic example) its all about the person and the will power needed. Not everyone needs psychiatry.

Anorexia Nervosa is notoriously difficult to beat by 'will power'. So's post-natal depression. Or thinking you hear voices that will you to kill yourself or others.

Don't make psychiatry sound like a privelige people pay for to somehow do what a bit of 'realisation' could do for free. It's far more complicated than that.

And no, not everyone needs psychiatry but it's still 100% needed by society. As much as I don't need a fracture clinic for a sprain but might do when I have a full breakage.

Buceph

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I have no idea what schizophrenia is - the symptoms that are described as schizophrenic seem to be deemed relatively normal in some people and 'insane' in others. People will pay good money to psychics who hear dead loved ones speak to them but they are not considered schizophrenic and will not be incarcerated. So how do we determine what is schizophrenic? Surely not opinion?

Yet again you don't understand the thing you deny exists.

Psychiatric conditions exist when certain things become a problem for someone, or have an effect on someone that is detrimental and which continues to effect them.

Take the "going to a psychic" example. Going to a psychic isn't a problem. Believing in psychics isn't a psychiatric problem. Believing that your dead husband is talking to you through a medium, and spending all your money going to that medium, relying on that medium, could be a psychiatric problem. A statistically significant amount of people across the globe exhibiting that behaviour probably is a psychiatric problem.

Examples?

Apart from medicine, physics. Go look it up on wikipedia.

What do you mean by happiness and sadness?

The generally accepted idea of happiness and sadness. I'm not trying to trick you,

Console

Plautus wrote: »

Anorexia Nervosa is notoriously difficult to beat by 'will power'. So's post-natal depression. Or thinking you hear voices that will you to kill yourself or others.

Don't make psychiatry sound like a privelige people pay for to somehow do what a bit of 'realisation' could do for free. It's far more complicated than that.

And no, not everyone needs psychiatry but it's still 100% needed by society. As much as I don't need a fracture clinic for a sprain but might do when I have a full breakage.

Gotta love your reply. you quoted me to agree that its needed in certain cases but not needed in every circumstance (ie, where a person can overcome things themselves) so was there a point to quote me?

or do you just like to argue, but drawing the same conclusion?

starviewadams

No I wasn't on cocaine or crystal meth or any other stimulant,I typically wouldn't have slept for 5 or 6 days,and the euphoria or mania took over and I stopped making rational decisions,thats why I ended up in hospital or in a garda station etc.

Since I've been diagnosed(about a year or so ago)and began taking lithium,seroquel and zoloft I haven't once ended up in those situations.If I notice myself not sleeping or my freinds and family find that I'm acting really hyper/talking incoherent shíte,an appointment is made with the psychiatrist and we sort it out.

Chuck Stone

Plautus wrote: »

Look, prima-facie, your argument is not going to be engaged with because it's coming across a bit holier than thou.

What?

You've sort of proved this while I was writing as now you've gone off on a tangent suggesting I support violating the Nuremberg convention on medical testing ... look, you silly goose, hypothesis testing of medication happens all the time. With consenting individuals. Medications don't reach the market until they're approved.

See what I've previously said and digest properly.

Anyway ...

Beliefs come in the flavour of 'Justified True Belief', and can be informed by science. But you seem to have an axe to grind here and so when anyone drops the 'b' word you resort to the type of arguments you might use against religious people ...

Absolutely - if I go looking for medical help I demand a proven chemical or treatment which will work. **** belief.

It's also lazy - if you want to be disabused of the idea that psychiatry hasn't helped people then do your own reading. There is a vast literature out there. Wiki Schizophrenia too. It's you that has to do the work here of showing why we ought to shut down psychiatric medicine and stop classifying people with very serious difficulties as having an illness. Not the other way around.

You're wrong - psychiatry is the only 'medical expertise' which has an anti movement. Please do not embarrass yourself by saying that the burden is on a vulnerable consumer to find out if his treatment is effective.

The more adroit question we have to ask of people here who are anti-psychiatry is this:

I am not anti-psychiatry. I am anti pseudo science. I have no doubt there are excellent psychiatrists out there who save lives. Don't be so prejudiced.

do (or do not) people with suicidal thoughts, who hear voices, who no longer look after themselves, who are obsessive-compulsive, who have visual delusions, who are incredibly aggrieved and are crying constantly, who are throwing up food because they believe they're fat, who have terrible nightmares, who have palpitations and sweat with fear ... do or do not these people have something amiss with them?

Of course they do. I never suggested otherwise.

Are you suggesting their pain is made up? That nothing should be done for it?

Absolutely not. I consider myself a compassionate person with a finely tuned bull-****-ometer and fobbing off vulnerable people by throwing medicine at their complex issues sets my bull-****-ometer alarm off very loudly.

Plautus

Console wrote: »

Gotta love your reply. you quoted me to agree that its needed in certain cases but not needed in every circumstance (ie, where a person can overcome things themselves) so was there a point to quote me?

or do you just like to argue, but drawing the same conclusion?

My conclusion is not the same as yours. You asked rhetorically what psychiatry is and then suggested it's paying for the benefit of 'realisation' but that you wouldn't begrudge anyone that.

Needless to say, I disagree. Virtually no psychiatric illnesses that impair your functioning for a long period of time are a question of mere willpower. And I also disagree with the idea that 'only a fool believes psychiatry is 100% needed.' That was your bald statement. Presumably you meant to qualify that.

So Chuck Stone - you actually do think there's such a thing as mental illness. How should it be treated?

And AIDS has those who believe it's made up too. In fact there are plenty of people hawking homeotherapy and the like who are anti-medicine as whole. The presence of anti-psychiatry is bemusing but not reason to give it credence.

Console

Plautus wrote: »

My conclusion is not the same as yours. You asked rhetorically what psychiatry is and then suggested it's paying for the benefit of 'realisation' but that you wouldn't begrudge anyone that.

Needless to say, I disagree. And also with the idea that 'only a fool believes psychiatry is 100% needed.' That was your bald statement.

So ...
what you are saying that Psychiatry is 100% needed in any situation a person may need one with?

I am not an ignorant person. some things people need to see someone who is trained to deal with said issues. they need help. but you are saying to me that the lesser, in my opinion, such as getting over a hurtful experience, getting over a broken marriage etc are also important?

we can both agree on the serious aspects. but what about the other grey area things.

take everything

jtsuited wrote: »

jesus bloody christ.......the amount of absolute nonsense in this thread is blood boiling.

First off, psychiatrists are doctors. They have to qualify as doctors before they even begin training as a psychiatrist. If it was unscientific quackery, I'm fairly sure all those newly qualified doctors would have a serious problem throwing out the scientific method as soon as they specialise.

Secondly, the type of people who deny mental illness are up there with the conspiracy theorists and creationists in their stunning level of ignorance and nonsensical gibberish.

Thirdly, the suicide rate/mental illness stigma is not going to be helped by a load of ignoramuses propagating the idea that mental illness is somehow a fabrication of profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies and quacks peddling pseudoscience.

So, if you're not a doctor, shut the fcuk up with this type of bullsh1t. If we were discussing AIDS, there wouldn't be so many ignorant people thinking they have a qualified opinion on the subject.......yet there are plenty of AIDS conspiracy theorists out there who maintain that Aids is brought on by the anti-retrovirals given to people with HIV (go look it up if you don't believe me).

If you sincerely doubt the existence of mental illness, walk into any acute psychiatric ward and watch the progress of any patient over a short period of time.

I've had friends who were mentally ill who killed themselves. They refused to get proper psychiatric treatment because they had seen too much of the type of bullsh1t on this thread and believed it.

On the other hand, I've seen mentally ill people recover fully from life-threatening disorders and go on to live perfectly full and happy lives.

The over-medicalisation of modern society is indeed a major issue in psychiatry at the moment, but to write off a medical specialty because a few pharma companies have tried to pathologise shyness (social anxiety) inappropriately is beyond stupid and is indeed seriously harmful.

Welcome bit of sanity in a trainwreck of a thread.

Plautus

Console wrote: »

So ...
what you are saying that Psychiatry is 100% needed in any situation a person may need one with?

I am not an ignorant person. some things people need to see someone who is trained to deal with said issues. they need help. but you are saying to me that the lesser, in my opinion, such as getting over a hurtful experience, getting over a broken marriage etc are also important?

we can both agree on the serious aspects. but what about the other grey area things.

You clearly mean to say 'only a fool believes psychiatry is 100% needed in all cases.' My disagreement extends to the fact that you didn't use the last three, important, words.

Chuck Stone

jtsuited wrote: »

jesus bloody christ.......the amount of absolute nonsense in this thread is blood boiling.

First off, psychiatrists are doctors. They have to qualify as doctors before they even begin training as a psychiatrist. If it was unscientific quackery, I'm fairly sure all those newly qualified doctors would have a serious problem throwing out the scientific method as soon as they specialise.

Secondly, the type of people who deny mental illness are up there with the conspiracy theorists and creationists in their stunning level of ignorance and nonsensical gibberish.

Thirdly, the suicide rate/mental illness stigma is not going to be helped by a load of ignoramuses propagating the idea that mental illness is somehow a fabrication of profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies and quacks peddling pseudoscience.

So, if you're not a doctor, shut the fcuk up with this type of bullsh1t. If we were discussing AIDS, there wouldn't be so many ignorant people thinking they have a qualified opinion on the subject.......yet there are plenty of AIDS conspiracy theorists out there who maintain that Aids is brought on by the anti-retrovirals given to people with HIV (go look it up if you don't believe me).

If you sincerely doubt the existence of mental illness, walk into any acute psychiatric ward and watch the progress of any patient over a short period of time.

I've had friends who were mentally ill who killed themselves. They refused to get proper psychiatric treatment because they had seen too much of the type of bullsh1t on this thread and believed it.

On the other hand, I've seen mentally ill people recover fully from life-threatening disorders and go on to live perfectly full and happy lives.

The over-medicalisation of modern society is indeed a major issue in psychiatry at the moment, but to write off a medical specialty because a few pharma companies have tried to pathologise shyness (social anxiety) inappropriately is beyond stupid and is indeed seriously harmful.

So much fail in this post I could be bothered smashing it to pieces. Oh and those who thanked it - LOL.

Console

Plautus wrote: »

You clearly mean to say 'only a fool believes psychiatry is 100% needed in all cases.' My disagreement extends to the fact that you didn't use the last three, important, words.

So rather than agreeing or disagreeing with me you attack what i said earlier to appear to be right in a argument Rather than realising its 04.28 on a saturday morning and we're two guys just bantering about a subject, but you wanna be right. at all costs

but hey screw it, doesnt matter.
but can i ask you a question?
what you think about the latest thing where if you suffer from any form of depression (big or small) its called being bi-polar?
suppose that has to be handled by a trained professional too right?
have a bad month, your gf dumps you, well ... you're bi polar. go see a pro. right?

Buceph

Plautus wrote: »

And AIDS has those who believe it's made up too. In fact there are plenty of people hawking homeotherapy and the like who are anti-medicine as whole. The presence of anti-psychiatry is bemusing but not reason to give it credence.

They may be anti-medicine, but at least they recognise there's a problem to be dealt with. Even if their way of dealing with it is incredibly stupid and dangerous.

Plautus

Well, no Console, you said what you said and you didn't qualify it. So I pointed out what needed to be added. End of.

Chuck, you're in no position to be telling people what's unmitigated 'fail'. You've no experience of psychiatry or psychiatric treatment settings or even serious psychiatrc illness itself by the sounds of it.

Do you or do you not think that therapeutic approaches are required for people in mental distress? Because that is psychiatry. And you seem to have conceded that there's such things as 'good' psychiatrists. Who are these?

Console

Plautus wrote: »

Well, no Console, you said what you said and you didn't qualify it. So I pointed out what needed to be added. End of.

ah yes
the old end of. trying to get the last word in

personally, i think you are weak minded. a person who himself would goto a shrink if any little thing bothered him
or.... maybe you arent weak minded. a person who would say "life is hard, get on with things" but will come onto a forum and openly defend weak minded people after all, who does be honest in a public setting. be it online or a group.

so which is it

Chuck Stone

Plautus wrote: »

You've no experience of psychiatry or psychiatric treatment settings or even serious psychiatrc illness itself by the sounds of it.

What's your point? Does a person who treats or comment on cancer have to have been a survivor?

Do you or do you not think that therapeutic approaches are required for people in mental distress?

Yes.

Because that is psychiatry.

No. Psychiatry is primarily about the bio-medical fantasy (yes, fantasy) Therapeutic is a loose term.

And you seem to have conceded that there's such things as 'good' psychiatrists. Who are these?

Concede? I'd imagine they are the ones who actually try to figure out why there is so much doubt and resistance around psychiatry.