Psychiatry is bogus

Saila

fail fail fail fail, fail fail fail fail they're pinky and the brain. guys your dealing with skilled trolls here, bow your hat and TRY not to teach sense the only reason this thread wasnt moved to CT is its late and no mods around
there has been straw man after straw man arguement, this thread has it all..except sense

biko

From After Hours

Penn

As this thread is from After Hours, please remember that if you quote a previous post, the poster may not be here to respond to you.

As for the thread itself, I want all posters to remember that nobody here is an expert, and all posts regarding seeking psychiatric help are to be taken with a pinch of salt. Nobody is to try to advise someone not to seek help. Remember, medical advice is not allowed on Boards. This thread is about the industry and practises, not any individual cases.

Thanks
Barrington

Wibbs

I would say a good chunk of the "science" of mental illness is bogus. There's also a big leap from schizophrenia to general depression to anxiety to phobia and they shouldn't be lumped in together.

IMHO there's a huge over subscription to SSRI drugs and the like. Mark my words down the line there will be a major fallout from the over prescription of said drugs. Not dissimilar to the results of the over prescription of antibiotics.

Efficacy? Quite a number of studies have shown SSRI's may less valuable than placebo http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1717306,00.html In patients reporting with low to mid level depression, IE the majority. Of course SSRI's bring side effects, placebo generally does not. A few researchers are even examining the rise in diagnosis of bipolar with the use of these drugs(there does seem to be a link). Diet(in particular Vit D) seems to play a part in rates of depression, as does exercise levels. A positive change in both seems to help regardless of intake of anti d's.

Electro shock therapy is another highly dubious "treatment" IMHO. Scientifically dark ages stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy Have read through that and do your own research, then ask yourself would you consent to it or be happy a loved one was been zapped. Electricity was a "wonder" back in the day. Along with radiation. Really went over big in the US. It's not that long ago highly trained medical professionals were firing x rays at people for all sorts of ills and performing lobotomies on "troublesome" patients as well as the sick. We've moved beyond that thankfully, but still best to keep one eye on all the research, not just pfizers.

jtsuited

Wibbs wrote: »

I would say a good chunk of the "science" of mental illness is bogus. There's also a big leap from schizophrenia to general depression to anxiety to phobia and they shouldn't be lumped in together.

to 'general' depression yes. But major depressive disorder is just as debilitating as any schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, and when treated in a similar way (shizophrenia= the dopamine hypothesis, depression = the serotonin hypothesis) have similar outcomes for patients.

Wibbs wrote: »

IMHO there's a huge over subscription to SSRI drugs and the like. Mark my words down the line there will be a major fallout from the over prescription of said drugs. Not dissimilar to the results of the over prescription of antibiotics.

There is an over-prescription of SSRIs. But there is a good reason for that. They can be effectively used for a plethora of conditions that may not be immediately apparent, even to the patient themselves. Doctors admit they over-prescribe them but because they help in a significant minority of cases, it's a risk they take.
The thing is, if your depression doesn't have much of a biological basis, the SSRIs are going to do nothing for you apart from give you nasty side effects. But for many other people, the SSRIs perform minor miracles and transform their lives.

Wibbs wrote: »

Efficacy? Quite a number of studies have shown SSRI's may less valuable than placebo http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1717306,00.html In patients reporting with low to mid level depression, IE the majority. Of course SSRI's bring side effects, placebo generally does not. A few researchers are even examining the rise in diagnosis of bipolar with the use of these drugs(there does seem to be a link). Diet(in particular Vit D) seems to play a part in rates of depression, as does exercise levels. A positive change in both seems to help regardless of intake of anti d's.

yup, but it's important to see a very very important distinction here between mild to moderate depression and severe depression.
Unsurprisingly, SSRIs are not much better than placebo and/or exercise in mild to moderate cases. The logical conclusion from this is that mild to moderate depression really has feck all to do with a brain imbalance or any other such overly simplistic, reductionist hypotheses used to explain what can be a highly complex social/philosophical/psychological/metaphysical problem in somebody's life.

It's important to not throw the baby out with the bathwater in this regard. While there is an absolute world of bullsh1t being peddled by big-pharma who would just love to medicalise human misery/melancholia/unhappiness for profit, the drugs themselves can literally be lifesavers in proper psychiatric illness situations.

The thing is, you're rarely going to hear the success stories because of the stigma of mental illness. People who have experienced major depressive episodes are not going to mention to people that they tried to commit suicide (or came dangerously close to it) and had to receive major psychiatric treatments. Yet there are thousands of perfectly healthy, successful and happy people out there who have recovered from severe mental illness because of the SSRIs etc.

But believe me, they exist.

Wibbs wrote: »

Electro shock therapy is another highly dubious "treatment" IMHO. Scientifically dark ages stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy Have read through that and do your own research, then ask yourself would you consent to it or be happy a loved one was been zapped. Electricity was a "wonder" back in the day. Along with radiation. Really went over big in the US. It's not that long ago highly trained medical professionals were firing x rays at people for all sorts of ills and performing lobotomies on "troublesome" patients as well as the sick. We've moved beyond that thankfully, but still best to keep one eye on all the research, not just pfizers.

ECT is the most hilariously demonized practice of psychiatry, and is nothing like what happens in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Requiem For a Dream, or Quantum Leap (if any of you have seen the relevant episode). Firstly, it's only ever used when the person's illness is not responding to medication (so it's a very very small minority).
Secondly, it's only used in serious cases where it is needed.
And finally, it's done under general anaesthetic nowadays and has a massive success rate.
Every year governments are pressured into studying the efficacy of it by the anti-psychiatry movement (who btw are often a front for Scientology). And every year, its use has been justified and kept legal.

CiaranMT

OP must have been reading previous thread in CT before he posted. Daft stuff.

King Mob

Wibbs wrote: »

Electro shock therapy is another highly dubious "treatment" IMHO. Scientifically dark ages stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy Have read through that and do your own research, then ask yourself would you consent to it or be happy a loved one was been zapped..

And would you consent to having your loved one having a leg amputated?
It's "scientifically dark ages stuff" as much, if not more than ECT.
However in both cases in modern times, both are only used when it is absolutely necessary.

The thing is ECT, like amputation, sounds terrifying and brutal making it perfect scaremongering fodder.

Chuck Stone

jtsuited wrote: »

There is an over-prescription of SSRIs. But there is a good reason for that. They can be effectively used for a plethora of conditions that may not be immediately apparent, even to the patient themselves. Doctors admit they over-prescribe them but because they help in a significant minority of cases, it's a risk they take.

Quackery. Are you actually advocating throwing these medicines at a 'plethora of conditions' because a 'significant minority' report improvement?

If they were prescribed placebo they'd probably have similar outcomes only they'd be far less expensive and non-toxic with no side effects.

The thing is, if your depression doesn't have much of a biological basis, the SSRIs are going to do nothing for you apart from give you nasty side effects.

What is this biological basis you talk of? I think you are talking about a biological hypothesis?

yup, but it's important to see a very very important distinction here between mild to moderate depression and severe depression.
Unsurprisingly, SSRIs are not much better than placebo and/or exercise in mild to moderate cases.

Yes, so why are these things being prescribed hand over fist? Also when used to treat major depression they 'kinda work'. I'd be interested to see if using any psychoactive drug for treating major depression would return similar results - I suspect they would.

The logical conclusion from this is that mild to moderate depression really has feck all to do with a brain imbalance or any other such overly simplistic, reductionist hypotheses used to explain what can be a highly complex social/philosophical/psychological/metaphysical problem in somebody's life.

Absolutely, so the prescribing of medicine to 'fix the imbalance' is an extremely suspect method of 'treatment'.

Forced ECT is the problem. Nobody should be forced to accept a treatment which compromises their bodily integrity.

Every year governments are pressured into studying the efficacy of it by the anti-psychiatry movement (who btw are often a front for Scientology). And every year, its use has been justified and kept legal.

Oh and the 'scientology front' is a red herring. I'm an athiest and am highly sceptical of psychiatric practices. The very fact that an anti-psychiatry movement exists is testament to the 'expertise'. I can't think of any other feild of medicine which has encountered a vibrant 'anti' backlash.

Naikon

CiaranMT wrote: »

OP must have been reading previous thread in CT before he posted. Daft stuff.

Nope. I am just highly critical of the profession. Let me ask you something, have you researched the "chemical imbalance" or any associated theory peddled by these so called "Doctors"? The pathology isn't there for practically any of the disorders mentioned in the DSM manuals, which are by the way, the very cornerstone documents of the profession. Those manuals are bunk. How they were even published is beyond me.

Good for a decent laugh, but not much else. Believe what you want, but I suggest you do some research before commenting on the topic. It's not as clear cut as you are led to believe. If the DSM manuals are filled with bogus, what does that speak about the entire profession? Imagine if some Electrical Engineers decided the electrons were "from god" and published that? What do you think would happen? Research fraud of the highest order imo.

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

Nope. I am just highly critical of the profession. Let me ask you something, have you researched the "chemical imbalance" or any associated theory peddled by these so called "Doctors"?

Whatever about the rest of your argument, you can't even begin training as a psychiatrist until you are officially a doctor. FACT.

Secondly, if the 'chemical imbalance' theory was complete bunk, why do antipsychotic drugs work to relieve schizophrenic symptoms? Why do SSRIs work to relieve depressive symptoms? Why does lithium work to relieve bipolar symptoms?

I recommend YOU go and do your research and stop spouting conspiracy theorist nonsense.

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

Whatever about the rest of your argument, you can't even begin training as a psychiatrist until you are officially a doctor. FACT.

Secondly, if the 'chemical imbalance' theory was complete bunk, why do antipsychotic drugs work to relieve schizophrenic symptoms? Why do SSRIs work to relieve depressive symptoms? Why does lithium work to relieve bipolar symptoms?

I recommend YOU go and do your research and stop spouting conspiracy theorist nonsense.

Do you understand the basic premise of scientific discovery? I am not coming from the perspective of a shrink. Who is to say the industy does not have vested interests? I am merely commenting on the COMPLETE lack of hard science backing up many of the disorders presented. Can YOU point to any reputable evidence that SSRI's actually "solve" problems associated with these disorders, instead of simply masking symptoms? Masking a problem does not cure the problem. Ever heard of a workaround?

Have you had a good read of the DSM criteria? Subjectivity abound.

jtsuited

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Oh and the 'scientology front' is a red herring. I'm an athiest and am highly sceptical of psychiatric practices. The very fact that an anti-psychiatry movement exists is testament to the 'expertise'. I can't think of any other feild of medicine which has encountered a vibrant 'anti' backlash.

No other field of medicine goes so close to what we regard as the self.
Religion, spirituality, witchcraft, posession, etc. have all been threatened by psychiatry as it primarily reduces the human mind and self down to its chemical make up.

If you think happiness isn't merely a biological phenomena I recommend you try MDMA.
If you think delusion isn't merely a biological phenomena, then take LSD.

It pisses people off to think that the only thing they can never doubt (the mind - cogito ergo sum and all that) is merely a network of neurons and a delicate mixture of neurotransmitters.

That's why there is the backlash. That and scientology.

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

No other field of medicine goes so close to what we regard as the self.
Religion, spirituality, witchcraft, posession, etc. have all been threatened by psychiatry as it primarily reduces the human mind and self down to its chemical make up.

If you think happiness isn't merely a biological phenomena I recommend you try MDMA.
If you think delusion isn't merely a biological phenomena, then take LSD.

It pisses people off to think that the only thing they can never doubt (the mind - cogito ergo sum and all that) is merely a network of neurons and a delicate mixture of neurotransmitters.

That's why there is the backlash. That and scientology.

I am convinced.

Chuck Stone

jtsuited wrote: »

No other field of medicine goes so close to what we regard as the self.
Religion, spirituality, witchcraft, posession, etc. have all been threatened by psychiatry as it primarily reduces the human mind and self down to its chemical make up.

Replaced by psychiatry I would say. Also, if you think science has come anywhere close to reducing the human brain and how it interacts with its environment down to some scientific formulae then you're fooling yourself.

If you think happiness isn't merely a biological phenomena I recommend you try MDMA.
If you think delusion isn't merely a biological phenomena, then take LSD.

Temporary high/low/hallucinations. Pretty meaningless statement.

It pisses people off to think that the only thing they can never doubt (the mind - cogito ergo sum and all that) is merely a network of neurons and a delicate mixture of neurotransmitters.

Too reductive. To ignore environmental factors is negligent - this is the problem with psychiatry - it focuses too much on the individual as being 'broken' (bio) and not enough on the pscho-social.

For that reason: I'm out.

jtsuited

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Replaced by psychiatry I would say. Also, if you think science has come anywhere close to reducing the human brain and how it interacts with its environment down to some scientific formulae then you're fooling yourself.

The biological basis of the mind is so new a concept that of course we are nowhere near having the 'scientific formula' you speak of. Add to that the mindblowing complexity of the brain, and of course we're miles off. But, as in all science, hypotheses are formed and we move forward. The reality is that we know fcuk all about the brain and mind compared to other simpler organs like the heart, lung or liver. The human brain is the most complex entity in the known universe so our study of it is in its infancy.

However, it's not very reassuring to Joe public to say 'look we have a very vague idea of what's going on in your head, but these drugs have a high chance of helping you'. This is where the accusations of pseudoscience come from (quite rightly) but its far more of a marketing error of psychiatry (or more specifically a marketing error of big pharma) rather than a fundamental, sytematic flaw in the specialty.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

]Temporary high/low/hallucinations. Pretty meaningless statement.

But surely, if you put chemicals in and the outcome is a familiar subjective experience (that of pure happiness or delusion), then such experiences must be chemical in their basis no?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Too reductive. To ignore environmental factors is negligent - this is the problem with psychiatry - it focuses too much on the individual as being 'broken' (bio) and not enough on the pscho-social.

I don't know what type of psychiatry you've experienced or have read about, because there are many psychiatrists out there who vehemently oppose neglecting environmental and social causes for mental problems and openly despise the medicalisation of complex social issues.

In fact, probably the biggest quackhunter I can think of, who has been most critical in how drug trials (including the SSRI trials where all sorts of sh1te went on), is in fact a psychiatrist himself.
Surely such an evangelist against pseudoscience and quackery wouldn't choose to be a psychiatrist if it were equally based in bullsh1t.

http://www.badscience.net/
edit: sorry for the messy quoting and just to point out something on the link to Dr.Ben Goldacre there - he is actually a psychiatrist (qualified in 2006 I think) and obviously a member of the RCPsych.

Naikon

But surely, if you put chemicals in and the outcome is a familiar subjective experience (that of pure happiness or delusion), then such experiences must be chemical in their basis no?


I don't know what type of psychiatry you've experienced or have read about, because there are many psychiatrists out there who vehemently oppose neglecting environmental and social causes for mental problems and openly despise the medicalisation of complex social issues.

In fact, probably the biggest quackhunter I can think of, who has been most critical in how drug trials (including the SSRI trials where all sorts of sh1te went on), is in fact a psychiatrist himself.
Surely such an evangelist against pseudoscience and quackery wouldn't choose to be a psychiatrist if it were equally based in bullsh1t.

http://www.badscience.net/
edit: sorry for the messy quoting and just to point out something on the link to Dr.Ben Goldacre there - he is actually a psychiatrist (qualified in 2006 I think) and obviously a member of the RCPsych.

Ok, so you agree with the sentiment that lack of evidence undermines the "disorders" listed in the DSM? I understand not every facet of life is understood yet, but in absence of evidence, it's safe to assume something does not exist. Cancer cells is a change in the structure of tissues associated with that individual. ADHD is a subjective label based on nothing more than opinion. Where are the lab tests/pathology? There isn't any, because it's a load of ****. How can a reliable system be constructed without a mathematical basis?

Laisurg

orourkeda wrote: »

Are you trained in the field.

If not' how can you diss a whole field of study on little more that a whim? The human mind and brain are extremely complicated devices and understanding and unlocking their secrets is not easily done.

yes so they just throw out dangerous medication because they don't have a clue, but don't worry it's ok because it's complicated -.-

Naikon

I love the fact people are quick to discredit arguments based on "not working in the field". As if these people were working black voodoo or something. Fact remains, never trust someone just because they are a doctor. Perform your own research. Any "scientific" work that is opaque even in the slightest, is not real science. The very notion of science is based on open observation.

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

Ok, so you agree with the sentiment that lack of evidence undermines the "disorders" listed in the DSM? I understand not every facet of life is understood yet, but in absence of evidence, it's safe to assume something does not exist. Cancer cells is a change in the structure of tissues associated with that individual. ADHD is a subjective label based on nothing more than opinion. Where are the lab tests/pathology? There isn't any, because it's a load of ****. How can a reliable system be constructed without a mathematical basis?

I agree with the fact that the DSM lacks solid evidence in some places. And that ADHD is often the perfect example of medicalisation of a far more complex problem.

What you need to realise is that psychiatry is a hell of a lot broader of a medical discipline than just relying on some diagnostic manual.

There are psychiatrists who will pathologise everything from people having a sh1t life and feeling that way to kids who are, basically, thick and disobedient (ADHD).

Just like there are doctors who will publish wacky papers on autism being caused by vaccines (Andrew Wakefield), or on how vitamin C cures Aids (Matthias Rath).

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

What you need to realise is that psychiatry is a hell of a lot broader of a medical discipline than just relying on some diagnostic manual.

I dunno about this. It's the canonical work of the industry. Practitioners not following the criteria printed in that manual would be akin to an Engineer not following ISO standards. if their primary work is not up to the task, what does that say about the very foundation of the practice? Built on solid foundations? Hardly.

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

I love the fact people are quick to discredit arguments based on "not working in the field". As if these people were working black voodoo or something. Fact remains, never trust someone just because they are a doctor. Perform your own research. Any "scientific" work that is opaque even in the slightest, is not real science. The very notion of science is based on open observation.

Well, the fact of the matter is, most people do not have the critical thinking ability to make informed rational choices based on information presented to them in the public domain.

There is a world of unqualified people out there who think sugar pills and crystals can cure cancer because they are unable to evaluate evidence correctly. Same with parents who don't vaccinate their children.

I'm not saying that doctors are somehow immune to idiocy, but as a whole they are a hell of a lot better at making evidence-based decisions that the general public.

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

I dunno about this. It's the canonical work of the industry. Practicionars not following the criteria printed in that manual would be akin to an Engineer not following ISO standards.

I genuinely think you should actually read the Journal of Psychiatry. If you can find any particular reverence for the 'canonical' DSM in there, please let me know as I'd be genuinely interested. Also, it might give you a better insight into the workings of psychiatry.

Apologies if you have already familiarised yourself with how this type of thing works.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/

drkpower

jtsuited wrote: »

I genuinely think you should actually read the Journal of Psychiatry. If you can find any particular reverence for the 'canonical' DSM in there, please let me know as I'd be genuinely interested. Also, it might give you a better insight into the workings of psychiatry.

Apologies if you have already familiarised yourself with how this type of thing works.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/

Why are you bothering with this guy?:D He is a perfect illustration of the adage 'a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing'.

RussellTuring

drkpower wrote: »

Why are you bothering with this guy?:D He is a perfect illustration of the adage 'a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing'.

Yeah but it's still not as dangerous as total ignorance.

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

I genuinely think you should actually read the Journal of Psychiatry. If you can find any particular reverence for the 'canonical' DSM in there, please let me know as I'd be genuinely interested. Also, it might give you a better insight into the workings of psychiatry.

Apologies if you have already familiarised yourself with how this type of thing works.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/

The DSM-IV is associated with the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. This is common knowledge for those working in the industry.

jtsuited

drkpower wrote: »

Why are you bothering with this guy?:D He is a perfect illustration of the adage 'a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing'.

Genuinely, because statistically speaking, there's a good chance there is somebody reading this thread who is suffering from a mental illness. The fear and misunderstanding of psychiatry is a large factor in the shockingly awful suicide rates in this country (not least amongst males between 20-35).

People making blanket statements doubting the existence of mental illness is a dangerous thing in society, in the exact same way as homeopathists pushing bullsh1t over chemotherapy, or nutritionist frauds peddling vitamin c for HIV and committing genocide in the process (google Matthias Rath South Africa).

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

The DSM-IV is associated with the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. This is common knowledge for those working in the industry.

I'm well aware of what the DSM-IV is. Please don't patronise.

drkpower

jtsuited wrote: »

Genuinely, because statistically speaking, there's a good chance there is somebody reading this thread who is suffering from a mental illness. The fear and misunderstanding of psychiatry is a large factor in the shockingly awful suicide rates in this country (not least amongst males between 20-35).

I hear you and admire your patience; however when someone starts from such a black & white position it only illustrates his lack of critical thought. And it is obvious that someone starting from that position will never and/or is incapable of moving from that position, no matter what sense you are speaking.

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

I'm well aware of what the DSM-IV is. Please don't patronise.

Would you agree with the assertion that it is the pillar of modern psychiatry? At least from a clinical point of view?

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

Would you agree with the assertion that it is the pillar of modern psychiatry? At least from a clinical point of view?

no. i wouldn't. But I'm not a psychiatrist. But I'm almost positive there are a few on boards so they're probably the best to ask about it.

However, I am obsessed with psychiatry, neuroscience and I gues medicine in general, and in all of my reading of the specialist literature, I have rarely if ever seen much referencing to the DSM-IV. I think the only time I saw it mentioned regularly was when some prominent psychiatrists were going mental over some of the entries in the IV revision. Infallible pillar it ain't, and certainly have never seen it treated that way.