Psychiatry is bogus

Naikon

drkpower wrote: »

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.

The lack of credible rational evidence to support most "conditions" listed in that manual is a very black and white issue. I am not trying to argue mental illness may or may not exist, it's just the clinical methods used to evaluate the "illness" is flawed in the extreme. How can you really establish fact without proof? Where is the pathology when it comes to the chemical imbalance theory, for instance?

Regardless of the DSM criteria, the clear lack of objective testing for mental illness is not good. Diagnosing a clinical mental disorder based on subjective observation alone is not correct practice. Would you be ok with being told you have diabetes based on subjective symptoms without any proof to back up that assertion? I would not.

jtsuited

drkpower wrote: »

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.

whether he changes his mind is really something I'm not bothered about. But correcting misinformation or distortions of the truth about a medical specialty whose main problem is the public misunderstanding of it, is something worth doing I guess.

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

The lack of credible, rational evidence to support most "conditions" listed in that manual is a very black and white issue. I am not trying to argue mental illness may or may not exist, it's just the clinical methods used to evaluate the "illness" is flawed in the extreme. How can you really establish fact without proof? Where is the pathology when it comes to the chemical imbalance theory, for instance?

Regardless of the DSM criteria, the clear lack of objective testing for mental illness is not good. Diagnosing a clinical mental disorder based on subjective observation alone is not correct practice. Would you be ok with being told you have
diabetes based on symptoms without any proof to back up that assertion? I would not.

So, your problem is not with the existence of mental illness, but with some diagnostic manual merely used as a mega-broad system of classification by psychiatrists (who from what I know, barely ever use it)?

So it's not 'psychiatry is bogus', it's more

'there's a piece of diagnostic classification literature in psychiatry which is fairly ropey but largely irrelevant to the profession as a whole'

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

Regardless of the DSM criteria, the clear lack of objective testing for mental illness is not good. Diagnosing a clinical mental disorder based on subjective observation alone is not correct practice. .

So what's the objective test a doctor uses when you've got a flu? Because I've never once heard of it being used. Normally a doctor will ask what the symptoms are, diagnose based on the patient's subjective observation of their symptoms, and then recommend treatment.

How is that any different to somebody presenting with severe depression to a psychiatrist?

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

So, your problem is not with the existence of mental illness, but with some diagnostic manual merely used as a mega-broad system of classification by psychiatrists (who from what I know, barely ever use it)?

So it's not 'psychiatry is bogus', it's more

'there's a piece of diagnostic classification literature in psychiatry which is fairly ropey but largely irrelevant to the profession as a whole'

It's more the lack of scientific testing in the evaluation of these disorders. Observation alone prooves very little. It's easy to look at electricity flowing through a conductor and state "it must be the work of god", but how true is that statement? You can observe something is not right in an individual, but that does not mean the label explains, or even justifies the behavior scientifically.

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

So what's the objective test a doctor uses when you've got a flu? Because I've never once heard of it being used. Normally a doctor will ask what the symptoms are, diagnose based on the patient's subjective observation of their symptoms, and then recommend treatment.

How is that any different to somebody presenting with severe depression to a psychiatrist?

I would consider that malpractice, imo.

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

I would consider that malpractice, imo.

what? a doctor listening to symptoms and treating them? I recommend you take a malpractice suit against every doctor working in the country then.

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

what? a doctor listening to symptoms and treating them? I recommend you take a malpractice suit against every doctor working in the country then.

Not going to happen unless the error cost the patient. That does not mean the practice is morally correct though. It's not very scientific to just go through a list and listen to the patient. Lying tends to interfere. No wonder there is no shortage of bogus sick certs being handed out on a daily basis.

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

You can observe something is not right in an individual, but that does not mean the label explains, or even justifies the behavior scientifically.

Of course. But it does give you a starting point in alleviating the suffering of the individual.

There are countless illnesses in Western Medicine we don't know the exact mechanics of. We use countless treatments that are based on hypothesis alone.
Even when the hypothesis is disproven, it doesn't mean the treatment doesn't work.

This practice is not exclusively confined to psychiatry.

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

Not going to happen unless the error cost the patient. That does not mean the practice is morally correct though. It's not very scientific to just go through a list and listen to the patient. Lying tends to interfere. No wonder there is no shortage of bogus sick certs being handed out on a daily basis.

So, in essence, your problem isn't with psychiatry, it's with medicine in general.

Because nearly all medicine works in the way that you think is not 'morally correct'.

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

Of course. But it does give you a starting point in alleviating the suffering of the individual.

There are countless illnesses in Western Medicine we don't know the exact mechanics of. We use countless treatments that are based on hypothesis alone.
Even when the hypothesis is disproven, it doesn't mean the treatment doesn't work.

This practice is not exclusively confined to psychiatry.

Exactly, Science in general, does not claim to have all the answers. Psychiatry does. Most of the various conditions listed could be explained by I don't know, normal human functioning? Assigning labels on a whim is not good. I believe conventional medicine is fine. Diabetes can be identified and explained scientifically through valid testing. "Internet addiction disorder" is not a disorder.

drkpower

jtsuited wrote:

So what's the objective test a doctor uses when you've got a flu? Because I've never once heard of it being used. Normally a doctor will ask what the symptoms are, diagnose based on the patient's subjective observation of their symptoms, and then recommend treatment..

Naikon wrote: »

I would consider that malpractice, imo.

Jtsuited; I think you just won:D!!

Well done.

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

Exactly, Science in general, does not claim to have all the answers. Psychiatry does.

Does it?
I've never once seen it.

It does classify everything though so I think that's where you can get that idea from. But if you actually read a lot of psychiatric literature, those classifications are revised, destroyed and shat on regularly, just like in any other science.

jtsuited

drkpower wrote: »

Jtsuited; I think you just won:D!!

Well done.

holy crap I think you're right!!!:D

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

Does it?
I've never once seen it.

It does classify everything though so I think that's where you can get that idea from. But if you actually read a lot of psychiatric literature, those classifications are revised, destroyed and shat on regularly, just like in any other science.

Classifications can be changed if new evidence arises to explain that change. Can you find any real hard evidence to back up internet addiction disorder for instance? I can't. Therefore, it is safe to assume without any hard evidence, the labels are not scientific in the slightest. Again, The lack of hard evidence to pathologically describe these condictions is the main issue.

drkpower

Naikon wrote: »

Exactly, Science in general, does not claim to have all the answers. Psychiatry does.

And that's game, set & match...!:D

It is rare for someone to walk themselves into utter defeat on an argument so badly; and twice in consecutive posts.:D

Naikon

drkpower wrote: »

Jtsuited; I think you just won:D!!

Well done.

So you are ok with Fraud? Certication of illness through deception is fraud. It's not a very hard concept to grasp, I swear!

Naikon

drkpower wrote: »

And that's game, set & match...!:D

It is rare for someone to walk themselves into utter defeat on an argument so badly; and twice in consecutive posts.:D

The lack of hard evidence works in my favour though. Sure, cancer diagnosis changes on the introduction of new valid input into the field. Psychiatry? ADHD? Shopping disorder? Subjective labels imo. Both of you have not yet addressed the lack of evidence for the above condition(internet addiction). Any statistics to back that condition up?

drkpower

Naikon wrote: »

Who is to say internet addiction disorder exists in anything but the mind?

.

jtsuited

Naikon wrote: »

Classifications can be changed if new evidence arises to explain that change. Can you find any real hard evidence to back up internet addiction disorder for instance? I can't. Therefore, it is safe to assume without any hard evidence, the labels are not scientific in the slightest. Again, The lack of hard evidence to pathologically describe these condictions is the main issue.

Jesus, has some psychiatrist 'diagnosed' you as an internet addict? Is that what this is about?

Also, I have no idea what the story is with Internet Addiction Disorder is. I do know that pretty much everything that a human does can turn into a pathological addiction - gambling, drugs, streaking, shoplifting, arguing on the internet when you should be out getting the barbecue ready.

I also know that psychiatric treatments (not just medication) can actually treat people for these 'disorders' (as in they don't gamble, do drugs, or go streaking after the psychiatric intervention). Now, they're the facts of the matter.
If you find the method 'unscientific' (or indeed fraudulent), I recommend you complain to the Irish Medical Organisation about any case you can find of such practice (which will be a huge number, you won't have to wait too long to find enough to satisfy your criteria).

I thoroughly recommend you do so, as the IMO are also responsible for the practice of psychiatry in this country too (but give them your problem with flu diagnoses and treatment first because that's a right zinger). If you have no luck I'm sure there are plenty of right-thinking medical lawyers just dying to take on the case in the courts too.

Good luck in your journey.

Naikon

jtsuited wrote: »

Jesus, has some psychiatrist 'diagnosed' you as an internet addict? Is that what this is about?

Also, I have no idea what the story is with Internet Addiction Disorder is. I do know that pretty much everything that a human does can turn into a pathological addiction - gambling, drugs, streaking, shoplifting, arguing on the internet when you should be out getting the barbecue ready.

I also know that psychiatric treatments (not just medication) can actually treat people for these 'disorders' (as in they don't gamble, do drugs, or go streaking after the psychiatric intervention). Now, they're the facts of the matter.
If you find the method 'unscientific' (or indeed fraudulent), I recommend you complain to the Irish Medical Organisation about any case you can find of such practice (which will be a huge number, you won't have to wait too long to find enough to satisfy your criteria).

I thoroughly recommend you do so, as the IMO are also responsible for the practice of psychiatry in this country too (but give them your problem with flu diagnoses and treatment first because that's a right zinger). If you have no luck I'm sure there are plenty of right-thinking medical lawyers just dying to take on the case in the courts too.

Good luck in your journey.

I am going around in circles here. Until you can back up these claims with clinical evidence not sponsered by drug companies, I won't budge. You would not say somebody has diabetes without evidence to back up that assertion. Why is psychiatry exempted? btw, I am not the type of person willing to listen to a fake doctor. Sedating people who "won't conform" and stating they are "cured" proves absolutely **** all. That is not a cure, it's called a compromise.

Good day.

CiaranMT

drkpower wrote: »

And that's game, set & match...!:D

It is rare for someone to walk themselves into utter defeat on an argument so badly; and twice in consecutive posts.:D

Naikon wrote: »

Exactly, Science in general, does not claim to have all the answers. Psychiatry does.

Wow. Had to go and find that quote just to make sure Naikon had actually said it.

Psychiatry, of all the medical professions, is probably one of the most cautious when attending to a patient. Mental health issues are not like a typical physical illness. It certainly doesn't claim to have all the answers.

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"? 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.

As the previous poster pointed out, one must be a qualified doctor before you can even apply to become a psychiatrist. The fact that you put 'doctors' in inverted commas, along with your following pièce de résistance on the DSM shows that you clearly need to read up properly on the profession if you're going to go after one of its central tenets.

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.

"Good for a decent laugh"....

I'd describe your distaste for psychiatry based on your pet-hate, Internet Addiction Disorder, as 'good for a laugh'.

I'd describe the DSM as a monument to years of work conducted by thousands of health professionals and those in the psychological profession. I'd describe it as a monument to those people who spend their careers trying to solve the mysteries of the human mind and why it goes wrong at certain times, what makes it tick and how we can aid in its continued health.

FYI, the use of the term 'addiction' in these instances is noted in the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology as being 'loose', with regards to it being applied to dependences outside of physiological ones (i.e. drugs). However, this does not mean that the term 'addiction' is irrelevant in this case.

Internet addiction can happen, just as with gambling, sex, etc. If you have to pursue the activity to the point where your normal routine is left behind, where you cease to eat, sleep properly, where your mood is affected, where your relationship with peers and family is affected, and where this behaviour is chronic (the important point), then it can reasonably called an addiction.

Naikon

CiaranMT wrote: »

Wow. Had to go and find that quote just to make sure Naikon had actually said it.

Psychiatry, of all the medical professions, is probably one of the most cautious when attending to a patient. Mental health issues are not like a typical physical illness. It certainly doesn't claim to have all the answers.



As the previous poster pointed out, one must be a qualified doctor before you can even apply to become a psychiatrist. The fact that you put 'doctors' in inverted commas, along with your following pièce de résistance on the DSM shows that you clearly need to read up properly on the profession if you're going to go after one of its central tenets.



"Good for a decent laugh"....

I'd describe your distaste for psychiatry based on your pet-hate, Internet Addiction Disorder, as 'good for a laugh'.

I'd describe the DSM as a monument to years of work conducted by thousands of health professionals and those in the psychological profession. I'd describe it as a monument to those people who spend their careers trying to solve the mysteries of the human mind and why it goes wrong at certain times, what makes it tick and how we can aid in its continued health.

FYI, the use of the term 'addiction' in these instances is noted in the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology as being 'loose', with regards to it being applied to dependences outside of physiological ones (i.e. drugs). However, this does not mean that the term 'addiction' is irrelevant in this case.

Internet addiction can happen, just as with gambling, sex, etc. If you have to pursue the activity to the point where your normal routine is left behind, where you cease to eat, sleep properly, where your mood is affected, where your relationship with peers and family is affected, and where this behaviour is chronic (the important point), then it can reasonably called an addiction.

This is nonsense. Still no hard facts presented. Behavior abnormalities are not diseases. Trying to defened the DSM is akin to defending the bible. I suggest you conduct some basic research on the matter before suggesting I have no right to criticise the complete lack of objective findings for most(if not all) of the "diseases" listed in that drivel.

Just for the record, do you consider homosexuality a disease? Because at one point in time, the DSM considered it a disease. Are you really naive enough to believe the lack of profit incentives in this area? You can refute claims of physical illness with proof.

My claim that the industry has decided the answers is in relation to that very handbook. No respected scientific author would invent a disease without proof of it's existence. "Internet additction disorder" is not found in nature, so how can it be classified as a disease? It's nonsensical.

ArtSmart

there's a right forum category placing for threads and a wrong one.

I call this 'right'

CiaranMT

Naikon wrote: »

This is nonsense. Still no hard facts presented. Behavior abnormalities are not diseases. Trying to defened the DSM is akin to defending the bible. I suggest you conduct some basic research on the matter before suggesting I have no right to criticise the complete lack of obective findings for most(if not all) of the "diseases" listed in that drivel.

Just for the record, do you consider homosexuality a disease? Because at one point in time, the DSM considered it a disease. Are you really naive enough to believe the lack of profit incentives in this area? You can refute claims of physical illness with proof.

If you'd done as I suggested when I referenced the other CT thread here on Psychoatry, you'd have read that I'm a student of psychology. I also wouldn't have to re-write that I've done debates on the DSM and its role in mental health.

Please try to be less condescending in responding, it doesn't lend well to your replies.

On a basic point of fact, behavioural abnormalities are not diseases, as you state. They are behavioural abnormalities. Schizophrenia is a disease. You won't find any psychiatrist describing internet addiction or gambling addiction as a disease. It's called a disorder in the DSM.

Naikon

ArtSmart wrote: »

there's a right forum category placing for threads and a wrong one.

I call this 'right'

Give me some hard results and I will change my mind. You CANNOT claim a behavior abnormality is a disease.

CiaranMT

ArtSmart wrote: »

there's a right forum category placing for threads and a wrong one.

I call this 'right'

Wut? :P

CiaranMT

Naikon wrote: »

Give me some hard results and I will change my mind. You CANNOT claim a behavior abnormality is a disease.

On a basic point of fact, behavioural abnormalities are not diseases, as you state. They are behavioural abnormalities. Schizophrenia is a disease. You won't find any psychiatrist describing internet addiction or gambling addiction as a disease. It's called a disorder in the DSM.

Repeated for emphasis.

ArtSmart

CiaranMT wrote: »

Wut? :P

just being facetious - my bad. i shall retire now

Di0genes

Naikon wrote: »

Exactly, Science in general, does not claim to have all the answers. Psychiatry does.

Um, really please, a source for this.