ArjanD

According to some experts it leads to a disaster to medicalize depressive emotions: Prof. dr. Jerome Wakefield: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Depression-Should-Be-Embraced-Not-Medicated-102005.shtml Dr. Helen Fisher (at TED talks):

Well, I believe that this is the core problem of psychiatry. It seems psychiatrists can not think logically (or at least won't). A psychiatrist is rewarded in a way to keep it stupid, to do no better then pills. And if they become honest or have talent for helping people truly recover, they actually get punished for it. I have many stories, even from Dutch psychiatry professors, that get pushed to the side line because they are honest or offer better alternatives to psychiatric treatment. An example is prof. dr. Flip Treffers. In his story it becomes clear that the messages regarding the life threatening risks of antidepressants for children are being ignored by psychiatrists into the absurdity and that when the Dutch Association for Psychiatry (NVvP) commits fraud, that the majority of all psychiatrists oppress people like dr. Flip Treffers. Treffers stated for example that the NVvP has harmed the appearance of child and adolescent psychiatry by "providing the public in 2004 and april 2005 with misleading information about the effectiveness and safety of SSRI's for depressed children". He was deeply shocked for the sensitivity for this with his colleagues. See: Prof. dr. Flip Treffers: “NVvP commits fraud, I feel deceived by my colleagues” I hope you understand why I cite this story. I try to offer a glimps on the underlying motivation that causes psychiatrists to rather don't think about things. Because if they would think about things they will get punished and if they don't they get rewarded with money, power and status. They just have to make the decision to keep it stupid if it were (and follow 'the book' blindly), to get respected within their profession. To get back to why the measurable can't come from itself. If you don't understand this I believe it is senseless to try to explain it to you. Of course I can't 'proof' why it can't be proven... But a normal thinking human being will understand it. You can understand it with the following thinking trick: "You can't see the seeing while you see". Life strives to more then what already is: survival. This means it can't be a product of the building blocks. This is like saying: once you are a human you can clap in your hands. So clapping in your hands comes with being human... I hope you understand this is not what I meant. You seem to look at things in a superficial way and not willing to spend some time to think about it a bit further. And as I tried to explain, I believe this is natural because if you would think about things it would get you less money, status and power in your profession and if you would go on with it to much, you could also become ex-communicated (put to the side-line).

Sorry, I was away. Happy New Year to you all! What I meant with this is simple: how can the measureable give rise to itself? Theoretically it is sertain that the source of existence (and life) can't be measured. And the human mind is a direct exponent of the source of life. Life strives to something that does not already exists: survival. This is the proof the human mind is not a product of a chemical process. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHere is some interesting post: It's over for psychiatry in the US http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-e-levine/congress-pummels-establis_b_117016.html Here is also some interesting reading on Scientific American (January 2010 issue): Doctoring the Mind: Why Psychiatric Treatments Fail A shame for humanity: the medicalising of the human spirit Despite advances in our understanding of mental illness, treatments leave patients no better off today than they did almost half a century ago—according to British clinical psychologist Richard P. Bentall. In his provocative book, Doctoring the Mind, Bentall takes on the conventional field of psychiatry, arguing that it works in a way that is “profoundly unscientific” and fails to actually help patients who are suffering from mental problems. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mind-reviews-doctoring-the-mind

Well, I am an outsider, but I have investigated the nature of psychiatry for almost 3 to 4 years now. My motivations are: 1) In general I see that psychiatry is causing more harm then good. The science shows this (see this study for one) and the hundreds of references I collected over the years, show it. I see some of the nature of psychiatry, and how it 'hides' the negative reality of their doings. 2) I am gifted in logical thinking, I was tested for this and this is my 'talent'. I know some things about the human mind which makes it sertain for me that psychiatry won't ever find the proof for the claims they are making about brain disorders as cause for sertain emotions or behaviour. Really simply put: the measurable can't be the source for itself. So psychiatry has no future to offer us and will become a stupid mistake from the past anyway. I just rather want to see this happening today then tomorrow. Because every second is important in hour struggle for survival, aldough we sometimes forget we are still fighting for our existence as human beings. I am not a conspiracy thinker: I clearly state that I do not have a clue as to what motivates psychiatrists to do what they do. It also does not matter to me. The facts are what it is all about. There is no proof for any disorder in de brain as cause for mental problems or behaviour, while psychiatrist use scientific fraud to let people believe that they do, and they are even prescribing medications based on this fraud. No matter if it is money or some wacky ideology, it is clear to me (as a good intended human being) that it should be ended. I hope this answers your question as to why I am discussing psychiatry on this forum today.

Well, let me make my list a bit more as it is meant: Psychiatric treatments do more harm then good in general Psychiatry has no single piece of evidence for a brain disorder as cause for psychiatric labels, while you are already treating them as if they exist (this is scientific fraud) Psychiatric treatments often have disastrous effects, not only for the person receiving them but also for society, the environment and even pose a danger to the future of mankind. (think about antidepressants causing genetic damage in babies + millions swallowing it etc.) Thus, psychiatry should be ended. I have to leave now. Regarding the human mind to be more then a product of a chemical process. You can understand it using the following thinking trick: "You can't see the seeing while you see" For this you need to think about it deeper and try to understand the consequences. But in general, how can the measureable be the source for itself? Did you think about that yet? And for the "treatments work or not"-discussion, this discussion is bogus. What you are basicly doing in psychiatry is hitting someone in the face and then measure if the behaviour changes. While you see that psychotherapy or CBT, where people learn to address mental problems with their own mind, can transcend the point of 'having no problem anymore'. It can bring so much good for people, and for humanity. It is really simple: without overcomming problems there is no progress. It is really bad to supress mental problems with psychiatry. This is why psychiatry HAS to be ended and replaced by: 1) honest and respectful alternatives 2) alternatives that do think about our future A problem with the mind is not a disease like a bodily disease is. It is not something you have or you don't. The human mind has endless possibilities because posibilities give rise to more possibilities. This means every problem with the human mind and every person is completely unique. It is the WILL to survive that we need. We need to overcome problems and beyond. This requires respectful psychotherapy. Science shows: psychotherapy is more effective purely looking at the symptoms. Logic makes is clear: it is required for more then what we can possibly predict.

Does it really matter if the pope himself would declare that psychiatric brain disorders are scientifically valid? The truth is: there is no proof for a brain disorder as cause for psychiatric labels. The only thing you've got is: "we got some proof but we can't proof it yet" as pointed out by Cap'n Refsmmat. That's nothing. It is no justification to treat people with brain medication. You BELIEVE that there 'should' be a brain disoder which you haven't found yet. This is why the fundament of psychiatry is a dogma and not science. Psychiatry is funded on the belief that problems with the human mind must be caused by brain disorders, while in reality there is no scientific evidence for that claim and logic makes it sertain that it can't be true. Because: how can the measurable be the source for itself? If you would understand this, you know why psychiatry has no future and won't ever find the brain disorders they are already treating without evidence. The belief that the introduction of chlorpromazine, marketed in the US as Thorazine, made it possible to empty state hospitals stems from research by Brill and Patton. In the early 1960s, they reported that the patient census at state mental hospitals in the US declined from 558,600 in 1955 to 528,800 in 1961. Although they did not compare discharge rates for drug-treated versus placebo-treated patients, they nevertheless concluded that neuroleptics must have played a role in the decline since it coincided with their introduction. The fact that the two occurred at the same time was seen as the proof. [1,2] [1] Brill H, Patton R. Analysis of population reduction in New York State mental hospitals during the first four years of large scale therapy with psychotropic drugs. Am J Psychiatry 1959;116:495–508. [2] Brill H, Patton R. Clinical-statistical analysis of population changes in New York State mental hospitals since introduction of psychotropic drugs. Am J Psychiatry 1962;119:20–35. However, there were obvious confounding factors. In the early 1950s, the Council of State Governments in the US urged the federal government to share the fiscal burden of caring for the mentally ill, and proposed that “out-patient clinics should be extended and othercommunity resources developed to care for persons in need of help, but not of hospitalization” [3,4]. As part of this agenda, states began developing community care initiatives, funneling the mentally ill into nursing homes and halfway houses. This change in social policy could easily have been responsible for the slight drop in patient numbers observed by Brill and Patton. [3] Council of State Governments. The mental health programs of the forty-eight states. Chicago: The Council; 1950. p 4–13. [4] Rusk H. States map a new attack to combat mental illness. New York Times 1954;21:4–13. Moreover, there was one state that did compare discharge rates for schizophrenia patients treated with and without drugs, and its results do not support the historical claim made for neuroleptics. In a study of 1413 first-episode male schizophrenics admitted to California hospitals in 1956 and 1957, researchers found that “drug-treated patients tend to have longer periods of hospitalization. . . furthermore, the hospitals wherein a higher percentage of firstadmission schizophrenic patients are treated with these drugs tend to have somewhat higher retention rates for this group as a whole”. In short, the California investigators determined that neuroleptics, rather than speed patients’ return to the community, apparently hindered recovery [5]. [5] Epstein L, Morgan R, Reynolds L. An approach to the effect of ataraxic drugs on hospital release rates. Am J Psychiatry 1962;119:36–47. The true period of deinstitutionalization in the US was from 1963 to the late 1970s, the exodus of patients driven by social and fiscal policies. In 1963, federal government began picking up some of the costs of care for the mentally ill not in state institutions, and two years later, Medicare and Medicaid legislation increased federal funding for care of mental patients provided they were not housed in state hospitals. Naturally, states responded by discharging their hospital patients to private nursing homes and shelters. In 1972, an amendment to the Social Security act authorized disability payments to the mentally ill, which accelerated the transfer of hospitalized patients into private facilities. As a result of these changes in fiscal policies, the number of patients in state mental hospitals dropped from 504,600 to 153,544 over a 15-year period (1963–1978) [6]. [6] Scull A. Decarceration: community treatment and the deviant, a radical view. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1984. Source: Antipsychotics: 50 year record of doing more harm then good (Elsevier)

Well, I believe it should be more simple then that: or there is proof or there is not. If not: then psychiatry should stay the heck out of the brain with their drugs. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged It IS a measurable disease, however, diagnosing it with a brain scan is not possible. Still, it is about brain cells that slowly die off. It is physical. Psychiatry is making you believe problems with your mind are caused by the brain, but this is solely based on a dogma and not on science. That is the difference between psychiatry and neurology, for that matter. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00kf117 Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I am sorry, I just wanted to make a point. "with a wet finger" means in Dutch based on opinion and not on science.

Isn't parkinson a measurable brain disease that is treated by a neurologist?

Proof? Let's take a closer look at that source: Oh right, it has been suggested. And that counts as solid evidence for you and as justification for brain medication?

You forgot about active-placebos that have a side-effect so you can feel something is happening. It is proven that antidepressants are a bit more effective in supressing depressive emotions then a placebo. But it is a total different story with an active-placebo. Compared to an active-placebo the 'effectiveness' is gone. And besides that. What the hell are you doing as psychiatry? Treating depressive emotions like a disease right? Do you have any clue how super destructive this is to humanity? It isn't about getting better treatments, it is about getting psychiatry the hell out of our society. Psychiatry is the sickness what it is all about. Many scientists argue that depressive emotions are there to serve you, and not a disease at all. It could be to protect against severe damage in stressful situations or when (unknowingly) suffering from a bodily disease. Or it could be an expression from the will to improve. Top performers often have a severe depression after which they find the power to move up again. It is SUPER bad for these people to fall into the hands of a psychiatrist and to supress their emotions with psychiatric drugs. Psychiatry does not care about the effects of their doings, they only want to grow further. Drugging more and more people. Why is not really clear to me, but it is 100% sertain that it is not good intentioned. Here is my reference that scientists are claiming that severe depressive emotions are not a disease at all: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Depression-Should-Be-Embraced-Not-Medicated-102005.shtml

This is a lame excuse, "there is proof however we can't proof it yet" is what you say... Well, if there is proof then why don't you diagnose the disease with a brain scanner? You see? It is fraud that is going on. There is no proof for a brain disease, also not with Bipolar disorder. It are hypothesis you are talking about, not more then that. And biochemical imbalances? Please... Why would anyone believe in such a thing, while it can't be measured? Look at the power of the human mind: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12301-man-with-tiny-brain-shocks-doctors.html And then a unmeasurable biochemical imbalance is causing complex problems in the human mind you believe? It is so stupid actuallly. It seems you can't do more then read from a book. (the psychiatric bible in this case) Well, try to think for yourself for once. It may help Sorry, I don't know. I could give you the e-mail address of Robert Whitaker (the author of the book) however. He will be able to provide it to you. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedYou can look at it like this: the human mind is in relation to the brain a bit like a trumpet in relation to the air that flows through it to produce a sound. With complex problems with the human mind there is often nothing wrong with the brain, but then you are playing if it were a false note. It is then of course barbarian to ditch dents in the trumpet with drugs or other brain treatments to change the sound. It would be case to learn to produce a pure sound. The human mind is more then a product of the building blocks because the measurable can't be the source of itself. Please try to think about this. You can't find this in books. It is something you can understand at most, because the source of life and the human mind can't be measured.

Right, and how about my references that show antipsychotics are causing just that dependency? They supress problems in the short term and make it worse in the same time, so you can't withdraw anymore? Here is a quote of my post: And with honest help (psychotherapy/CBT etc.), those people would be able to fully recover without having to use destructive drugs that will shorten their life with 30+ years and cause them to have less chance to reproduce and such. What do you have to say on this? How is it diagnosed then? With a wet finger, right? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Why improve something that's bad from within the core? Psychiatry has no right to exist at all. 1) they don't have proof there is a biological cause for their made up "illnesses" (for which they vote at the APA...) 2) their treatments of the brain for hypothetical disorders are doing more harm then good, if you have a critical look at the facts So what exactly could they improve then? What could they learn? Could they learn more about the immeasurable brain disorders they are currently diagnosing in millions of people? Sure, why not study the existence of peter pan and elfs and then tell people: there is still much to learn, we already have a glimps on their existence but we're just not there yet. Because this is what psychiatry is doing. They don't have a shred of proof. And then there is logic: can't you understand that the human mind is more then a product of biochemical processes? Why exactly do you believe in psychiatry? The WHO quote comes from http://www.madinamerica.com (scientific journalist) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged How about you showing that those brain disorders do exist, and start with the patients you diagnose? Aren't you turning the things here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot You are claiming that there is a brain disorder that for some reason can't be measured yet. I believe it is your call to prove that the brain disorder DOES exist, and that the brain medication you are prescribing to people (as a psychiatrist) is not based on scientific fraud. We both know: there is no such evidence, because why wouldn't you otherwise put people under a scanner and send them to a neurologist, who is there to help with measurable brain disorders? This is why psychiatry is a undeniable scam. You claim that psychiatry is helping people while in fact it is just supressing symptoms for the rest of their lives and charging people for it. That those people 'believe' that they are helped does not change a thing. Many people believe that they are helped by the magic hands from a paragnost also. Well, this is exactly what is going on right now. First off: studies are very costly, and the pockets of farmaceutical companies are very deep. They have 1000+ studies to prove something, while you as honest scientist have maybe 200k on your own for 1 study. But have a look at this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18505564 It is pure fraud going on. Antidepressants do not work better then a so called 'active' placebo. This is a fake pill with a side effect so that people can feel something is happening in their body. Antidepressants are 0% more effective than such pills. But... Antidepressants cause a rise in suicidal behaviour. I gave that one study on ScienceDaily but there are hundreds more. In the big (trusted) media in The Netherlands and Belgium it is already clear SSRI are doubling the risk. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1205890/Depression-pills-double-suicide-risk-young-adults.html It is about young adults, but other studies show that it is the same with adults. But... Antidepressants make men infertile, they reduce the chance to reproduce. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/oct/24/medicalresearch.drugs1 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/3073502/Anti-depressants-may-cause-infertility-in-men.html This is highly suspicious. Also it causes to block love for other people, so they can lead to murder. Prominent professors in The Netherlands are claiming this in the media: Google Translate: Pill for depression can lead to murder So: 1) an active placebo is 100% as effective as antidepressants. This proves it is purely the believe in a immeasurable brain disorder and a pill that make people feel better but also make them addicted. 2) antidepressants have severe side effects that actually cause a rise in suicidal behaviour, make them infertile, cause genetic damage in the fetus in pregnant woman (see this law suite a few months ago), cause weakening of bones and other damage... So you can't deny: depression treatment is doing more harm then good. You don't get it: it proves 40% is better off without treatment. This remaining 60% is not better off with antipsychotics. They are just not helped with 'nothing'. When you give them Soteria psychotherapy, 90% will recover well without the use of the destructive psychiatric drugs. This is proven in the following study by prof. dr. Loren Mosher: http://www.moshersoteria.com/soteri.htm So here you have it again: psychosis/schizophrenia treatment is doing more harm then good

Could you name something? (and btw: anti-psychiatry is a flow within psychiatry with anti-psychiatrists, this topic is just critical on psychiatry). Please tell me then, what is psychiatry trying to achieve? Cure an immeasurable and hypothetical brain disorder? Is that what you are talking about? Because as far as I know psychiatrists are prescribing drugs solely based on wet finger work and not a single medical test exists to prove any brain disorder that would supposedly be treated with the drugs. How can you explain that? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Sure, but tactics isn't the same as individually training people to become a winner. There may be 1 million ways to get arround a problem. Athletes are facing new problems every day. Those problems can't be predicted. Science is a valuable tool. But it is not more then that. For guiding people to become a winner it takes experience for the larger part. It is the exact same thing with the human mind. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Here are my sources for the claim that: a) psychiatry does more harm then good b) there are humane alternatives that can get 90%+ people to recover well (at far lower costs) First there is a study published in 2007: Lange termijn resultaten schizofrenie, bron: Martin Harrow and Thomas Jobe. “Factors involved in Outcome and Recovery in Schizophrenia Patients Not on Antipsychotic Medications: A 15-year Multifollow-up Study. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 195 (2007):406-414. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17502806 This study showed that people who have complex psychological problems that are labeled with psychosis (schizophrenia) are far better off with no treatment at all, compared to the standard psychiatric treatment combination of antipsychotics and psychiatric therapy. This is also backed by a study by scientific journalist Robert Whitaker who wrote the best seller on psychiatry Mad in America. http://www.madinamerica.com/Mad%20In%20America/Documents_files/50-yearrecord.pdf Antipsychotics block dopamine D2 receptors in the brain and in response the brain makes the receptors more sensitive which will cause people to become chronically ill. Antipsychotics also cause damage in the brain that is also associated with a worsening of the symptoms in the long term. So it is proven that solely looking at the problems that psychiatry is making the problems worse and people are better off with nothing at all, and 40% grows over it naturally in 2-4 years. This is also backed by a study by the World Health Organisation in 1992: However, next to this, antipsychotics cause people to die prematurely and lose on average 30+ years from their life. It will cause an horrible death in which your hairs fall out and you can't stand on your legs anymore when you are 30-40 years old. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/ignored-the-mentally-ill-killed-by-drugs-that-are-meant-to-help-them-951821.html But the reality is even worse. A recent study that was published in The Lancet showed that the newest antipsychotics are the most deadly, and even more shocking: the top 3 best selling antipsychotics (Seroquel, Risperdal and Zyprexa) are matching the top 3 deadliest antipsychotics. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56C15Z20090713 I know that it is the psychiatrist who wants this effect. Because a company always serves a demand. A company will learn soon enaufh what kind of drugs it should make to make the most sales. And they think: "if you don't do it (take this billion dollar extra) someone else will" So here are my sources to proof that psychiatry is 100% sertain doing a lot more harm then good in the psychosis/schizoprenia facet of psychiatry. But there are alternatives. I already mentioned Soteria psychotherapy. Maybe you could read into that, I think it is the best example of an alternative that is backed by scientific evidence: http://www.moshersoteria.com/soteri.htm One other source: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5idJtabQYbwdz0gv1koOaXPr3qGRQ

I have been investigating psychiatry for almost 4 years now and reported about it on my website (I don't know if it is allowed to post a link to your own website on this forum, I could send it by pm, it is in Dutch). The amount of 'facts' that prove psychiatry is a false science, are overwhelming. Just to name a fact: - antidepressants are addictive and cause a rise in suicidal behaviour (and also cause murder). It will also make people anti-social. A few sources for this claim. Dr. Helen Fisher at TED talks: She sais that antidepressasnts block the ability to love people. And for example this recent study, that shows TCA antidepressants cause a tenfold increase in suicidal thoughts and behaviour (SSRI double the risk) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091014193213.htm I am not part of scientology or CCHR, I am neutral. I also do not have a professional link with psychiatry. Well, the human mind and life = one. The mind is a direct exponent of what has brought us humans into existence. This can be understood by basic logic. For as the measureable can't be the source of itself. "You can't see the seeing while you see". With this thinking trick you can understand why the human mind is more than what we can possibily measure. But of course, none of this really matters. The facts show that psychiatry is doing more harm then good, and that humane and respectful alternatives such as psychotherapy or CBT are far more effective, especially in the long run: http://psychminded.co.uk/news/news2009/nov09/Eight-out-of-10-people-recover-after-CBT003.htm Don't you understand the relation between getting results as an athlete, or getting results in life? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHere is one more source to show antidepressants effectiveness is a big lie: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18505564 This is the reality. It isn't scientology or something like that. These are honest scientists raising the alarm. It needs to be taken seriously. And in my position I have an overview on the exact same situation in practically every facet of psychiatry.

Well, it is not meant as spam and I would like you to explain to me why you disagree.