It's Time To End Psychiatry

[MM6]

The point is that right now, psychiatry is the best pragmatic solution we have to mental illness (harmful deviations from the norm)

How do you reach this conclusion, MM6? The DSM has led to

 

- people losing their jobs after being witchhunted on the basis they had non- existent disorders (an NIMH employeee was sacked after she correctly reported she had been sexually harassed, on the basis she had "self-defeating personality disorder"). The label was in the DSM 3 but removed from the DSM 4. So she was sacked for a quack label which psychiatrists later admitted had no basis.

 

-psychiatry has had a disastrous effect on the legal world. IN 1983 the supreme court acknowledged psychiatrists' predictions of future violent behaviour were wrong twice as often as they were write (in other words, thier expert witness did not really meet the criteria for courtroom witness). One five year study of defendants found not guilt by reason of insanity and then released when psychs deemed them "no longer a danger to society" found that 1/3 were re-arrested again, usually for violent offenses.

 

- Ironically, Because psychiatry ignores the link between the physical and mental disorders (except to prescribe powerful mind-altering drugs) they don't do the detective work on criminals that may *well* lead to a decrease in recidivism. Egs. Alan Rosenbaum has found strong evidence to suggest a link between head injury and violence in men. But this is ignored in favor of a DSm label and non-treatment by the profession.

 

- What exactly do you mean by the "norm"? Why should a depressed or anxious person be deemed to have deviated from the "norm"? Given that virtually everyone could qualify for a DSM label, (Maybe you have PMS? That's "late luteal dysphoric disorder". Maybe you are a sloppy writer? You have "disorder of the written expression)".

 

The role that psychiatrists are typically performing now is acting as agents for pharmaceutical drug companies. A 2 trillion dollar industry (annually) which never *attempts) to cure its patients. Can you see what's wrong with this picture?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

we don't understand the system that is the mind, and we have an unsatisfactory understanding of the system underlying the mind, the brain.

 

 

False dichotomy IMHO. I blame Freud, the quack who browbeat and harmed his patients instead of listening to them. How many psychology students are taught the truth - that he failed to cure a single one of them?

 

I'm not suggesting that the mind is necessarily separate from the brain, only that our current level of understanding results in a separation. When we understand how every thought, emotion, perception, etc., is generated biologically then the term mind will be superfluous. That was my whole point in saying that psychiatry (mind) is slowly being subsumed by neurology (brain).

 

Regarding deviations from the norm. You'll take note of the adjective I included, harmful. Sloppy handwriting would not fall into that category (unless you want to stretch the meaning of harmful to meaninglessness). I agree, the DSM has become a sham with all of these fictitious disorders (they may be deviations from the norm, but they are not harmful to the individual or society). Yet, there are still many important and useful classifications and attendant therapies.

 

Deviations and the normal curve are statistical terms. Simple concepts really, look them up. Sixty-eight percent (68%) are statistically the same for any given characteristic (within one SD), i.e. normal. So no, virtually everyone would not qualify for a DSM label. Sixteen percent would be part of the tails on either side; i.e. probably abnormal (4% of total population would be definitely abnormal).

Edited January 10, 2010 by MM6

[bascule]

ArjanD,

 

What do you make of this?

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100108101435.htm

[walkntune]

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.

 

I believe I agree and that most of the time it seems to stem from emotional trauma.

I am no Doc but very experienced with dealing with those who have depression and anxiety disorders and I am way more successful than those in the psychiatric field.

Stored up emotions can have a devastating effect on the body.Once we label these stored up emotions as some form of mental disease they become almost impossible for people to let go of it as their belief system. Instead of an issue of dealing and facing emotions it becomes an issue of dealing with my brain sickness.After all, how can you believe you are something and not something at the same time. So the medicines can numb the mind which is really nothing more than signaling that their is trouble inside the body. But that's what a lot of medicines do, treat the symptoms right?

Meanwhile pharmaceutical companies keep placing commercials trying to advertise some form of drug for mental disease(would love for you to believe it even if you don't) all in the name of the almighty dollar!(huge cancer in society IMHO)

They think they are discovering new diseases but they are really just creating them.

People might be amazed at how well the body can heal itself if given the chance and we work to help it in the right direction instead of always trying to correct symptoms.

There are two ways to fight against war. You can go to an anti-war rally or you can go to a pro- peace rally. I would opt for the second because i believe energy has a stronger force with a much stronger desired effect when it has momentum in a good direction instead of being used up as resistance.Goes for your health as well. You can always fight sickness or you can fight for good health.

 

If you are on medicine now I suggest staying on them and follow your doctors advice! You can work on yourself while you are on medicines.

Edited January 10, 2010 by walkntune

[bascule]

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.

 

From the eliminative materialist perspective all problems with the mind are, by definition, caused by the brain. Eliminative materialism is the only means by which we can scientifically understand the mind, because it reduces the mind to what is fundamentally a physical system, therefore placing it within the realm of scientific inquiry. To suggest otherwise makes the mind a metaphysical system and places it outside the realm of scientific study, except for certain approaches used by disciplines like cognitive science, in which subjects are asked to report what they perceive in the context of a controlled study. However, this approach is very limited in its applications towards understanding the mind as its only practical application is phenomenology.

[walkntune]

From the eliminative materialist perspective all problems with the mind are, by definition, caused by the brain. Eliminative materialism is the only means by which we can scientifically understand the mind, because it reduces the mind to what is fundamentally a physical system, therefore placing it within the realm of scientific inquiry. To suggest otherwise makes the mind a metaphysical system and places it outside the realm of scientific study, except for certain approaches used by disciplines like cognitive science, in which subjects are asked to report what they perceive in the context of a controlled study. However, this approach is very limited in its applications towards understanding the mind as its only practical application is phenomenology.

______________

How does this play in with people's belief system? If someone was to call you and tell you that your spouse or child is dead(true or not) it would instantly turn your world upside down if you believe it. I wonder what effect it has on people claiming them to be mentally ill and they believe it?

I am also curious if when they prescribe medications to people if they take into account whether they are introverted or extroverted and effects of medicines on each?

They actually function a little different.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19990228212951data_trunc_sys.shtml

[Criscience]

Psychiatry has no future. Yes, it is clear: they don't have evidence for a biological cause for problems with the human mind. And they have been promising results for almost an age now...

 

Scientific studies show again and again that psychiatry is doing more harm then good and that alternatives (such as for example Soteria psychotherapy) can make up to 90% of all people with complex psychological problems (labeled with schizophrenia/psychosis) recover well while psychiatric treatment reduces the chance to recover. This is hard fact.

 

There is a lot of evidence for biological causes of psychiatric conditions. Temporal lobe epilepsy and brain tumors are just two examples that come to mind which can present as psychiatric syndromes. You might argue that those conditions are not then "psychiatric," but it is frequently the psychiatrist who will suspect it or want to rule it out of his diagnosis and send the patient to the neurologist for evaluation and possibly life-saving treatment. Exactly how do you measure the "good" psychiatry does in those cases?

 

What about acutely psychotic patients who are a danger to themselves or others? How about the lives saved by psychiatrists in those cases? How do you measure that?

 

Have you ever been around someone who is acutely manic or floridly psychotic? They are not exactly amenable to a calm talking to or "rest."

 

Arjan, if you are an idealistic college student trying to come up with some revolutionary idea to make the world a better place, that is all well and good. I won't begrudge you that. Just get more experience of the real world first before you start pontificating.

 

Psychiatry is fraud and needs to be put to an end.

 

Like any other field, psychiatry can improve. Individual practitioners can certainly practice poorly, but they are a small minority. In the meantime, many people benefit from psychiatric treatment.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Have you read the work of Sydney Walker? He points out that things like mental confusion and distress are serious symptoms that need to be treated and, where possible, cured, but that psychiatrists (mainstream) are currently foregoing this role, because they treat subjective, unscientific DSM labels as disorders in themselves, rather than finding the root physical causes of brain dysfunction.

 

Egs., so-called ADHD may actually be the result of lead poisoning, carbon monoxide poisoning, pinworms, blocked colons, and dozens of other genetic,

/ environmental causes. But by assigning patients a meaningless label and then drugging them, psychs ensure that any root physical cause as may exist goes neglected and untreated.

Do you seriously believe that the medical professionals who are psychiatrists and who have read hundreds of papers on all aspects of medicine and rotated through the medical specialties including internal medicine, neurology, surgery, etc., have not given a thought to the possibility that some syndromes they treat can have a medical basis?

 

In fact, Axis III of their diagnostic system is devoted exclusively to medical problems the patient may have.

 

I am sorry, but some of the posts here reflect a serious lack of understanding of how psychiatrists train and practice.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

How do you reach this conclusion, MM6? The DSM has led to

 

- people losing their jobs after being witchhunted on the basis they had non- existent disorders (an NIMH employeee was sacked after she correctly reported she had been sexually harassed, on the basis she had "self-defeating personality disorder"). The label was in the DSM 3 but removed from the DSM 4. So she was sacked for a quack label which psychiatrists later admitted had no basis.

stradi, you are quickly losing credibility here. "Self-defeating personality disorder" was never formally admitted into the DSM. To use that as a pretext to fire someone is a serious abuse of the diagnostic process.

[bascule]

How does this play in with people's belief system? If someone was to call you and tell you that your spouse or child is dead(true or not) it would instantly turn your world upside down if you believe it.

 

Yes, and the result is a chemical reaction in your brain.

[walkntune]

It posted the same thing twice!

Edited January 13, 2010 by walkntune
Consecutive posts merged.

[bascule]

It posted the same thing twice!

 

Durr, what?

 

I hope you're not implying what I think you're implying, because that would make you an asshole

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No, walkntune accidentally double-posted and then erased it. walkntune, I can get back the post if you'd like me to.

[walkntune]

No, walkntune accidentally double-posted and then erased it. walkntune, I can get back the post if you'd like me to.

Yes please if you would. Thanks

 

Durr, what?

 

I hope you're not implying what I think you're implying, because that would make you an asshole

I can't even make sense of this or what you thought I would be implying????

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Here you go:

 

Yes, and the result is a chemical reaction in your brain.

Is this the symptom or the cause???

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I took part of this from another post I wrote but fits well here in explaining my thoughts and experience in this subject.

I don't think medicine is bad but just our misuse of them which is really just an example of the condition of the human heart and greed.

 

I believe humans don't have the freewill they think they do.I believe like all other animals instincts we make choices out of fear and faith. When a dear feels safe and full of faith it can think along the lines of finding green grass to eat and shade to lay in and such. Once it senses danger its line of thinking will change. It will seek out the danger, decide what direction to dart of etc.. Too much fear and maybe freeze. Humans are the same way.

the biggest mistake humans make is they try to use their thinking to control their emotions. We don't realize that in order to be happy, feel safe and full of faith all we have to do is release the fear or emotions.As we release the emotions our line of thinking actually changes like the deer in the field.People hold on so tight to emotions and refuse to release them and it causes the brain to be stuck in a certain mode of thinking.My personal belief is that eventually when you hold on to bad emotions long enough without releasing them they cause the mind to be stuck in a certain unhealthy pattern of thinking that eventually alters the chemicals causing chemical imbalances(mental illness) Even good emotions can cloud up the mind and clarity of thought.Releasing good emotions also has a great benefit to clearing the mind and so you can make better choices and keep bringing yourself up to a better state of thinking and feeling.The only way to feel good is to allow your self to feel and release the bad feelings no matter how bad they feel and don't allow them to dictate your thoughts or choices.(sometimes you just have to buckle the seatbelt and hang on) So I guess what i am saying is that are emotional state of fear and faith we are in actually dictates our line of thinking and how we make choices just like the deer.

So in order to summarize this I believe we are still dictated by faith and fear instincts that actually alter our thought processes depending upon which state we are in.If you want to think more clear and positive and make better choices, all you do is release the negative emotions and you climb to a positive state(state you were born and meant to be in ) automatically and your thinking changes automatically.(just like the deer).

I think psychiatry fails because they think that if you alter the mind then you can alter the feelings(fight and flight response). In reality all you have to do is release the bad feelings(fears and hurts etc...) and then the mind changes automatically and thinks more healthy.

Instead what we have in society is commercials pushing drugs trying to turn every bad feeling of the blues they can into a mental disease of some sort of depression out of greed for the all mighty dollar.They are a cancer to society IMHO.The drugs do alter the mind and make people feel better but people actually are not getting better but just feeling better temporarily until they either need to try a new medicine or increase dossages etc.. Meanwhile the bad emotions (cause of problem)that are not released(fight and flight response) are not being dealt with but just on hold and actually making it difficult to recognize because of the effects of the medicine.People just want to feel good and not deal with how they really feel and pharmaceutical companies take advantage.

Now I think there is a time and place for medicine.When it becomes an issue of life or death then I think using medicines to help someone think more rational would definitely be called for and serve a purpose if it can save a life. This is a far cry from commercials asking if you have the blues and saying you may be suffering from depression and advertise a medicine for the sake of a dollar. the damage that this is doing to society is unreal!!!People with mild blues feelings can suddenly believe they have depression and get on medicine and from there completely go down hill. Food and drug administration love the profits!!!

[stradi]

I agree, the DSM has become a sham with all of these fictitious disorders (they may be deviations from the norm, but they are not harmful to the individual or society). Yet, there are still many important and useful classifications and attendant therapies.

 

Could you name some classifications you find 'useful'?

 

Deviations and the normal curve are statistical terms.

 

But maybe the norm itself is harmful? In certain regimes the murder of rape victims for adultery is "normal". At one point a woman who had sex with lots of partners would have been deemed "pathological". Now a woman who is celibate may be labelled as sexually dysphoric. At one point gay people were labelled sociopaths in the DSM. Now homosexuality is considered normal in psychiatric circles.

 

These classifications are trivial. They reflect the social philosophies of the day. They have nothing to do with real medicine.

 

 

Do you seriously believe that the medical professionals who are psychiatrists and who have read hundreds of papers on all aspects of medicine and rotated through the medical specialties including internal medicine, neurology, surgery, etc., have not given a thought to the possibility that some syndromes they treat can have a medical basis?

 

Unless they perform a proper deductive differential diagnosis, they are in no position to know what the basis of their patient's problem really is.

 

In fact, Axis III of their diagnostic system is devoted exclusively to medical problems the patient may have.

 

How exactly can a psychiatrist treat medical problems a patient "may" have unless s/he performs a deductive differential diagnosis to determine whether the patient's mental distress is caused by such medical problems or not?

 

"Self-defeating personality disorder" was never formally admitted into the DSM. To use that as a pretext to fire someone is a serious abuse of the diagnostic process.

 

Factitious Disorder. Disorder of the Written Expression. Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Nightmare Disorder. Primary Hypersomnia. Conversion Disorder. There's no science in any of these terms. They are pseudo-scientific labels thought up in a boardroom. None of them are likely to help the patients who get labelled with them, but they will be very help for pharmaceutical companies looking to expand their markets when their drugs are prescribed to people will psychiatric "illnesses" that don't exist.

 

Meanwhile, any medical causes of a disordered written expression/narcissism/nightmares will go ignored and neglected, because no deductive differential diagnosis has been conducted.

Edited January 31, 2010 by stradi

[Criscience]

Unless they perform a proper deductive differential diagnosis, they are in no position to know what the basis of their patient's problem really is.

Well, then it is a good thing that psychiatrists routinely perform proper differential diagnosis.

 

How exactly can a psychiatrist treat medical problems a patient "may" have unless s/he performs a deductive differential diagnosis to determine whether the patient's mental distress is caused by such medical problems or not?

Medical conditions noted on Axis III are not generally treated by the psychiatrist but referred to the proper specialist or internist. They are placed there for the psychiatrist to be aware of them and to refer to or confer with the relevant specialist when indicated.

[ccdan]

There's almost no science at all in psychiatry and the so called "mental illnesses" are not discovered, but invented and voted into existence by a bunch of individuals at APA.

 

 

Psychology: a reality check

Top of pageAbstract

 

If clinical psychology in the United States wants to remain viable and relevant in today's health systems, it needs to publicly embrace science.

 

Anyone reading Sigmund Freud's original works might well be seduced by the beauty of his prose, the elegance of his arguments and the acuity of his intuition. But those with a grounding in science will also be shocked by the abandon with which he elaborated his theories on the basis of essentially no empirical evidence. This is one of the main reasons why Freudian-style psychoanalysis has long since fallen out of fashion: its huge expense — treatment can stretch over years — is not balanced by evidence of efficacy.

 

Clinical psychology at least has its roots in experimentation, but it is drifting away from science.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7266/full/461847a.html

 

Clinical psychology resembles

medicine at a point in its history when practitioners

were operating in a largely prescientific manner.

Prior to the scientific reform of medicine in the early 1900s,

physicians typically shared the attitudes of many of today?s

clinical psychologists, such as valuing personal experience

over scientific research. [...]

 

Copious evidence suggests that many clinical psychologists

today, perhaps the majority, are deeply ambivalent about the role

of science in informing their practice. For instance, they value

personal clinical experience over research evidence (Groopman,

2007), tend to use assessment practices that have dubious

psychometric support (Garb, Wood, Lilienfeld, & Nezworski,

2005), and tend not to use procedures for which there is the

strongest evidence of efficacy.[...]

 

Similarly, at various points in the past, we

clinical psychologists have presented ourselves as having the

knowledge and skills to treat conditions such as schizophrenia,

bipolar illness, and autism when, in fact, we had no scientific

basis for entering the fray.[...]

 

Scientific Plausibility

Scientific plausibility refers to the extent to which an intervention

makes sense on substantive bases and whether there is

formal evidence regarding its mechanisms. Such information is

not required for an intervention to be considered useful; many

psychiatric medications are used widely despite very little understanding

of their specific mechanisms of action. However, the

absence of a demonstrated or plausible specific mechanism of

action, especially for a psychosocial intervention, leaves open

the possibility that the intervention may merely be capitalizing

on nonspecific, credible ritual, or placebo effects.

 

In fact, considerable evidence indicates

that many, if not most, clinicians view science or research

as having relatively little relevance to their practice activities

and decisions

 

It would be all but impossible to reform or upgrade the APA

criteria, at this point, because the majority of currently accredited

programs prefer the status quo, would object to an increased

emphasis on science training, and probably could not

meet such new standards if they were adopted. In effect, APA?s

accreditation system is boxed in by its diffuse mission and its

commitment to serving the interests of a constituency that not

only is heterogeneous but increasingly is oriented toward an

experientially based model of practice. Indeed, unlike the AMA

in the early 1900s, there is no clear evidence that the APA sees a

need to enhance the scientific basis of training or practice.

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/pspi_9-2.pdf

[bascule]

There's almost no science at all in psychiatry

 

That's quite a statement. Source? Do you believe there's "almost no science at all" involved in psychopharmacology?

[stradi]

Well, then it is a good thing that psychiatrists routinely perform proper differential diagnosis.

 

 

Medical conditions noted on Axis III are not generally treated by the psychiatrist but referred to the proper specialist or internist. They are placed there for the psychiatrist to be aware of them and to refer to or confer with the relevant specialist when indicated.

 

You are suggesting psychiatrists perform the full physical medical examination that would necessarily perform the basis of a deductive differential diagnosis? And if not, how can they have a sound basis from which to deduce?

 

You know too, that sham pseudoscientific labels such as "disorder of the written expression" and "narcissistic personality disorder" are sham pseudo-scientific labels that have no basis in medical science?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

That's quite a statement. Source? Do you believe there's "almost no science at all" involved in psychopharmacology?

 

S/he's right.... there's no science in the DSM. Psychiatry used to have an admirably strong scientific basis until the advent of the DSM, when the profession was hijacked by Freudian psychoanalytical psychiatrists and effectively removed from the field of medicine.

[bascule]

S/he's right.... there's no science in the DSM. Psychiatry used to have an admirably strong scientific basis until the advent of the DSM, when the profession was hijacked by Freudian psychoanalytical psychiatrists and effectively removed from the field of medicine.

 

Source?

[Chriton]

Now I do have experience of this.

My wife of 30 years was diagnosed as having "Paranoid Schitzophrenia", she had a (as they call it) a Phsycotic eppisode, and Physciatrists said she had Schitzophrenia all her life.

I had never seen any symptoms of this before hand and they wanted to section her against her will.

Yes! she was acting strangely like collecting shiny metal things and hearing voices telling her what to do and attending church twice a day, and I was the Devil.

I refused to have her sectioned and she eventualy left home after trying to electrocute me...lol

She never had medication and always denied there was anything wrong with her.

She is now home after 5 years away living rough.

She seems to now be in controll of her thoughts although she dose argue with herself.

I do not believe in forcing her to have medication as it will not help her problem and will only turn her into a Vegetable, she has a right to the life she has, even if she is not normal (as we understand it)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think you will find that medication will not make her into a vegetable. In many cases it helps people incredibly.

 

You should examine your options before dismissing treatment so quickly. Knee-jerk "MEDICATION IS BAD" reactions only keep people from getting treatment that could improve their lives.

[Chriton]

I think you will find that medication will not make her into a vegetable. In many cases it helps people incredibly.

 

You should examine your options before dismissing treatment so quickly. Knee-jerk "MEDICATION IS BAD" reactions only keep people from getting treatment that could improve their lives.

 

I have seen people on medication.

I was told that it lowers the Dopermine level in the brain.

We need the Dopermine to allow us to think, taking that away from a person is not helping them, just subduing them so they cant think.

It is not a cure for Schitzophrenia just a way to brush the problem under the carpet.

There is no treatment for Mental Illness, medication just subdues the symptoms, and how can you say that "It improves their lives" it only makes them acceptable to society...Not an answer nor a cure.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That is not true.

 

There are many kinds of antipsychotics and they each have different side effects. However, they're not just sedatives to slow the person down, and they do not turn patients into vegetables, With treatment, including both medication and other therapies, many people can actually recover from schizophrenia: lose their schizophrenic symptoms and be able to gradually stop taking medications.

 

That is, treatment programs in about a third of cases lead to patients not taking medication and not having symptoms schizophrenia. Another third of cases lead to significant improvements in status, but no "cure."

 

It's true that medications are not always appropriate, but they're also not the only method used for treatment, and treatment programs can be successful.

[Chriton]

That is not true.

 

There are many kinds of antipsychotics and they each have different side effects. However, they're not just sedatives to slow the person down, and they do not turn patients into vegetables, With treatment, including both medication and other therapies, many people can actually recover from schizophrenia: lose their schizophrenic symptoms and be able to gradually stop taking medications.

 

That is, treatment programs in about a third of cases lead to patients not taking medication and not having symptoms schizophrenia. Another third of cases lead to significant improvements in status, but no "cure."

 

It's true that medications are not always appropriate, but they're also not the only method used for treatment, and treatment programs can be successful.

 

A survey of people on antiphsycotic drugs have shown that they lie about how well the drug is helping them, Most still have the voices in their head and the treatment program is a waste of time.

I have realy tried to enquire about this and have been told that No one can recover from Schitzophrenia, it is a mental illness that you do not recover from, It is progressive and gets worse, medication cannot reverse this.

I live with someone with this illness and think that I have tried to discover as much as I can from the people that know about mental illness.

People with Schzophrenia are not stupid, they hide their symptoms and are aware of how others see them.

Most Physciatrists do not cure or understand, just subdue the patients in their care

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Do you have citations or evidence for these claims? After all, psychiatry is a large field, and much research is done on schizophrenia. You've got to have more than "someone told me" if you want to prove an entire field of experts wrong.

[stradi]

Source?

 

"A Dose of Sanity" - Sydney Walker

 

"If you knew your history, then you would know where you're coming from"