It's Time To End Psychiatry

[toastywombel]

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

 

Yes, but there is no absolute test for parkinsons. According to that logic Isn't bi-polar disorder a measurable brain disease?

[ArjanD]

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

Yes, but there is no absolute test for parkinsons. According to that logic Isn't bi-polar disorder a measurable brain disease?

 

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

You are using appeal to ridicule, a logical fallacy. You agreed not to do so when you signed up to this site.

 

I am sorry, I just wanted to make a point. "with a wet finger" means in Dutch based on opinion and not on science.

Edited December 26, 2009 by ArjanD
Consecutive posts merged.

[toastywombel]

Dogma- 1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

 

Psychiatric treatment is based upon a Mental Health Evaluation. The test is reviewed by the World Health Organization. Since when did the WHO become a religious institution.

 

Furthermore, have you not considered the benefits of the drug Chlorpromazine, which is considered to be one of the earliest triumphs of psychiatry?

 

Chlorpromazine is a kind of sedation. It blocks dopamine receptors in the central nervous system through the process of receptor antagonism. By doing this it slows the reaction in of receiving nerve cells. It was first tested on lab rats in the late 1940's. The drug prevented these rats from acting violently to negative stimuli.

 

In a study conducted in 1952 at Sainte-Anne Hospital in Paris 38 schizophrenic patients were treated with injections of chlorpromazine. They all saw dramatic improvements in their behavior and emotional health. This clinical trial was later the first published trial of chlorpromazine and it drastically changed the way doctors treated schizophrenic patients (Before this one of the most common treatments was electro-shock therapy). This is thanks to psychiatry.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidopaminergic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorpromazine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry#cite_note-Turner2007-49

http://www.springerlink.com/content/d47821614063h70u/

 

The last link is nice because it is a scientific trial that shows the effects of chlorpromazine versus placebos. Showing that the placebos do not induce the same effects of chlorpromazine.

 

Want more?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

ArjanD: Allow me to try to reword your objections to psychiatry. This, from what I gather, is your argument:

 

1. Psychiatric treatments often have negative side-effects.
   
2. We do not fully understand what causes many psychiatric disorders.
   
3. Many psychiatric treatments are only slightly effective, or sometimes completely ineffective.
   
4. Thus, psychiatry should be ended.

 

Now, let's suppose for a moment I go back in time to the early 1800s and look at medical doctors then:

1. Medical treatments often had huge negative side-effects, such as death.
   
2. Doctors did not understand what caused most diseases.
   
3. Many treatments (bloodletting, various elixirs and medications, etc.) were only slightly effective, or sometimes completely ineffective.
   
4. Thus, the medical profession should have ended.

 

That doesn't seem to be a wise choice. I think the crux of your argument rests not in showing that psychiatry isn't as good as it could be, but in these two statements:

 

But come on people: think about it a bit more clearly. How can the physical be the source for itself? The human mind is more then a product of the biochemical processes in the brain.

 

If you have a problem with your brain' date=' you see a neurologist. If you have problems with your mind, you need an expert on that field: a psychotherapist. [/quote']

 

That's the key. If the mind is simply a result of biochemical processes, we could hypothetically fix problems in the mind with chemicals -- which is what psychiatrists try to do with medication.

 

So my question to you is then: Why is the mind more than a product of biochemical processes in the brain? What makes you believe this? (Never mind the troubles with psychotherapy and proving its effectiveness.) Because most scientific treatises I have read take the view that the mind is a mush of chemicals interacting.

 

Perhaps, then, we can address this one point instead of going back and forth on "treatments work!" "they make people kill themselves!" "no they don't!" into eternity.

[ArjanD]

Dogma- 1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

 

Psychiatric treatment is based upon a Mental Health Evaluation. The test is reviewed by the World Health Organization. Since when did the WHO become a religious institution.

 

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.

 

Furthermore, have you not considered the benefits of the drug Chlorpromazine, which is considered to be one of the earliest triumphs of psychiatry?

 

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)

Edited December 26, 2009 by ArjanD

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Does it really matter if the pope himself declares that psychiatrisch brain disorders are scientifically valid or not?

 

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 in an earlyer post.

 

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_of_depression

 

There are brain differences between people of "normal" minds and people with disorders. But just as doctors in the early 1800s looked at patients and said "I see there are differences in their bodies, but I don't know what they all mean", psychiatrists and neurologists now have not entirely untangled the web of evidence.

 

Source: Antipsychotics: 50 year record of doing more harm then good (Elsevier)

You will find that this paper suggests that antipsychotics are overused, not that they are utterly ineffective. The author suggests that antipsychotic medications should be used but then an attempt made to wean the patient off, in the hopes that their recovery will continue without the need of potent medications.

 

So again, the problem rests on whether the mind is a result of chemicals that we can treat or a result of something else that we cannot.

[ArjanD]

ArjanD: Allow me to try to reword your objections to psychiatry. This, from what I gather, is your argument:

 

1. Psychiatric treatments often have negative side-effects.
   
2. We do not fully understand what causes many psychiatric disorders.
   
3. Many psychiatric treatments are only slightly effective, or sometimes completely ineffective.
   
4. Thus, psychiatry should be ended.

 

Now, let's suppose for a moment I go back in time to the early 1800s and look at medical doctors then:

1. Medical treatments often had huge negative side-effects, such as death.
   
2. Doctors did not understand what caused most diseases.
   
3. Many treatments (bloodletting, various elixirs and medications, etc.) were only slightly effective, or sometimes completely ineffective.
   
4. Thus, the medical profession should have ended.

 

That doesn't seem to be a wise choice. I think the crux of your argument rests not in showing that psychiatry isn't as good as it could be, but in these two statements:

 

Well, let me make my list a bit more as it is meant:

 

1. Psychiatric treatments do more harm then good in general
   
2. 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)
   
3. 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.)
   
4. 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.

Edited December 26, 2009 by ArjanD

[DJBruce]

 

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.

 

You seem to misunderstand that in science the person who is making the assertions of new ideas or opinions, as you yourself are doing, is required to display proof for their ideas. This burden increases for incredibly bold assertions such as the ones you are making. Secondly, you should really refrain from using circumstantial ad hominem in your arguments, as it is a logical fallacy, and is strictly against SFN rules. Aside from the fact that the burden of proof lies on you here are some articles supporting the mainstream position held by myself,

 

]Researchers[/url'] have noted differences in the brains of people who are depressed as compared to people who are not. For instance, the hippocampus, a small part of the brain that is vital to the storage of memories, appears to be smaller in people with a history of depression than in those who've never been depressed. A smaller hippocampus has fewer serotonin receptors. Serotonin is a calming brain chemical known as a neurotransmitter that allows communication between nerves in the brain and the body. It’s also thought that the neurotransmitter norepinephrine may be involved in depression.

 

Other[/url'] recent studies suggest that schizophrenia may result in part when a certain gene that is key to making important brain chemicals malfunctions. This problem may affect the part of the brain involved in developing higher functioning skills.18 Research into this gene is ongoing, so it is not yet possible to use the genetic information to predict who will develop the disease.

 

Some[/url'] imaging studies show how the brains of people with bipolar disorder may differ from the brains of healthy people or people with other mental disorders. For example, one study using MRI found that the pattern of brain development in children with bipolar disorder was similar to that in children with "multi-dimensional impairment," a disorder that causes symptoms that overlap somewhat with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.16 This suggests that the common pattern of brain development may be linked to general risk for unstable moods.

 

 

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.

 

Many procedures in medicine are designed to suppress symptoms without curing the source of the problem. For example, some of the most widely used medications are those that lower cholesterol and hypertension. Neither of these medications fix the problem, but instead simply lower the symptoms. Just because a doctor is unable to fix a disease at the source does not mean they should not treat the symptoms. Often treating the symptoms improves the life the patient.

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.

 

Do you have any idea how many people find treatment by psychiatrists helpful. I'll give you a hint: MANY. You have still failed to prove that a majority of those treated by psychiatrists are worse of for doing so. Also you may want psychiatry out of your life, but for me, and by the looks of it most of the population, we want psychiatry in our society because we feel that it can help many people.

 

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.

 

How do emotions that cause you to alienate yourself from society, emotions that cause you to have delusions, or emotions that make you end up killing yourself serve any useful purpose. Can you please cite where top athletes have serve depression causing them to preform better, as I have never heard any of this. Also as an athlete, although not a top one at that, I know that when I am depressed and down on my self my performance is worse as I do not have the confidence needed to perform.

 

Psychiatry does not care about the effects of their doings, they only want to grow further. Drugging more and more people.

 

First this assertion is completely without backing. Secondly is an example appeal to ridicule, which is a logical fallacy.

 

 

Look at the power of the human mind:

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12301-man-with-tiny-brain-shocks-doctors.html

 

This article has nothing to do with the debate at hand. It does not prove any of the assertions either side has made. It appears to be sort of a red herring.

 

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

 

This is a blatant ad hominem and as already pointed out is a logical fallacy that is strictly against the rules. Also it is poor taste to attack other forum members.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Well, let me make my list a bit more as it is meant:

 

1. Psychiatric treatments do more harm then good in general
   
2. Psychiatry has no single piece of evidence for a brain disorder as cause for psychiatrich labels, while you are already treating them as if they exist (this is scientific fraud)
   
3. 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.)
   
4. Thus, psychiatry should be ended.

Very well. Allow me to respond.

1. The references you have cited in general do not support this. They support the alternate conclusion that psychiatric treatments do more harm then good when overused or given to patients who do not need them. There are many scientists who believe, for example, that antidepressants are overused and should be reserved for certain severe cases only.
   
2. As I have pointed out, we can demonstrate brain differences in people with disorders.
   
3. True, but this means we merely need to determine which patients best benefit from treatments, rather than stopping all psychiatric treatments.
   

 

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?

I'm afraid I don't quite understand you -- perhaps there's a language barrier here. Could you try to explain what you mean?

 

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.

 

Ah! I might then cite the Helsinki Psychotherapy Study:

 

http://www.ktl.fi/tto/hps/pdf/effectiveness.pdf

 

A quote:

 

The result did not differ between the 2 forms of therapy; both types are thus effective in the treatment of depressive and anxiety disorders but for the majority of patients they are not sufficient in producing recovery.

(emphasis mine)

 

So psychotherapy isn't a home-run treatment either.

[PsyChris]

ArjanD,

 

You mentioned you have no professional relationship with Psychiatry. What clinical experience do you have with psychiatry and psychology?

 

Treatment of psychiatric patients is a private matter. It's conducted behind closed doors and unless you are a mental health professional your subjective view of schizophrenic patients is going to be vastly different. Why do you feel so strongly that psychiatry must be removed and what do you think is a replacement?

 

You advocate Soteria psychotherapy at a successful treatment rate of 90%. Do you contend that every psychiatrist and mental health professional around the globe is ignoring this highly successful practice for one of the most severely debilitating mental pathologies?

 

Your entire theory is based on treating psychiatry as a sociological group. You summarily judge every psychiatrist as being apart of this grand psychiatric conspiracy. That is completely unfair and baseless.

 

If you can present some more convincing data, I will be happy to discuss that. For the time being I have to relegate your opinion to conspiracy.

[PsyShrink]

As a psychologist (not to be confused with a psychiatrist), with over 12 years working in the field of mental health, I have to say that in my experience clients and practitioners are too quick to turn to medications to combat symptoms and too little therapy/counseling to help people learn, cope and grow. Although I have met some psychiatrists that are trying to make a positive difference in individual's lives, I have worked with a large number that are only concerned with suppressing emotionality and getting paid. I think the field of psychiatry does have much to offer--but it is needs an overhaul.

[ArjanD]

If you can present some more convincing data, I will be happy to discuss that. For the time being I have to relegate your opinion to conspiracy.

 

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.

Edited December 28, 2009 by ArjanD

[JillSwift]

Well, I am an outsider, but I have investigated the nature of psychiatry for almost 3 to 4 years now.

Argument from authority. Unsupported assertion. Fallacies.

 

My motivations are:

Irrelevant. Evidence is what was asked for.

 

Really simply put: the measurable can't be the source for itself.

Unsupported assertion. Fallacy.

 

There is no proof for any disorder in de brain as cause for mental problems or behaviour

Unsupported assertion. Fallacy.

 

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.

Appeal to good intentions. Fallacy.

 

I hope this answers your question as to why I am discussing psychiatry on this forum today.

You've been asked for evidence many times and have yet to do anything other than make bald assertions. Because you can not or will not provide evidence, your argument does not hold water.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Really simply put: the measurable can't be the source for itself.

 

What does this even mean? Could you clarify?

[DJBruce]

 

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.

 

Your one article does not prove that a majority, that is more than 50%, of all psychiatric patients are harmed by their treatments. You have even failed to show that a majority of schizophrenia patients are harmed by your treatment, for as your article states, "40% or more of schizophrenia patients would fare better if they were not so medicated." Pointing to one summary on one condition does not make a majority. Yes psychiatrists might not be able to help everyone, but that does not mean they are unable to help anyone. Which is your contention.

 

 

I does not matter if a test says you are a logical thinker or not. The fact that you have not provided any evidence for your assertions, and the fact that you have continuously used logical fallacy after logical fallacy means you have failed to prove anything.

[doG]

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...

 

Wow, this looks like Scientology spam!

[MM6]

Well, let me make my list a bit more as it is meant:

 

1. Psychiatric treatments do more harm then good in general
   
2. 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)
   
3. 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.)
   
4. Thus, psychiatry should be ended.

 

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.

 

I agree that psychiatry is the softest and least respected of the medical sciences, mainly because we don't understand the system that is the mind, and we have an unsatisfactory understanding of the system underlying the mind, the brain.

 

As an analogy, 300 years ago people had a working understanding of heat. They could manipulate it. It wasn't until atomic theory was applied as an explanatory theory for heat that we really understood heat. But you can still manipulate something without understanding it. That's obvious. Yes, we are hitting people in the brain to get a more desirable behavior. It works.

 

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

 

Re: Point 2. A tumor or granuloma pushing on the thalamus would have obvious psychological effects, maybe akin to schizophrenia. You could detect the tumor with a scan and irradiate it. But this is more the realm of a neurologist than a psychiatrist? I think you highlight something important with this point. Psychiatry is gradually being rolled into neurology as we understand more about the biological mechanisms underlying psychiatric disorders. It's already happening with pain disorders and drug dependence. So yes, in effect psychiatry will die.

 

You have made a few valid/interesting points but most of your conclusions are overblown.

[PsyChris]

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.

 

"Robert Whitaker" published this article and then placed it in his book. You will need to submit peer reviewed research. However, you seem to be making an all or nothing assumption about Psychiatry. The standards of care for Schizophrenia are NOT based on keeping patients on neuroleptics. Neuroletpics are given for the first schizophrenic break, and after a set amount of time the patient is taken off them. If they do not relapse, they are not started back on anti-psychotics. Through psychoeducation they are taught how to deal with Schizophrenia, recognize triggers for psychosis and learn more about their disorder. Psychotherapy has shown to be harmful for patients with Schizophrenia. They are particularly vulnerable to therapy that evokes memories of the past or attempts to discern their psychosis.

 

 

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 find it interesting that you seek to remove the institution of psychiatry but have no problem with the psychiatrists who designed the test to validate your "logical thinking" talent. Perhaps you should consider the real reason you are at war with a profession. Psychiatry and Psychology are both still in their infancy. Much of our profession is based off of philosophy and untested clinical opinion. We do the best we can for every patient and rely on our skills as clinicians to interpret data and be willing to change our opinion when the data changes. Your opinion of psychiatry doesn't seem to reflect the reality I know and that is what I find concerning.

 

"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. "

 

Where do you propose behavior and mental disorder emanate from if they do not come from the brain?

 

 

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.

 

Thank you for your subjective opinion? I disagree.

[stradi]

Greetings all I am a newb...

 

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.

[ArjanD]

What does this even mean? Could you clarify?

 

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 merged

Here 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

Edited January 2, 2010 by ArjanD
Consecutive posts merged.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

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.

It's not certain to me. Why do you say it is certain? What leads you to believe that?

 

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.

 

Once you are alive, you are by definition surviving, so survival comes with life. Or perhaps you mean something else?

[ArjanD]

It's not certain to me. Why do you say it is certain? What leads you to believe that?

 

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.

 

Once you are alive, you are by definition surviving, so survival comes with life. Or perhaps you mean something else?

 

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).

Edited January 3, 2010 by ArjanD

[stradi]

I agree, Arjan. E. Fuller Torey was the first major psychiatrist to question the labelling and drugging of his psychiatric patients, and he was shunned from the profession as a result. At one point some members of the APA *did* question the pervasive influence of drug money on the profession. THe APA responded by forming a task force to study of the potential impact the loss of drug support, and concluded it couldn't functon without drug money. So the drug industry effectively has psychiatrists under its thumb.

 

Consequentlymainstream psychiatrists now typically have zero knowledge about the medical causes of depression. Apparently they used to. The profession has gone backwards.

[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):

 

 

She closes with a warning about the potential disaster inherent in antidepressant use.

[stradi]

.

 

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?

 

His effect on psychiatry has been disastrous too. It used to be a biologically oriented field, until it was hijacked by freudian psychoanalysts like anna freud, who insisted that symptoms were caused by "childhood trauma".