U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness > Mental Health
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-31-2014, 09:22 AM
 
283 posts, read 468,059 times
Reputation: 292

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now View Post
Consult a DSM. Read the book The Soloist (or see the movie). Schizophrenia a very real mental disorder.
The Real Story Behind 'The Soloist' : NPR
I have. The DSM simply declares that 'mental disorders' exist without a specific underlying theory or evidence base as to their cause. That means its contents are unfalsifiable, i.e. unscientific fraud.

Movies prove nothing. Books about people displaying superficial conduct prove nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-31-2014, 09:37 AM
 
283 posts, read 468,059 times
Reputation: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopian Slums View Post
The stigma really is a shameful thing- it's shameful that people make others feel stigma!!!

In some ways, I think those w depression and anxiety have even more of a stigma because they are told to "be happy" "life is what you make about it", "It's all about perspective" blah blah blah. Schizophrenia is almost a more "legitimate" mental illness.

I'm very open about my dad having schizoaffective disorder and i think this makes people more comfortable to tell me their struggles. A lot of my friends are also in the psychological field.
Psychiatric "diagnosis" itself is the source of the stigma. Consult your dads medical records. They will likely read like superficial character judgement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2014, 10:07 AM
 
Location: So Ca
18,267 posts, read 16,805,525 times
Reputation: 15923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie Jenkins View Post
The DSM simply declares that 'mental disorders' exist without a specific underlying theory or evidence base as to their cause. That means its contents are unfalsifiable, i.e. unscientific fraud.
So you think that the entire medical profession falls into this category?

Why not just say that you're angry that you were misdiagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic and leave it at that....instead of dismissing others who happen to have a valid diagnosis?

Quote:
Movies prove nothing. Books about people displaying superficial conduct prove nothing.
"Superficial conduct"? Do some research before you comment so carelessly. The film was adapted from the book by the L.A. Times columnist Steve Lopez, who wrote about a man he came to know intimately, Nathaniel Ayers. Ayers was a gifted student at Julliard when the first symptoms of schizophrenia appeared.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2014, 02:32 PM
 
283 posts, read 468,059 times
Reputation: 292
"Why not just say that you're angry that you were misdiagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic and leave it at that....instead of dismissing others who happen to have a valid diagnosis? "

Because "misdiagnosis" in psychiatry is impossible, since it's unfalsifiable (impossible to disprove). Also, because the harm these quack doctors cause isn't limited to me, and trying to argue I was misdiagnosed lends the idea that the "diagnosis" category itself a legitimate medical condition rather than a phony pseudoscientific catch-all label that's merely treated like one. If those brain scan studies are valid, then please explain to me why they aren't used in routine diagnostic practice?! If people really have "schizophrenia" and it's a literal, bona fide disease, why isn't it diagnosed in an objective way? Why is it decreed by fiat instead of proven?

"Superficial conduct"? Do some research before you comment so carelessly. The film was adapted from the book by the L.A. Times columnist Steve Lopez, who wrote about a man he came to know intimately, Nathaniel Ayers. Ayers was a gifted student at Julliard when the first symptoms of schizophrenia appeared.


You tell me me to do research but then respond with an anecdote about someone's "symptoms". Symptoms by themselves prove nothing medically-speaking, especially when they're entirely behavioral and not physiological. This is the fundamental problem with "mental health" - it's 100% perceptive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2014, 03:25 PM
 
Location: So Ca
18,267 posts, read 16,805,525 times
Reputation: 15923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie Jenkins View Post
[b] ...because the harm these quack doctors cause isn't limited to me, and trying to argue I was misdiagnosed lends the idea that the "diagnosis" category itself a legitimate medical condition rather than a phony pseudoscientific catch-all label that's merely treated like one.
So the many M.D.s who consult and evaluate research for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders are a bunch of quacks?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie Jenkins View Post
Symptoms by themselves prove nothing medically-speaking, especially when they're entirely behavioral and not physiological.
I don't call delusions and hallucinations "behavioral symptoms." 1% of the world's population has this brain disorder. Schizophrenia.com - Schizophrenia Pictures and Images
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2014, 07:20 PM
 
79 posts, read 65,868 times
Reputation: 37
It is a neurological disorder. I personally don't know why they consider it a "functional" disorder, when it is actually a neurological one. You can see schizophrenia in a PET scan or MRI. It has to do mostly with dopamine pathways in your frontal lobe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2014, 08:10 AM
 
Location: Purgatory
6,322 posts, read 5,073,209 times
Reputation: 9781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie Jenkins View Post
Psychiatric "diagnosis" itself is the source of the stigma. Consult your dads medical records. They will likely read like superficial character judgement.
They don't. They read about his paranoid delusions and hearing voices. Maybe in the 50s wording like that was used. Today we base diagnosis on symptoms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2014, 08:13 AM
 
Location: Purgatory
6,322 posts, read 5,073,209 times
Reputation: 9781
Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerjohn1324 View Post
It is a neurological disorder. I personally don't know why they consider it a "functional" disorder, when it is actually a neurological one. You can see schizophrenia in a PET scan or MRI. It has to do mostly with dopamine pathways in your frontal lobe.
All "behavioral" or psychological disorders are neurologically based. Unfortunately, things like depression and anxiety are not as easily seen on fmris. Our technology is not yet that advanced.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2014, 09:07 AM
 
283 posts, read 468,059 times
Reputation: 292
"So the many M.D.s who consult and evaluate research for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders are a bunch of quacks?"

They sure are, and the leader of them all, Dr. Allen Frances, pretty much said so four years ago by admitting their work is "bulls---" (his words):

Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness | WIRED

Every so often Al Frances says something that seems to surprise even him. Just now, for instance, in the predawn darkness of his comfortable, rambling home in Carmel, California, he has broken off his exercise routine to declare that “there is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bull****. I mean, you just can’t define it.” Then an odd, reflective look crosses his face, as if he’s taking in the strangeness of this scene: Allen Frances, lead editor of the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (universally known as the DSM-IV), the guy who wrote the book on mental illness, confessing that “these concepts are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the boundaries.” For the first time in two days, the conversation comes to an awkward halt.

Also, the Harvard psychologist Paula Caplan, who contributed to DSM-IV, wrote a whole Washington Post op-ed in 2012 on how the DSM is a worthless billing bible that ruins lives:

Psychiatry (Psychiatry)

"I don't call delusions and hallucinations "behavioral symptoms." 1% of the world's population has this brain disorder."

Hallucinations and delusions can't be objectively verified, they're interpreted based on behaviors. I myself was accused of being delusional when I got diagnosed, and since "schizophrenia" is assigned in an unfalsifiable way, there was no way for me to prove otherwise. It's the quack doctors that suffer from delusions, in reality.

I don't know why you posted a link to schizophrenia.com when I already addressed neuroimaging in mental health. Hardly any large-scale studies exist that are of mostly drug-naive subjects, rendering the studies and scans worthless junk science (attributing abnormal brain scans to a biologically-elusive 'mental disorder' when the subjects have been on brain-altering drugs for 20 years is a pseudoscientific obfuscation). Also, the brain scans themselves are highly questionable at best and a bunch of fraudulent quackery at worst. See:

Vaughan Bell: the trouble with brain scans | Science | The Guardian
Dilemma flawed neuroimaging papers | Daniel Bor
Does Brain Scanning Show Just the Tip of the Iceberg? - The Crux | DiscoverMagazine.com
Neuroskeptic: Brains In Motion Are Bad For Neuroscience

There's a tremendous amount of noise in brain scans, which researchers do not properly process statistically. They pretty much see what they want to see in them. It's like reading tea leaves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2014, 09:20 AM
 
283 posts, read 468,059 times
Reputation: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerjohn1324 View Post
It is a neurological disorder. I personally don't know why they consider it a "functional" disorder, when it is actually a neurological one. You can see schizophrenia in a PET scan or MRI. It has to do mostly with dopamine pathways in your frontal lobe.
I already addressed this. It's nonsense. The scans are junk science, and the brain damage is either nonexistent or medication-induced. See the following links:

Vaughan Bell: the trouble with brain scans | Science | The Guardian
Dilemma flawed neuroimaging papers | Daniel Bor
Does Brain Scanning Show Just the Tip of the Iceberg? - The Crux | DiscoverMagazine.com
Neuroskeptic: Brains In Motion Are Bad For Neuroscience

On the drug-induced brain damage:

Brain shrinkage seen in those taking antipsychotic medications - Los Angeles Times
The Neurocritic: The Dark Side of Diagnosis by Brain Scan
Loss of Brain Tissue in Schizophrenia Tied to Antipsychotics | Psych Central News
http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.or...news_46_9_20_2
Antipsychotics and Brain Shrinkage: An Update | Mad In America
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness > Mental Health
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:49 PM.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top