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.
Pookie, I too would like to know more about your particular situation. Who had you committed and why? What would they say were your behaviors which supposedly justified your involuntary commitment? Were you given any medications while involuntarily held?
How long ago was this?
Do you work full time and if so, in what job and capacity? How long have you worked in this job? Have you been terminated from employment before and if so, how often?
Tell us more about your family relationships - do you have stable relationships with your immediate family? Are you able to maintain long term relationships that are mutually satisfactory and healthy?
I'm not trying to grill you. Just like you, I am basing many of my opinions on mental illness on my personal experiences with people who have been diagnosed with mental illness. I cannot IMAGINE my brother or my aunt being able to be gainfully employed in a job that had much responsibility (which translates into a job that offers enough compensation for them to be able to live completely independently). They also both have a lot of difficulty maintaining healthy relationships when they are off medication - and even on medication my brother has idiosyncrasies and behavior traits that make a healthy relationship very challenging - one might even say impossible, because though we love my brother and seek a loving relationship with him, such a relationship demands much more give on our side than it does on his side. In other words, we end up tolerating/forgiving/excusing behavior that's counterproductive to a truly mutually fulfilling relationship because we want SOME SORT OF relationship with him - and he apparently wants it with us because he continues to keep the lines of communication open as well.
Last edited by KathrynAragon; 03-03-2015 at 11:00 AM..
Okay I noticed that but haven't figured out how to correct it.
Highlight the area of their text that you want to quote. Cut or copy it. Go to the tool bar and hit the quote bubble icon. Insert the highlighted text where the curser is blinking.
Of course you wouldn't think they're credible, since they support the use of therapy which includes appropriate medications when necessary - and you don't see a need for psychiatric medications.
Well, when there's evidence of greater positive psychiatric prognosis without the use of medication than with it, why should I take NAMI seriously? There an organization that refuses to even entertain the fact that psychiatric drugs frequently enhance the problem, even though there are documented cases of it going back decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
But in actuality, NAMI is a very well respected organization with measurable positive results for those suffering from mental illness as well as their families. Intervention Summary - National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Family-to-Family Education Program
Dixon, Lisa (June 2011). "Outcomes of a Randomized Study of a Peer-Taught Family-to-Family Education Program for Mental Illness". Psychiatric Services 62 (6): 591–507. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.62.6.591. PMID 21632725
Lucksted, Alicia (June 1, 2012). "Sustained outcomes of a peer-taught family education program on mental illness". ACTA PSYCHIATRICA SCANDINAVICA (127): 279–286. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2012.01901
Marcus, Sue (August 2013). "Generalizability in the Family-to- Family Education Program Randomized Waitlist-Control Trial". Psychiatric Services 64 (8): 754–763. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.002912012. PMID 23633161
None of this disproves what I said - most of their funding comes from drug makers (which is a blatant conflict of interest) and they actively suppress views that are critical of drugs. These two important things essentially make them a front group for pharmaceutical firms. The silly "education" programs you refer to are in fact miseducation and indoctrination campaigns used to brainwash families into thinking the current medication-centered paradigm of "mental health" treatment is inherently good and the only available option. Only it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
Oh, good grief, you're acting as if all SSRIs "cause the very symptoms they're supposed to alleviate."
They do! Hello! FDA black box warnings about increased suicidal thoughts!
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
Like I said, all drugs have possible unpleasant side effects and therefore patients must be monitored for them - and if a side effect that is debilitating or harmful crops up, the drug or dosage needs to be changed or discontinued.
Again, psychotropics are the only class of drugs I know of that cause the very symptoms they're intended to treat. Are you denying the reported cases of SSRIs increasing suicidal thoughts or depression? Because I'll be happy to post the links again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
I think it's fairly common knowledge now that SSRIs should probably not be used to treat MINOR depression or even possibly moderate depression - but that they remain a viable option for the treatment of MAJOR depression. However, other forms of depression such as the depression associated with bipolar disorder, are generally more effectively treated via other types of medication.
Actually it isn't common knowledge because 13% of the entire U.S. population is on antidepressants, including one of every 4 women age 50-64. Are you suggesting 40 million+ people have MAJOR depression? I don't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
This is the second time you've used the term "hollowed out." I'm not sure what you mean by this terminology.
Hollowed out meaning the entire mental death industry is beholden to moneyed interests. This is the underlying motivation that drives decisions, not actual health outcomes, which are very poor in psychiatry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
Anyway, while I share to some extent your skepticism of the pharmaceutical industry, I also realize that drugs have their place in treatment plans for many, many illnesses - including mental illnesses.
Even though I posted links proving positive prognosis for so-called mental illness goes up *without* the use of meds?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
I do believe that "less is usually more" and that generally speaking, it's best to avoid drugs if possible - but sometimes they're necessary, and when they are, boy am I glad for pharmaceutical companies and their research and development departments!
Google "Stockholm Syndrome". This is a case example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
First of all, no reputable doctor simply "looks at the patient" and decrees that they have XYZ label when it comes to mental illness.
Of course they do - you're talking to someone who was "diagnosed" twice by two different quacks!
The whole diagnostic process is done by fiat, there is no brain testing.
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.
Then, of course, there's the problem of linking a quasi-physiological pattern with vague diagnoses. Criteria for 'mental illness' diagnosis is written in sand and 'schizophrenia' specifically has 5 separate subtypes of disparate symptoms that have nothing to do with each other. Who knows what condition brain scanners are looking at?
As for the mountain of scientific publishing supporting biological psychiatry -- the poor quality of the research is why other disciplines look down on psychiatry. Every day there's a new scandal about some pseudo-authoritative piece of crap.
If you have some studies where sampling bias from the imaging machines is corrected for, subjects are drug-naive (i.e. not taking brain-altering drugs where the effects can be falsely attributed to an organic 'mental illness'), brain abnormalities are proven to be causative of behavioral symptoms and not reciprical, and such studies are fully peer-reviewed and fully replicable, I'm all ears.
Such studies don't exist, which is why brain imaging is never used to diagnose mental illness.
It's because it's quackery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
There is a ton of research being done regarding a valid clinical test such as brain imaging for the diagnosis of schizophrenia, but we're not there yet.
The Bible has a mountain of commentary written about it; would you say the volume of material demonstrates it's all true? Also, you are aware that schizophrenia was codified over 100 years ago, right? The fact that there still isn't an objective test (or even a universal definition) for this "disease" decades after the advent of evidence-based medicine is telling. In any event, psychiatrists have been promising biomarkers and objective tests since the 60's and still haven't delivered. Promising people that they'll become an evidence-based profession at an undetermined futuristic date isn't good enough. In fact, it's an unfalsifiable circumvention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
Until then, doctors will continue to diagnose schizophrenia based on the following symptoms:
Negative Symptoms
Affective flattening- The person’s range of emotional expression is clearly diminished; poor eye contract; reduced body language
Alogia- A poverty of speech, such as brief, empty replies
Avolition – Inability to initiate and persist in goal-directed activities (such as school or work)
The above symptoms must be present for at least a month, but there also must be continuous signs of disturbance for at least six months, with at least two of the positive or at least one of the negative traits present the entire six months.
This symptomatology is heterogeneous (two different people can share the same "diagnosis" with no shared symptoms) thus it is an ambiguous catch-all. I'm glad you posted this though, because it's precisely what makes the entire concept of "schizophrenia" a sham:
...The “two or more” concept constitutes a substantial flaw in the so-called diagnosis. An individual who is displaying hallucinations and delusions (criteria 1 and 2) will be assigned a diagnosis of schizophrenia. But a person whose behavior is grossly disorganized and whose affect is flat (criteria 4 and 5) can be assigned the same diagnosis. Superficially these presentations are very different, and the only reason for assigning the same diagnosis is that the APA say so. This state of affairs is found throughout DSM. Elliot S. Valenstein, Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Neuroscience at University of Michigan has this to say:
“Although those who directed the DSM-IV project claim that “there has been a stronger emphasis on research data than with previous revisions,” scientific considerations do not play a significant role in the manual. Instead, the psychiatric tradition and sociopolitical considerations seem to have played the major roles in shaping this document. Dr. Allen Frances, who directed the DSM-IV project, stated that “we didn’t want to disrupt clinical practice by eliminating diagnoses in wide use.” Very different symptoms are included under the rubric of “schizophrenia” mainly because they have always been grouped together, rather than because of any new scientific evidence that they share a common etiology.” (Blaming the Brain, 1998, p 161)
This contrasts markedly with general medicine. For instance, there is a disease called Wegener’s granulomatosis which is caused by inflammation of the blood vessels. In the large vessels the inflammation does relatively little harm, but the small vessels can become completely occluded, leading to significant damage in kidneys, lungs, nerve endings, etc.. People with this disease may present very different clinical pictures, but the underlying disease process is essentially the same and the same antibody will be found in their blood stream. It is widely assumed among the general public that some kind of similar commonality is present in schizophrenia, and that psychiatrists and other mental health professionals are aware of this pathological link. This is simply not the case. Selecting two “symptoms” out of five leads to ten different presentations. Selecting two or more out of five yields 25 different permutations. Whilst one can acknowledge that a measure of overlap and commonality might exist in these various presentations, there is no evidence that all of these people have the same underlying pathology. They are assigned the same diagnosis and deemed to have the same “mental illness,” simply because the APA says so. The central point of this blog is that the concept of mental illness is essentially spurious, and that the vast majority of the problems set out in DSM are problems of daily living and learned behavior. The so-called diagnoses are routinely presented as explanations of abnormal or unusual behavior, when in fact they are nothing more than labels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
I don't think so. I think that mental illness presents some unique challenges when it comes to diagnosis and treatment - in part because of the stigma and misunderstandings from centuries past that bleed into the present. But I believe that science and research continue to improve our ability to diagnose and treat mental illnesses.
Stigma in 'mental illness' is inherent as the "disorders" are defined by behaviors and not pathophysiology, as is the case in the rest of medicine. Science, being the study of the material universe, can't possibly quantify what is infact an abstract construct - the human "mind". You're naive if you think medicine will ever be able to eludicate an underlying biological process in "mental illness" that's as clear and concrete as real diseases. Medical esearch into "mental illness" is an intuitive and imaginative work of pseudoscientific fiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
Actually, they have a very concise definition and here it is: Schizophrenia
"Incoherent or illogical thoughts, bizarre behavior and speech" are value judgements. "Delusions or hallucinations, such as hearing voices" can only be assumed intuitively (I myself was accused of being delusional when I wasn't), not medically proven. Furthermore, these are superficial behaviors that may have any number of disparate underlying causes depending on the individual and do not prove the person has a brain disorder, let alone that everyone who displays these behaviors has the same disorder. This is the difference between "mental illnessses" and actual diseases - the latter have to be physically tested for in every individual before they're diagnosed, the former is assumed and generalized based on the intuition, imagination and prejudice of the doctor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
You do realize there's a difference between the definition of schizophrenia and the definition of schizophrenia SUBTYPES, right? You're using the two different terms interchangeably. That dog won't hunt.
The point I was making was that the removal of subtypes due to poor reliability only begs the question - how does anyone know the entire concept of schizophrenia isn't equally unreliable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
Sorry, but I believe these sources outweigh Joanna Moncrieff,
Based on what? Your personal bias?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
though I can understand why you tout her research, since she is opposed to most usage or current modes of usage of psychiatric drugs. She is a controversial figure in the world of psychiatric medicine and yet even she states that psychiatric medications are sometimes a useful component in a treatment plan. She freely admits that psychiatric drugs can treat symptoms - but she differentiates between treating symptoms and CURING someone. I can agree with her on that point - especially since she states that for some patients, simply relieving them of the symptoms of mental illness is a necessary relief to them.BBC NEWS | Health | 'The myth of the chemical cure'
Again, I don't agree with every single thing researchers say. Since the whole of psychiatry is beholden to pharmaceutical interests, it's no surprise a doctor or scientist won't come right out and admit psychotropics do more harm than good, and should only be taken in acute, extreme cases. It's okay though, the data and statistics speak for themselves.
There was page after page after page of studies showing strong evidence of a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia, but I got tired of reading them and posting the links - but you get my drift.
None of this translates to clinical practice (in the form of an objective exam), because it's junk science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
I disagree. As I stated before, there is study after study after study showing a strong genetic component to schizophrenia, which indicates that schizophrenia has a biological cause. By the way, thanks for the definition, but I already knew what "etiology" means, so there's no need for you to "translate" into layman's terminology for me.
-Volume of data means nothing, as I pointed out in the analogy about the Bible.
-Interesting how you know what etiology means. The fact that 'schizophrenia' doesn't have one more than a century after it's initital codification, yet you still believe it's as literal a disease as diabetes, is telling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
As the immediate family member of two schizophrenic individuals (my aunt and my brother) who have been involuntarily committed, I can vouch for the fact that in their psychotic state (non medicated) both of them were absolutely incapable of making ANY sort of logical decision about treatment at that point in their lives (and had been for some time).
Lol, this means absolutely nothing to me and not only because it's a useles anecdote (that I provided counterexamples of in the data about people who've fully recovered without meds) but because I'm diagnosed myself and have never taken any meds, yet I'm having a reasonable debate with you right now on the very merits of the same drugs I supposedly shouldn't be able to function without. Lmao.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
My aunt refuses to take any sort of medication or receive any sort of treatment for her mental illness - and consequently, she is completely off her rocker, mentally incompetent (her daughter, my cousin, has been graced with the responsibility of being her care taker and guardian), and totally unable to care for herself on her own, in spite of a high IQ and strong verbal skills (she was living on the streets pushing a shopping cart and talking to the voices in her head at the time of her involuntary commitment).
More useless anecdotes that prove nothing. If your family members have a medical disorder, the doctor ought to be able to pull out an instrument and prove it. Otherwise, labeling them with an unfalsifiable stigma like "mental illness" is about as scientifically valid as saying they're possessed by the devil. It's an ideological explanation with no underlying provability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
My brother was mentally unstable/ill for at least fifteen years prior to his involuntary commitment and his last psychotic break was absolutely spectacular, involving several local, state and federal agencies. He was, simply put, stark raving mad at the time of his involuntary commitment. He has responded very well to his treatment plan and is an outright activist for the rights - and responsibilities - of mental patients. He credits his treatment plan, which includes psychiatric drugs, for saving his life. He is able to live independently.
Anecdotes. Anecdotes. Who cares? I'm diagnosed with "schizophrenia" too and doing fine sans "treatment", but apparently that doesn't register with you. The idea of a radical anti-psychiatry ex-patient who thinks for himself and wouldn't take meds if his life depended on it, yet lives a perfectly normal life despite it, must go against the whole paradigm you've been brainwashed by NAMI with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
I know you don't care anything about personal anecdotes, but I have shared mine with you to show that there are other experiences outside your own (which you're drawing on even though you are not sharing many details - and that's OK) which are just as valid and truthful and important to others as your own experiences are to you.
I think there may be several causes of schizophrenia - and I think there is probably a genetic predisposition which may allow schizophrenia to "blossom" under certain conditions. I also believe that there are both genetic and environmental factors involved, in other words, and many scientists agree with me. I think there are levels of impairment also - I've seen these various levels at work at different times in the lives of my family members who have schizophrenia.
I don't think schizophrenia exists except as a behavioral classification scheme. There's doctors and scientists that agree with me, too (google "Susan Boyle Schizophrenia: A Scientific Delusion?").
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
Take, for instance, my aunt, who is a very gentle,peaceful sort of person. She takes no medication and receives no treatment for her condition. She lives peacefully with my cousin, who tolerates her many bizarre delusions and ramblings, though the strain does take it's toll on her. She isn't visibly psychotic. She can and does go shopping, work in the yard and house, have relationships with the neighbors, etc. and is not a threat to herself or others. She could probably maintain some sort of employment but the employer would have to put up with some unusual behaviors. She would probably "do well" in a third world setting, because:
My brother? He is more violent, more threatening, and more dangerous when he is unmedicated. He is also pretty much incapable of holding down the a job though he could possibly do so with a better treatment plan - who knows?
Now - to clarify, I myself take a cautious approach to ANY sort of medications/drugs. I am opposed to the practice of throwing a pill at a symptom - I think we should incorporate MANY different treatments, including but not limited to holistic and spiritual and emotional therapies for a wide range of illnesses (heck, maybe most illnesses!) including mental illnesses.
Blah blah blah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
But I have also seen friends and family respond very well to psychiatric drugs. Do they need to take them for the rest of their lives? Are there other forms of treatment that may be just as, or more, effective? Possibly - I don't know. But from a family member's perspective, I also know that without professional intervention, their lives would consist of literally living on the street, and in the case of my brother, his family members would be literally living in fear of our lives.
I agree that we should zealously guard the rights of those who are mentally ill - but I also believe that as a society, we must also zealously protect the rights of the people they interact with as well. Sometimes it's a tricky balance to achieve. For instance, my aunt - while she is not a danger to others, she is a danger to herself. She is incapable of living independently - so the responsibility for her care falls on her daughter, who has much more patience and tolerance for her idiosyncracies and needs and demands than most people would have - and certainly more than an employer or neighbor would probably have. If something were to happen to my cousin, who would be willing to take on the care of this unmedicated, and untreated severely mentally ill person? Who SHOULD take on that responsibility -a responsibility that would be significantly easier to bear if my aunt would submit to a treatment plan - one that may include psychiatric drugs?
It's a tough call.
Constitutional rights are inalienable, i.e. can't be taken away. If people like you had their way, I would be locked up somewhere instead of typing on CD. Good thing your opinions about my "mind" don't matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
Congratulations! It would be very helpful to me if you would describe your treatment plan, if you have one, or describe how you have achieved this level of independence - a level which I cannot imagine my aunt or my brother achieving without a very concise treatment plan. I personally would love for my brother not to have to take unnecessary medications, and I would love to see my aunt achieve a more "normal" behavior pattern.
Some toxic pill they wanted me the take, but I didn't. Turns out it causes brain damage and male breast growth, leading to at least 10 different lawsuits, and the government recently slapped the manufacturer (Johnson & Johnson) with a multi-billion dollar fine for illegally marketing it to kids. These people are worse than crack dealers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
I don't think you're qualified to assess and diagnose my brother. That being said, drug and alcohol abuse was a part of his life - which he and his family both believe was an attempt at self medication. I have known my brother since he was born, and evidence of some sort of mental illness became apparent before his substance abuse came into play.
I can assure you - if you had known my brother for the past 15 or 20 years, you would know that he is mentally ill. Everyone who knew and loved him knew this. All you'd have to do is be around him for a day or so to know it, though he could be very charming and eloquent for a short period of time before you would begin to realize, "Wait...something's not right here..."
No offence, but that's easier said than done. Adults with "psychological needs" must agree to and submit to the necessary treatment in order for it to be effective - whether that treatment includes psychiatric drug therapy or not. You do not seem to realize just how out of control, disruptive, and dangerous many behaviors of the "psychologically needy" person are. Our family tried for twenty years to "live with" and support my brother - it really couldn't be done safely. It was "above our pay grade" and far outside our level of understanding - and we are a well educated and loving family with many resources - but those didn't do a bit of good when faced with an adult who WOULD NOT COMPLY with any sort of healthy personal boundaries, let alone a treatment plan.
Sometimes it is - and sometimes it definitely ISN'T. My brother's dangerous behavior BEGAN with ambiguous remarks such as "You're going to see me on the evening news," and "When I go down, I'm taking lots of other people with me," but ended with him breaking into a home in the middle of the night and attacking the residents there physically - and this was after two weeks of increasingly bizarre behavior which included (but was not limited to) sitting outside his house completely naked, cooking on a grill, and driving a tractor down the road with a refrigerator tied to the back of it, while he wore nothing but a towel, and pulling up into neighbor's yards, yelling racial slurs at them (how he managed not to get shot is amazing).
Prior to that, he had also come over to my house in the middle of the night once, brandishing a handgun and yelling at me about "getting my life in order." I had to call the police, who carted him off and charged him with public intoxication but since he hadn't actually pointed the gun at me or told me specifically he was going to kill me, his behavior was apparently "too ambiguous" to charge him with threatening me - even though the fact that he barged into my house uninvited and unannounced at midnight waving a handgun around in the air and yelling at me felt pretty threatening to me.
My brother didn't want to be treated at all. Most people who are INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED don't want to be treated. That's why they have to be involuntarily committed.
If we're going to have a discussion on this, I am going to have to insist that we do so without insults, or I'm just going to withdraw from the discussion. Surely you can manage to discuss this with me without resorting to insults and sarcasm, right?
I have a different perspective than you do - and my perspective is just as valid as yours is.
It's not just the lives of the mentally ill which are at stake. Those suffering from mental illness often disrupt, and can even endanger, the lives of those around them.
Think about it.
Blah blah blah. This is like a indoctrinated cult member trying to tell me about their quack voodoo practice. I don't care. The mental health system is a destructive, soul-destroying, sham and I for one am glad I'm no longer part of it. It seems people only ever want "treatment" for others which I find telling. It fits more with my idea that it's more a punitive policing tool than a medical practice. That's certainly appears to be the case with your brother.
Last edited by Pookie Jenkins; 03-03-2015 at 01:50 PM..
Well, when there's evidence of greater positive psychiatric prognosis without the use of medication than with it, why should I take NAMI seriously? There an organization that refuses to even entertain the fact that psychiatric drugs frequently enhance the problem, even though there are documented cases of it going back decades.
None of this disproves what I said - most of their funding comes from drug makers (which is a blatant conflict of interest) and they actively suppress views that are critical of drugs. These two important things essentially make them a front group for pharmaceutical firms. The silly "education" programs you refer to are in fact miseducation and indoctrination campaigns used to brainwash families into thinking the current medication-centered paradigm of "mental health" treatment is inherently good and the only available option. Only it isn't.
They do! Hello! FDA black box warnings about increased suicidal thoughts!
Again, psychotropics are the only class of drugs I know of that cause the very symptoms they're intended to treat. Are you denying the reported cases of SSRIs increasing suicidal thoughts or depression? Because I'll be happy to post the links again.
Actually it isn't common knowledge because 13% of the entire U.S. population is on antidepressants, including one of every 4 women age 50-64. Are you suggesting 40 million+ people have MAJOR depression? I don't think so.
Hollowed out meaning the entire mental death industry is beholden to moneyed interests. This is the underlying motivation that drives decisions, not actual health outcomes, which are very poor in psychiatry.
Even though I posted links proving positive prognosis for so-called mental illness goes up *without* the use of meds?
Google "Stockholm Syndrome". This is a case example.
Of course they do - you're talking to someone who was "diagnosed" twice by two different quacks!
The whole diagnostic process is done by fiat, there is no brain testing.
Brain imaging in psychiatry is and has always been a sham:
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.
Then, of course, there's the problem of linking a quasi-physiological pattern with vague diagnoses. Criteria for 'mental illness' diagnosis is written in sand and 'schizophrenia' specifically has 5 separate subtypes of disparate symptoms that have nothing to do with each other. Who knows what condition brain scanners are looking at?
As for the mountain of scientific publishing supporting biological psychiatry -- the poor quality of the research is why other disciplines look down on psychiatry. Every day there's a new scandal about some pseudo-authoritative piece of crap.
If you have some studies where sampling bias from the imaging machines is corrected for, subjects are drug-naive (i.e. not taking brain-altering drugs where the effects can be falsely attributed to an organic 'mental illness'), brain abnormalities are proven to be causative of behavioral symptoms and not reciprical, and such studies are fully peer-reviewed and fully replicable, I'm all ears.
Such studies don't exist, which is why brain imaging is never used to diagnose mental illness.
It's because it's quackery.
The Bible has a mountain of commentary written about it; would you say the volume of material demonstrates it's all true? Also, you are aware that schizophrenia was codified over 100 years ago, right? The fact that there still isn't an objective test (or even a universal definition) for this "disease" decades after the advent of evidence-based medicine is telling. In any event, psychiatrists have been promising biomarkers and objective tests since the 60's and still haven't delivered. Promising people that they'll become an evidence-based profession at an undetermined futuristic date isn't good enough. In fact, it's an unfalsifiable circumvention.
This symptomatology is heterogeneous (two different people can share the same "diagnosis" with no shared symptoms) thus it is an ambiguous catch-all. I'm glad you posted this though, because it's precisely what makes the entire concept of "schizophrenia" a sham:
...The “two or more†concept constitutes a substantial flaw in the so-called diagnosis. An individual who is displaying hallucinations and delusions (criteria 1 and 2) will be assigned a diagnosis of schizophrenia. But a person whose behavior is grossly disorganized and whose affect is flat (criteria 4 and 5) can be assigned the same diagnosis. Superficially these presentations are very different, and the only reason for assigning the same diagnosis is that the APA say so. This state of affairs is found throughout DSM. Elliot S. Valenstein, Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Neuroscience at University of Michigan has this to say:
“Although those who directed the DSM-IV project claim that “there has been a stronger emphasis on research data than with previous revisions,†scientific considerations do not play a significant role in the manual. Instead, the psychiatric tradition and sociopolitical considerations seem to have played the major roles in shaping this document. Dr. Allen Frances, who directed the DSM-IV project, stated that “we didn’t want to disrupt clinical practice by eliminating diagnoses in wide use.†Very different symptoms are included under the rubric of “schizophrenia†mainly because they have always been grouped together, rather than because of any new scientific evidence that they share a common etiology.†(Blaming the Brain, 1998, p 161)
This contrasts markedly with general medicine. For instance, there is a disease called Wegener’s granulomatosis which is caused by inflammation of the blood vessels. In the large vessels the inflammation does relatively little harm, but the small vessels can become completely occluded, leading to significant damage in kidneys, lungs, nerve endings, etc.. People with this disease may present very different clinical pictures, but the underlying disease process is essentially the same and the same antibody will be found in their blood stream. It is widely assumed among the general public that some kind of similar commonality is present in schizophrenia, and that psychiatrists and other mental health professionals are aware of this pathological link. This is simply not the case. Selecting two “symptoms†out of five leads to ten different presentations. Selecting two or more out of five yields 25 different permutations. Whilst one can acknowledge that a measure of overlap and commonality might exist in these various presentations, there is no evidence that all of these people have the same underlying pathology. They are assigned the same diagnosis and deemed to have the same “mental illness,†simply because the APA says so. The central point of this blog is that the concept of mental illness is essentially spurious, and that the vast majority of the problems set out in DSM are problems of daily living and learned behavior. The so-called diagnoses are routinely presented as explanations of abnormal or unusual behavior, when in fact they are nothing more than labels.
Stigma in 'mental illness' is inherent as the "disorders" are defined by behaviors and not pathophysiology, as is the case in the rest of medicine. Science, being the study of the material universe, can't possibly quantify what is infact an abstract construct - the human "mind". You're naive if you think medicine will ever be able to eludicate an underlying biological process in "mental illness" that's as clear and concrete as real diseases. Medical esearch into "mental illness" is an intuitive and imaginative work of pseudoscientific fiction.
"Incoherent or illogical thoughts, bizarre behavior and speech" are value judgements. "Delusions or hallucinations, such as hearing voices" can only be assumed intuitively (I myself was accused of being delusional when I wasn't), not medically proven. Furthermore, these are superficial behaviors that may have any number of disparate underlying causes depending on the individual and do not prove the person has a brain disorder, let alone that everyone who displays these behaviors has the same disorder. This is the difference between "mental illnessses" and actual diseases - the latter have to be physically tested for in every individual before they're diagnosed, the former is assumed and generalized based on the intuition, imagination and prejudice of the doctor.
The point I was making was that the removal of subtypes due to poor reliability only begs the question - how does anyone know the entire concept of schizophrenia isn't equally unreliable?
Based on what? Your personal bias?
Again, I don't agree with every single thing researchers say. Since the whole of psychiatry is beholden to pharmaceutical interests, it's no surprise a doctor or scientist won't come right out and admit psychotropics do more harm than good, and should only be taken in acute, extreme cases. It's okay though, the data and statistics speak for themselves.
None of this translates to clinical practice (in the form of an objective exam), because it's junk science.
-Volume of data means nothing, as I pointed out in the analogy about the Bible.
-Interesting how you know what etiology means. The fact that 'schizophrenia' doesn't have one more than a century after it's initital codification, yet you still believe it's as literal a disease as diabetes, is telling.
Lol, this means absolutely nothing to me and not only because it's a useles anecdote (that I provided counterexamples of in the data about people who've fully recovered without meds) but because I'm diagnosed myself and have never taken any meds, yet I'm having a reasonable debate with you right now on the very merits of the same drugs I supposedly shouldn't be able to function without. Lmao.
More useless anecdotes that prove nothing. If your family members have a medical disorder, the doctor ought to be able to pull out an instrument and prove it. Otherwise, labeling them with an unfalsifiable stigma like "mental illness" is about as scientifically valid as saying they're possessed by the devil. It's an ideological explanation with no underlying provability.
Anecdotes. Anecdotes. Who cares? I'm diagnosed with "schizophrenia" too and doing fine sans "treatment", but apparently that doesn't register with you. The idea of a radical anti-psychiatry ex-patient who thinks for himself and wouldn't take meds if his life depended on it, yet lives a perfectly normal life despite it, must go against the whole paradigm you've been brainwashed by NAMI with.
I don't think schizophrenia exists except as a behavioral classification scheme. There's doctors and scientists that agree with me, too (google "Susan Boyle Schizophrenia: A Scientific Delusion?").
Blah blah blah.
Constitutional rights are inalienable, i.e. can't be taken away. If people like you had their way, I would be locked up somewhere instead of typing on CD. Good thing your opinions about my "mind" don't matter.
Some toxic pill they wanted me the take, but I didn't. Turns out it causes brain damage and male breast growth, leading to at least 10 different lawsuits, and the government recently slapped the manufacturer (Johnson & Johnson) with a multi-billion dollar fine for illegally marketing it to kids. These people are worse than crack dealers.
Blah blah blah. This is like a indoctrinated cult member trying to tell me about their quack voodoo practice. I don't care. The mental health system is a destructive, soul-destroying, sham and I for one am glad I'm no longer part of it. It seems people only ever want "treatment" for others which I find telling. It fits more with my idea that it's more a punitive policing tool than a medical practice. That's certainly appears to be the case with your brother.
Interesting.
My brother, who is definitely mentally ill, can carry on a very intelligent and interactive conversation - on or off his meds, depending on his mood and motivation and whether or not he's delusional at the moment. So the fact that you can as well really proves nothing to me, other than the probability that you're intelligent, which is nice but doesn't negate schizophrenia, if you have it.
You're fighting "experts" with "experts" and all this wall of text really proves is that the experts disagree on the causes and treatment of schizophrenia - I have yet to see any compelling evidence that schizophrenia doesn't exist. All we're debating now is how best to handle it.
Like I told you before - I'll only continue a conversation with you if you can manage to do so in a polite way rather than resorting to rudeness and insults. Apparently you either can't or won't, so unless you change your mind, I'm done with our conversation, which is a shame because I think we could learn from each other's perspective if we could have a respectful discussion.
A fact that many people aren't aware is that in the United States prisons are filled with a significant number of inmates with a combination of developmental delay+mental illness +substance abuse(drugs/alcohol) issues. Typically when substance abuse is added to the mix these individuals commit crimes to support their habit, sooner or later get caught, tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison. Prison is where we warehouse individuals with these issues for the most part. They sit in prison for a few years do their time, once they are released from prison they return to the drugs/alcohol and the cycle repeats.
So the short answer is that many individuals with mental illness+ developmental delay are frequently found in the prison system in the United States.
same thing happens in ireland though they are more likely to be homeless here
the liberals who lobbied for the closing down of old style mental institutions deserve a lot of blame for this , they wanted the doors flung open but forgot to plan for what might happen to these unfortunate people
closing down so many mental institutions was a huge mistake in many countries , some people are simply not right and its cruel to leave them to their own devices
same thing happens in ireland though they are more likely to be homeless here
the liberals who lobbied for the closing down of old style mental institutions deserve a lot of blame for this , they wanted the doors flung open but forgot to plan for what might happen to these unfortunate people
closing down so many mental institutions was a huge mistake in many countries , some people are simply not right and its cruel to leave them to their own devices
I agree with your opinion although here in the United States they were closed by a conservative.
My brother, who is definitely mentally ill, can carry on a very intelligent and interactive conversation - on or off his meds, depending on his mood and motivation and whether or not he's delusional at the moment. So the fact that you can as well really proves nothing to me, other than the probability that you're intelligent, which is nice but doesn't negate schizophrenia, if you have it.
You're mistaken if you think I'm trying to disprove the existence of "schizophrenia", as it is logically impossible to prove a negative. On the contrary, the burden of proof is on psychiatrists to prove I or anyone else has this supposed disorder. This is, of course, impossible since there are no medical tests for "schizophrenia" or any other so-called mental disorder. The "diagnosis" is decreed by fiat (declared into existence via the doctor's authority). In the scientific world, which medicine is part of, the absence of objective proof that something exists is usually taken to mean it doesn't.
This is the reality brainwashed people like you refuse to acknowledge. There's no such thing as schizophrenia, because the term has no concise definition and can't be clinically, individually proven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
You're fighting "experts" with "experts" and all this wall of text really proves is that the experts disagree on the causes and treatment of schizophrenia - I have yet to see any compelling evidence that schizophrenia doesn't exist. All we're debating now is how best to handle it.
SMH.
Dr. Allen Frances, retired Duke University psychiatrist and DSM-IV lead editor, the man who wrote the book used to diagnose schizophrenia, possibly the most important psychiatrist in the world, was quoted saying the following in a 2010 Wired Magazine article: “There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bulls---. I mean, you just can’t define it.”and “these concepts are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the boundaries.”Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness | WIRED
You're absolutely ignorant if you think there aren't psychiatrists and other "mental health professionals" that don't think schizophrenia exists. I already linked at least two articles where groups of clinicians have campaigned to have the term abolished. Here's another two:
Like I told you before - I'll only continue a conversation with you if you can manage to do so in a polite way rather than resorting to rudeness and insults.
You refuse to acknowledge any of the facts I've pointed out, and resort to reiterating the same tired points after I already discredited them. You're being disingenuous and regurgitating the same circular argument because you obviously can't handle my POV, which is backed by facts and not emotions and useless anecdotes. Either address my responses directly or agree to disagree and go on about your business because you have no argument, no point and clearly, no clue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
Apparently you either can't or won't, so unless you change your mind, I'm done with our conversation, which is a shame because I think we could learn from each other's perspective if we could have a respectful discussion.
You aren't trying to learn, you're doing the same thing psychiatrists in power do with their patients - pretending to be empathetic whilst completely rigid in your refusal to acknowledge any facts that undermine the whole paradigm you've been miseducated with. It's a like a weird source of power you can't give up.
Last edited by Pookie Jenkins; 03-04-2015 at 09:46 AM..
same thing happens in ireland though they are more likely to be homeless here
the liberals who lobbied for the closing down of old style mental institutions deserve a lot of blame for this , they wanted the doors flung open but forgot to plan for what might happen to these unfortunate people
closing down so many mental institutions was a huge mistake in many countries , some people are simply not right and its cruel to leave them to their own devices
Most of the people who think like this have never been subjected to an institution themselves and appear to only want this sort of insane policy for others. As a person who's been involuntarily committed before, I think the idea of forced hospitalizations as State policy is utter lunacy and an outrageous violation of human, civil and Constitutional rights, not to mention a humiliating ordeal that frequently exacerbates underlying psychological issues.
Most of the people who think like this have never been subjected to an institution themselves and appear to only want this sort of insane policy for others. As a person who's been involuntarily committed before, I think the idea of forced hospitalizations as State policy is utter lunacy and an outrageous violation of human, civil and Constitutional rights, not to mention a humiliating ordeal that frequently exacerbates underlying psychological issues.
Pookie what do you suggest be done with those individuals that are in having suicidal ideations and are verbaling a detailed plan of how they will carry it out? In your view should those individuals be allowed the freedom to carry out their plan to commit suicide? What about the indidual that that verbalizes he believes that his mother is a monster and is plotting to kill him and he believes he must figure out how to take her out first? What do you think are the appropriate interventions in the two scenarios above.
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.
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.
