Do you believe that mental illness is a

[geauxtohell]

Unlike physical health problems and medical conditions, there are no laboratory tests such as blood and urine analyses or x-rays to assist practitioners to definitively diagnose mental illnesses. Instead, practitioners generally rely on listening carefully to patients' complaints and observing their behavior

Have you ever heard of the "blood brain barrier"? It's this thing that surrounds the CNS and provides a barrier from the blood and the brain. Very few things cross it, so of course their is no blood test for chemicals in the brain (urine comes from blood so that's redundant). You have to do a lumbar puncture (spinal tap) on someone when you think they have meningitis, because the WBCs remain in the CSF. You can't do a WBC count by drawing blood peripherally.

Again, you toss these facts around like they are automatic indictments. It's not at all novel to people within the field or who study the body. I've never heard a psychiatrist claim their practice was anything but clinical diagnoses. That's the whole point behind the DSM IV. As someone pointed out, that doesn't mean this is a static issue. Just as cancer existed before X-Ray, CTs, ways to detect cellular markers, and MRIs.

Underlying the whole issue is this basic fact: it's all good and fine to toss stones at the establishment, but you provide no realistic alternative to deal with a very real medical problem that has emotional symptoms.

 

[geauxtohell]

Tardive dyskinesias (TDs) are involuntary movements of the tongue, lips, face, trunk, and extremities that occur in patients treated with long-term dopaminergic antagonist medications. Although they are associated with the use of neuroleptics, TDs apparently existed before the development of neuroleptics. People with schizophrenia appear especially vulnerable to developing TDs after exposure to conventional neuroleptics, anticholinergics, toxins, substances of abuse, and other agents. TDs are most common in patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar disorder who have been treated with antipsychotic medication for long periods, but TDs occasionally occur in other patients as well. For example, people with fetal alcohol syndrome, other developmental disabilities, and other brain disorders are vulnerable to the development of tardive dyskinesias, even after receiving a single dose of the causative agent

Tardive Dyskinesia: eMedicine Neurology

TD's do happen, yes they do. However, most medical medications have side effects. But the side effects are nothing compared to the actual disease.

These folks you say you help, how did they get into the situation in the first place? Because once again I ask how can they be involuntary committed unless they were a danger to themselves or others? And in most cases they only keep you long enough to get you stable enough not to be so, then you are released. Do you think that if involuntary committment were so easy to do, there would be as many mentally ill homeless folks?

Essential tremor is a hallmark of Parkison's disease, which is caused by a lack of dopamine in the thalamus (funny how no one disputes that chemical imbalance).

The current, best theory is that schizophrenia is caused by an over-abundance of dopamine in the thalamus.

So if you give schizophrenics a dopaminergic antagonists, and they develop a tremor, it would seem to support the notion that there is in fact a chemical imbalance in the thalamus.

 

[eots]

THE DSM V..is not science..it is a collection of subjective judgements and nothing more


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcgYQfvjMD8]YouTube - Even Doctors Can't Describe ADD/ADHD[/ame]

 

[AllieBaba]

"The current, best theory is that schizophrenia is caused by an over-abundance of dopamine in the thalamus."

That's a theory.

I've no problem with medicating medical illness, if it helps.
But as I've said over and over, hideously over-medicating the hopelessly insane is a waste of money, meds, and induces nothing but heartbreak and agony for the poor souls being experimented on.

I've seen it.

 

[geauxtohell]

THE DSM V..is not science..it is a collection of subjective judgements and nothing more


YouTube - Even Doctors Can't Describe ADD/ADHD

Absurd. You can insist that psychiatry isn't a legitimate brance of the medical sciences all you want, it's not changing a thing.

It also doesn't negate the fact that you have no workable alternative.

Niacin and vitamin C haven't been shown to have any therapeutic benefit when given in high doses to patients with mental illnesses.

As for people being forcefully committed, when a patient comes in (as more than a few of us medical students have experienced) and makes a direct threat towards their child or grandchild in front of staff or students, guess what? There is no way in hell we are going to let them leave and hurt a child.

Now that would be crazy.

They get to go and talk to behavioral health until a professional can figure out if they pose any harm to an innocent.

 

[eots]

THE DSM V..is not science..it is a collection of subjective judgements and nothing more


YouTube - Even Doctors Can't Describe ADD/ADHD

Absurd. You can insist that psychiatry isn't a legitimate brance of the medical sciences all you want, it's not changing a thing.

I see changes..

It also doesn't negate the fact that you have no workable alternative.

Niacin and vitamin C haven't been shown to have any therapeutic benefit when given in high doses to patients with mental illnesses.

there are some very credible studies showing more effective recovery from even severe mental illness with limited or no medication..this statement is completely false

As for people being forcefully committed, when a patient comes in (as more than a few of us medical students have experienced) and makes a direct threat towards their child or grandchild in front of staff or students, guess what? There is no way in hell we are going to let them leave and hurt a child.

Now that would be crazy.

that does not justify forced medication or commitment and is not the bases for most commitments and such threats are criminal acts not medical issues

They get to go and talk to behavioral health until a professional can figure out if they pose any harm to an innocent.

someones so called subjective professional opinion...to which an opposite opinion could be given from any number of other so called professionals

 

[geauxtohell]

I see changes..

What changes?

there are some very credible studies showing more effective recovery from even severe mental illness with limited or no medication..this statement is completely false

It is certainly not false that niacin and vitamin C have not been shown to provide any therapeautic relief to those suffering from mental illnesses. That was discredited in 1973.

As for "limited or no medication", as I have pointed out to you, medicine is extremely critical of itself. Virtually every scientific question is going to be asked and studied. That doesn't equate to professional consensus.

that does not justify forced medication or commitment and is not the bases for most commitments and such threats are criminal acts not medical issues

Sorry no. You can't lock someone in jail for threatening their child. That doesn't elevate to assault and/or battery and by the time social services gets involved, it might be too late.

If you think that making a homicidal ideation towards a child is not, in itself, psychotic and thus not a mental issue, you are completely around the bend.

I will fully concede that people are committed who should not be committed. I wonder if you are not so locked in your didactic thinking that you can concede that there are people who should be committed.

someones so called subjective professional opinion...to which an opposite opinion could be given from any number of other so called professionals

Four years of medical school plus four years of residency makes your opinion a professional opinion, regardless of what you think of psychiatry.

I know this is your pet issue, but they don't hand out the degree in a cracker-jack box.

Drs. disagree all the time, again that doesn't indict the entire field. Anymore than cardiology is indicted when two Drs. have a difference of opinion.

I am still waiting for your workable alternative. As best as I can tell, it's simply to not give medication to people. Which basically puts us back in 1856.

Also, since you are hung up on the lack of "labs" for psychiatric conditions, please propose a workable test that could be done for a patient suspected of having psychiatric condition that would not kill the patient.

 

[eots]

I see changes..

What changes?

a growing awareness that so called medications can cause more harm than good ..that medications are in fact toxic brain damaging substances..that adhd is a fraud many changes

three are some very credible studies showing more effective recovery from even severe mental illness with limited or no medication..this statement is completely false

It is certainly not false that niacin and vitamin C have not been shown to provide any therapeautic relief to those suffering from mental illnesses. That was discredited in 1973.

discredited by who.?.studies funded by pharmaceutical companies..lol

As for "limited or no medication", as I have pointed out to you, medicine is extremely critical of itself. Virtually every scientific question is going to be asked and studied. That doesn't equate to professional consensus.

psychiatry is not science..as i have pointed out



quote]
that does not justify forced medication or commitment and is not the bases for most commitments and such threats are criminal acts not medical issues

Sorry no. You can't lock someone in jail for threatening their child. That doesn't elevate to assault and/or battery and by the time social services gets involved, it might be too late.

If you think that making a homicidal ideation towards a child is not, in itself, psychotic and thus not a mental issue, you are completely around the bend.

sorry no making death threats is a crime..and this is a strawman argument

I will fully concede that people are committed who should not be committed. I wonder if you are not so locked in your didactic thinking that you can concede that there are people who should be committed.

yes

someones so called subjective professional opinion...to which an opposite opinion could be given from any number of other so called professionals

Four years of medical school plus four years of residency makes your opinion a professional opinion, regardless of what you think of psychiatry.

I know this is your pet issue, but they don't hand out the degree in a cracker-jack box.

no they hand them out based on the ability to regurgitate the programed information
and the lack of abilty to complete Med school and be a real doctor

Drs. disagree all the time, again that doesn't indict the entire field. Anymore than cardiology is indicted when two Drs. have a difference of opinion.

but ultimately cardiac disorders are not theory and opinion but mental illness always is

I am still waiting for your workable alternative. As best as I can tell, it's simply to not give medication to people. Which basically puts us back in 1856.

the statistics indicate that alone would be preferable for the vast majority but diet ,psychotherapy..time and sanctuary would be my advice

Also, since you are hung up on the lack of "labs" for psychiatric conditions, please propose a workable test that could be done for a patient suspected of having psychiatric condition that would not kill the patient.

[/QUOTE]

I don't accept your theory of the medical model of so called mental illness and stop pretending you can prove mental illness with dangerous or intrusive test or show it in a cadaver,...because you cant

 

[geauxtohell]

Point of order: You've been posting here for a while. Why does the quote function keep tripping you up? If I misrepresent anything you've said, it's only because I am having a hard time wading through our jumbled quotes.

a growing awareness that so called medications can cause more harm than good ..that medications are in fact toxic brain damaging substances..that adhd is a fraud many changes

Every medication has side effects. The belief that they cause more harm than good is far from consensus.

I agree that ADHD is over diagnosed.

discredited by who.?.studies funded by pharmaceutical companies..lol

This is when it becomes a circular arguement. I point out that vitamin claim has not been supported by science, and you alledge it's a for profit conspiracy. This ignores the fact that there are a lot of brilliant scientists and Doctors who are not beholden to pharma.

For your conspiracy to work, every single researcher in the health care profession has to be in the bag.

psychiatry is not science..as i have pointed out

Your opinion on the matter is not fiat. The fact is that psychiatric medicine is considered a branch of the medical sciences and is, in fact, a required rotation for every medical student before they can become a doctor.

Thus, you can say what you want. The profession disagrees with you.

sorry no making death threats is a crime..and this is a strawman argument

Unless you are making the threats against officials, no it is not. Sorry. Feel free to cite the statute that would prove otherwise.

This is not a strawman arguement, you are argueing against people being involuntarily committed, and I pointed out an instance of personal experience where I think any reasonable person would agree that it was necessary, if for no other reason than to protect an innocent.

Now you don't want to acknowledge that. Like I said, I admit that people are wrongfully committed, but you are so locked in your beliefs that you won't admit that some people should be committed.

no they hand them out based on the ability to regurgitate the programed information
and the lack of abilty to complete Med school and be a real doctor

What the hell are you talking about? Psychiatrists complete medical school, pass all their boards, and go on to do a residency.

Your opinion of whether they are "real doctors" is just that.

but ultimately cardiac disorders are not theory and opinion but mental illness always is

That's not true. Not the first part, or the second. There is no "theory of Schizophrenia". Schizophrenia is a discrete diagnosis. What is debatable is the etiology and pathology of it. The etiology and pathology of many heart conditions is also debatable. You just don't know that, because it's not your area of interest.

If you doubt it, knock yourself out reading some of these abstracts:

Molecular Cardiology Research Institute - 2009 Publications

I
the statistics indicate that alone would be preferable for the vast majority but diet ,psychotherapy..time and sanctuary would be my advice

Your unqualified advice, but that is what I asked for (in fairness). I agree that psychotherapy should be incorporated into psychiatric treatment. There is no compelling evidence to support that diet or with holding pharmotherapy would improve the outcomes.

I don't accept your theory of the medical model of so called mental illness and stop pretending you can prove mental illness with dangerous or intrusive test or show it in a cadaver,...because you cant

You don't have to accept anything. In the end, your opinion isn't going to swing professional consensus.

I believe that one day we will have tests that will show an etiology behind mental illness. You don't. That's your perrogative. However, in the end it's a matter of opinion. You keep harping on something because you believe it is non-entity, not because you think it is non-practical (which is what most of us believe).

Parkison's disease is not considered a "mental illness", but it is very much considered a chemical imbalance of the brain. Would you agree with that?

 

[Uknow_me72]

How come everyone keeps forgetting the world was around before 1944.

The basic evolution theory states only the strong survive based on the Survival of the fittest law.

I some how think that with the 6k+ years of human history that this would be enough time and that natural selection would have taken course.

I don't think we would have gotten this far if a bunch of dee da dees were walking around then.

I have seen serious mental illness where people are pretty much brain dead not because the disagree with people or see and alternative view but because they had event such as blows to the head and injuries that cause it. _ this is a medical example.

The mental illness that I am sure the people are speaking on here is the one where they call others batshit crazy because their views do not align. These people do not need medication.

I think the issue here is people are worring to much about other people instead of themselves.

 

[eots]

Point of order: You've been posting here for a while. Why does the quote function keep tripping you up? If I misrepresent anything you've said, it's only because I am having a hard time wading through our jumbled quotes.

a growing awareness that so called medications can cause more harm than good ..that medications are in fact toxic brain damaging substances..that adhd is a fraud many changes

Every medication has side effects. The belief that they cause more harm than good is far from consensus.

I agree that ADHD is over diagnosed.

discredited by who.?.studies funded by pharmaceutical companies..lol

This is when it becomes a circular arguement. I point out that vitamin claim has not been supported by science, and you alledge it's a for profit conspiracy. This ignores the fact that there are a lot of brilliant scientists and Doctors who are not beholden to pharma.

For your conspiracy to work, every single researcher in the health care profession has to be in the bag.



Your opinion on the matter is not fiat. The fact is that psychiatric medicine is considered a branch of the medical sciences and is, in fact, a required rotation for every medical student before they can become a doctor.

Thus, you can say what you want. The profession disagrees with you.



Unless you are making the threats against officials, no it is not. Sorry. Feel free to cite the statute that would prove otherwise.

This is not a strawman arguement, you are argueing against people being involuntarily committed, and I pointed out an instance of personal experience where I think any reasonable person would agree that it was necessary, if for no other reason than to protect an innocent.

Now you don't want to acknowledge that. Like I said, I admit that people are wrongfully committed, but you are so locked in your beliefs that you won't admit that some people should be committed.



What the hell are you talking about? Psychiatrists complete medical school, pass all their boards, and go on to do a residency.

Your opinion of whether they are "real doctors" is just that.



That's not true. Not the first part, or the second. There is no "theory of Schizophrenia". Schizophrenia is a discrete diagnosis. What is debatable is the etiology and pathology of it. The etiology and pathology of many heart conditions is also debatable. You just don't know that, because it's not your area of interest.

If you doubt it, knock yourself out reading some of these abstracts:

Molecular Cardiology Research Institute - 2009 Publications

I
the statistics indicate that alone would be preferable for the vast majority but diet ,psychotherapy..time and sanctuary would be my advice

Your unqualified advice, but that is what I asked for (in fairness). I agree that psychotherapy should be incorporated into psychiatric treatment. There is no compelling evidence to support that diet or with holding pharmotherapy would improve the outcomes.

I don't accept your theory of the medical model of so called mental illness and stop pretending you can prove mental illness with dangerous or intrusive test or show it in a cadaver,...because you cant

You don't have to accept anything. In the end, your opinion isn't going to swing professional consensus.

I believe that one day we will have tests that will show an etiology behind mental illness. You don't. That's your perrogative. However, in the end it's a matter of opinion. You keep harping on something because you believe it is non-entity, not because you think it is non-practical (which is what most of us believe).

Parkison's disease is not considered a "mental illness", but it is very much considered a chemical imbalance of the brain. Would you agree with that?

not long ago you could of given your same argument to support this..and what i believe is that your chemical lobotomy approach will in the not to distant future be deemed equally unsound and barbaric and destructive...any idiot could do a psychiatrist job with a few weeks of study..it is essentially a fraud....a handful of drugs handed out and some subjective observations and judgements...it is a joke


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0aNILW6ILk]YouTube - Lobotomy - PBS documentary, on Walter Freeman[/ame]


Neuroleptics and Chronic Mental Illness


http://psychrights.org/research/Digest/Chronicity/NeurolepticResearch.htm

 

[geauxtohell]

not long ago you could of given your same argument to support this..and what i believe is that your chemical lobotomy approach will in the not to distant future be deemed equally unsound and barbaric and destructive...any idiot could do a psychiatrist job with a few weeks of study..it is essentially a fraud....a handful of drugs handed out and some subjective observations and judgements...it is a joke


YouTube - Lobotomy - PBS documentary, on Walter Freeman


Neuroleptics and Chronic Mental Illness


Neuroleptics and Chronic Mental Illness

I've got to laugh at your bolded portion.

Give me a break.

Obviously you think you know more than the professionals, but no one is handing you (legally) a script pad anytime soon.

As for the "lobotomy", physicians used to drain people for "bad blood" too. Misconceptions from the past don't equal the malpractice of the future.

 

[eots]

not long ago you could of given your same argument to support this..and what i believe is that your chemical lobotomy approach will in the not to distant future be deemed equally unsound and barbaric and destructive...any idiot could do a psychiatrist job with a few weeks of study..it is essentially a fraud....a handful of drugs handed out and some subjective observations and judgements...it is a joke


YouTube - Lobotomy - PBS documentary, on Walter Freeman


Neuroleptics and Chronic Mental Illness


Neuroleptics and Chronic Mental Illness

I've got to laugh at your bolded portion.

Give me a break.

Obviously you think you know more than the professionals, but no one is handing you (legally) a script pad anytime soon.

As for the "lobotomy", physicians used to drain people for "bad blood" too. Misconceptions from the past don't equal the malpractice of the future.

laugh on but it is still true..I couldn't pass myself off as a research scientist involved in psychiatry... as far as private practice goes anyone could consult the DSM and write a script...no problem...and draining bad blood was acient history not the recent past..essentially neuroleptic drugs are a chemical lobotomy and was advertised as such before lobotomy's received such a bad image

 

[eots]

people come out of psychotic episodes without medication..you do realize this don't you...relapse rates are higher amongst people that are medicated than those not medicated and placebos are effective in a significant amount of people Even in severe psychosis. these are facts...and please tell me how on a cadaver one can show mental illness in the brain because in this case they is no concern of danger to the patient..it is deceitful to imply no such evidence because test are too dangerous or intrusive...when in fact it is because no such test exsist...

PsychRights® Law Project for

Psychiatric Rights

Neuroleptics and Chronic Mental Illness

Neuroleptics and Chronic Mental Illness

 

[eots]

The white cut: Egas Moniz, lobotomy, and the Nobel prize
In 1949 the Nobel prize was awarded to Egas Moniz, the neurologist who carried out the first lobotomy, a procedure that caused severe physical and psychological impairment. Seye Abimbola investigates the ongoing debate.

The closest most medical students get to learning about lobotomy is during their psychiatry or possibly neurosurgery rotations, although there is more chance for those who do an elective in medical history. However, the story of Egas Moniz and lobotomy exemplifies some of the important events and contemporary issues of social relevance in the history of medicine.


sBMJ | The white cut: Egas Moniz, lobotomy, and the Nobel prize

chemical lobotomy,


People's voices came through filtered, strange. They could not penetrate my Thorazine fog; and I could not escape my drug prison." - Janet Gotkin, testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on the Abuse and Misuse of Controlled Drugs in Institutions (1977)

"It's very hard to describe the effects of this drug and others like it. That's why we use strange words like "zombie". But in my case the experience became sheer torture." - Wade Hudson, testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on the Abuse and Misuse of Controlled Drugs in Institutions (1977)

"Frequent Effects: sedation, drowsiness, lethargy, difficult thinking, poor concentration, nightmares, emotional dullness, depression, despair . . ." - Dr. Calagari's Psychiatric Drugs (1987)

In 1954 the neuroleptic drug, Thorazine, began flooding the state mental hospitals. The neuroleptics are synonymous with tranquilizers and antipsychotics. The neuroleptics are the drug most commonly given to schizophrenics. The psychiatrist would like us to believe that drugs such as Thorazine "cure" the patient by repairing or altering "bad" brain chemistry (whatever that means. . .). But the truth is the drug involves a strong dulling of the mind and emotional functions, and that this is what acts to inhibit or "push the symptoms into the back ground". According to Jerry Avon, M.D.:


Thorazine - A Chemical Lobotomy - Permanent Brain Damage and Uses To Control People

 

[nateriver]

Mental illness is a real medical condition. Too often is it easier to say someone has a mental issue and give a pill rather then give a hug or a boot in the backside ( which ever is needed)
By doing this makes it harder for the truely mental ill to get proper treatment or understanding from the general population.

 

[geauxtohell]

not long ago you could of given your same argument to support this..and what i believe is that your chemical lobotomy approach will in the not to distant future be deemed equally unsound and barbaric and destructive...any idiot could do a psychiatrist job with a few weeks of study..it is essentially a fraud....a handful of drugs handed out and some subjective observations and judgements...it is a joke


YouTube - Lobotomy - PBS documentary, on Walter Freeman


Neuroleptics and Chronic Mental Illness


Neuroleptics and Chronic Mental Illness

I've got to laugh at your bolded portion.

Give me a break.

Obviously you think you know more than the professionals, but no one is handing you (legally) a script pad anytime soon.

As for the "lobotomy", physicians used to drain people for "bad blood" too. Misconceptions from the past don't equal the malpractice of the future.

laugh on but it is still true..I couldn't pass myself off as a research scientist involved in psychiatry... as far as private practice goes anyone could consult the DSM and write a script...no problem...and draining bad blood was acient history not the recent past..essentially neuroleptic drugs are a chemical lobotomy and was advertised as such before lobotomy's received such a bad image

Again: to be a psychiatrist you have to complete medical school and residency. That's eight years of post baccalaureate work. All the things you've referenced are criminal acts, so it's absurd to claim that psychiatrist's are all coming out of some diploma mill or that anyone could do their job.

If you are going to be dishonest about the little stuff, it makes it hard to lend you any credibility on larger issues.

 

[eots]

I've got to laugh at your bolded portion.

Give me a break.

Obviously you think you know more than the professionals, but no one is handing you (legally) a script pad anytime soon.

As for the "lobotomy", physicians used to drain people for "bad blood" too. Misconceptions from the past don't equal the malpractice of the future.

laugh on but it is still true..I couldn't pass myself off as a research scientist involved in psychiatry... as far as private practice goes anyone could consult the DSM and write a script...no problem...and draining bad blood was acient history not the recent past..essentially neuroleptic drugs are a chemical lobotomy and was advertised as such before lobotomy's received such a bad image

Again: to be a psychiatrist you have to complete medical school and residency. That's eight years of post baccalaureate work. All the things you've referenced are criminal acts, so it's absurd to claim that psychiatrist's are all coming out of some diploma mill or that anyone could do their job.

If you are going to be dishonest about the little stuff, it makes it hard to lend you any credibility on larger issues.

anyone could read the DSM.. make some subjective observations and write a script from from what is basically a handful of drugs available,,,the education is only to give credibility where there is none,,,and it is you who is dishonest about the fact that definitive test are not done because they are too intrusive or dangerous when the fact is they do not exsist period....

 

[xsited1]

Do you believe that mental illness is a

Liberal problem? Yes. Yes, it is.

 

[eots]

Do you believe that mental illness is a

Liberal problem? Yes. Yes, it is.

the stats on that would be interesting...the save me big brother/soma city/ political correctness mentality...could well be a part of the problem