It sounds like they are training sociopathic traits into people!
The only thing that made me effective as a therapist was my willingness to let down my barriers and feel what the client/”helpee” was feeling. That is completely what guided how I would intervene. If a person can’t do that and still “maintain boundaries,” they have no business trying to help anyone emotionally. They need to get their own help first!
I respect your views on this. But I can tell you from past experience that this line of discussion is not productive and travels far from the realm of the “mental health” system. You will have to respect my judgement on this one. I am speaking from hard experience attempting to moderate such a discussion. So I’m not going to defend my decision. It’s already been made many months ago.
I don’t disagree with you. But COVID is off topic and has not led to productive conversations as a topic. You actually posted the first one on the topic and I should have disallowed it. Some of the more far-fetched comments that DO have to do with psychiatry are allowable as long as they are on topic and not insulting to individuals or groups. I don’t judge by the content except to the degree that it is not on the topic at hand, and I even let a lot of THAT go if it’s productive conversation. But COVID is not a topic that is either on topic or leads to productive exchanges, so that’s why it has been stopped.
POSTING AS MODERATOR: We are not going to go down the COVID path again here. It leads nowhere but to off-topic arguments. Both sides got one “hit” in. That is all I will allow.
Please write me at [email protected] with Amy such concerns. It can take up to a day for something to post, but things do inexplicably disappear from time to time. I don’t recall moderating any of your posts.
The problem is, the assumption that all of these “disorders,” created by committees and literally voted on, are “brain disorders.” There is not one of these “disorders” which is proven to be caused entirely or primarily by biological causes, let alone a single cause for a single “disorder.” The most optimistic data suggests a 10% biological contribution, while environmental causes account for 80% or more of “mental illness.” So be careful not to simply repeat beliefs you have heard. Read Robert Whitaker’s books and then take another look.
Oh, I agree absolutely! ANY potential causal agent with REAL evidence should be explored. Even if only 10% of sufferers have low folate, we can heal 10% of the population with a simple, cheap and safe intervention! We just have to stop expecting that EVERYONE will get better if their folate and betaine are increased. Let’s find the real cause in each case instead of assuming one solution will fix everything.
Just for the record, John Nash recovered without or despite his psychiatric “help,” and spent many years avoiding the psych system before his spontaneous recovery. The movie played it differently because they didn’t want to discourage current patients from using their “meds.” Nash complained about this to the producers but was not listened to.
Good information, but it clearly suggests that “schizophrenia” is not caused by a particular genotype, but is a very complex phenomenon that includes many possible causal factors.
You are denying reality. The point of the articles is that the Star-D has falsified outcomes. If you choose not to believe that (belief is not science) that is up to you, but don’t try to claim that later science is responsible for updating fraud. When the authors have been confronted with their false conclusions they have doubled down, not reconsidered. It was a handy conclusion that people like you want to believe, so they believe it.
Did you read about the Star-D study? It wasn’t wrong or incomplete data. They ALTERED the outcomes. They LIED about the results. That’s different from being overridden by new and more accurate data. Do you just not want to accept that fact?
The fact that there is newer research has no bearing on the clear attempt to falsify the data in the study. Doesn’t that concern you? That the studies aren’t reporting the truth?
I don’t think he’s trying to prove his points are not opinions. He’s trying to show that the entire subject is based on opinion. I don’t think he is in a position or needs to do so. I think it’s OK to identify however you like, and it’s OK for him or you to have an opinion about it. It’s just not science.
You are sharing the “general consensus” that we’ve all been taught to believe. I suggest you read some of these stories from real people who totally believed what you say and had not so great or horrible experiences.
I’m puzzled also hoe “the right medications” are going to help with anything but #1. And of course, research has never really shown “chemical imbalances” to be real, measurable things. So you actually make a great argument that medication is at best a very small part of any treatment approach, yet you seem to be arguing it’s the whole thing.
“Depression” is not caused by one thing. That’s the first error of psychiatry – lumping all “depressed” or “manic” people together as if their behavior or emotions tell us what is wrong with them or what they need. Saying someone “has depression” tells us very little about why or what to do about it. “Treating” something makes no sense if that “thing” isn’t really a thing at all, but a phenomenon with many possible causes and solutions.
It is not about Clozapine per se. It’s about doctors playing fast and loose with the facts and the system being based on incorrect assumptions and guidance. I’d say it’s one more example of how patients are assured that doctors have all the know-how to use these drugs responsibly when they really do not, no matter how responsible they are. By the way, I consider it a pretty cheap shot to toss out that doctors have to be “lazy and negligent” to make Clozapine use a risk not worth the benefits. There are very good reasons it fell into disuse, as you very well know, and they had nothing to do with negligence.
If I can’t discuss concerns about a comment or thread, then I can’t work with you. It’s part of the rules of posting. Otherwise, you can post whatever you want and I have nothing I can do except not publish your posts. Obviously, I have a concern to discuss. If you can’t do it, I’m sorry, but that means you won’t be allowed to post.
I need to talk to you but your email does not function, in fact, appears to be a fake email. I will have to block your submissions until you post with a functioning email address. It is a requirement under the posting guidelines.
Depression is about a lot of things. The first mistake of psychiatry is assuming that depression or anxiety or any emotional phenomenon is always caused by the same thing.
15% certainly does not suggest CAUSALITY. It suggests vulnerability of certain genetic subgroups, who may have many other things in common, not a ‘schizophrenia gene.’ Causality figures would need to be in the 85-90% range. 15% says that at least 85% is NOT caused by genetics. So genetics is a secondary factor.
Abilify is an antipsychotic, most definitely prescribed frequently for “bipolar disorder.” It is only used as an adjunct for depression if regular “antidepressants” are judged not to work. Not sure where you’re getting this false information.
The “low serotinin” theory of depression has long since been debunked. Additionally antidepressants are notoriously ineffective with youth and especially children. You are operating on faulty assumptions and criticizing others for not sharing them with you. Try reading some of the stories before you judge.
You say a lot of things here you have repeated because you heard them somewhere, but most of the people on this site have a lot of direct experience with the system themselves and understand it’s not so simple. Clearly, Brittney’s life didn’t suddenly get all better when she got treatment, did it? Additionally, the issue of the guardianship was fraught with all kinds of conflicts of interest and personal agendas above and beyond any “mental health” concerns. You might want to read Anatomy of an Epidemic and get an idea why people have concerns about the “mental health” system instead of assuming everything you’ve heard is automatically true and people who don’t agree are irresponsible or ignorant.
POSTING AS MODERATOR: We are drifting over into areas of politics that transcend “mental illness,” largely because of the nature of this article. But we need to keep focused on the “mental health” themes and whether “mental illness” focus obscures structural violence. There are many other contexts besides Gaza to draw on.
The use of the term “resistance” these days doesn’t mean the same as Freud’s concept. It just means “didn’t get better with our ‘treatment.'” It’s basically a way to blame the client for the failure of the “treatment.” That’s how I read it.
Electrocuting someone into a grand mal seizure sounds like malpractice to me. How can you “do it incorrectly?” What the heck is the correct way to induce a seizure that might potentially cause brain damage?
Whether or not someone receives treatment is not an “outcome.” An outcome is a result of the treatment approach. The study does not state or claim or suggest or imply that no one has a good outcome using antipsychotic drugs. It suggests that ON THE AVERAGE, those who receive light or no intervention are more likely to have a better outcome at two years onward. A better outcome ON THE AVERAGE. There can be plenty who got a better outcome with drugs or a worse one with drugs as well. Your story is one story of millions. Yours can be 100% true and yet the average person can still be worse off in the long run on antipsychotics. You are one data point. A scientific study is made up of hundreds or thousands of data points. It’s not the same.
Most of these people have HAD ECT themselves or know someone who does. Many also know the ECT research literature better than the average clinician.
It’s insulting to suggest that anyone here is making up their minds on fictional accounts. I’m glad you had a positive experience to report, but don’t assume others experienced the same or similar things!
Traumatizing experiences are also normalized and kids are expected to not complain about it. How many kids say things like, “Oh, that’s not abuse, I totally had it coming!”
Gotta love it. THEIR “treatment” doesn’t work, but it’s because YOU are resistant. Or your “schizophrenia” is. Apparently resists without consulting you. Insanity!!!!
Please explain how any one DSM “diagnosis” is derived from scientific observation and research. Specifically, please describe how exactly one can distinguish who “has” the “disorder” from who does not ‘have it.’
This is not to say that people don’t like or benefit from biological interventions. But that’s nothing new – folks have taken substances to alter their mental/spiritual reality since the beginning of human history. That’s very, very different from claiming that something as vague and amorphous and subjective as “major depressive disorder” or “adjustment disorder” or “ADHD” is derived from the scientific method. In fact, the DSM admits they are not in its introduction, in no uncertain terms. You ought to read it some time.
The fact that you feel you can “diagnose” that based on an internet comment proves how completely subjective and unscientific these “diagnoses” really are.
Your comments reflect not having read the many testimonies of people here who were diagnosed with “major depression” or “bipolar disorder” or even “schizophrenia” and were treated with drugs for years or decades with really poor outcomes, including a significant number who did far better after they came off the drugs and did other things.
There are most definitely big medication success stories. There are also disaster stories. Same drugs, same “diagnoses,” very different outcomes. If you really want to understand a site like this, that has to be your starting point. You can’t decide people are ignorant simply because they had different experiences than you. Maybe you should stop and read some of the stories before you assume that no one here has suffered any “mental illnesses” just because they had very different outcomes than you expected to hear?
Confirmation bias is generally rooted in anecdotal evidence, aka testimonies of those helped/not helped by an intervention. Citing testimonies as proof of confirmation bias seems a bit ironic.
Here are the references I quoted. Barkley and Cunningham 1978. Swanson et al 2003. Oregon Medication Effectiveness Study 2002. Montreal ADHD Study. Raine study from Australia. Finnish comparison study to USA cohort. Not to mention Whitaker himself, who summarizes the extant literature.
How are these not citations of clinical studies? Barkley in particular is a super pro-ADHD researcher. It seems you didn’t read my earlier posts yourself. My comments are firmly rooted in years of long-term research, which you’d know if you’d bothered to read Whitaker’s work before deciding you already know all about the subject. It’s not too late to educate yourself, but I get tired of repeating the same lessons for folks who don’t seem interested in seeing another viewpoint.
And the author mentioned his “clinical experience” including a specific case, as I recall, which is 100% anecdotal. I am very clear what anecdotal evidence looks like.
I think it would be nice if you would learn to respond without putting down the person you are disagreeing with.
Is it an illness if the responses are reasonable and understandable to the conditions bringing them about? Why aren’t the people COMMITTING the traumatic acts against their loved ones or employees or patients considered the ones who have an “illness?”
ADHD being “more recognized” would in no way make it more likely that people taking stimulants being more likely to develop heart problems. It’s not a new suggestion. Probably not a common event but it sounds like more common if you take stimulants. Knowing what we know about stimulants, the increased risk of heart disease associated with them should not be surprising.
None of the studies I referred to were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Government studies, especially when longitudinal, are generally more reliable.
The average “seriously mentally ill” person, most of whom have received years of drug “treatment”, die 15-20 years younger than the general population. There are, of course, multiple reasons, but psychiatric drugs and ECT are high on the list.
The antipsychotics are known to induce diabetes and other metabolic issues, and to increase heart disease. If you think inducing diabetes doesn’t kill people, you are confused.
Anecdotes are not scientific evidence except in the crudest sense. I’m not saying the drugs have no effects or that “ADHD” is trivial or that people so diagnosed don’t do worse than the general population in a number of significant ways. I’m saying that, for instance, the claim that “untreated ADHD leads to delinquency” is false, because “treated” ADHD kid aren’t less likely to become delinquent. BOTH groups are more likely to commit criminal acts, though interestingly, I recall reading a study where those identified early on as non-aggressive “ADHD” types did not commit more criminal acts later. But it makes sense, impulsive people are more likely to do impulsive things, and committing crimes is often impulsive. The point is, IN THE COLLECTIVE, we do not reduce the delinquency rates by “medicating” the subjects. This does not mean a particular individual wouldn’t, say, feel better about school, improve their grades, or even say, “This stuff saved my life!” But those are anecdotes. Scientifically, we have to look at the overall effect, and overall, the effect of widespread stimulant use on the population is not large, if we look at the data rather than stories.
I would submit to you that there are plenty of people whom you don’t know whose situations might have gotten worse to the same degree your client base got better. I don’t know what kind of selection bias you have in your population, but I worked with foster youth and saw plenty whose lives deteriorated after starting stimulants, particularly due to aggression toward others. Many ended up with more drugs and worse “diagnoses,” one ended up psychotic until she herself stopped the drugs and went back to her old “normal.” So anecdotes can tell many stories. Collective data is more reliable.
Multiple long-term studies show no significant advantages to those taking stimulants vs. those who don’t when diagnosed with “ADHD” in childhood, other than the accidents you mention, and I believe clearly overstate in your comments. Delinquency rates, HS graduation, college enrollment, social skills, not even self-esteem scores were better for those taking stimulants. This has been confirmed since Barkley and Cunningham’s first review in 1978, confirmed by Swanson’s “Review of Reviews” in 1993, and in the OSU medication effectiveness study back in 2002 or so. Also confirmed by the Raine study in Australia, the Quebec study, a comparison study between Finnish and US kids who had very different medication rates but similar outcomes, and more.
Read Whitaker’s works if you want to fully understand what’s going on at MIA. Not everything is the way the professionals have told you it is.
It’s not really a legitimate approach to say, “What else should they have done?” It assumes that doing SOMETHING is essential and that NOT doing what they propose is foolish unless you have something “better” to replace it. It is possible that antidepressants were destructive AND there was not a “better treatment” available. We should not assume “antidepressants” as some sort of minimum standard of treatment that is the default unless we have something “better” to propose. Sometimes nothing is better than doing things that are destructive.
If it were so safe, they would not have to do toxicity tests every two weeks. Lithium can do serious kidney damage among other things. It’s therapeutic dose is as close to the toxic dose as almost any other drug you can name.
I think you are missing the larger point, Donna. You say our “knowledge” of these things is in its infancy. But the “diagnoses” themselves are not explanatory of anything, regardless of the education and experience of the person involved. How is saying, “Joe feels really hopeless and sees no point in his life” any different than saying “Joe has major depression?” Is there some way to distinguish Joe’s “Major Depression” from Mary’s “Anxiety disorder with depressive features?” They are simply descriptions of what is observed, and clinicians will make a lot of noise about “clinical depression” vs. “reactive depression” but look in the DSM, there is simply NOTHING there to make a distinction. You meet 5 out of 8 criteria, you “have major depression.” Only meet 4, you don’t. Nothing about cause, nothing about ongoing stressors, nothing about culture – just a description. That’s not a “knowledge in its infancy.” That’s just making stuff up, plain and simple. There is no way any “knowledge” can advance from that kind of basis. The DSM is not knowledge. It’s a fantasy that makes people believe “knowledge” is behind it.
Not sure what the answer is, but calling people names based on arbitrary checklists isn’t it.
I really don’t want to get into debating COVID or the WHO response. It is off topic (not about the article or about the “mental health” system) and has become highly divisive. We’ve now heard both sides well expounded. Let’s get back to our mission!
Science is not created by consensus, and does not have any consideration for a “middle ground.” Are we going to start saying that gravity is inconvenient for some people, so we’re entertaining some small modifications to help people adapt?????
The hummingbird house was a new experiment at the time with an open environment rather than cages. It felt like they were pretty good with the environment or it would not have felt good to be there. I felt like I was in their world.
I used to go to the hummingbird house at the Philadelphia Zoo during the week when nobody was there. I would sit for 10 minutes making no noise, and soon I was surrounded by birds doing their thing. It was very soothing, and I didn’t need someone to tell me it “worked!”
We know this. He can’t answer my challenge and will probably ignore my response. Otherwise, he’ll say it’s “well known” and present no evidence or else attack my credibility. That’s how it seems to be done.
Easy to say that. Please provide us with the definitive proof of shared biological pathology for all forms of “schizophrenia.” Not correlations, not candidate genes – let’s hear the exact “pathology”(to use your own words) that distinguishes these conditions. I will assume failure to answer means you have no answer.
I know, it’s like when they “discover” that hiking in the woods makes people feel calmer, and instead of saying, “hey, try hiking!” they decide to call it “Nature Therapy!”
For the record, I can’t find any moderated posts from you. Next time, I’d ask that you email me and check before publishing the assumption you’ve been moderated. I almost always leave a note.
Superstition comes into play in all forms of medical treatment. Placebo effect is acknowledged to deliver half the benefits of any treatment. Drugs become less effective the longer they’re around because people start to hear issues and concerns that were not talked about before. What people believe has a lot to do with what works.
You sound very committed to the idea that “there is only one reality” that is unaffected by any of our personal narratives. Can you submit some scientific studies that prove your contention to be true? Or is it simply a matter of faith, based on… your personal narrative?
It sounds like they are training sociopathic traits into people!
The only thing that made me effective as a therapist was my willingness to let down my barriers and feel what the client/”helpee” was feeling. That is completely what guided how I would intervene. If a person can’t do that and still “maintain boundaries,” they have no business trying to help anyone emotionally. They need to get their own help first!
Report comment
I respect your views on this. But I can tell you from past experience that this line of discussion is not productive and travels far from the realm of the “mental health” system. You will have to respect my judgement on this one. I am speaking from hard experience attempting to moderate such a discussion. So I’m not going to defend my decision. It’s already been made many months ago.
Report comment
Posting as moderator:
I don’t disagree with you. But COVID is off topic and has not led to productive conversations as a topic. You actually posted the first one on the topic and I should have disallowed it. Some of the more far-fetched comments that DO have to do with psychiatry are allowable as long as they are on topic and not insulting to individuals or groups. I don’t judge by the content except to the degree that it is not on the topic at hand, and I even let a lot of THAT go if it’s productive conversation. But COVID is not a topic that is either on topic or leads to productive exchanges, so that’s why it has been stopped.
Report comment
POSTING AS MODERATOR: We are not going to go down the COVID path again here. It leads nowhere but to off-topic arguments. Both sides got one “hit” in. That is all I will allow.
Report comment
I think I just approved your post earlier this morning. It was just waiting for moderation.
Report comment
Posting as moderator
Please write me at [email protected] with Amy such concerns. It can take up to a day for something to post, but things do inexplicably disappear from time to time. I don’t recall moderating any of your posts.
Report comment
Actually, very few even bother with brain scans.
Report comment
The problem is, the assumption that all of these “disorders,” created by committees and literally voted on, are “brain disorders.” There is not one of these “disorders” which is proven to be caused entirely or primarily by biological causes, let alone a single cause for a single “disorder.” The most optimistic data suggests a 10% biological contribution, while environmental causes account for 80% or more of “mental illness.” So be careful not to simply repeat beliefs you have heard. Read Robert Whitaker’s books and then take another look.
Report comment
Oh, I agree absolutely! ANY potential causal agent with REAL evidence should be explored. Even if only 10% of sufferers have low folate, we can heal 10% of the population with a simple, cheap and safe intervention! We just have to stop expecting that EVERYONE will get better if their folate and betaine are increased. Let’s find the real cause in each case instead of assuming one solution will fix everything.
Report comment
Just for the record, John Nash recovered without or despite his psychiatric “help,” and spent many years avoiding the psych system before his spontaneous recovery. The movie played it differently because they didn’t want to discourage current patients from using their “meds.” Nash complained about this to the producers but was not listened to.
https://www.mentalhealthforum.net/forum/threads/john-nash-healing-from-schizophrenia-the-real-story.34784/
Report comment
That all makes sense. There will never be one “cause” because it’s not one thing that is happening for the same reason. People need to think!
Report comment
Good information, but it clearly suggests that “schizophrenia” is not caused by a particular genotype, but is a very complex phenomenon that includes many possible causal factors.
Report comment
Can you identify the comment by the first line of text? I don’t want to remove the wrong comment!
Report comment
You are denying reality. The point of the articles is that the Star-D has falsified outcomes. If you choose not to believe that (belief is not science) that is up to you, but don’t try to claim that later science is responsible for updating fraud. When the authors have been confronted with their false conclusions they have doubled down, not reconsidered. It was a handy conclusion that people like you want to believe, so they believe it.
Report comment
It may not be damaging, but it is certainly not scientific.
Report comment
Did you read about the Star-D study? It wasn’t wrong or incomplete data. They ALTERED the outcomes. They LIED about the results. That’s different from being overridden by new and more accurate data. Do you just not want to accept that fact?
Report comment
The fact that there is newer research has no bearing on the clear attempt to falsify the data in the study. Doesn’t that concern you? That the studies aren’t reporting the truth?
Report comment
The fact that sharing decision making is even a point of discussion says a lot. Why would you NOT share decisions with the person making them?
Report comment
Posting as moderator:
There’s no function to edit approved posts. The only solution I can propose is to submit your new post as a new post.
Hope that helps!
Report comment
See my emails to you.
I don’t think he’s trying to prove his points are not opinions. He’s trying to show that the entire subject is based on opinion. I don’t think he is in a position or needs to do so. I think it’s OK to identify however you like, and it’s OK for him or you to have an opinion about it. It’s just not science.
Report comment
Not a problem. All part of my day.
Report comment
Please let me know if I did this wrong, Tom.
Report comment
Well said!
Report comment
You are sharing the “general consensus” that we’ve all been taught to believe. I suggest you read some of these stories from real people who totally believed what you say and had not so great or horrible experiences.
I’m puzzled also hoe “the right medications” are going to help with anything but #1. And of course, research has never really shown “chemical imbalances” to be real, measurable things. So you actually make a great argument that medication is at best a very small part of any treatment approach, yet you seem to be arguing it’s the whole thing.
Report comment
“Depression” is not caused by one thing. That’s the first error of psychiatry – lumping all “depressed” or “manic” people together as if their behavior or emotions tell us what is wrong with them or what they need. Saying someone “has depression” tells us very little about why or what to do about it. “Treating” something makes no sense if that “thing” isn’t really a thing at all, but a phenomenon with many possible causes and solutions.
Report comment
It is not about Clozapine per se. It’s about doctors playing fast and loose with the facts and the system being based on incorrect assumptions and guidance. I’d say it’s one more example of how patients are assured that doctors have all the know-how to use these drugs responsibly when they really do not, no matter how responsible they are. By the way, I consider it a pretty cheap shot to toss out that doctors have to be “lazy and negligent” to make Clozapine use a risk not worth the benefits. There are very good reasons it fell into disuse, as you very well know, and they had nothing to do with negligence.
Report comment
Depression most often involves having a shitty life. What is used to measure that, Scott?
Report comment
There is not “line blurring” going on. The lines ARE BLURRY and what most object to is trying to make them seem like they are not.
Report comment
I think you are missing the point.
Report comment
If I can’t discuss concerns about a comment or thread, then I can’t work with you. It’s part of the rules of posting. Otherwise, you can post whatever you want and I have nothing I can do except not publish your posts. Obviously, I have a concern to discuss. If you can’t do it, I’m sorry, but that means you won’t be allowed to post.
Steve
Report comment
As in we have to talk.
Report comment
POSTING AS MODERATOR:
Hi, 27/2017,
I need to talk to you but your email does not function, in fact, appears to be a fake email. I will have to block your submissions until you post with a functioning email address. It is a requirement under the posting guidelines.
Steve
Report comment
Depression is about a lot of things. The first mistake of psychiatry is assuming that depression or anxiety or any emotional phenomenon is always caused by the same thing.
Report comment
15% certainly does not suggest CAUSALITY. It suggests vulnerability of certain genetic subgroups, who may have many other things in common, not a ‘schizophrenia gene.’ Causality figures would need to be in the 85-90% range. 15% says that at least 85% is NOT caused by genetics. So genetics is a secondary factor.
Report comment
Wow, you can make up a lot of stuff in one paragraph. Do you have even one citation for any of your claims?
Report comment
Abilify is an antipsychotic, most definitely prescribed frequently for “bipolar disorder.” It is only used as an adjunct for depression if regular “antidepressants” are judged not to work. Not sure where you’re getting this false information.
Report comment
At best, results are mixed. Read Irving Kirsch some time if you want to know the truth.
Report comment
The “low serotinin” theory of depression has long since been debunked. Additionally antidepressants are notoriously ineffective with youth and especially children. You are operating on faulty assumptions and criticizing others for not sharing them with you. Try reading some of the stories before you judge.
Report comment
Nobody is trying to take your medication away.
Report comment
You say a lot of things here you have repeated because you heard them somewhere, but most of the people on this site have a lot of direct experience with the system themselves and understand it’s not so simple. Clearly, Brittney’s life didn’t suddenly get all better when she got treatment, did it? Additionally, the issue of the guardianship was fraught with all kinds of conflicts of interest and personal agendas above and beyond any “mental health” concerns. You might want to read Anatomy of an Epidemic and get an idea why people have concerns about the “mental health” system instead of assuming everything you’ve heard is automatically true and people who don’t agree are irresponsible or ignorant.
Report comment
111 days – WELL DONE!
Report comment
POSTING AS MODERATOR: We are drifting over into areas of politics that transcend “mental illness,” largely because of the nature of this article. But we need to keep focused on the “mental health” themes and whether “mental illness” focus obscures structural violence. There are many other contexts besides Gaza to draw on.
Report comment
Way to go!!!!
Report comment
That sounds like your brother being put in danger by prejudice, not his own dangerous behavior.
Report comment
How would you know who genuinely “has” BPD?
Report comment
I “unapproved” the first one I could find. Is that the one you wanted?
Report comment
Posting as moderator: Which post, Beth? How does it start? I can delete it if you can help me identify it.
Report comment
The use of the term “resistance” these days doesn’t mean the same as Freud’s concept. It just means “didn’t get better with our ‘treatment.'” It’s basically a way to blame the client for the failure of the “treatment.” That’s how I read it.
Report comment
Electrocuting someone into a grand mal seizure sounds like malpractice to me. How can you “do it incorrectly?” What the heck is the correct way to induce a seizure that might potentially cause brain damage?
Report comment
I thought similarly – AI at least can’t work out its childhood issues in your sessions!
Report comment
Whether or not someone receives treatment is not an “outcome.” An outcome is a result of the treatment approach. The study does not state or claim or suggest or imply that no one has a good outcome using antipsychotic drugs. It suggests that ON THE AVERAGE, those who receive light or no intervention are more likely to have a better outcome at two years onward. A better outcome ON THE AVERAGE. There can be plenty who got a better outcome with drugs or a worse one with drugs as well. Your story is one story of millions. Yours can be 100% true and yet the average person can still be worse off in the long run on antipsychotics. You are one data point. A scientific study is made up of hundreds or thousands of data points. It’s not the same.
Report comment
Stick to the facts and the scientific studies as much as you can. No one can sue you for reporting your own experiences honestly.
Report comment
Most of these people have HAD ECT themselves or know someone who does. Many also know the ECT research literature better than the average clinician.
It’s insulting to suggest that anyone here is making up their minds on fictional accounts. I’m glad you had a positive experience to report, but don’t assume others experienced the same or similar things!
Report comment
Traumatizing experiences are also normalized and kids are expected to not complain about it. How many kids say things like, “Oh, that’s not abuse, I totally had it coming!”
Report comment
Gotta love it. THEIR “treatment” doesn’t work, but it’s because YOU are resistant. Or your “schizophrenia” is. Apparently resists without consulting you. Insanity!!!!
Report comment
Please explain how any one DSM “diagnosis” is derived from scientific observation and research. Specifically, please describe how exactly one can distinguish who “has” the “disorder” from who does not ‘have it.’
This is not to say that people don’t like or benefit from biological interventions. But that’s nothing new – folks have taken substances to alter their mental/spiritual reality since the beginning of human history. That’s very, very different from claiming that something as vague and amorphous and subjective as “major depressive disorder” or “adjustment disorder” or “ADHD” is derived from the scientific method. In fact, the DSM admits they are not in its introduction, in no uncertain terms. You ought to read it some time.
Report comment
The fact that you feel you can “diagnose” that based on an internet comment proves how completely subjective and unscientific these “diagnoses” really are.
Report comment
Always wondered why fathers got off the hook, just for starters.
Report comment
Your comments reflect not having read the many testimonies of people here who were diagnosed with “major depression” or “bipolar disorder” or even “schizophrenia” and were treated with drugs for years or decades with really poor outcomes, including a significant number who did far better after they came off the drugs and did other things.
There are most definitely big medication success stories. There are also disaster stories. Same drugs, same “diagnoses,” very different outcomes. If you really want to understand a site like this, that has to be your starting point. You can’t decide people are ignorant simply because they had different experiences than you. Maybe you should stop and read some of the stories before you assume that no one here has suffered any “mental illnesses” just because they had very different outcomes than you expected to hear?
Report comment
Confirmation bias is generally rooted in anecdotal evidence, aka testimonies of those helped/not helped by an intervention. Citing testimonies as proof of confirmation bias seems a bit ironic.
Report comment
It might be interesting to hear a specific objection you have to a specific claim or study.
Report comment
Here are the references I quoted. Barkley and Cunningham 1978. Swanson et al 2003. Oregon Medication Effectiveness Study 2002. Montreal ADHD Study. Raine study from Australia. Finnish comparison study to USA cohort. Not to mention Whitaker himself, who summarizes the extant literature.
How are these not citations of clinical studies? Barkley in particular is a super pro-ADHD researcher. It seems you didn’t read my earlier posts yourself. My comments are firmly rooted in years of long-term research, which you’d know if you’d bothered to read Whitaker’s work before deciding you already know all about the subject. It’s not too late to educate yourself, but I get tired of repeating the same lessons for folks who don’t seem interested in seeing another viewpoint.
And the author mentioned his “clinical experience” including a specific case, as I recall, which is 100% anecdotal. I am very clear what anecdotal evidence looks like.
I think it would be nice if you would learn to respond without putting down the person you are disagreeing with.
Report comment
Is it an illness if the responses are reasonable and understandable to the conditions bringing them about? Why aren’t the people COMMITTING the traumatic acts against their loved ones or employees or patients considered the ones who have an “illness?”
Report comment
ADHD being “more recognized” would in no way make it more likely that people taking stimulants being more likely to develop heart problems. It’s not a new suggestion. Probably not a common event but it sounds like more common if you take stimulants. Knowing what we know about stimulants, the increased risk of heart disease associated with them should not be surprising.
Report comment
Hearing about “numerous studies” but no names or links. Might be interesting to get out of the realm of “rhetoric” and into actual science.
Report comment
None of the studies I referred to were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Government studies, especially when longitudinal, are generally more reliable.
Report comment
The average “seriously mentally ill” person, most of whom have received years of drug “treatment”, die 15-20 years younger than the general population. There are, of course, multiple reasons, but psychiatric drugs and ECT are high on the list.
The antipsychotics are known to induce diabetes and other metabolic issues, and to increase heart disease. If you think inducing diabetes doesn’t kill people, you are confused.
Sometimes, psychiatry does kill.
Report comment
Anecdotes are not scientific evidence except in the crudest sense. I’m not saying the drugs have no effects or that “ADHD” is trivial or that people so diagnosed don’t do worse than the general population in a number of significant ways. I’m saying that, for instance, the claim that “untreated ADHD leads to delinquency” is false, because “treated” ADHD kid aren’t less likely to become delinquent. BOTH groups are more likely to commit criminal acts, though interestingly, I recall reading a study where those identified early on as non-aggressive “ADHD” types did not commit more criminal acts later. But it makes sense, impulsive people are more likely to do impulsive things, and committing crimes is often impulsive. The point is, IN THE COLLECTIVE, we do not reduce the delinquency rates by “medicating” the subjects. This does not mean a particular individual wouldn’t, say, feel better about school, improve their grades, or even say, “This stuff saved my life!” But those are anecdotes. Scientifically, we have to look at the overall effect, and overall, the effect of widespread stimulant use on the population is not large, if we look at the data rather than stories.
I would submit to you that there are plenty of people whom you don’t know whose situations might have gotten worse to the same degree your client base got better. I don’t know what kind of selection bias you have in your population, but I worked with foster youth and saw plenty whose lives deteriorated after starting stimulants, particularly due to aggression toward others. Many ended up with more drugs and worse “diagnoses,” one ended up psychotic until she herself stopped the drugs and went back to her old “normal.” So anecdotes can tell many stories. Collective data is more reliable.
Report comment
Multiple long-term studies show no significant advantages to those taking stimulants vs. those who don’t when diagnosed with “ADHD” in childhood, other than the accidents you mention, and I believe clearly overstate in your comments. Delinquency rates, HS graduation, college enrollment, social skills, not even self-esteem scores were better for those taking stimulants. This has been confirmed since Barkley and Cunningham’s first review in 1978, confirmed by Swanson’s “Review of Reviews” in 1993, and in the OSU medication effectiveness study back in 2002 or so. Also confirmed by the Raine study in Australia, the Quebec study, a comparison study between Finnish and US kids who had very different medication rates but similar outcomes, and more.
Read Whitaker’s works if you want to fully understand what’s going on at MIA. Not everything is the way the professionals have told you it is.
Report comment
You speak wisely. Unfortunately, the privileged are generally protected sufficiently to prevent them from hearing you!
Report comment
It’s not really a legitimate approach to say, “What else should they have done?” It assumes that doing SOMETHING is essential and that NOT doing what they propose is foolish unless you have something “better” to replace it. It is possible that antidepressants were destructive AND there was not a “better treatment” available. We should not assume “antidepressants” as some sort of minimum standard of treatment that is the default unless we have something “better” to propose. Sometimes nothing is better than doing things that are destructive.
Report comment
You’ll have to ask Justin about this. If you send me an email at [email protected] I’ll see if I can forward it to him.
Report comment
Please hit the “report” link/button for anything that shows evidence of being spam/automatically generated.
Report comment
If it were so safe, they would not have to do toxicity tests every two weeks. Lithium can do serious kidney damage among other things. It’s therapeutic dose is as close to the toxic dose as almost any other drug you can name.
Report comment
Not necessarily:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2786428
Report comment
I think you are missing the larger point, Donna. You say our “knowledge” of these things is in its infancy. But the “diagnoses” themselves are not explanatory of anything, regardless of the education and experience of the person involved. How is saying, “Joe feels really hopeless and sees no point in his life” any different than saying “Joe has major depression?” Is there some way to distinguish Joe’s “Major Depression” from Mary’s “Anxiety disorder with depressive features?” They are simply descriptions of what is observed, and clinicians will make a lot of noise about “clinical depression” vs. “reactive depression” but look in the DSM, there is simply NOTHING there to make a distinction. You meet 5 out of 8 criteria, you “have major depression.” Only meet 4, you don’t. Nothing about cause, nothing about ongoing stressors, nothing about culture – just a description. That’s not a “knowledge in its infancy.” That’s just making stuff up, plain and simple. There is no way any “knowledge” can advance from that kind of basis. The DSM is not knowledge. It’s a fantasy that makes people believe “knowledge” is behind it.
Not sure what the answer is, but calling people names based on arbitrary checklists isn’t it.
Report comment
I agree 100%. But everyone still insists he’s wearing beautiful robes!
Report comment
Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Or The Stepford Wives.
Report comment
Replying as moderator:
I really don’t want to get into debating COVID or the WHO response. It is off topic (not about the article or about the “mental health” system) and has become highly divisive. We’ve now heard both sides well expounded. Let’s get back to our mission!
—-Steve
Report comment
The DSM makes a good doorstop! Maybe in the bathroom, so it can double as backup toilet paper!
Report comment
It’s my understanding that suicide rates have always fluctuated along with unemployment.
Report comment
I think the answer is no. No one is paid a fee for writing for MIA, as far as I am aware.
Report comment
Science is not created by consensus, and does not have any consideration for a “middle ground.” Are we going to start saying that gravity is inconvenient for some people, so we’re entertaining some small modifications to help people adapt?????
Report comment
You mean we should consult long-term outcome measures to see if something works? Wow, radical concept!
Report comment
I think you can just comment on the article and if the author is reading comments, they will consider your comment as intended for the author.
Report comment
He won’t even try. He’ll just go somewhere else and keep repeating the lie.
Report comment
The hummingbird house was a new experiment at the time with an open environment rather than cages. It felt like they were pretty good with the environment or it would not have felt good to be there. I felt like I was in their world.
Report comment
True! You should get funding for a study!
I used to go to the hummingbird house at the Philadelphia Zoo during the week when nobody was there. I would sit for 10 minutes making no noise, and soon I was surrounded by birds doing their thing. It was very soothing, and I didn’t need someone to tell me it “worked!”
Report comment
Exactly! They hire “nature therapists” and pay them to go hiking with you!
Report comment
We know this. He can’t answer my challenge and will probably ignore my response. Otherwise, he’ll say it’s “well known” and present no evidence or else attack my credibility. That’s how it seems to be done.
Report comment
Easy to say that. Please provide us with the definitive proof of shared biological pathology for all forms of “schizophrenia.” Not correlations, not candidate genes – let’s hear the exact “pathology”(to use your own words) that distinguishes these conditions. I will assume failure to answer means you have no answer.
Here’s your chance to prove us all wrong!
Report comment
I know, it’s like when they “discover” that hiking in the woods makes people feel calmer, and instead of saying, “hey, try hiking!” they decide to call it “Nature Therapy!”
Report comment
Posting as moderator:
If you want to connect via email, please let me know.
Report comment
Thanks!
Report comment
Strange things happen in Cyberworld! Including whole posts disappearing on occasion. Just check in with me next time.
Report comment
POSTING AS MODERATOR:
For the record, I can’t find any moderated posts from you. Next time, I’d ask that you email me and check before publishing the assumption you’ve been moderated. I almost always leave a note.
Report comment
Superstition comes into play in all forms of medical treatment. Placebo effect is acknowledged to deliver half the benefits of any treatment. Drugs become less effective the longer they’re around because people start to hear issues and concerns that were not talked about before. What people believe has a lot to do with what works.
Report comment
“Maybe you’re not DEPRESSED… maybe you are being OPPRESSED!”
Report comment
Very well done, Amber!!!! Take a bow!
Report comment
You sound very committed to the idea that “there is only one reality” that is unaffected by any of our personal narratives. Can you submit some scientific studies that prove your contention to be true? Or is it simply a matter of faith, based on… your personal narrative?
Report comment