|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
(poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof
#7369742 - 09/05/07 01:57 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Think about this. You go to a physician, and you tell him/her that your throat is sore, you have a fever, feel dizzy and have headaches. You tell this doctor that you think you have Mono. The doctor then goes through a series of physical observations such as looking at your tonsils and throat, taking your temperature, reflex test.... and then sometimes will even take a blood or saliva sample. Through these tests they can come to a pretty accurate diagnosis, and probably tell you that you actually have the flu, and not mono.
Now, lets say you go to a psychiatrist, and you tell them that you have bouts of anxiety and huge mood swings, going from extreme joy to extreme depression. The psychiatrist doesnt do any physical observations, yet somehow concludes that you have a physical abnormality in your brain. How do they do it? How can they tell that you have a chemical imbalance in your brain by listening to your emotional history?
In medical science, when a phenomena or malady becomes known, the first step beyond mere observation is to attempt to recreate the symptoms. It is kind of like reverse engineering. By creating the conditions to bring about the exact symptom and phenomena, you know a possible cause and can then begin to find ways to prevent or stop those very conditions you created to bring about the symptoms.... then you can try it a test group of people with those symptoms and see if your method works, thus linking the cause to the effect with a cure.
this has never happened in the field of psychiatry, yet they all assure us that this is the cause, even when organizations such as the APA and the FDA have stated on multiple occasions that there is no proof that chemical imbalances are the cause of mental disorders.
why are they allowed to lie to us about this, and continue selling drugs under this pretense? even when the parent and regulatory organizations have announced that there is no proof of chemical imbalances? If there is no proof that chemical imbalances exist, then there is no proof that these drugs "balance" you out...
is it plausible that these drugs which are amphetamines, or are closely related to such drugs as MDMA, are doing the same things as their recreational cousins? meaning that they are just "feel good" drugs, and in no way a cure or attack on the cause of the disorders?
Beyond downs syndrome or other mental retardation, there are no known causes for any mental disorders. Seriously, try it out for yourself. Go to google and type in "Cause of Schizophrenia", or cause of autism, or cause of BPD, or cause of ADD/ADHD, or cause of alcoholism, or asperger's syndrome, or munchausen's syndrome, or (try not to laugh) mathematics disorder, or tourettes syndrome....... the list goes on.... your searches will bring up one of three phrases: examples... "Most people with Tourette's syndrome are believed to have a gene that makes them more likely to develop the condition. However, that gene has not been identified. Other factors, such as emotional and physical health or external stress, may also contribute to the development of Tourette's syndrome" "The causes of mathematics disorder are not understood. Different manifestations of the disorder may have different causes." "The exact cause of Asperger's syndrome is not known"
so here we have a "science" that has yet to produce any knowledge in their respective field, but they sure have pushed a lot of drugs on a mountain of "not understood"'s, "it is believed"'s, and "unknown"'s.
|
Acyl
cyanidepoisoning


Registered: 12/13/05
Posts: 4,472
Loc: N.W.T.
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7369768 - 09/05/07 02:23 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The chemical imbalances may not be the direct problem, but if it is assumed that they are and the drugs engineered to reverse conditions associated with these potentially false imbalances actually help patients.. whats the problem?
I think your beef should be with the pharmaceutical companies for being money whores and giving doctors cash benefits for prescribing their medication.
Quote:
is it plausible that these drugs which are amphetamines, or are closely related to such drugs as MDMA, are doing the same things as their recreational cousins? meaning that they are just "feel good" drugs, and in no way a cure or attack on the cause of the disorders?
Well yeah, they are. If there was a better method available to go about curing stuff via drug therapy we would use that instead.. research is still being done, new and improved drugs are coming out all the time.
Look at straterra, ADD drugs are moving from harmful direct stimulants like amphetamines to neurotransmitter re-uptake inhibitors. I cant say if this is better or not, but the fact that any sort of 'high' is eliminated is sort of a step in the right direction.
And you should remember, just because a psychiatrist prescribes you medicine doesnt mean you are forced to take it. They are just giving you options to help you live an easier life, dont hate the pills.. hate on the laziness of the general population for wanting to pop pills rather than deal with what theyve got the hard way.
--------------------
1 ,2
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: Acyl]
#7369778 - 09/05/07 02:39 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I have made shit-tons of threads about the greed of big pharma, and actually, about every point you said I should be railing against....
but regarding your first point, it is extremely unethical to work on the basis of "the ends justify the means". Imagine how well the drug ad campaign would do if they said "Ritalin- legal speed"? or "SSRI's do the exact same thing as exctasy!"? It is false advertising. While I do fault the general populous for eating this bullshit without question and taking an overall lazy approach to their wellbeing, it doesnt absolve the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies of being guilty of using deceptive and vague advertisements to sell these drugs and diseases to the public.
If you want to say that we shouldnt question big pharma and the FDA's negligence or misinformation campaigns because their drugs make people happy... then what is the difference between someone on prozac and a crackhead? does a crackhead not do the same thing? do they not take the drug to feel better and forget about their problems, or become "comfortably numb"?
nothing is being cured. Nor is there any research going into curing these disorders, and from what I can tell, there isnt even any research going on to find the cause of these disorders.... by ignoring a search for the cause, and as long as the consumer cattle dont demand real scientific rigor, it becomes an impetus to create more drugs to treat the symptoms.
It is kind of like me having an open, persistent infection that causes me great pain, and the drug companies find that they can make more money if I have to buy their pain medication for the rest of my life rather than buy their antibiotic for one month.
|
Acyl
cyanidepoisoning


Registered: 12/13/05
Posts: 4,472
Loc: N.W.T.
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7369808 - 09/05/07 03:15 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If you want to say that we shouldnt question big pharma and the FDA's negligence or misinformation campaigns because their drugs make people happy... then what is the difference between someone on prozac and a crackhead? does a crackhead not do the same thing? do they not take the drug to feel better and forget about their problems, or become "comfortably numb"?
The difference is the fact that the person on crack has probably only become depressed after having used crack, the crack acts as both the cause for and the cure for the crack-heads depression..
Prozac is usually taken by people depressed about past events in their lives they had no way of controlling, it will usually do nothing but benefit the user. Ofcourse there are side effects but its not like you arent warned.
That view is a little extreme, I think.
I do think that the pharmaceutical industry is brainwashing the general public with bullshit but the fact is that noone wants to wait until the perfect cure for these disorders are found, they want relief within their lifetimes. Can you blame them? How could you deal with your schizophrenia if anti-psychotic medication production is put to a halt till a cure is found?
Even if billions of dollars are put into research it will be years until we come close to finding the real reasons for these disorders and even longer before we can find efficient methods to cure them 'properly'. We know shit all about the brain and how it works.
I dont believe that this is a case of the ends justifying the means either, its just a side road that people are willing to go down until further research has been done. And yeah, I wouldnt be surprised if research in these fields is extremely sparse but how can you say that is the direct cause of the pharmaceutical industry? I suppose they are taking advantage of peoples ailments for their own personal gains but just because they're not spending their money on research towards this shit doesnt mean that universities and governments cant. The bio side of the scientific community needs to take an active interest also.
--------------------
1 ,2
|
badchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: Acyl]
#7369925 - 09/05/07 06:18 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Imagine this:
An astrophysicist says "I think it's important we search for our origins, and collect data to figure out whats going on in the Universe, here are some data and theories to support a hypothesis".
Behind him someone in support of intelligent design says: "Don't believe him because correlation does not equal causation. It's obvious an old man with a beard created the universe....we call him god, don't search any further".
Who would you believe?
The brain is so complex that it is difficult to pinpoint any single cause underlying complex behavioral disorders.
Your alternative explanation of depression and psychological disorders consists of the following theories:
1. It's all in your head 2. Your "chi" and "chakra's" are out of alignment 3. Just look deep within yourself, pray, and everything will be allright.
And all of these theories are backed by sensationalized newspaper ads, and websites such as www.ihatepsychiatry.com.
-------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: Acyl]
#7369947 - 09/05/07 06:42 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Acyl said: The difference is the fact that the person on crack has probably only become depressed after having used crack, the crack acts as both the cause for and the cure for the crack-heads depression..
Prozac is usually taken by people depressed about past events in their lives
See, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about. You think that there is some sort of "less dangerous/more effective" distinction between street drugs and designer drugs. What most people dont know is that almost all of these street drugs were once psychiatric drugs. There is also another example of another point I want to make in your quote... See how you somehow make a distinction between someone who has become depressed because of crack use, and someone who subjectively thinks they have a traumatic or shitty life.
Now, how does that work? is it both here? are we to blame for bringing about our own depressed state, or is it due to genetics? But I know the answer already.... it is somehow a mixture of both, which in some very inexplicable way is a lose-lose situation for everyone: either we are genetically predisposed to triggering some slumbering chemical imbalance at the sign of subjectively perceived trauma, or we are genetically predisposed to enjoy life less than everyone else.
Quote:
I do think that the pharmaceutical industry is brainwashing the general public with bullshit but the fact is that noone wants to wait until the perfect cure for these disorders are found, they want relief within their lifetimes. Can you blame them? How could you deal with your schizophrenia if anti-psychotic medication production is put to a halt till a cure is found?
again, here is a good example of pro-psych rhetoric and misconception. Psychiatry has the unhappy/malcontent market cornered, not just financially and politically, but scientifically. Psychiatry is merely one theory about how the mind works, yet is taught in schools and colleges as fact. There is no room for any other theories because psychiatry has paraded itself as an infallible science as well as preyed upon the self-absorption and weakness of your average human. 1) People do not want to take responsibility for their emotional state. It makes it so easy to excuse and justify your behaviour and actions when it is some intangible thing that is supposedly beyond your control. It is a lot like blaming your elevator fart on an imaginary dog. 2) Happy-relativism. What is happiness? how do we quantify it and make a happy-scale? Couldnt everyone use more energy? couldnt everyone be happier? why is happiness considered some default position, or that we are owed happiness? IMO, happiness is attained, and it sure as hell doesnt come in a pill form. What happens is that we are surrounded by movies, magazines, commercials, and news stories, of all these other people having glamorous lives, and here is lonely old me without a boyfriend/girlfriend, and my parents just divorced, and I have a shitty job, and I dont get laid...etc.... that is life.... Life is the cause of depression. It is how you play the game that decides whether you are happy or not, not some genetic crapshoot. 3) People like the idea of being mentally unique. It is innate in all of us, and we believe that by having some sort of irrational behaviour or emotional dysfunction that we are somehow special/misunderstood/unique/genius.... I notice an ever growing amount of people who wear their mental disorders as a badge. "There goes my ADD flaring up again" or "im like, sooooo bi-polar, so if I act like a bitch later, that is why".
Quote:
Even if billions of dollars are put into research it will be years until we come close to finding the real reasons for these disorders and even longer before we can find efficient methods to cure them 'properly'. We know shit all about the brain and how it works.
then why are we acting like there is some science to this? Look, I am pro-drugs... why else would I be on this forum.... but I am pro-recreational-drugs. It doesnt matter to me if you need a cup of coffee or a line of coke to get going in the morning, Im not judging here, I am just taking a rational look at it. But dont act like one is "better" than the other because it has the least side-effects, it is still the exact same thing: a mental crutch, a pick-me-up, hair-of-the-dog, get you through the day so you can rest easy medicine. let us cut through the bullshit and call it for what it is, and stop acting like the drugs that come with FDA approval are some sort of new, innovative cure-all.... drugs make you feel good, plain and simple... that isnt science, that is common knowledge.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: badchad]
#7369972 - 09/05/07 07:08 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
badchad said: Imagine this:
An astrophysicist says "I think it's important we search for our origins, and collect data to figure out whats going on in the Universe, here are some data and theories to support a hypothesis".
Behind him someone in support of intelligent design says: "Don't believe him because correlation does not equal causation. It's obvious an old man with a beard created the universe....we call him god, don't search any further".
Who would you believe?
1) what does this have to do with the discussion? 2) astrophysics has produced scientific fact and knowledge. 3) astrophysics are offering hypothesis based off of facts, not just correlation.
I am not in opposition to the quest for knowledge, but I am opposed to forsaking all other avenues in favor of one. If the creationist can offer as much factual information regarding the origins of the universe and explain in scientific terms why they support their hypothesis (belief) then yeah, I would believe the creationist. Sadly, that isnt the case too often.... but then again, psychiatry isnt astrophysics and anti-psychiatry isnt shaking a 2000 year old book and its beliefs in the face of factual information.
You act like I am falsly jumping to conclusion here. If I am, then point them out.... but so far, I am just giving my opinion coupled with some facts.... really, all I am saying is "I think it is important to search for the origins and collect some data to figure out what is going on in the mind, and here are some conclusions and hypothesis".
Quote:
The brain is so complex that it is difficult to pinpoint any single cause underlying complex behavioral disorders.
is that a fact? or is that a hypothesis? do you have some facts to support this hypothesis? See, what the problem here is that we cannot objectively define what is a behavioral disorder. We cannot objectively define sanity. We could say that someone is crazy for wanting to roll around in their own feces, but is that because the majority of americans dont like to roll around in their own shit, or is that a universal constant (pigs excluded)? I find it hilarious that we try to find a genetic or biophysiological cause for a social incongruency... because, it isnt going to happen.
Quote:
Your alternative explanation of depression and psychological disorders consists of the following theories:
1. It's all in your head 2. Your "chi" and "chakra's" are out of alignment 3. Just look deep within yourself, pray, and everything will be allright.
And all of these theories are backed by sensationalized newspaper ads, and websites such as www.ihatepsychiatry.com.
where have i offered any of these as a cause or cure for mental disorders? strawman..... pure strawman.
|
badchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7369984 - 09/05/07 07:22 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
You're correct, my above post was poorly written.
The more straightforward question was: "If we accept the fact that chemicals/neurotransmitters can affect how we feel and think; why is it so difficult to believe imbalances in said chemicals can result in a psychological disorder?"
Further, in more extreme (and clear cut) cases of severe depression what accounts for this?
Usually people cite things such as spiritual dysfunction, gaining "inner peace an understanding" etc. Which I find to be on a level similar to religion.
-------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: badchad]
#7370020 - 09/05/07 08:00 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
badchad said: The more straightforward question was: "If we accept the fact that chemicals/neurotransmitters can affect how we feel and think; why is it so difficult to believe imbalances in said chemicals can result in a psychological disorder?"
Because there is no objective definition for a psychological disorder. It is all subjective... meaning that it is compared against the majority. The human body is tangible, we can objectively define what the prime, physical body is, as well as what an inferior or damaged body is. The mind/emotions are not tangible. I cannot objectively observe what a prime, healthy and normal mind is. One huge problem with the whole chemical imbalance theory is that it jumps to a conclusion. Is it not as plausible for your emotions to be a cause over your "chemicals"? therefor meaning that the cure for the problem would be an intangible, personal barrier to overcome. Lets say that you just received a check in the mail worth 1 million dollars. You would be momentarily happy, right? now, how does your brain know that the check equals happiness? where did it get its cue from to start releasing the "happy juice"?
and is there anyone out there who would be depressed while being given a million dollars? (besides billionaires). Maybe that is a good treatment for depression... we can give them all a million dollars.
Quote:
Further, in more extreme (and clear cut) cases of severe depression what accounts for this?
IMO, it is just someone who pities themselves more than most. again, how can we quantize a subjective thing like emotions?
Quote:
Usually people cite things such as spiritual dysfunction, gaining "inner peace an understanding" etc. Which I find to be on a level similar to religion.
I wouldnt know about that.... Maybe this psychiatrist and his book can tell you. Eliminating Stress, Finding inner peace http://www.amazon.com/Eliminating-Stress-Finding-Inner-Peace/dp/1401902448
|
ManianFH
living in perverty


Registered: 07/06/04
Posts: 14,741
Last seen: 17 hours, 12 minutes
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7370167 - 09/05/07 09:06 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
YawningAnus said:
is it plausible that these drugs which are amphetamines, or are closely related to such drugs as MDMA, are doing the same things as their recreational cousins? meaning that they are just "feel good" drugs, and in no way a cure or attack on the cause of the disorders?
Yes its plausible, but not nearly as probable. Dude if you do a google scholar search for any FDA approved drug, you're going to find peer reviewed articles that have done some kind of testing or research. This goes for mental disorders as well.
I dont think its so much that psychologists/psychiatrists are trying to decieve you to get you to buy drugs, rather, they're trying to find a solution using the best methods they have.
People dont get diagnosed with a disorder because a psychiatrist listens to them and thinks... 'hmm I think hes got this'. People in this profession have to refer to a DSM-IV for psychological illnesses which indicates through statistical evidence what the person is most likely to have based off their symptoms.
Im studying to become a psychologist (and a psychiatrist) way down the line, and maybe that will make you assume i am biased, but I truly believe that people out there are looking for cures. I know for sure if I had a cure for type II schizophrenia and could either publish the findings for the good of science and humankind or market a drug that slowly dissipated the symptoms, I mean, no fucking contest dude, I would have the comeplete cure out there as faast as possible, whether or not it made anyone any money.
I think theres a lot of other scientists who feel the same way and are searching for such anwsers, however, the mind is hard to study on such a level, and thoughts are intangible. Its rarely comparable to physical medicine because you can rarely see whats causing the problem, at least at this point in neurological science.
BTW - i voted that chemical imbalances are the causes of mental disorders (though would have rather stated that they are major contributors) because that is the best theory science yields at this point. But this is also predicated on neural wiring, and how that contributes to faulty messages being sent in the brain (possibly through chemical messages)
Edited by mickdawg666 (09/05/07 09:13 AM)
|
badchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7370250 - 09/05/07 09:39 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
YawningAnus said: Because there is no objective definition for a psychological disorder. It is all subjective... meaning that it is compared against the majority.
There is no objective test for Parkinson's disease, does this mean it is "made up", or that patients simply need to "suck it up"?
As you said, many of these disorders are based on an intangible, or emotional "feeling". This doesn't mean they cannot be quantitated. We could simply ask a patient a series of questions about how they feel (e.g. rate your level of happiness on a scale from 1-5). From this, we would develop a normal distribtion. We could then identify people who were significantly different from the "norm".
We could then compare these data with more objective anlayses such as PET scans and MRI's.
The point is that just because an objective assessment of psychological orders doesn't yet exist, it doesn't mean one cannot be developed.
Quote:
YawningAnus said:One huge problem with the whole chemical imbalance theory is that it jumps to a conclusion. Is it not as plausible for your emotions to be a cause over your "chemicals"? therefor meaning that the cure for the problem would be an intangible, personal barrier to overcome. Lets say that you just received a check in the mail worth 1 million dollars. You would be momentarily happy, right? now, how does your brain know that the check equals happiness? where did it get its cue from to start releasing the "happy juice"?
Agreed. But either way you slice it "happy juice" and whatever causes it, is intricately tied to happiness. This supports the hypothesis that chemicals govern our emotions.
-------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: Acyl]
#7370358 - 09/05/07 10:25 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ofcourse there are side effects but its not like you arent warned.
Very few psychiatrists actually inform their patients about possible side effects. Unlike a typical medical doctor, a psychiatrist is under no obligation to inform you of the side-effects that you may experience because of psychiatric drugs. If you're prescribed SSRI's or other drugs, you'll probably just be asked to sign a piece of paper promising you won't sue them.
Quote:
As you said, many of these disorders are based on an intangible, or emotional "feeling". This doesn't mean they cannot be quantitated. We could simply ask a patient a series of questions about how they feel (e.g. rate your level of happiness on a scale from 1-5). From this, we would develop a normal distribtion. We could then identify people who were significantly different from the "norm".
Thats nonsense. Being on the wrong side of a bell curve does not give you a psychological disorder.
Psychological illnesses probably (almost definitely) exist, but the way they're diagnosed and treated is far from well. The DSM-IV-tr is all qualitative observation, contains a very significant amount of overlap between disorders (making misdiagnosis almost unavoidable) and is poorly operationalized. Anyone trained in even the most basic statistics should know the very basic setup of the DSM (categorization) is inaccurate.
As far as chemical imbalances go: "Contemporary neuroscience research has failed to confi rm any serotonergic lesion in any mental disorder, and has in fact provided significant counterevidence to the explanation of a simple neurotransmitter deficiency. Modern neuroscience has instead shown that the brain is vastly complex and poorly understood [11]. While neuroscience is a rapidly advancing field, to propose that researchers can objectively identify a “chemical imbalance” at the molecular level is not compatible with the extant science. In fact, there is no scientifically established ideal “chemical balance” of serotonin, let alone an identifiable pathological imbalance."
"...the fact that aspirin cures headaches does not prove that headaches are due to low levels of aspirin in the brain. Serotonin researchers from the US National Institute of Mental Health Laboratory of Clinical Science clearly state, “[T]he demonstrated efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors… cannot be used as primary evidence for serotonergic dysfunction in the pathophysiology of these disorders” [12]."
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7370538 - 09/05/07 11:24 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
There is very little profit to be made in teaching people how to alter their experience of reality. IMO, the most effective means of "curing" emotional illness would be 1. Achieving optimum physical health and 2. Learning how to use your brain for your own benefit.
Drugs just mask the symptoms of poor physical health & self-abusive mental habits.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: ManianFH]
#7370624 - 09/05/07 12:04 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mickdawg666 said:
Yes its plausible, but not nearly as probable. Dude if you do a google scholar search for any FDA approved drug, you're going to find peer reviewed articles that have done some kind of testing or research. This goes for mental disorders as well.
peer reviewed articles that attest to the "softball" efficacy of the drug, meaning at times " yes, it drugs the person into a catatonic state so they are no longer anxious". Is it so much to ask a (seemingly) respected field of science to provide some advancement and factual knowledge in its field?
Quote:
People dont get diagnosed with a disorder because a psychiatrist listens to them and thinks... 'hmm I think hes got this'. People in this profession have to refer to a DSM-IV for psychological illnesses which indicates through statistical evidence what the person is most likely to have based off their symptoms.
20 years ago, the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. There is no science behind the classification of vague emotional states. Here is a wiki blurb about some of the criticisms of the DSM.
Quote:
There has been continuing scientific debate concerning the construct validity and practical reliability of the diagnostic categories and criteria in the DSM, even though they have been increasingly standardized to improve inter-rater agreement in controlled research.[25][26][27] It has been argued that the DSM's claims to being empirically founded are overstated in general.[28] Despite caveats in the introduction to the DSM, it has long been argued that its system of classification makes unjustified categorical distinctions between disorders, and between normal and abnormal. Although the DSM-IV may move away from this categorical approach in some limited areas, some argue that a fully dimensional, spectrum or complaint-oriented approach would better reflect the evidence.[29][30][31][32] It has been argued that purely symptom-based diagnostic criteria fail to adequately take into account the context in which a person is living, and whether there is real internal disorder of an individual or simply a response to an ongoing situation.[33][34] It is claimed that the use of distress and disability as additional criteria for many disorders has not solved this false-positives problem, because the level of impairment is often not correlated with symptom counts and can stem from various individual and social factors.[35] The political context of the DSM is a topic of controversy, including its use by drug and insurance companies. The potential for conflict of interest has been raised because roughly 50% of the authors who previously selected and defined the DSM psychiatric disorders have had or have financial relationships with pharmaceutical industries and drug companies.[36] Some argue that the expansion of disorders in the DSM has been influenced by profit motives and represents an increasing medicalization of human nature[37], while others argue that mental health problems are still under-recognized and under-treated. Some people diagnosed with "Gender Identity Disorder" criticize the DSM, citing the APA's decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM as evidence of the APA incorrectly referring to diverse states of being or orientations as mental illnesses.[38]
Quote:
Im studying to become a psychologist (and a psychiatrist) way down the line, and maybe that will make you assume i am biased, but I truly believe that people out there are looking for cures. I know for sure if I had a cure for type II schizophrenia and could either publish the findings for the good of science and humankind or market a drug that slowly dissipated the symptoms, I mean, no fucking contest dude, I would have the comeplete cure out there as faast as possible, whether or not it made anyone any money.
I dont doubt the good intentions of aspiring psychiatrists. I imagine that a small portion of people head into it with the goal of being a drug dealer and the majority probably truly wishes to help people. But the entire foundation of it is fundamentally flawed. It has overstepped its boundaries and asserted itself as an authority on sanity and societal normalcy. It has ruled unabated with an iron fist for the last 40 years as the parent organization, APA, has created the council to vote on what leading psychiatrists deem as mental disorders..... the people on this council have a vested financial intrest in the promulgation of the theory of psychiatry. In the end, it is a self-perpetuating occupation where there are very little checks and balances and the very people you place your ignorant trust in are the judge, jury and executioner of your mental state.
Quote:
I think theres a lot of other scientists who feel the same way and are searching for such anwsers, however, the mind is hard to study on such a level, and thoughts are intangible. Its rarely comparable to physical medicine because you can rarely see whats causing the problem, at least at this point in neurological science.
Maybe they arent finding it because they are looking in the wrong place? I think a few einstein quotes sum up how I feel on this subject...
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” "insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" "“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?”"
|
ChiefGreenLeaf

Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 1,596
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7371372 - 09/05/07 04:14 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
some.so I voted no.
|
Mastamike1118



Registered: 03/29/07
Posts: 2,010
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: ChiefGreenLeaf]
#7371419 - 09/05/07 04:29 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
in the end it comes down to this
the people end up addicted to a pill which they cant function without this is i think not good especially due to side effects and tolerance issues...
pharmecuetical drugs are in no way good... well except for a few...
|
rubixcubies
porch monkey ferlyfe



Registered: 08/05/06
Posts: 1,218
Loc: ottawa on
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: Mastamike1118]
#7371880 - 09/05/07 06:25 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
chemical imbalances no way. mental illness no. its just the way shits turned out. a shadow of your past dances in your mind.
and keeps dancing long after the music stopped.
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: SneezingPenis]
#7372630 - 09/05/07 09:42 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
*sigh*
i'll get to this thread as soon as i'm done with my last exam on friday...
there's alot of shit you guys should understand before criticizing the diagnostic approaches of clinical psychiatrists...
-------------------- "Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK


Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 6 months, 26 days
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: MushmanTheManic]
#7372677 - 09/05/07 09:51 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said:
"...the fact that aspirin cures headaches does not prove that headaches are due to low levels of aspirin in the brain.
HAHAHAHAHAHHA
Oh wow....
-------------------- "Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: LiquidSmoke]
#7373633 - 09/06/07 06:51 AM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Im willing to bet that you are waiting to ask your pharmacology teacher some of the finer points to your side of this discussion.
This should be interesting.... some may think that I like to zing my (obvious) crackpot conspiracies around these forums without ever having heard, read or discussed with the alternate viewpoints, but many of my friends are mere months away from having that prestigious MD in front of their name, and I have had these and many more discussion with them through their various phases of scientific infallibility.... and the pharmacology phase was my favorite.
I have a favor to ask of you. SHow your Pharmacology professors this thread.... maybe you have to do a little editing on minor references to this website.... God knows we dont want the pharmacology professors thinking ill of you for participating in a forum dedicated to growing naturally occuring drugs. I would love to hear what they have to say about my observation of the science behind psychopharmaceuticals.... I would love to take a dose of their Rebuttal (pronounced: Reh-Byoot-Tahl).
|
|