Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
OfflineLiquidSmoke
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: Veritas]
    #7383406 - 09/08/07 11:34 AM (16 years, 4 months ago)

thanks for ignoring the part when i said

"having said all this, i'll address the issues of psychiatric diagnosis in a little bit."


Establishing a general understanding of the issues of medical research as a whole seemed like a good prelude into the topics we're going to address.


If you're going to critique my posts you should wait till i'm done actually making my points.


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7383453 - 09/08/07 11:57 AM (16 years, 4 months ago)

I was responding to this post:

Quote:

See, it's remarks like these which really make the movement against pharmaceuticals lose credibility. Tell me and be honest, do you even have any subscriptions to any medical journals? JAMA for instance. Do you even keep up with all the different progresses in research of chemotherapy? Medicinal stem cell pluripotency? Oncological surgery advances? Anything?


Or do you just enjoy making sweaping remarks about a field that you clearly lack any essential foundation of knowledge for?




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
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: Veritas]
    #7383841 - 09/08/07 02:02 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

then you DID do an absurd job at taking the words of "cancer research" way out of context.

The point was simply, it's pretty foolish to make a broad general statement about "nothing being cured, nothing being researched, ignoring the cause of disorders" if you don't even actually follow the advents in research and breakthroughs going on in modern academic medicine.

Whether general medicine or specifically psychiatric pharmaceuticals, makes no difference.


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7384143 - 09/08/07 03:36 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Your post mentioned cancer research specifically, so I asked you what that had to do with the topic under discussion in this thread.  Instead of resorting to personalisms and snarky comments, you could have just replied:

Quote:

It's pretty foolish to make a broad general statement about "nothing being cured, nothing being researched, ignoring the cause of disorders" if you don't even actually follow the advents in research and breakthroughs going on in modern academic medicine.




Sheesh, try decaf.  :tongue:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
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: Veritas]
    #7384533 - 09/08/07 04:51 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

so what was the point of you responding to begin with?

you were the one accusing me of "not speaking within the context" when you initially couldn't even understand the point of that post. It didn't need to be repeated...


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7384550 - 09/08/07 04:54 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

I'm interested in the discussion regarding the use of drugs to "treat" emotional problems.  Your post only addressed the use of drugs to treat medical problems.  I wondered what connection you saw there, if any.

Actually, YOU accused ME of taking things out of context, and I clarified that it was, in fact, YOU who had taken YA's quote out of context.

Now that you've made it clear that you do not appreciate questions, especially when you 'haven't finished posting,' I'll just keep them to myself from now on.  :rolleyes:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEllis Dee
Archangel
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/29/01
Posts: 13,104
Loc: Fire in the sky
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7386823 - 09/09/07 05:55 AM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:
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.



Certainly neurology can determine with more accuracy the psychiatrists initial diagnosis. This however might require dissection of the patient's brain. This is the case with Alzheimer's disease for example. It is standard procedure to make the diagnosis based on symptoms. But you are correct, for the definitive diagnosis, neurological examination is required (usually postmortem).


--------------------
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7387742 - 09/09/07 10:52 AM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Ok... what does that have to do with the new marketing term called "chemical imbalance?"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7391229 - 09/10/07 09:36 AM (16 years, 4 months ago)

I thought this thread was dead... sorry it took so long for me to get back to it.

Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:

"How come they can't just CURE it?"

This is the type of arguement that stems from sheer frustration. A realization that the abilities and solutions provided by medicine is not nearly as ideal as someone initially expected. People have to realize, that all the easier-to-treat disorders, have become obsolete a long time ago due to the advent of more primitive medical solutions, like vaccines and various advances in microbiotics and disinfectants.




I would love to see a list of psychological disorders that psychiatry and/or psychopharmaceuticals have made obsolete or cured.
I think you are trying to blur the distinction I made that is basically the entire point of me making this thread: Psychiatry is not a science, and it sure as hell isnt medical science.

Quote:


Whenever people complain that all a physician does is things that you could eventually learn to do yourself, it's another unrealistic expectation of idealism in the medical field.



You mean like people reading the DSM before they go to their psychiatrist so they can rattle of the symptoms so they can get the drugs they are told they need for the mental disorder that commercials tell them they have?
again, you are trying to blur the line between medical science and psychiatry.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7391284 - 09/10/07 10:00 AM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:
Quote:

YawningAnus said:



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.







See, it's remarks like these which really make the movement against pharmaceuticals lose credibility. Tell me and be honest, do you even have any subscriptions to any medical journals? JAMA for instance. Do you even keep up with all the different progresses in research of chemotherapy? Medicinal stem cell pluripotency? Oncological surgery advances? Anything?




no, I dont own any subscriptions to any medical journals. the biggest problem about those journals, especially JAMA, is that they receive about two-thirds of their income from ads from big pharma.
Richard Smith, who worked for BMJ for 25 years, left and published an expose on the lack of transparency in medical journals and other publications.
The very scientists that publish these articles of drug studies, or even peer-review the studies are often on the pay-roll of the very company that they are having to be impartial against.
Only recently has their been somewhat of a backlash, and the more respectable journals have started doing something about the rampant "journal lobbying".
Quote:

In a bold undertaking, the editors of some of the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals announced in September that they will "require, as a condition of consideration for publication, registration in a public trials registry" for all articles written about clinical trials. The announcement moves an APA goal one step closer to fruition.

The group of 11 editors, known as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), said that for any clinical trial that starts enrollment after July 1, 2005, the trial must register "at or before the onset of patient enrollment." For trials that begin enrollment prior to that date, registration will be required as a condition of consideration for publication as of September 13, 2005.

"In return for the altruism and trust that make clinical research possible," the ICMJE editors (see box below) wrote, "the research enterprise has an obligation to conduct research ethically and to report it honestly. Honest reporting begins with revealing the existence of all clinical studies, even those that reflect unfavorably on a research sponsor's product.

"Unfortunately," the editors continued, "selective reporting of trials does occur, and it distorts the body of evidence available for clinical decision making."

The ICMJE defined a clinical trial as "any research project that prospectively assigns human subjects to intervention or comparison groups to study the cause-and-effect relationship between a medical intervention and a health outcome."




http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/39/20/2
like I said before, I have had this discussion atleast 20 times, so dont feel bad when I have links, quotes and solid rebuttals for every turn you try to take.


Quote:

Or do you just enjoy making sweaping remarks about a field that you clearly lack any essential foundation of knowledge for?



I have already stated that I know dick about the interworkings of psychopharmacology and neurophysiology. But I do keep myself up-to-date on the financial ties, legislation, lawsuits and parent organizations of big pharma and psychiatry.
can you produce some studies or research that is currently, or has transpired that honestly tried to find a cure for psychological disorders?
From what I have gathered, it seems that all research in that area is going towards trying to find more correlation or anecdotal evidence to solidify their foundation that is the hypothesis that chemical imbalances cause modd/mental disorders.
I personally believe that the pharmaceutical industry has enough money and staff that they could have found that evidence that proves/justifies their actions years ago.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
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]
    #7392654 - 09/10/07 04:44 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:
I thought this thread was dead... sorry it took so long for me to get back to it.


I would love to see a list of psychological disorders that psychiatry and/or psychopharmaceuticals have made obsolete or cured.
I think you are trying to blur the distinction I made that is basically the entire point of me making this thread: Psychiatry is not a science, and it sure as hell isnt medical science.





I can't give you a list, but i can give you an example. Cholinergic stimulators used to treat Alzheimer's disease.

Psychiatry is a science, because it's the study of observation. That's what defines a science.



Quote:


You mean like people reading the DSM before they go to their psychiatrist so they can rattle of the symptoms so they can get the drugs they are told they need for the mental disorder that commercials tell them they have?
again, you are trying to blur the line between medical science and psychiatry.





Once again, you're assuming that I'm completely disagreeing with what you're saying.

I hope you actually read through my post...


I still believe there's alot of respectable aspect of psychiatry, but there is also alot of bullshit involved. I'm agreeing with you on that.


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
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]
    #7392749 - 09/10/07 05:02 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:


no, I dont own any subscriptions to any medical journals. the biggest problem about those journals, especially JAMA, is that they receive about two-thirds of their income from ads from big pharma.
Richard Smith, who worked for BMJ for 25 years, left and published an expose on the lack of transparency in medical journals and other publications.
The very scientists that publish these articles of drug studies, or even peer-review the studies are often on the pay-roll of the very company that they are having to be impartial against.
Only recently has their been somewhat of a backlash, and the more respectable journals have started doing something about the rampant "journal lobbying".

like I said before, I have had this discussion atleast 20 times, so dont feel bad when I have links, quotes and solid rebuttals for every turn you try to take.





Yes i like how you talk like we're playing a game of hockey or something.


You're missing the point. You don't follow any medical journals. Nothing. You don't keep up with ANY research, AT ALL.

JAMA's influence through pharmaceuticals, isn't even the issue here. There's lots of other medical journals out there, papers and research being published everyday.

The issue is, you don't follow ANY of this, and you complain that "no research is being done, no cures are being found, nobody's trying to find the real source of the problems".


Quote:


I have already stated that I know dick about the interworkings of psychopharmacology and neurophysiology. But I do keep myself up-to-date on the financial ties, legislation, lawsuits and parent organizations of big pharma and psychiatry.




Yet somehow you figure you can complain about the lack of development in the field of science, the very essence in which these companies are created, while not even understanding the uncountble challenges, mysteries, and mechanisms which dictate the parameters towards which all psychiatric diagnosis and pharmaceutical drugs are developed?

Financial ties, legislation, lawsuits, and paying attention to the commercial aspects of the pharmaceutical industry, tells you absolutely nothing about the issues faced with the development and mechanisms of the drugs themselves, which is what you're complaining about.

Quote:

can you produce some studies or research that is currently, or has transpired that honestly tried to find a cure for psychological disorders?
From what I have gathered, it seems that all research in that area is going towards trying to find more correlation or anecdotal evidence to solidify their foundation that is the hypothesis that chemical imbalances cause modd/mental disorders.
I personally believe that the pharmaceutical industry has enough money and staff that they could have found that evidence that proves/justifies their actions years ago.





Like I said before, in that big fat post above,

all the money and staff in the world isn't going to automatically result in the finding of cures and scientific breakthroughs necessary to advance medicine.

You have to try and understand, what it is SPECIFICALLY, that makes certain diseases and illnesses, incredibly difficult to treat. Then you'll have a better perspective on why medical science in general, is dealing with the challenges of treating the ailments which plague us today.

This especially holds true for the psychiatric field.



And if you think you can still pass this kind of judgement on the industry as a whole while still ignoring the science itself...then i don't know what else to tell you.


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7395099 - 09/11/07 04:29 AM (16 years, 4 months ago)

what science?
See, I find that there is a distinction between neurophysiology and psychiatry, and that psychiatry is using neurophysiology to try and make itself seem more scientific and credible.
Psychiatry doesnt deal with AD, or Parkinsons.... those both have physical manifestations.
As far as your above post regarding AD...
Quote:

The oldest, on which most currently available drug therapies are based, is known as the "cholinergic hypothesis" and suggests that AD is due to reduced biosynthesis of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. The medications that treat acetylcholine deficiency have served to only treat symptoms of the disease and have neither halted nor reversed it



I dont see how designing a drug therapy based on a hypothesis, that in the end only treats the symptoms at best, is really a search for a cure.

I had a very long post written out and I decided that it was getting off on too many tangents.... so let me ask you this.
is it plausible that psychiatry is fundamentally incorrect in its assertion that there is a biophysiological cause for mood disorders? Is it plausible that the real discrepency comes from what is real, raw human behaviour, and how our society acts and forces us to be?

take ADHD for example. Here, psychiatrists are telling us that it is abnormal for young children to be hyperactive, as well as having a short "attention span" (wherever that is located). Is it plausible that the laziness of parents, or the diet of children, or hell, the overall general nature of children is the cause for hyperactivity? Is it plausible that the problem of "maintaining focus" stems from the forced, rigid guidelines of what our society considers "normal attention"... things like having an equal affinity or interest in all subjects, ranging from economics to archery?
I think we can both agree that there is a base level of innate, primal interests that humans have. Boys like fire trucks, the woods, hunting, wrestling etc. If we lived in a society where children didnt have to learn about the Magna Carta and thermodynamics, but rather existed in a primal society... do you think there would be a problem of focusing on a task?
Give me any boy whose is considered afflicted with having little to no attention span, and I will show him a playboy magazine for 30 seconds and bet you that he could recall almost every detail... 3 years later.
Just as our societal standards for information retention and subject affinity are not the same as a primal society, our standards for happiness are not on par with a primal society.

so, my hypothesis for the cause of mood disorders is not an organic one, but rather a problem of society defining unreal parameters that do not fit into the reality of human behaviour.
Oddly enough, it has been psychiatrists for the last 80 years who have dictated what is "normal" and what is "sane", and our society has placed trust in their "scientific assesment" and gone along with it.
But, I dont blame psychiatry entirely for that, it is also the sensational, overblown, unreal depiction of life in our media.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLiquidSmoke
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]
    #7397304 - 09/11/07 04:55 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:
what science?
See, I find that there is a distinction between neurophysiology and psychiatry, and that psychiatry is using neurophysiology to try and make itself seem more scientific and credible.
Psychiatry doesnt deal with AD, or Parkinsons.... those both have physical manifestations.




Psychiatry doesn't deal with AD???? Uhhhh... I'm not even going to go there. How else do you think AD is diagnosed???

Quote:

As far as your above post regarding AD...
Quote:

The oldest, on which most currently available drug therapies are based, is known as the "cholinergic hypothesis" and suggests that AD is due to reduced biosynthesis of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. The medications that treat acetylcholine deficiency have served to only treat symptoms of the disease and have neither halted nor reversed it



I dont see how designing a drug therapy based on a hypothesis, that in the end only treats the symptoms at best, is really a search for a cure.




I hope you firstly, understand the definition of "hypothesis", and pay attention to why that sort of wording is used. Instead of automatically assuming the cholinergic "hypothesis" is nothing more than a figment of assumption.

Do you realize the only reason they use the term "hypothesis" is because it's impossible to actually observe and confirm the chemical mechanisms as they occur during a cellular signaling process?

Our scientific technology is unable to see molecules bonding with each other inside of a synapse. That's why the term "hypothesis" is used.

That and the fact that you think somehow, just because this is the current treatment for this disease, that no cures are being researched on. Once again i'll blame your lack of actually understanding or following any form of medical research on that one.

"Why aren't they just looking for a cure?"

Once again, a question that you'll ask if you pretty much have zero understanding of the challenges and issues presented with these kinds of diseases. Which is another reason, why it's probably a good idea to explore the science itself instead of assuming a redirection in human resources will lead to a cure.

It's sort of like people who think cancer can just be "cured". Like you can just take some pill and all of a sudden all the tumors disappear.

The point is, you don't pay attention to the science, at all. You completely ignore even looking at the research progress in medicine, yet you're complaining about both.


Quote:

I had a very long post written out and I decided that it was getting off on too many tangents.... so let me ask you this.
is it plausible that psychiatry is fundamentally incorrect in its assertion that there is a biophysiological cause for mood disorders? Is it plausible that the real discrepency comes from what is real, raw human behaviour, and how our society acts and forces us to be?

take ADHD for example. Here, psychiatrists are telling us that it is abnormal for young children to be hyperactive, as well as having a short "attention span" (wherever that is located). Is it plausible that the laziness of parents, or the diet of children, or hell, the overall general nature of children is the cause for hyperactivity? Is it plausible that the problem of "maintaining focus" stems from the forced, rigid guidelines of what our society considers "normal attention"... things like having an equal affinity or interest in all subjects, ranging from economics to archery?
I think we can both agree that there is a base level of innate, primal interests that humans have. Boys like fire trucks, the woods, hunting, wrestling etc. If we lived in a society where children didnt have to learn about the Magna Carta and thermodynamics, but rather existed in a primal society... do you think there would be a problem of focusing on a task?
Give me any boy whose is considered afflicted with having little to no attention span, and I will show him a playboy magazine for 30 seconds and bet you that he could recall almost every detail... 3 years later.
Just as our societal standards for information retention and subject affinity are not the same as a primal society, our standards for happiness are not on par with a primal society.

so, my hypothesis for the cause of mood disorders is not an organic one, but rather a problem of society defining unreal parameters that do not fit into the reality of human behaviour.
Oddly enough, it has been psychiatrists for the last 80 years who have dictated what is "normal" and what is "sane", and our society has placed trust in their "scientific assesment" and gone along with it.
But, I dont blame psychiatry entirely for that, it is also the sensational, overblown, unreal depiction of life in our media.






Once again, i'm not disagreeing with you here. Psychiatry has the biggest issues with misdiagnosis out of any other field.

but what i'm trying to convey to you is that the presentations of psychologic disorders create a much more challenging parameter of diagnosis. The challenge of diagnosis faced by psychiatrists are unlike that of any other medical field.

There's also a very very wide spectrum of psychologic disorders, some which are incredibly definitive (like Alzheimers, Neuroautoimmunity disease), and those like ADHD, which lacks almost any sort of differential diagnosis.

What you have to understand, is to NOT generalize ALL psychiatric treatment and diagnosis processes based on the least definitive examples. There are alot of psychiatric disorders whose cause and effect are much more well understood.


--------------------
"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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: LiquidSmoke]
    #7397906 - 09/11/07 07:02 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

LiquidSmoke said:
Quote:

YawningAnus said:
what science?
See, I find that there is a distinction between neurophysiology and psychiatry, and that psychiatry is using neurophysiology to try and make itself seem more scientific and credible.
Psychiatry doesnt deal with AD, or Parkinsons.... those both have physical manifestations.




Psychiatry doesn't deal with AD???? Uhhhh... I'm not even going to go there. How else do you think AD is diagnosed???



Maybe I am wrong on that one, but it seems to me that if my parents had AD I would take them to a neurologist, not a psychiatrist.
Are Neurologists unable to diagnose AD? seems to me they have more physical diagnostic equipment at their fingertips... not that I am underestimating the scientific breakthrough medical device called the couch.

Quote:

As far as your above post regarding AD...
Quote:

The oldest, on which most currently available drug therapies are based, is known as the "cholinergic hypothesis" and suggests that AD is due to reduced biosynthesis of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. The medications that treat acetylcholine deficiency have served to only treat symptoms of the disease and have neither halted nor reversed it



I dont see how designing a drug therapy based on a hypothesis, that in the end only treats the symptoms at best, is really a search for a cure.




I hope you firstly, understand the definition of "hypothesis", and pay attention to why that sort of wording is used. Instead of automatically assuming the cholinergic "hypothesis" is nothing more than a figment of assumption
Do you realize the only reason they use the term "hypothesis" is because it's impossible to actually observe and confirm the chemical mechanisms as they occur during a cellular signaling process? .




it seems to me that if it was just a semantic formality, then why would there be three different "hypothesis" regarding the cause of AD?


Quote:


That and the fact that you think somehow, just because this is the current treatment for this disease, that no cures are being researched on. Once again i'll blame your lack of actually understanding or following any form of medical research on that one.

"Why aren't they just looking for a cure?"

Once again, a question that you'll ask if you pretty much have zero understanding of the challenges and issues presented with these kinds of diseases. Which is another reason, why it's probably a good idea to explore the science itself instead of assuming a redirection in human resources will lead to a cure.



Can you supply me with some links to past or present research that has been an honest exploration into finding a cure, rather than a hypothesis regarding para-quantum entanglement?
I dont get how something can be an honest search for a cure or cause when you just sit around hypothesizing about something that results in a treatment that abates symptoms.

Quote:

It's sort of like people who think cancer can just be "cured". Like you can just take some pill and all of a sudden all the tumors disappear.



again you want to relate psychiatry with physical medical science. Cancer is in no way like a mood disorder, or even AD for that matter.

Quote:

The point is, you don't pay attention to the science, at all. You completely ignore even looking at the research progress in medicine, yet you're complaining about both.



I will admit that I may be ignorant to current research going on to find a cure for mental disorders, but what am I really missing here?
For one, I dont believe that they are even looking in the right place.... in fact, they couldnt be more fundamentally wrong in their approach to finding the cause or curing mental disorders.
Second, my hypothesis is reinforced by the fact that in all the years that this scientific community has been around, they have yet to produce one single cure for any mental disorder.

Quote:


Once again, i'm not disagreeing with you here. Psychiatry has the biggest issues with misdiagnosis out of any other field.

but what i'm trying to convey to you is that the presentations of psychologic disorders create a much more challenging parameter of diagnosis. The challenge of diagnosis faced by psychiatrists are unlike that of any other medical field.



I agree, in a way.... I think that they are unfairly disadvantaged because it is impossible to be scientific in matters of subjectivity.
Happiness, attention, anxiety etc are all subjective terms, as well as the diagnosis itself is measured against a model of sanity created by psychiatrists.

Quote:

There's also a very very wide spectrum of psychologic disorders, some which are incredibly definitive (like Alzheimers, Neuroautoimmunity disease), and those like ADHD, which lacks almost any sort of differential diagnosis.




I make a distinction between mood disorders and things like AD. See, memory isnt subjective, it is a measurable phenomena, as well as AD has physical manifestations. I make a distinction between neurological disorders and mood disorders (also attention disorders).


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The depression poll. SneezingPenis 2,175 17 01/03/06 07:11 PM
by ReposadoXochipilli
* Gayness in men a chem. imbalance?
( 1 2 all )
EmbracingShadows 3,281 22 07/27/05 03:44 PM
by crunchytoast
* Einsteins opinion
( 1 2 3 all )
Sterile 6,713 55 03/03/05 12:50 PM
by Sterile
* depressed =( going to doctor tomorrow for help
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
swiftrance 17,793 130 10/28/05 03:09 PM
by Deviate
* A thought about pharmaceuticals and the people who endorse them...
( 1 2 3 all )
some1whoisntme 7,581 47 04/12/06 03:59 PM
by SneezingPenis
* Your opinions on Homeopathy?
( 1 2 3 all )
barfightlard 4,459 45 04/10/05 01:34 PM
by Psychoactive1984
* This is ridiculous...
( 1 2 3 all )
SneezingPenis 6,310 44 07/22/05 02:21 AM
by SneezingPenis
* My Bi-polarismishness EmbracingShadows 1,557 19 07/11/05 06:05 AM
by mrsautoman

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: CherryBom, Rose, mndfreeze, yogabunny, feevers, CookieCrumbs, Northerner
4,302 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.