Home | Community | Message Board

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

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
OfflineSneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
 User Gallery
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.
Are chemical imbalances the cause of mental disorders?
You may choose only one


Votes accepted from (09/05/07 01:57 AM) to (No end specified)
You must vote before you can view the results of this poll



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAcyl
cyanidepoisoning
Male User Gallery

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.


--------------------
:scrambled:

1 ,2


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: 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAcyl
cyanidepoisoning
Male User Gallery

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.


--------------------
:scrambled:

1 ,2


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
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


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: 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.


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: 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".:cool:

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
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


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: 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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineManianFHS
living in perverty
 User Gallery

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)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
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]."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
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.


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: 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?”"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleChiefGreenLeaf

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMastamike1118
Male


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... :bongload:well except for a few...:bongload:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinerubixcubies
porch monkey ferlyfe
Male User Gallery


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.


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]
    #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


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: 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


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]
    #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).:shocked:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7373688 - 09/06/07 07:34 AM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Most medical professionals would support helping those with psychological disorders, rather than telling them to "suck it up" and denying their existence.

All forms of science are dynamic. They adapt and evolve according to the information presented. Psychology is no exception. As our knowledge of psychological disorders increases, so will our ability to diagnose and treat them. Until then, you can find comfort in the idea that our emotions and feelings are produced by magic.

The lack of objective measures doesn't make a condition non-existent. As I stated before, Parkinson's is the perfect example.


--------------------
...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


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: badchad]
    #7373701 - 09/06/07 07:46 AM (16 years, 4 months ago)

i think you need to check your facts. The biophysiological causes of Parkinson's disease are known.
Meaning that we know exactly where the malfunction is occuring, we just dont know what is causing the malfunction
I think where you got confused was that it is difficult to diagnose, because there are no blood tests ot fluid analysis that can be considered a diagnostic criteria.

so, parkinsons is not like some other mental disorder, it is an observable central nervous system disorder, that has real physical and rather proprietary symptoms.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: badchad]
    #7373705 - 09/06/07 07:49 AM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Most medical professionals would support helping those with psychological disorders, rather than telling them to "suck it up" and denying their existence.




Not true.
Most medical professionals would prescribe drugs.
And for the record, I think you make a confusion between psychology and psychiatry.


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7373826 - 09/06/07 09:00 AM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:
I think where you got confused was that it is difficult to diagnose, because there are no blood tests ot fluid analysis that can be considered a diagnostic criteria.





This is what I meant. Behavioral symptoms are the only criteria for a clinical diagnosis. Loss of dopaminergic neurons in specific areas of the brain is correlated with these behavioral symptoms.

Along these same lines, objective techniques are being developed which may correlated with the behavioral symptoms of other psychological disorders.


--------------------
...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


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]
    #7374549 - 09/06/07 01:47 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:
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).:shocked:






If i show my pharm professors this thread, they'll just laugh their heads off at people who formulate opinions on the topic with such a small amount of basis of knowledge of basic human chemical physiology.

There's so many ignorant assumptions made in your initial post, maybe you should consider actually studying some of these subjects instead of formulating opinions based on research papers you search for on google.


--------------------
"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]
    #7374629 - 09/06/07 02:09 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

are you going to take a stab at refuting some of my wild and outrageous claims, or are you going to sit their and regale us with tales of vague reasons why I am such a moron?

I think that it is you who has brought threats of a knife to a gun fight.
So far your posts consist of future promises that indicate that you are some expert on this subject, while I am holding on to my tinfoil hat as I fervently type out these malicious lies.

Am I lying about the cause of all those mental disorders I listed being unknown?

Quote:

they'll just laugh their heads off at people who formulate opinions on the topic with such a small amount of basis of knowledge of basic human chemical physiology



from what I can tell, this is the basis that psychiatry and psychopharmaceuticals have been working on. There arent really any solid facts, and their diagnostic criteria is basically their opinion based on a small amount of human chemical physiology.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: SneezingPenis]
    #7374683 - 09/06/07 02:28 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

YawningAnus said:

Am I lying about the cause of all those mental disorders I listed being unknown?




You aren't.

However, the hypotheses regarding mental illness are well supported and based upn thousands of in vitro and in vivo studies.


--------------------
...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


Edited by badchad (09/06/07 02:49 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: badchad]
    #7374719 - 09/06/07 02:38 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

What if those chemical unbalances are created by thoughts themselves, by one's psyche? In that case, the unbalance would be a part of the effect, and not the cause. Shouldn't the psyche be observed and treated instead?


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #7374789 - 09/06/07 02:54 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

MushroomTrip said:
What if those chemical unbalances are created by thoughts themselves, by one's psyche? In that case, the unbalance would be a part of the effect, and not the cause. Shouldn't the psyche be observed and treated instead?




Of course. It is well known that stimuli (being frightened, a check for a million dollars, etc.) can lead to a change in neurotransmitter release. This is why you can (for example) snort a line of coke and feel like you won a million dollars, which occurs in the absence of any stimuli whatsoever.

You have also touched on the demonstrated success of psychotherapy.

None of this supports the idea that "neurotransmitters are NOT involved in our feeling, thoughts and emotions, they just occur magically".


--------------------
...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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: badchad]
    #7374830 - 09/06/07 03:04 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

None of this supports the idea that "neurotransmitters are NOT involved in our feeling, thoughts and emotions, they just occur magically".




Indeed.
BUT, you can't sustain that they are primarily determinative for creating a psychological disorder, since you agreed with me that it's one's psyche which does that.
So how can "treating" the chemical unbalance can help one get pass one's psychological issues?
All that prescription drugs do is create an apparent state of peace, which ceases exactly the moment they are stopped being taken.


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #7375029 - 09/06/07 04:01 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Treating emotional problems with drugs seems just like treating weight problems with drugs.

Instead of examining the actual cause of the imbalance (irrational thoughts, poor health, terrible eating habits), and focusing on altering that cause, psychiatrists diagnose a chemical deficit/surplus, and attempt to adjust it with medications (many of which have NASTY side-effects, by the way).

This is just like "diet" doctors prescribing stimulants to force their patients to lose weight, rather than counseling them about what is creating their weight problem in the first place.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: Veritas]
    #7375063 - 09/06/07 04:11 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Yes and what's even more alarming is that more and more people start to prefer this kind of "treatment" because it's fast and because it implies avoiding their real problems that otherwise they would have to face and fight with.


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: (poll)Chemical imbalances: no proof [Re: MushroomTrip]
    #7375096 - 09/06/07 04:20 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

It seems to me that many people feel incompetent to manage their own minds and bodies, so they choose to defer to the "experts."

I can understand this POV, as I feel this way about the plumbing & electrical systems in my house (;)), but if the plumber told me that the only way to fix the dripping faucet was to add thickeners to my household water supply, I think that I would get a second opinion.  :grin:


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]
    #7376524 - 09/06/07 09:52 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

like i said, lemme take my exam, and i'll get back to you.


and again, there's still alot of points in your initial post which do demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic human physiology.


And it's not simply about expecting a rebuttal.


More like, educational offerings.


Trust me, there's alot of things i agree with, but there's also alot of issues and challenges faced by the diagnostic and treatment approaches of psychiatrists which may help to explain the methods of their madness.



With that being said, i'm not planning on becoming one of those doc's who just perscribes drugs, which is pretty fucking true about most internists.

I came to med school to become a surgeon. Because that is the most definitive way of treating patients, based on what you can see, what you can fix, and what are the results.


--------------------
"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]
    #7376669 - 09/06/07 10:31 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

I dont claim to have an expertise in human physiology, nor am I an expert on psychopharmaceuticals.... but what I am good at is expressing in words, a more rational and logical way of looking at the facts and explanations given to us, as well as having a slight grasp of the scientific method.

All I have done is pointed out the incongruency between what psychiatry claims to know, and how it acts upon what it knows (or doesn't). Im sure that any pharmacology professor could run circles around me when it comes to debating neurophysiology, but I am not debating the science behind neurophysiology, but rather plainly stating that "here is what they know" and "here is how they are acting upon it".


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]
    #7383161 - 09/08/07 10:26 AM (16 years, 4 months ago)

I've heard the complaint of pharmaceuticals said many times.

People saying things like how many drugs designed and developed are simply put out as a way to keep people "hooked" to various prescriptions as a means to creating excessive income.

For example, as someone said earlier

"They only develop drugs which you have to stay on in order to continue feeling the benefits".

But in many instances, this is currently the only most effective way of treating certain illnesses. Many neuromuscular disorders arise from a deficit in cholinergic activity. In this case, when you're prescribed something like an Ach inhibitor, your body is bound to adjust and desensitize itself FROM that drug via negative feedback stimulation, or the chemical desensitization of medicinally targetted muscarinic receptors.

This leads to use of other drugs, and a continued or even increased dosage of the initial prescription. This can be interpreted two ways.

Some people will look at this, and claim that the drugs are just designed to make you spend more money and there is an unwillingness by pharmaceutical companies to just permanately "fix the problem".

Others, who actually understand the mechanisms and risks behind finding benefiting medications for these types of problems, realize that certain chemical deficits in the body, just can never be restored manually, which is why a continued or even increased dosage of prescriptions are necessary.



"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.

What you're left with, is the FAR more difficult diseases, things like invasive cancers, autoimmunities, and all kinds of nasty forms of neurodegenerative disorders.

And the sad thing is, once people do find cures for those types of ailments, pathological Darwinism tells us we'll probably stumble upon even MORE complicated, more challenging, and alot worse diseases. Underlying oppurtunistic pathogens whose manifestations only come about with the eradication of easier-to-treat diseases.


Of course this is not to say, there ARE many pharmaceutical developers aiming on creating drugs for things which are excessive or somewhat unnecessary for the treatment of certain diseases. Many times drug companies will just take a generic drug, add a functional group, and promote the drug simply based on the small adjusted benefits that it might offer.

There's a big grey area with this issue, because some dug adjustments are truely benefical in their activity, while others are simply unnecessary, excessive, and expensive.

I'll give you an example.

The development of Galantine as an alternative to Donepezil as a supplement for Alzheimer's patients. Donepezil is the most widely used drug currently FOR alzheimers, but as a simple AcHE inhibitor, its benefits and risks are pretty drawn out, including the risk of cholinergic toxicity.

What Galantine offers, is not only a less toxic form of an AchE inhibition, but it also functions as an allosteric desensitizor OF the functional cholinergic receptors.

Compare this to the developement of Ambenonium for the treatment of Myasthenia Gravis. Currently Piridostigmine is used. All Ambenonium does, despite costing 5 times as much, is increase the activity identical to the previously developed drug by 5-10 minutes. That's all it does.


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. Doctors are just humans like anybody else. The knowledge they learn can be learned by anybody with a brain. We don't have any sort of "magical powers" that take your disease away, but we choose to keep to ourselves because we want to make more money with our evil income-draining schemes.

All we do, is take the time to attain that knowledge. But a good physician,someone who truely cares about the benefit and wellbeing of their patients, is someone who keeps educational tools as a top priority for people to understand what's exactly ailing them. A good physician spreads their knowledge around and does everything to teach their patients and address any concern or curiosity that one might have.



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


--------------------
"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]
    #7383202 - 09/08/07 10:36 AM (16 years, 4 months ago)

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?


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


--------------------
"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]
    #7383227 - 09/08/07 10:42 AM (16 years, 4 months ago)

What does cancer research have to do with the use of drugs to treat emotional disorders?


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]
    #7383331 - 09/08/07 11:07 AM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Absolutely nothing.


But that's what happens when you take things out of context.


--------------------
"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]
    #7383371 - 09/08/07 11:21 AM (16 years, 4 months ago)

I think that it is you who have taken things out of context. You respond to YA's quote as though he is discussing general medical research, when, in its' original context, it is quite clear that he is discussing psychopharmaceutical research.

Your response to his out-of-context quote is therefor a non sequitur.


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]
    #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: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

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


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 0.061 seconds spending 0.026 seconds on 20 queries.