ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags depression , psychiatry

Reply
Old 9th June 2016, 09:56 PM   #41
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,976
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Citing that paper was the lie - any one who understand the abstract can see that the paper does not say that exercise is better than drugs.
You know, since I already noted that you are misrepresenting what I've posted and corrected you and you persist in the same tactic, I'll just leave you with it.

I have a rule of only repeating myself once and that's been and gone.

Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
Wow I completely destroyed every bit of your persona and argument and you pull a Trump, thanks
If you want to discuss lies you've told about what I've said, feel free to start a new thread.

This one is about psychiatry fail.

Feel free to defend the industry with evidence.

Originally Posted by Maya22 View Post
This is only my experience. Other people have other experiences.
Thanks for that - nice to hear a positive story. You seem to be one of the lucky ones.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 05:22 AM   #42
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,969
Originally Posted by Maya22 View Post
I can only speak for myself. I have been on Venlafaxine since last summer. It has helped alleviate my depression and anxiety. I used to have episodes where I was convinced that I was visiting alternate universes; however, I don't have those episodes anymore. The first couple of weeks on the medicine, I had some moderate stomach discomfort. Those symptoms disappeared. Before that, I was on Celexa for many years. Before that, I was on Prozac for many years. Although all three medicines have helped me, I think that my newest medicine is the most helpful.

Because of these medicines, I am able to be married, hold a job, do volunteer work, have hobbies, and do other things that I might not be able to do if I weren't on those medicines.

This is only my experience. Other people have other experiences.
(Belated) Welcome to the forum Maya22. ETA: Post more! ETA: weird, originally it said 22 posts, now 1000+. So... Hey, Maya22, nice to see you (again)...

Congratulations on your relatively normal life thanks to the marvels of modern Psychiatry. It's experiences such as yours that demonstrate Psychiatry has benefits.

Psychiatry deniers (like 9/11 deniers or holocaust deniers) have to ignore a lot of obvious evidence to arrive at their flawed conclusions. It can be frustrating to people like us that rely on modern psychiatry to live relatively normal lives to read such misinformation.
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']

Last edited by The Greater Fool; 10th June 2016 at 05:26 AM.
The Greater Fool is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2016, 11:39 AM   #43
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,976
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool View Post
Psychiatry deniers...
Instead of poisoning the well, you could of course, choose to post evidence that these premises are incorrect:

Psychiatry has made absurdly little progress in 70 years. (esp. when compared to all other parts of medical science)

Exercise is more successful and safer than drugs in treating depression.

Psychiatry has failed miserably at treating people like Ashley in the OP.


I am denying nothing. Highlighting faults is not denial.

The attitude and lack of evidence of the supporters of psychiatry is amusing, though. And revealing, I feel, but YMWV.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2016, 10:52 PM   #44
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,618
I do not understand the OP. Even if it was true that psychiatry has failed massively, then what? Obviously, mental illnesses must be extremely difficult to cure, or we have a whole field of science that is populated by fools. Is there a suggestion here?

Autism is not an illness, but a disorder, and accusing psychiatrists (or neurologists) of incompetence for not curing it, seems to be on a par with the medical incompetence that still has not cured people that have been born with missing limbs.

If Ashley's autism cannot be cured, just what should happen if he is a danger to other people? Has psychiatrists recommended the confinement that he is subjected to, or if not, how is his confinement the responsibility of psychiatry?
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2016, 11:59 PM   #45
Little 10 Toes
Master Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Instead of poisoning the well, you could of course, choose to post evidence that these premises are incorrect:

Psychiatry has made absurdly little progress in 70 years. (esp. when compared to all other parts of medical science)

Exercise is more successful and safer than drugs in treating depression.

Psychiatry has failed miserably at treating people like Ashley in the OP.


I am denying nothing. Highlighting faults is not denial.

The attitude and lack of evidence of the supporters of psychiatry is amusing, though. And revealing, I feel, but YMWV.
You read the article wrongly. It clearly states that it is sleep.
Little 10 Toes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 01:49 AM   #46
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,976
Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes View Post
You read the article wrongly. It clearly states that it is sleep.
Sure. And how do you ensure someone gets enough sleep, naturally?

Exercise.

Get a labouring job - I don't care who you are, you'll sleep well every night after 8 hours' hard yakka. (work)

If you can't get a labouring job, get enough exercise to get sleep.

Giving sleeping tablets is probably the worst of all possible responses.

Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
I do not understand the OP. Even if it was true that psychiatry has failed massively, then what? Obviously, mental illnesses must be extremely difficult to cure, or we have a whole field of science that is populated by fools. Is there a suggestion here?
I don't know whether it's fools as much as it's an industry which fails to attract the best talent and minds, which does parlay the problem, because you['re right - it probably is an extremely difficult field.

Accordingly, a bunch of people who would be below average in another area become above average within the psychiatric industry.

Good old capitalism at its best.

Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Autism is not an illness, but a disorder, and accusing psychiatrists (or neurologists) of incompetence for not curing it...
Nope.

I'm pointing at the industry for being unable to control it.

As you say, it would be no more reasonable to expect medicine to enable a person to grow a new limb. However, the prosthetic/reconstruction industry has made a lot more progress in 70 years than psychiatry. Crikey, people have had entire faces transplanted, while psychiatry has improved its success rate by a few percent.


Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
If Ashley's autism cannot be cured, just what should happen if he is a danger to other people? Has psychiatrists recommended the confinement that he is subjected to, or if not, how is his confinement the responsibility of psychiatry?
Who else would be responsible? Prisons?

Of course the man needs to be controlled - he's a raving loony who's (when fit) probably capable of ripping most people in half, and prone to violent rages. I'm not advocating letting him out, I'm advocating someone figuring out how to control his condition.

We can deal with innumerable diseases and conditions now that were hopeless only decades ago - MND, MS, HIV, various cancers - but Ashley is no better off than if he'd been alive a century ago.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 06:06 AM   #47
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
As you say, it would be no more reasonable to expect medicine to enable a person to grow a new limb. However, the prosthetic/reconstruction industry has made a lot more progress in 70 years than psychiatry. Crikey, people have had entire faces transplanted, while psychiatry has improved its success rate by a few percent.

I wouldn’t characterize psychology as a ‘failed’ discipline. If it fails at anything it fails at acknowledging its limitations. It merely reflects the general misconceptions everyone typically practices in our daily existence. Meaning…we are ignorant of nothing more than the dimensions of our ignorance.

Do you know what a person (you) is? Do you…do you…do you…do you? Does anyone? Does anyone come even close?

…nope (?). The field of neuroscience explicitly acknowledges that it doesn’t have a clue how consciousness is created out of the physical activity of the brain, nor does there exist anything remotely resembling a definitive theory of mind (cognitive theory… comprehensive description of human nature)

So that puts psychology way behind all the other sciences right from the start. It can’t explain how ‘you’ are created AND it has absolutely zero ability to empirically measure the subject it is studying…you. Science can probably get more definitive information about a phenomenon on the other side of the galaxy than it can about what exactly is going on inside ‘you’.

Thus…psychology is dealing with a double whammy. It hasn’t a clue how the brain creates ‘you’ (why does chemical activity ‘x’ result in autistic activity ‘y’ for example), and it has absolutely zero ability to empirically measure ‘you’. Of course, they’re also indirectly dealing with what is described as the most complex object in the known universe (the brain) and what is regarded as the greatest mystery in the known universe: consciousness. Deep deep deep water there.

But psychologists are human beings too and thus subject to my initial point…that we are ignorant of nothing more than the dimensions of our ignorance. Thus many psychologists soldier on under the misconception that their reach far exceeds their grasp. Ironic I suppose…given the fact that they’re psychologists. You would think if anyone should be aware of how stupid they are, it would be a group of people who make a living out of studying how stupid people are.

Last edited by annnnoid; 13th June 2016 at 06:10 AM.
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 06:16 AM   #48
Little 10 Toes
Master Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,007
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Sure. And how do you ensure someone gets enough sleep, naturally?

Exercise.

Get a labouring job - I don't care who you are, you'll sleep well every night after 8 hours' hard yakka. (work)

If you can't get a labouring job, get enough exercise to get sleep.

Giving sleeping tablets is probably the worst of all possible responses.
No. You are wrong. Giving people sleeping pills is exactly the best thing to do.


With that being said, you have failed to interpret my attempt in humor. Had you read the article fully, you would have found that the word exercise is found once in the article.

Quote:
Forms of talk therapy, including cognitive behavioral therapy, have been shown to be effective against depression in young people, and regular exercise and adequate sleep can also make a difference, Jureidini said. The vast majority of children do not need to be medicated for their depression, he said, but many are.
It appears that you are cherry picking your articles. You are taking results from a specific subgroup and applying it to everyone.
Little 10 Toes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 06:58 AM   #49
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,969
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Instead of poisoning the well, you could of course, choose to post evidence that these premises are incorrect:
Let's include the whole paragraph of the well poisoning:
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool
Psychiatry deniers (like 9/11 deniers or holocaust deniers) have to ignore a lot of obvious evidence to arrive at their flawed conclusions. It can be frustrating to people like us that rely on modern psychiatry to live relatively normal lives to read such misinformation.
As has been demonstrated in this and the other psychiatry denial thread, the ample obvious evidence HAS BEEN provided and HAS BEEN ignored and psychiatry deniers continue to hold on to their flawed conclusions.

You have poisoned the well. Fortunately there are other wells with clean, satisfying refreshment.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Psychiatry has made absurdly little progress in 70 years. (esp. when compared to all other parts of medical science)
At least you acknowledge progress has been made. If you believe progress is not fast enough, then together we can encourage and finance their efforts to move faster. How much can I write you down for?

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Exercise is more successful and safer than drugs in treating depression.
Why should I present evidence you've previously ignored or misrepresented? You've already presented evidence that demonstrates this claim is false while misreading so that you may maintain a flawed conclusion.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Psychiatry has failed miserably at treating people like Ashley in the OP.
Cool, we can do anecdotes.

Psychiatry (literally) saved my wife's life. Psychiatry (literally) saved my daughter's life. Psychiatry (figuratively, who knows maybe literally) saved my life, keeping my wife and daughter ticking, and taught me both how to help them and myself.

In my life I have dealt with a lot of psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, social workers. Some have been great, some not so great. Rather like the traditional medical world.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I am denying nothing. Highlighting faults is not denial.
You are denying all sorts of things, far beyond highlighting faults. But, if you are only highlighting faults, how about highlighting some successes?

1. _____
2. _____
3. _____
4. _____
5. _____

Fill in the blanks with psychiatric successes. Real, meaningful successes. No left handed complements. You can do it. Or am I talking to a wall?

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
The attitude and lack of evidence of the supporters of psychiatry is amusing, though. And revealing, I feel, but YMWV.
Evidence has been presented and ignored. Presented and ignored. Presented and ignored.

The attitude you see is frustration. It's frustrating talking to a wall and expecting, nay, hoping for a response.

Psychiatric denier willful ignorance is not amusing. What deniers fail to grasp is that real lives are involved. If society depended on denier conclusions society would suffer and lives would be uselessly lost. How amusing.

Denial is indeed revealing. What we see is selfish, self-serving, and ugly.
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 09:39 AM   #50
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,398
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Then point me to some examples of the research, because I'm not seeing it.

All I see is continuing push of drugs that already fail.
Which is why we need to go totally herbal in our treatment of cancer. That way we will not be using any drugs that fail.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 10:09 AM   #51
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool View Post
...
Psychiatry deniers (like 9/11 deniers or holocaust deniers) have to ignore a lot of obvious evidence to arrive at their flawed conclusions.
...
This kind of bogus character attack has no place in a discussion about a scientific question. You should not engage in such dishonest tactics if you have a genuine point to make.

Psychiatry is deeply lacking as a medical practice -- especially regarding the care of children. There are a lot of drugs prescribed on flimsy evidence of safety and efficacy. That is something that is not acceptable in other areas of medicine and science in general.
I Recently discussed this on another thread:

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
It was stated much earlier in this thread. Vaccination has indisputable evidence as to its efficacy and safety -- with double blind trials including millions of subjects. Cranks have no evidence to counter that; they rely on unscientific anecdotal evidence and use scare tactics in resoponse.
The evidence for the safety and efficacy of psychiatric drugs for children is quite tenuous at best and, in some cases, virtually non-existent in comparison. For example, a study of about a hundred children over 14 months with subjective evaluations has been cited as a "big study." There seems to be nothing more convincing than that.
These drugs interact with neurotransmitters, synapses, etc. in a child's developing brain with little knowledge of the short term and long term consequences regarding that development.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 12:25 PM   #52
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,976
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
I wouldn’t characterize psychology as a ‘failed’ discipline. If it fails at anything it fails at acknowledging its limitations. It merely reflects the general misconceptions everyone typically practices in our daily existence. Meaning…we are ignorant of nothing more than the dimensions of our ignorance.

Do you know what a person (you) is? Do you…do you…do you…do you? Does anyone? Does anyone come even close?
Seriously? You want to turn a scientific discipline into Philosophy 101?

We don't need to be able to explain the depths of the soul to know that someone is depressed/suicidal/psychotic, these things are obvious.

How to fix them isn't, but when you have a bunch of below-average doctors pursuing those cures, they're very slow coming. That goes to your acknowledgement of limitations, which is certainly right.

Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
…nope (?). The field of neuroscience explicitly acknowledges that it doesn’t have a clue how consciousness is created out of the physical activity of the brain, nor does there exist anything remotely resembling a definitive theory of mind (cognitive theory… comprehensive description of human nature)
Just to show you how silly that is, watch this:

The field of science explicitly acknowledges that it doesn’t have a clue how living organisms are created out of inorganic matter.

Does science need to know exactly how abiogenesis happened to be able to treat illnesses?

No.

Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
It can’t explain how ‘you’ are created AND it has absolutely zero ability to empirically measure the subject it is studying…you.
Now you're typing plain rubbish. Neuroscience can pinpoint exactly where religious "experiences" create reactions in the brain, along with many other areas of thought.

Claiming "we know nothing" is all very Socratic, but it's incorrect.

Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
But psychologists are human beings too and thus subject to my initial point…that we are ignorant of nothing more than the dimensions of our ignorance. Thus many psychologists soldier on under the misconception that their reach far exceeds their grasp. Ironic I suppose…given the fact that they’re psychologists. You would think if anyone should be aware of how stupid they are, it would be a group of people who make a living out of studying how stupid people are.
That, however, I agree with entirely.

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes View Post
It appears that you are cherry picking your articles. You are taking results from a specific subgroup and applying it to everyone.
Nope, I'm cherry-picking because I don't have time to list the enormous number of studies proving the point, which is why the meta-analysis is in there.

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool View Post
As has been demonstrated in this and the other psychiatry denial thread, the ample obvious evidence HAS BEEN provided and HAS BEEN ignored and psychiatry deniers continue to hold on to their flawed conclusions.
Your passion for defence of the subject is entirely explicable, and also entirely subjective.

I would have answered your post personally, but I see someone's done it for in the meantime:

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
This kind of bogus character attack has no place in a discussion about a scientific question. You should not engage in such dishonest tactics if you have a genuine point to make.

Psychiatry is deeply lacking as a medical practice -- especially regarding the care of children. There are a lot of drugs prescribed on flimsy evidence of safety and efficacy. That is something that is not acceptable in other areas of medicine and science in general.
I Recently discussed this on another thread:
Bingo.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 01:27 PM   #53
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Seriously? You want to turn a scientific discipline into Philosophy 101?

We don't need to be able to explain the depths of the soul to know that someone is depressed/suicidal/psychotic, these things are obvious.

...since when did science use 'these things are obvious' as an answer to anything? I seem to recall folks thinking the world was flat...just cause it seemed obvious. Apparently they were wrong!

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Now you're typing plain rubbish. Neuroscience can pinpoint exactly where religious "experiences" create reactions in the brain, along with many other areas of thought.

Claiming "we know nothing" is all very Socratic, but it's incorrect.

…when you utterly fail to provide anything remotely resembling an empirical definition of ‘religious experiences’…or, for that matter, ANY experience, it will become immediately clear who it is who is talking rubbish.

I suppose it would be a waste of time to point out that the resolution limits (temporal and spatial) of current neural scanning technologies do not allow anything remotely resembling a definitive, explicit, or graphic representation of ANY variety of cognitive event…let alone your absurd claim of being able to “pinpoint” whatever a “religious experience” even is!

As for ‘other areas of thought’ (whatever that even means)…as I said, there does not exist anything remotely resembling an explicit or definitive theory of mind / cognitive theory. Meaning…when it comes to ‘areas of thought’…it’s all guesswork of one kind or another (…what is an ‘area of thought’ and where, when, and by whom have ‘areas of thought’ ever been scientifically differentiated?). Absolutely none of it can be empirically adjudicated. None means none.

When it comes to human affairs, Noam Chomsky summed it up quite accurately:

“… scientific understanding is very thin, and is likely to remain so, except in a few areas that can be abstracted for special studies.”

…but feel entirely free to demonstrate otherwise. They’re your claims.
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 02:38 PM   #54
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,681
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Generalisations that I've supported with quite a bit of evidence, but sure, Ashley's an outlier.
I think this is important... this condition is much better managed than in previous generations, his case is severe and can't be used to evaluate the profession. In comparision, there are dozens of types of cancer that still have no effective treatment, but overall we've seen improvement. We need to compare apples to apples.




Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Now you're not even making sense.

There are a lot more people in the world, and they're living a lot longer, so there being more cancer is no great leap.
I consider incidence rates to be measured in 'per capita' eg: per 100,000 citizens. Rather than overall. Yes, extended age is an explanation. As is reduced other causes of death that typically happen earlier in life. Point is: statistics need to be analyzed to be compared appropriately. Apples to apples, we've had an increase in cancer fatalities (people are more likely to die of cancer) and a decrease in psychiatric fatalities (people are less likely to die of mental illness) compared to 1950 baseline.

And the survival rates themselves have complicated meanings... 'cured' for cancer means 5 years without recurrence. So, my first wife comes up in the stats as follows: cured once in childhood, cured in her teens, but then succumbed in her 30s. Comes up in the stats as two cures and one fatality.

In contrast, 'cured' for psychiatric diagnoses is generally interpreted to mean no recurrence over remaining lifetime.


Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Since it's not even known whether some of them are preventable, the comparison is plain stupid. Rates of lots of cancers have decreased and there's enormous effort to educate people out of dangerous behaviours - smoking and obesity being top of the list.

The fact is that progress in cancer treatment over the exact same time period is immense.
I think prevention has had a much bigger impact on fatality rates, which is great, but your reasoning in a previous post is that medicine cannot take credit for that.



Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I'd dispute that treatments have been more successful than cancer treatment, because the cancer treatment stops, Schizos keep taking pills, so the condition is controlled and only stays controlled while they swallow the pills.
Well, keep in mind that there are also permanent side effects of many cancer treatments (amputation and scarring, for example). My wife, for example, had a nasty scar on her face from her childhood treatment, which impacted her socialization.

Ultimately, though, I defer to the medical definition of successful treatment, which is that the patient is able to resume a normal lifestyle. Using the medical definition, psychhiatry has more success than oncology.


Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I do agree schizo is one area where the psychiatric industry has a rare win, though.



Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
The research I linked to compared new generation drug morbidity rates to first generation drugs, and in both cases, there is a marked increase of cardiac arrest & death.

The drugs appear to be a broad range of antipsychotics.
Here's the conclusion from the link you provided: "Current users of both typical and atypical antipsychotics had a similar, dose-related increased risk of sudden cardiac death."

A relevant further passage from the same conclusion section: "...whether these drugs increase the risk of sudden cardiac death to the same extent as the older medications is unknown."

At the moment, it looks like we have improvement (more effective antipsychotics with less side effects overall, and specifically about the same cardiac profile), which was my claim.



Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Seriously?

You want details of the reduction in deaths from epidemics in the past century? Happy to provide, but I bet you know the answer anyway.
What I'm saying is that earlier you said that psychiatry can't take credit for improvements that required social action, that credit goes to the community. So why does model of assigning credit not extend to epidemiology, where the medical findings needed to be actioned by government to obtain the measurable improvements we enjoy? I feel there's special pleading.



Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I gather they sometimes write things down, but therapy consists of 99% talking as far as I'm aware. I've never attended a session myself, but everyone I know who has reports that it is entirely talking.
Right, but what I mean is that I think you're playing with words to imply that 'talking' is nothing new therefore talk therapy is nothing new.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 03:53 PM   #55
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,969
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
This kind of bogus character attack has no place in a discussion about a scientific question. You should not engage in such dishonest tactics if you have a genuine point to make.
This might have been a decent point if you had not followed with:
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Psychiatry is deeply lacking as a medical practice -- especially regarding the care of children. There are a lot of drugs prescribed on flimsy evidence of safety and efficacy. That is something that is not acceptable in other areas of medicine and science in general.
Apparently sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. Go figure.

Then again, consistency is not a deniers strong suit, now is it?
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 03:56 PM   #56
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
You know, since I already noted that you are misrepresenting what I've posted and corrected you and you persist in the same tactic, I'll just leave you with it.
Misrepresenting clear English is impossible, The Atheist .
Read what you wrote in clear English: I said that exercise is better than drugs and posted one piece of information.
Read that "one piece of information" and answer a simple question: 10 June 2016 The Atheist: Can you understand that this paper does not state that exercise is better than drugs?

A bit of science and debate - it is up to the proposer of an argument to firstly state his argument coherently and then to back it up with evidence.
This is your thread about a slightly incoherent "Ongoing Failure of Pyschiatry". The "evidence" you supplied was
* the being phased out practice of long term seclusion in NZ (~6 reported cases in the last 5 years!).
* The appropriate use of ECT as a last resort.
* The recognition that benzodiazepines should be used short-term (not a fantasy that they are worse than, as you put it , the "cure").

These are ongoing successes of psychiatry - recognizing that long term seclusion did not work, that ECT was not a cure-for-all and that benzodiazepines have undesirable side-effects.

Last edited by Reality Check; 13th June 2016 at 03:57 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 04:02 PM   #57
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,969
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool
As has been demonstrated in this and the other psychiatry denial thread, the ample obvious evidence HAS BEEN provided and HAS BEEN ignored and psychiatry deniers continue to hold on to their flawed conclusions.
Your passion for defence of the subject is entirely explicable, and also entirely subjective.
Of course my defense is subjective, as are your denials and attacks. A case of your anecdotes good, my anecdotes bad.

Remember how you said:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I am denying nothing. Highlighting faults is not denial.
And I said:
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool
You are denying all sorts of things, far beyond highlighting faults. But, if you are only highlighting faults, how about highlighting some successes?

1. _____
2. _____
3. _____
4. _____
5. _____

Fill in the blanks with psychiatric successes. Real, meaningful successes. No left handed complements. You can do it. Or am I talking to a wall?
It seems you are nothing but a denier after all, as you can't come up with 5 positive things to say.
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 04:12 PM   #58
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Instead of poisoning the well, you could of course, choose to post evidence that these premises are incorrect:
Instead of shifting the goal posts to demanding other posters provide evidence for a so far fact-less assertion, how about you provide the evidence for your assertion, yourself?

Whoops, try understanding the truth, The Atheist: The paper is that exercise + primary treatments is better than the primary treatments alone for the clinically depressed.
10 June 2016 The Atheist: Can you understand that this paper does not state that exercise is better than drugs?

Do you know how many people are harmed in surgery every year (Hint: It is more that the ~6 cases of long term seclusion reported in NZ over the last 5 years) and that no one would start an "The Ongoing Failure of Surgery" thread based on that fact alone !

Last edited by Reality Check; 13th June 2016 at 04:17 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 04:44 PM   #59
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,681
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Instead of shifting the goal posts to demanding other posters provide evidence for a so far fact-less assertion, how about you provide the evidence for your assertion, yourself?

Whoops, try understanding the truth, The Atheist: The paper is that exercise + primary treatments is better than the primary treatments alone for the clinically depressed.
10 June 2016 The Atheist: Can you understand that this paper does not state that exercise is better than drugs?

Do you know how many people are harmed in surgery every year (Hint: It is more that the ~6 cases of long term seclusion reported in NZ over the last 5 years) and that no one would start an "The Ongoing Failure of Surgery" thread based on that fact alone !
Well, nobody objective anyway. There's quite a few threads that use the "you're more likely to die from a medical error than a car accident" as a version of 'failure of medicine' by homeopaths on this forum.

Here's the latest courtesy of Kumar: [America's healthcare-system-induced deaths are the third leading cause of the death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer]
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 04:44 PM   #60
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool View Post
...

Then again, consistency is not a deniers strong suit, now is it?
What is a "denier"? Are you accusing me of "denying" science, medicine? If so, you are sorely mistaken. I am a strong advocate of scientificly based thinking in all areas of human activity.
Is this merely some catch-all expression you use for people who disagree with you?

I have stated that the evidence for the safety and efficacy for psychiatric drugs is lacking when compared to other medical areas -- especially when dealing with children. It's a simple truth that can be readily demonstrated (I have done so in another thread). Look at the co-called studies for yourself instead of slavishly clinging to pharmaceutical industry mantra. The gold stanard for drugs (double blind long and short term studies) is embarrassingly lacking for psychiatric drugs -- again, especially when dealing with children. I am denying non-scientific thinking -- I advocate honesty and truth!
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ

Last edited by Perpetual Student; 13th June 2016 at 06:42 PM.
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 06:08 PM   #61
benbradley
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 71
This website has some anti-psychology writings, saying it is weak/bad science and such. I wonder what posters think:
http://arachnoid.com/
benbradley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 06:48 PM   #62
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,969
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
What is a "denier"? Are you accusing me of "denying" science, medicine? If so, you are sorely mistaken.
When I am addressing you, I will quote your posts and address you. Until this post it has not happened.

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
I am a strong advocate of scientificly based thinking in all areas of human activity.
Cool. Congratulations.

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Is this merely some catch-all expression you use for people who disagree with you?
I can't recall pinning the denier tail to any particular donkey until this thread. If the tail fits...

Of course, if you want the mantle of denier, someone with more experience with you may step up and pin the denier tail on you. I have seen The Atheist in other psychiatry threads playing the same game as here, I haven't paid much attention to you.
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 06:52 PM   #63
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool View Post
When I am addressing you, I will quote your posts and address you. Until this post it has not happened.



Cool. Congratulations.


I can't recall pinning the denier tail to any particular donkey until this thread. If the tail fits...

Of course, if you want the mantle of denier, someone with more experience with you may step up and pin the denier tail on you. I have seen The Atheist in other psychiatry threads playing the same game as here, I haven't paid much attention to you.
I suggest to you that a more constructive dialog would include facts, data and logical arguments instead of name calling.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 06:53 PM   #64
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,976
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
…when you utterly fail to provide anything remotely resembling an empirical definition of ‘religious experiences’…or, for that matter, ANY experience, it will become immediately clear who it is who is talking rubbish.
No, you're being absurd.

There are only two possibilities for consciousness & abstract thought:

1 They exist and are the result of electrical & chemical activity in the brain, or

2 God

Using "you can't define them empirically" is as stupid an attack as christians who claim intelligent design because science can't replicate abiogenesis.

Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
.... Noam Chomsky ....


You may as well tell me what Alex Jones thinks about it.

Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
Right, but what I mean is that I think you're playing with words to imply that 'talking' is nothing new therefore talk therapy is nothing new.
There's a delightful line in Crocodile Dundee, where the chick is explaining to Mick Dundee what a therapist is: "Someone you talk to about your problems".

"Oh right" says Mick. "In Australia, we call them mates."

Talking is talking.

The last person I know of who went to see a psychologist went to talk about anxiety. The psychologist prescribed Rescue Remedy.

When I heard, I confess that I did indeed laugh out loud. A psychologist prescribing a homeopathic remedy.

You couldn't write something that funny.

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
What is a "denier"?
Someone who disagrees with their own anayses and biases. Seems pretty clear to me that everyone who doesn't take the Kool-Aid is a denier.

C'est la vie.

Originally Posted by benbradley View Post
This website has some anti-psychology writings, saying it is weak/bad science and such. I wonder what posters think:
http://arachnoid.com/
tl;dr

Can you point to a precis?
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 07:02 PM   #65
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Originally Posted by benbradley View Post
This website has some anti-psychology writings, saying it is weak/bad science and such. I wonder what posters think:
This poster thinks psychology is not psychiatry, benbradley !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 07:56 PM   #66
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
No, you're being absurd.

There are only two possibilities for consciousness & abstract thought:

1 They exist and are the result of electrical & chemical activity in the brain, or

2 God

Using "you can't define them empirically" is as stupid an attack as christians who claim intelligent design because science can't replicate abiogenesis.

I notice you didn’t provide a shred of evidence to support your dumb claims.

Since there is no evidence, your claims remain…

…dumb!

This is a science forum. If you’re gonna make claims, support them with evidence. Waving your hands about like an epileptic on a nest of fire ants is not evidence.

…but then again, if your intent is to destroy your credibility, you’re doing magnificently.
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2016, 08:21 PM   #67
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,976
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
I notice you didn’t provide a shred of evidence to support your dumb claims.
No, you asked for empirical proof of what thought is, and I'm happy to agree there isn't any, which is why I offered two choices.

If there are other possibilities I haven't included, feel free to post them.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2016, 05:39 AM   #68
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,969
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
I suggest to you that a more constructive dialog would include facts, data and logical arguments instead of name calling.
I suggest it is a rational conclusion based on observed posts that include distorted interpretations of evidence, ignored evidence, and copious denial.

I would also suggest you worry about your own post content, as the post to which I am responding is likewise bereft of facts, data, and logical arguments.

Carry on.
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']

Last edited by The Greater Fool; 14th June 2016 at 05:41 AM.
The Greater Fool is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2016, 06:21 AM   #69
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
You do nothing but undermine your own credibility when you repeatedly contradict yourself. You made the following claim:

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Now you're typing plain rubbish. Neuroscience can pinpoint exactly where religious "experiences" create reactions in the brain, along with many other areas of thought.

…to which I responded:

Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
…when you utterly fail to provide anything remotely resembling an empirical definition of ‘religious experiences’…or, for that matter, ANY experience, it will become immediately clear who it is who is talking rubbish.

I suppose it would be a waste of time to point out that the resolution limits (temporal and spatial) of current neural scanning technologies do not allow anything remotely resembling a definitive, explicit, or graphic representation of ANY variety of cognitive event…let alone your absurd claim of being able to “pinpoint” whatever a “religious experience” even is!

IOW…your claim itself is rubbish. It is rubbish because you have provided not a shred of evidence to support it (no empirical definitions in sight!). It is rubbish because it contradicts what is currently known in the fields of cognitive science and neuroscience.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
No, you asked for empirical proof of what thought is, and I'm happy to agree there isn't any, which is why I offered two choices.

If there are other possibilities I haven't included, feel free to post them.

Piling on the fallacies! Hand-waving, bare-assertions, moving-the-goalposts, and strawmen. I could also throw in false dichotomy but four is probably enough.

Congratulations…you get four jelly-beans!

Returning to what I actually said (which should be clear to just about anyone for whom English is intelligible)…what I actually said was that your claims about religious experiences and neural scanning are….

…dumb!

So far you haven’t provided a shred of evidence to either support your claims or demonstrate that mine are flawed.

…thus, your claims remain…

...dumb!
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2016, 11:34 AM   #70
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,976
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
.... (no empirical definitions in sight!)....
Absurdly tedious.

The funniest part about it is that you're using this idiotic tactic to prove that psychiatry can be excused for failing because we don't have a little list of empirical data about thought and brain activity.

Accordingly, I'll let you win that argument.

The mind is very hard, so psychiatry can be forgiven for failing.

See, we're not that far apart in the end - you say they fail through ignorance, I say they fail through stupidity.

Close enough for me, an admission of failure is fine, and less important than the reasons for it. You stick with your solipsism and I'll keep to pragmatism - win/win.
_________________________

And another piece of conveniently damning information was posted just this morning as a different autistic man's family highlights his living conditions of a single cage.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2016, 11:41 AM   #71
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,681
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
There's a delightful line in Crocodile Dundee, where the chick is explaining to Mick Dundee what a therapist is: "Someone you talk to about your problems".

"Oh right" says Mick. "In Australia, we call them mates."

Talking is talking.
Well, no, no it isn't. This is more obviously in the psychiatry denial zone for sure.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
The last person I know of who went to see a psychologist went to talk about anxiety. The psychologist prescribed Rescue Remedy.

When I heard, I confess that I did indeed laugh out loud. A psychologist prescribing a homeopathic remedy.

You couldn't write something that funny.
So, a couple of things... firstly, this is also anecdotal. I prefer to go with the evidence instead. The evidence is that CBT and other therapies have benefits compared to control groups spending equal time in unstructured conversation.

Secondly: It sounds like you're changing the subject - I thought the thread was about psychiatry?

Psychology and psychiatry are different disciplines.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2016, 12:06 PM   #72
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Absurdly tedious.

…as is your habit of making dumb claims while providing nothing to support them.

…as is also your habit of moving goalposts and throwing strawmen around.

You…made…some…claims.

Either provide evidence to support them…or…

A)…your claims are worthless
B)…and so is your credibility
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2016, 01:16 PM   #73
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,976
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
So, a couple of things... firstly, this is also anecdotal. I prefer to go with the evidence instead. The evidence is that CBT and other therapies have benefits compared to control groups spending equal time in unstructured conversation.
I'm sure it is. Why it wasn't used in that case, I have no idea. I'm just reporting what happened.

Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
Psychology and psychiatry are different disciplines.
Inextricably linked, with large overlaps. I don't think it was me who started the CBD/therapy line.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2016, 05:17 PM   #74
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Some reading for any open minded person willing to think:

http://news.fsu.edu/More-FSU-News/24...ective-science

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/860665
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2016, 06:17 PM   #75
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,067
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
A book review and a Medscape article that needs a login (free account though).
The book looks like a reasonable account of the shortcomings of psychiatry but the authors go overboard with a conclusion of advocating a “nonmedicalized” future. There are effective psychiatric medications, e.g. lithium, Prozac and other drugs on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2016, 06:37 PM   #76
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
So the atheist thinks that anyone who counsels people for a living represents the state of modern psychologists with phDs working out of hospitals and clinics, plenty of MDs out there prescribing homeopathy or pushing anti-vaxx woo, not a lot of them work in prestigious or government-run institutions... they tend to move to private practice after getting fired or being made to feel like idiots. Says nothing about the state of science, more that woos come in all flavors. I highly doubt his friend went to a genuine pyschologist either

And Perp is still pushing his misunderstandings that because some people think that psychiatric needs to have a revolution it's all snake oil which EXACTLY the same argument as every denier and woopusher out there, that the establishment admits that it is imperfect. How about this one, vaccines only work 50% of the time. Cancer doctors have changed how they used to treat cancer and think it needs to be individualized and that diet plays a role. They will find any little thing they can grasp onto, even if you patiently explain it to them.


Quote:
DR. STEVEN HYMAN, Broad Institute: Well, I think it’s critically important, as Dr. First said, for diagnosis and for insurance reimbursement.

But I think that the DSM is scientifically early. The brain gives up its secrets grudgingly. And we have to understand the DSM as a set of guidelines to diagnosis of often very serious disorders, but not as the bible of psychiatry. It is hardly meant to be by either the people who wrote it or in reality a perfect mirror of nature.
Perp, who claims to have me on ignore because I called them an anti-vaxxer for pointing out they were quoting original material from an anti-vax website, thinks that this guy thinks that psychiatry is snake oil.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/healt...agnosis_05-20/

Certain people read about science and think they know everything but live in their own mental echo chamber and have no problem using sources and arguments that actually disprove their own arguments.

The sad part is that because they posture so much about how smart and educated and edgy they are some poor saps are actually going to listen to them and put off seeking real professionals and correct information.

Last edited by Joey McGee; 14th June 2016 at 06:41 PM.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2016, 08:04 PM   #77
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
A book review and a Medscape article that needs a login (free account though).
The book looks like a reasonable account of the shortcomings of psychiatry but the authors go overboard with a conclusion of advocating a “nonmedicalized” future. There are effective psychiatric medications, e.g. lithium, Prozac and other drugs on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines.
It's not surprising that taking a position and making a case against mainstream thinking may lead one to "go overboard." Nevertheless, the point remains that the kind of scrutiny and evidence required of most procedures and drugs are not as rigorously applied to psychiatric drugs. Subjective conclusions, inadequate data, the lack of long term double blind studies -- especially with children -- are big problems.
These are formidable problems. As I have said before, "Caveat emptor."
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ

Last edited by Perpetual Student; 14th June 2016 at 08:07 PM.
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2016, 08:25 PM   #78
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Lots of people showed this person they were wrong already, a true denier. No double blind studies with children in psychiatry? Laughable. What they mean is that there isn't enough. Of course, there can never be enough. No anti-vaxxers are convinced by the long-term data either, you could put 3 studies in their face and they'd say oh they need to have 10 000, not 1,000. Oh and meta analyses can be handwaved away too... nothing to see here.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2016, 01:14 AM   #79
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,770
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Some reading for any open minded person willing to think:

http://news.fsu.edu/More-FSU-News/24...ective-science
I'm sure the book is much more involved than a media release can do justice to, but this irked me.

Quote:
Antidepressants, the latest of which are known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRIs, are habit forming, can increase anxiety or make people suicidal.
The window where SSRI's may increase suicidal tendencies in some people is fairly small; it is a temporary risk. We're not sure exactly why, but it appears to occur when the drug has started working, but not yet reached its proper effectiveness. The increased risk of suicide also seems to apply only/mostly to children and adolescents.

Quote:
Although this is a difficult issue to give a definitive answer about, analysis of a large number of studies shows that there may be a small increase in suicidal thinking or behaviour in children, adolescents and young adults when they first start taking an antidepressant. The age-cut off for this increased risk seems to be about 25 years.

In adults aged 25–64 years, antidepressants seem to have no effect on suicidal behaviour but may reduce suicidal thoughts. In adults aged 65 years and over, antidepressants seems to reduce the risk of both suicidal thoughts and suicidal behaviour.
http://www.nps.org.au/conditions/men...d-suicide-risk

Quote:
Unfortunately, SSRIs, a relatively new class of antidepressants, have been associated with an increased risk of suicide. In tests of Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, Lexapro and Luvox on children with major depressive disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder and other psychiatric disorders, about 4 percent of patients experienced suicidal thinking, behavior or attempts. In the placebo group, 2 percent of the participants experienced similar problems.
https://www.drugwatch.com/ssri/suicide/

I don't think extrapolating these relatively minor concerns across SSRI's generally is an accurate representation of the drugs' impacts (but again, I am sure the book discusses the topic with far more depth).

Am not sure what the author is referring to when saying SSRIs are "habit forming". Yes, there can be physical withdrawals if someone stops taking them cold turkey, but it's not like the withdrawals create a compulsion in the individual to take more of the drug in the same way my brain craves nicotine. Having had a life full of weed, MDMA, speed (not meth), nicotine, alcohol and SSRI's, the latter simply don't register on the 'habitual' scale. Hell, I used to forget to take it for a few days and wouldn't even notice.

Quote:
SSRIs do not cause addiction in the way alcohol, tobacco, or heroin do. After a period of exposure to SSRIs, however, the brain does adapt and get "used to" the medicine. For this reason, you shouldn't stop taking an SSRI suddenly without talking to your doctor. Suddenly stopping an SSRI can, for some people, cause temporary headaches, nausea, dizziness, or flu-like symptoms. After completing treatment, most SSRIs are tapered before stopping, and the brain readjusts.
http://www.webmd.com/depression/ssri...sants?page=2#2

Last edited by Sceptic-PK; 15th June 2016 at 01:15 AM.
Sceptic-PK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2016, 08:50 AM   #80
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
It's not surprising that taking a position and making a case against mainstream thinking may lead one to "go overboard." Nevertheless, the point remains that the kind of scrutiny and evidence required of most procedures and drugs are not as rigorously applied to psychiatric drugs. Subjective conclusions, inadequate data, the lack of long term double blind studies -- especially with children -- are big problems.
These are formidable problems. As I have said before, "Caveat emptor."
Hi,
I think you need to get to your local treatment center and volunteer.
Not everyone has a misdiagnosis. As an outreach case manager I conducted weekly assessments, so about 360 initial assessments at that job. For 18 months I did 4 assessments three weeks a month so about 228 there. Then there were about 600 crisis assessments or walk ins.

We refer ed to providers. based upon their preference and desire, most asked to see the psychiatrist.

Now at both agencies they had case loads of clients who were doc only, they could have had counseling but chose not to.

Now the point of this is this question:

How many people who have lived with a major mental illness have you known? Professionally I knew well over a thousand, personally about 20.

Professionally they were all people who sought treatment and continued treatment because they recognized the benefit of medical treatments, and for those with treatment resistant symptoms, they still sought out treatment on their own.

Personally I knew people who sought counseling and those who sought medical treatment. Some are on long term treatment most are not.

So what exactly is your experience that makes you think a person with florid symptoms of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia or major depression:
-do not benefit from psychiatric treatment ?
-benefit solely from non-medical treatment ?

At what point do you think suicide comes into this?

How many people with untreated major depression or schizophrenia kill themselves?

I really question your obvious prejudice against psychiatry and ask you to explore the other side.

Have you ever read Fred Freese?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Frese

Have you ever read Surviving Schizophrenia by E Fuller Torrey?

I do not mean to be rude but have you ever challenged your conceptions?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:39 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.