Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Phurfur

Justina Pelletier

Recommended Posts

He brought it into the discussion because it gave an easy analogy to say that "all uncles are evil".

Where as just saying "all random guys" are evil would not work as well.

For someone so smart as you claim...you made that little thing into something huge and overly complicate...or you did so in order to continue the argument and use it as an insult to someone.

None of what he did was defending incest whatsoever.

It also did nothing to prove anything about him being bright or not...just a poor conclusion on your part. Maybe you are not as bright as you think you are.

"Random guys are evil" is the scientific way of discussing these matters as in "randomized clinical trials". By not appealing to "randomness" he was introducing extra info: blood ties.

 

It might be because I am a scientist talking about scientific matters that I thought I was arguing with intellectual equals. My bad. Understood, the guy was not in anyway defending incest, still, the point remains that he is not very bright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is self refuting. You are promoting a false equivalency by giving BCH doctors the benefit of the doubt, which you are doing, aren't you?

 

Here is the false equivalency:

 

- BCH doctors say that an invented, non scientific disease is the root of Justina's problems.

 

- A world renown expert in mito says that mitochondrial disease, a difficult to diagnose but nonetheless biological disorder, is the root of Justina's problems.

 

You think that both sides deserve equal deference. That stance is a form of bias. Psychiatry defines psychosis as "believing stuff that is not real" -the actual technical definition is a bit more detail but that gets to the bottom of it-. How do you call when somebody insists, as the APA and the BCH doctors do, that Somatic Symptom Disorder is real in spite of admitting at the same time that there is NO objective test to prove or disprove that Somatic Symptom Disorder is real? Psychotic, perhaps?

 

So you are giving psychotic BCH doctors the benefit of the doubt and you say that you don't have a false equivalency bias? Please explain!

 

Yeah...no bias in this post at all.

Seriously done trying to have a conversation with someone so stuck in their own opinion that they refuse to believe anything on the other side.

Enjoy your time here trying to convince the 10 people that post here how smart you are.

Doing a lot of good for your cause...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Random guys are evil" is the scientific way of discussing these matters as in "randomized clinical trials". By not appealing to "randomness" he was introducing extra info: blood ties.

 

It might be because I am a scientist talking about scientific matters that I thought I was arguing with intellectual equals. My bad. Understood, the guy was not in anyway defending incest, still, the point remains that he is not very bright.

 

You are not nearly as smart as you think you are...or you wouldn't have to keep trying to brag about it.

Done with you and your crap...enjoy your time here insulting everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are not nearly as smart as you think you are...or you wouldn't have to keep trying to brag about it.

Done with you and your crap...enjoy your time here insulting everyone else.

Is that another 'vow'? :music_guitarred:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not nearly as smart as you think you are...or you wouldn't have to keep trying to brag about it.

Done with you and your crap...enjoy your time here insulting everyone else.

Maybe because you haven't spent enough time with the true intellectual elite, as I have (I am not talking about the smartest guy in some third rate state school, but the true elite, like people who went to and work in the top 20 here http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2013.html ) that you don't know smart people bragging about their smarts. We all do.

 

And in fact a "I am smarter than thou" ego battle is the most likely explanation of the Justina affair since Mark Korson used to lead the mito department at BCH before he transferred to Tufts to do the same. In this case, the preposterous position is to assume that a battle of egos between doctors needs to be resolved by a judge who is biased towards one of the teams vs the parents themselves!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Psych.......you are new here so let me clue you in on Sho Nuff.

 

He offers nothing. Zip. Nada.

 

His entire schtick is to whine about what someone else posts. He never addresses the subject, and never adds anything of value to any conversation.

 

 

32,000 posts of meaningless drivel.

 

 

Not worth your time.

My bad. Now that he has clarified that he doesn't condone incest, I am still scratching my head why he thought bringing an "uncle relationship" into a discussion on what differentiates consensual sex from non consensual sex was relevant. I trust your experience with him here :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My bad. Now that he has clarified that he doesn't condone incest, I am still scratching my head why he thought bringing an "uncle relationship" into a discussion on what differentiates consensual sex from non consensual sex was relevant. I trust your experience with him here :).

snuffy is the self declared board referee, granted with a complete left hack bias. Mike should get the hacktard a whistle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snuffy is the self declared board referee, granted with a complete left hack bias. Mike should get the hacktard a whistle.

 

SO much complete bs in one post.

Never self declared what you claimed.

What about my posting is "lefty hack bias" other than wiping the floor with the far righty hacks left and right. Just because I don't believe the crap you do, does not make me a lefty...but you keep trying drobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:clap: i think I heard the whistle :first:

You better watch out, he may "vow" to not respond to you too.

 

Pretty soon he will be talking to himself. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah...no bias in this post at all.

Seriously done trying to have a conversation with someone so stuck in their own opinion that they refuse to believe anything on the other side.

Enjoy your time here trying to convince the 10 people that post here how smart you are.

Doing a lot of good for your cause...

Here is the thing. As a scientist, all I am asking is for actual evidence that the DSM labels are real.

 

If what you are saying is that psychiatry is not the stuff of science but rather the stuff of "faith", well, that's a different issue.

 

My position is that psychiatry is a belief system. Not a religion, since it doesn't appeal to the supernatural, but a belief system. The dogma is that a group of self appointed mind guardians with MD degrees can impose behavioral orthodoxy on the rest of society by way of voting.

 

Science doesn't work that way, I am sorry to break it for you. You might hear on TV the "scientific consensus" is this or that but science is pretty totalitarian. There is only one thing that dictates what is a valid scientific theory: the laws of nature and mathematical deduction (which are themselves axiomatic as established by Godel's incompleteness theorem). So if you want a theory to be scientific, you rather come up with some falsifiable experiment that proves it. "Voting labels" is not such experiment.

 

Since I am sure there are many scientifically illiterate people around here, I thought I would give an example of what I mean. The acceleration due to the Earth's gravity has been measured to be 9.8 m/s^2. Now, if you want to design a car that works or a plane that doesn't crash, you better design your car/plane with that assumption. Voting that gravity is 6 m/s^2 instead of its actual value can have very catastrophic consequences.

 

That is how science operates: there is the objective reality, and the scientific method uncovers it. Not every area of life is or can be scientific. Richard Feynman, who was named by a survey to the current elite of British physicists as one of the top 10 physicists of all time, had this to say about the tendency in our society of using the name of science in vain,

 

 

That was around 30 years ago and unfortunately, the tendency to use the name of science in vain has only accelerated since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Etiology

The exact process that underlies the development OCD has not been established. Research and treatment trials suggest that abnormalities in serotonin (5-HT) neurotransmission in the brain are meaningfully involved in this disorder. This is strongly supported by the efficacy of serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) in the treatment of OCD.[16, 17]

 

Evidence also suggests abnormalities in dopaminergic transmission in at least some cases of OCD. In some cohorts, Tourette disorder (also known as Tourette syndrome) and multiple chronic tics genetically co-vary with OCD in an autosomal dominant pattern. OCD symptoms in this group of patients show a preferential response to a combination of serotonin specific reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and antipsychotics.[18]

 

Functional imaging studies in OCD have demonstrated some reproducible patterns of abnormality. Specifically, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) scanning have shown increases in blood flow and metabolic activity in the orbitofrontal cortex, limbic structures, caudate, and thalamus, with a trend toward right-sided predominance. In some studies, these areas of overactivity have been shown to normalize following successful treatment with either SSRIs or cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).[19]

 

These findings suggest the hypothesis that the symptoms of OCD are driven by impaired intracortical inhibition of specific orbitofrontal-subcortical circuitry that mediates strong emotions and the autonomic responses to those emotions. Cingulotomy, a neurosurgical intervention sometimes used for severe and treatment-resistant OCD, interrupts this circuit (see Treatment and Management).

 

Similar abnormalities of inhibition are observed in Tourette disorder, with a postulated abnormal modulation of basal ganglia activation.

 

Attention has also been focused on glutamatergic abnormalities and possible glutamatergic treatments for OCD.[20, 21] Although modulated by serotonin and other neurotransmitters, the synapses in the cortico-striato-thalamo-cortical circuits thought to be centrally involved in the pathology of OCD principally employ the neurotransmitters glutamate and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA).

 

Genetic influence in OCD

Twin studies have supported strong heritability for OCD, with a genetic influence of 45-65% in studies in children and 27-47% in adults.[22] Monozygotic twins may be strikingly concordant for OCD (80-87%), compared with 47-50% concordance in dizygotic twins.[23] Several genetic studies have supported linkages to a variety of serotonergic, dopaminergic, and glutamatergic genes.[24, 25, 26, 27, 28]

 

Other genes putatively linked to OCD have included those coding for catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT), monoamine oxidase-A (MAO-A), brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG), GABA-type B-receptor 1, and the mu opioid receptor, but these must be considered provisional associations at this time. In some cohorts, OCD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and Tourette disorder/tic disorders co-vary in an autosomal dominant fashion with variable penetrance.

 

Infectious disease and OCD

Case reports have been published of OCD with and without tics arising in children and young adults following acute group A streptococcal infections. Fewer reports cite herpes simplex virus as the apparent precipitating infectious event.

 

It has been hypothesized that these infections trigger a CNS autoimmune response that results in neuropsychiatric symptoms (pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections [PANDAS]). A number of the poststreptococcal cases have reportedly improved following treatment with antibiotics.

 

Other neurologic conditions

Rare reports exist of OCD presenting as a manifestation of neurologic insults, such as brain trauma, stimulant abuse, and carbon monoxide poisoning.

 

Stress and OCD

OCD symptoms can worsen with stress; however, stress does not appear to be an etiologic factor.

 

Parenting and OCD

As previously mentioned, parenting style or upbringing does not appear to be a causative factor in OCD

The brains of OCD folks have a unique signature and have shown heritability. Seems like it's biological in origin.

 

Whatever. Just part of the continuum of what form the brain can take. So I can buy into no such thing as a "diseased" brain.

 

The thing is there is a distinction between normal/abnormal behavior. All societies draw this distinction. And in our society, if your behavior precludes you from assimilating successfully within our society....don't get along with others.....can't hold a job...then we start to look for reasons such behaviors might arise.

 

OCD isn't a big deal if you can integrate yourself into society. If it prevents you from doing so.....if you are constantly late to work because you need to constantly check if the front door is locked....yeah, it might be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah...no bias in this post at all.

Seriously done trying to have a conversation with someone so stuck in their own opinion that they refuse to believe anything on the other side.

Enjoy your time here trying to convince the 10 people that post here how smart you are.

Doing a lot of good for your cause...

answer it ya hack .....bias my ass, good opt out for a complete hack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This dude is nearly a textbook case of delusional disorder. No I am not a psychiatrist but you run into people with psychotic disorders fairly often in the criminal justice system, as you might imagine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The brains of OCD folks have a unique signature and have shown heritability. Seems like it's biological in origin.

Whatever. Just part of the continuum of what form the brain can take. So I can buy into no such thing as a "diseased" brain.

The thing is there is a distinction between normal/abnormal behavior. All societies draw this distinction. And in our society, if your behavior precludes you from assimilating successfully within our society....don't get along with others.....can't hold a job...then we start to look for reasons such behaviors might arise.

OCD isn't a big deal if you can integrate yourself into society. If it prevents you from doing so.....if you are constantly late to work because you need to constantly check if the front door is locked....yeah, it might be a problem.

I was expecting something similar, so I have the counter punch,

 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

Swedish researchers have found that some physical attributes of the homosexual brain resemble those found in the opposite sex, according to an article published online (June 16) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

Some psychological tests have shown differences between men and women in the extent to which they employ the brain’s hemispheres in verbal tasks. Other research has hinted that homosexuals may exhibit the tendencies of the opposite sex in brain behavior unrelated to sexual activity.

 

Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström, of the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, now report that the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual women are slightly asymmetric—the right hemisphere is larger than the left—and the brains of gay men and straight women are not.

 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is as top notch a publication as there is (people need to be elected members to the National Academy of Science to publish). Does this mean that homosexuality is a "mental illness"?

 

With respect to social adaptation and the rest of the BS. As I have said numerous times, the only form of social control that I consider legitimate is the criminal justice system. And the reason is because it is understood that that's what the criminal justice system does. As such there are numerous safeguards in place to prevent abuse. Criminal laws are written by legislators who are accountable to the people. Try to pass a law that makes "OCD" a crime and see how far you go :). Then, at least in the US, the president/governors, who are also accountable to the people, have veto power. Judges, particularly state judges who are the ones who deal with most criminal matters, are also accountable to the people or other forms of judicial control.

 

Psychiatry is a parallel system of social control in which unaccountable mind guardians decide normality. It is as if we gave lawyers who are members of the state bar the power to dictate what is and what should not be a crime outside the normal legislative process based on the notion that since lawyers practice law, there is not check needed by a democratically elective body with respect to what they declare to be a crime. Their "expert" opinion would be enough.

 

We do not accept that lawyers write crime laws outside the control of the democratic process yet people like you seem to be fine with social control enacted by unaccountable self appointed mind guardians for non criminals. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This dude is nearly a textbook case of delusional disorder. No I am not a psychiatrist but you run into people with psychotic disorders fairly often in the criminal justice system, as you might imagine

Excuse me, what is that I have said that is "psychotic" or "delusional"? I am just echoing the scientific facts as accepted by the leaders of mainstream psychiatry. Do you have the slightest clue of who are Tom Insel, Jeffrey Lieberman, Ron Pies or David Kupfer?

 

Have you ever solved a differential equation or measured the acceleration of gravity to make an informed assessment of what is "scientific" or you are just nonsensically repeating mantras?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Delusional disorder is an uncommon psychiatric condition in which patients present with delusions, but with no accompanying prominent hallucinations, thought disorder, mood disorder, or significant flattening of affect.[1][2] Delusions are a specific symptom of psychosis. Non-bizarre delusions are fixed false beliefs that involve situations that could potentially occur in real life; examples include being followed or poisoned.[3] Apart from their delusions, people with delusional disorder may continue to socialize and function in a normal manner and their behaviour does not generally seem odd or bizarre.[4] However, the preoccupation with delusional ideas can be disruptive to their overall lives.[4] For the diagnosis to be made, auditory and visual hallucinations cannot be prominent, though olfactory or tactile hallucinations related to the content of the delusion may be present.[5]

 

To be diagnosed with delusional disorder, the delusion or delusions cannot be due to the effects of a drug, medication, or general medical condition, and delusional disorder cannot be diagnosed in an individual previously properly diagnosed with schizophrenia. A person with delusional disorder may be high functioning in daily life, and this disorder bears no relation to one's IQ.[6] According to German psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin, patients with delusional disorder remain coherent, sensible and reasonable.[7] The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) defines six subtypes of the disorder characterized as erotomanic (believes that someone is in love with him or her), grandiose (believes that s/he is the greatest, strongest, fastest, richest, and/or most intelligent person ever), jealous (believes that the love partner is cheating on him/her), persecutory (believes that someone is following him/her to do some harm in some way), somatic (believes that he/she has a disease or medical condition), and mixed, i.e., having features of more than one subtype.[5] Delusions also occur as symptoms of many other mental disorders, especially the other psychotic disorders.

Delusional disorder of a persecutory subtype. Thinks every psychiatrist in the world is "evil" and "out to get him" and other "victims".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me, what is that I have said that is "psychotic" or "delusional"? I am just echoing the scientific facts as accepted by the leaders of mainstream psychiatry. Do you have the slightest clue of who are Tom Insel, Jeffrey Lieberman, Ron Pies or David Kupfer?

 

Have you ever solved a differential equation or measured the acceleration of gravity to make an informed assessment of what is "scientific" or you are just nonsensically repeating mantras?

Ok, I will clue you in on the last of the Tri Facta of idiots you need not waste time on.

 

Worms is just plain dumb.

 

Newbie is immature, Sho Nuff just likes to cry about what someone else posts, but Worms is just dumb. To the bone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Delusional disorder of a persecutory subtype. Thinks every psychiatrist in the world is "evil" and "out to get him" and other "victims".

Hey look at Worms.

 

Psych has been bringing link after link to experts in the field he posts about, so Worms felt the need to sound smart so he went to Wiki. :clap: :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Delusional disorder of a persecutory subtype. Thinks every psychiatrist in the world is "evil" and "out to get him" and other "victims".

And again, I repeat the question, please point me to anything that I have said in this thread that matches that description. Asking for scientific evidence for DSM labels, saying that Harvard has several psychiatric crooks in its ranks, like http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/07/harvard_scientists_disciplined.html, affirming that Big Pharma corrupted clinical trials during the 1980s, 1990s and a big chunk of the 2000s as this guy documents http://1boringoldman.com/ is not delusional.

 

In fact, what is truly delusional is insistence like yours in ignoring all that evidence and continue to give psychiatrists at BCH the benefit of the doubt. It might be the case that you got contaminated with "delusions" of your own after working with so many "deluded" people :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey look at Worms.

 

Psych has been bringing link after link to experts in the field he posts about, so Worms felt the need to sound smart so he went to Wiki. :clap: :doh:

Exactly! And not "any link". Citations by the director of the National Institute of Mental Health, studies published in places like the New England Journal of Medicine and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, news reported by Nature, etc.

 

Yes, there might be people with "delusional beliefs" in this thread, but I can certainly assure you that it is not me :).

 

I think that the label "delusional" belongs more to the people who keep saying "there must be something we don't know" even though every single reporter -from all sorts of political bias- and lawyer, like Mat Staver, who has looked at the facts concludes the same thing. Now, you could say that reporters do not have access to all facts, but Mat Staver, seriously? Don't you think the guy as the Dean of Liberty University School of Law (which is trying to establish itself as a reputable law school nationwide) would have a lot to lose from spreading lies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something just posted by 1http://1boringoldman.com/ ,

 

http://www.madinamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2014-jcm-03-00334-1.pdf

 

"Abstract: Pediatric bipolar disorder is a diagnosis

that arose in the mid 1990s in the USA

and has mostly remained confined to that

nation. In this article

a young American man

(under a pseudonym) describes his experience

of having the diagnosis throughout his

adolescent years. His story was conveyed

via correspondence and a meeting with the

author, an Australian child psychiatrist. The

young American’s story reveals several issues

that afflict contemporary psychiatry, particul

arly in the USA, where social and economic

factors have contributed to th

e rise of a dominant biomedi

cal paradigm—or “biologism”.

This focus on the “bio” to the relative exclus

ion of the “psychosocia

l” in both diagnosis

and treatment can have serious consequences

as this young man’s story attests. The author

explores aspects of his tale to analyze how

the pediatric bipolar disorder “epidemic” arose

and became emblematic of a dominant biolog

ism. This narrative points to the need,

depending on the service and country, to re

turn to or retain/improve a balanced

biopsychosocial perspective in child and adoles

cent mental health. Ch

ild psychiatry needs

to advocate for health systems that support deep

er listening to our patients. Then we can

explore with them the full range of contextual

factors that contribute to symptoms of

individual and family distress. "

 

Now, relevant to this case, do you know who was the main driver behind "pediatric bipolar disorder"? Well, this guy http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/07/harvard_scientists_disciplined.html . And do you know whom that guy has done research with ? This other guy http://connects.catalyst.harvard.edu/Profiles/display/Person/1638 . And do you know who is the last guy? Mmmm, the director of psychiatry at Boston Children's Hospital!!!

 

Enjoy the read!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer to quote the DSM but they don't make the full text available online. Plus that'd just rankle ol' psychsurvivor even more ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

answer it ya hack .....bias my ass, good opt out for a complete hack

 

Answer what?

The guy's long winded post when no matter what is said to him he will try twisting it around to keep from admitting his own bias?

 

No thanks.

I have no need for a poster who came in guns blazing with a large agenda and fails to see anything on the other side being possible.

No need to add another unreasonable person to the list of those to argue with...but, since he actually came in providing some knowledge and links...I will simply leave him to what he wants to do rather than mocking him as I will continue to do with you and guys like GP.

HTH

Do you disagree with me that he is biased by his complete hatred of the field of psychiatry and what he does as an advocate against it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer to quote the DSM but they don't make the full text available online

But as I said, this is what the director of the NIMH said,

 

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml

While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity. Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure.

 

And this is what the chairman of the task force that produced the current edition of the DSM said in response,

 

https://www.madinamerica.com/2013/05/chair-of-dsm-5-task-force-admits-lack-of-validity/

 

The promise of the science of mental disorders is great. In the future, we hope to be able to identify disorders using biological and genetic markers that provide precise diagnoses that can be delivered with complete reliability and validity. Yet this promise, which we have anticipated since the 1970s, remains disappointingly distant. We’ve been telling patients for several decades that we are waiting for biomarkers. We’re still waiting.

 

Which is to say, that the leaders of mainstream psychiatry agree that none of the DSM labels has scientific validity. So you quote the DSM and I say, and your point is? Here is what the chairman of the DSM-IV said about the DSM labels,

 

http://www.wired.com/2010/12/ff_dsmv/

“there is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

 

So, what is your point, that we need to accept the DSM as some sort of secular sacred text? If that's your opinion, that is also my opinion. But a "secular sacred text" is not a scientific text!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you disagree with me that he is biased by his complete hatred of the field of psychiatry and what he does as an advocate against it?

 

Hatred has many shapes and forms. There are people who hate all members of some religions. I am pretty sure that many right wing fellows around here will rightly admit hatred towards Islam. Your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worms, you should close up shop and move on to another thread that suits your intellect.

 

Try one of Newbie's music threads, because you have been destroyed here. It looks like Penultimate was smart enough to tuck tail and go away, you should do the same. :thumbsup:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worms, you should close up shop and move on to another thread that suits your intellect.

 

Try one of Newbie's music threads, because you have been destroyed here. It looks like Penultimate was smart enough to tuck tail and go away, you should do the same. :thumbsup:

Reading some of the comments here defending the DSM model reminds me of the movie "Life of Brian" and how Brian tried to no avail to discourage his most faithful followers from incorrect beliefs.

 

The pro psychiatry zealots are defending positions that have been officially abandoned by the leaders of American psychiatry. If the chairmen of the last two editions of the DSM, including the current one, tell you that none of the DSM labels is scientifically valid, to continue to insist that they are is to live in a parallel universe (and then I get to be accused of "delusions"). You see the irony here :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not surprised you missed what happened in the last 5 years that made all your arguments about how good RTCs in psychiatry "allegedly" are to be invalid. Since it would take me too long to explain, I invite you to read http://1boringoldman.com/ which is written by a believer in psychiatry (he is a retired psychiatrist). He has written extensively about the fraud that has affected many of these "alleged" rigorous studies.

 

When you have massive fraud of the kind that affected the clinical trials in psychiatry during the 1980s, 1990s and the most part of the 2000s, metastudies on the raw data are about the only thing that can tell what is going on with some degree of accuracy (since they average out things like selection and publication bias). And the result for SSRIs cannot be more conclusive: they are basically "active placebos". This also explains why they work for "some people" but they don't work for "other people" or why whatever boost people might get from an increase of serotonin in their brain, a death of a loved one is still the death of a loved one.

Did you try a Pubmed search? Bludgeoning me with blogs will not dissuade me in the face of legitimate science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but if you were on a crusade to say that all uncles that have sex with their nephews, nieces have to be suspect of being evil, that's a different matter. There are very few psychiatrists today innocent of the crime of "raping brains with psychotropic drugs".

 

In some Southern states, at least so the folklore says, incest of the kind you defend is socially accepted. Just as in some Muslim countries, nobody sees any wrong with a 30 year old man marrying a 6 year old girl. We in the West have different standards and I have a different standard about what people should know before letting their brains being chemically raped. If after knowing that psychiatry is a pseudoscience that has no objective, scientific tests for any of their invented diseases and that the most likely active mechanism for these drugs is the placebo effect people still want to take the drugs, I have no problem with it. How many psychiatrists do you know that tell their victims these things which BTW are well known within the profession itself?

So, is any behavior unacceptable? Are any thoughts outside the norm potentially harmful, warranting action to address them? How would you address behavior which presents danger to oneself or others, or incapacitates one's daily functionality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A big misunderstanding with science is the notion of "opinion". In science, there is NO room for "opinion". Either it is or it isn't. That is what differentiates science from other areas of human knowledge like the arts. If DSM labels are "diseases of the brain", I would expect them to show up in the same way genuine diseases of the brain show up: autopsies. The "we don't have the technology" canard doesn't cut it. We do have the technology to examine with microscope brains. It is just that no "schizophrenic brain" has been shown to be a diseased brain in the same way that CDJ or Alzheimer's brains have been shown to be such.

 

So my statement is one in which I say that psychiatry is not scientific, in the sense that it doesn't deal with diseases of the brain, but a bigoted discipline in which bigoted MDs vote their prejudices in the DSM.

 

Take "Somatic Symptom Disorder" the DSM-5 label that BCH alleges to Justina http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/mislabeling-medical-illne_b_2265198.html . Don't you think it is a bit strange that the vast majority of people who "suffer" from this "disease" are female? When you analyze the membership of DSM committees and realize that it has a majority of males, maybe that explains some things :).

 

This is not to say that there isn't value in psychiatry for some people, but again, the same is true for astrology and homeopathy. Jeffrey Lieberman, in the NPR debate, described psychiatry as a "step child" of medicine. Perhaps if psychiatry were to be more open about what it is, and more importantly, what IT IS NOT, I wouldn't have to spend my time doing the educational work for them :).

Medicine, not just psychiatry, is an inexact science. This does not invalidate its utility or promote bigotry towards disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A big misunderstanding with science is the notion of "opinion". In science, there is NO room for "opinion". Either it is or it isn't. That is what differentiates science from other areas of human knowledge like the arts. If DSM labels are "diseases of the brain", I would expect them to show up in the same way genuine diseases of the brain show up: autopsies. The "we don't have the technology" canard doesn't cut it. We do have the technology to examine with microscope brains. It is just that no "schizophrenic brain" has been shown to be a diseased brain in the same way that CDJ or Alzheimer's brains have been shown to be such.

 

So my statement is one in which I say that psychiatry is not scientific, in the sense that it doesn't deal with diseases of the brain, but a bigoted discipline in which bigoted MDs vote their prejudices in the DSM.

 

Take "Somatic Symptom Disorder" the DSM-5 label that BCH alleges to Justina http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/mislabeling-medical-illne_b_2265198.html . Don't you think it is a bit strange that the vast majority of people who "suffer" from this "disease" are female? When you analyze the membership of DSM committees and realize that it has a majority of males, maybe that explains some things :).

 

This is not to say that there isn't value in psychiatry for some people, but again, the same is true for astrology and homeopathy. Jeffrey Lieberman, in the NPR debate, described psychiatry as a "step child" of medicine. Perhaps if psychiatry were to be more open about what it is, and more importantly, what IT IS NOT, I wouldn't have to spend my time doing the educational work for them :).

You realize there are many non-psychiatric diseases with no validated diagnostic test(s)? Are physicians making these diagnoses bigoted too?

 

And even in the absence of demonstrable changes on path specimens, there are tools which show the brains of certain psychiatric patients don't function "normally"? If a functional MRI shows differences in neuroactivity among those with mental illness, and their thought process leads to debility and/or endangers self/others, should we attempt to treat them? Or wait for a brain biopsy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you try a Pubmed search? Bludgeoning me with blogs will not dissuade me in the face of legitimate science.

Again, most of the studies performed up to around 2008 are suspect of publication/selection bias. E H Turner, the author of the review published at the New England Journal of Medicine on SSRIs, did a larger study on other areas of psychiatry. His conclusion,

 

 

http://femhc.org/Portals/2/Publications/2013_May22_Combating%20Publication%20Bias_Turner.pdf

 

 

Publication bias undermines the integrity of the evidence base by inflating apparent drug efficacy and minimizing drug harms, thus skewing the risk–benefit ratio.

This paper reviews the topic of publication bias with a focus on drugs prescribed for psychiatric conditions, especially depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and autism. Publication bias is pervasive; although psychiatry/ psychology may be the most seriously afflicted field, it occurs throughout medicine and science. Responsibility lies with various parties (authors as well as journals, aca- demia as well as industry), so the motives appear to extend beyond the financial interests of drug companies. The desire for success, in combination with cognitive biases, can also influence academic authors and journals. Amid the flood of new medical information coming out each day, the attention of the news media and academic community is more likely to be captured by studies whose results are positive or newsworthy. In the peer review system, a fundamental flaw arises from the fact that authors usually write manuscripts after they know the results. This allows hindsight and other biases to come into play, so data can be ‘‘tortured until they confess’’ (a detailed example is given). If a ‘‘publishable’’ result cannot be achieved, non- publication remains an option. To address publication bias, various measures have been undertaken, including registries of clinical trials . Drug regulatory agencies can provide valuable unpublished data. It is suggested that journals borrow from the FDA review model. Because the significance of study results biases reviewers, results should be excluded from review until after a preliminary judgment of study scientific quality has been rendered, based on the original study prot ocol. Protocol publication can further enhance the cr edibility of the published literature.

 

You can continue to have faith on the psychopharmacological industrial complex, but you do it at your own peril.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, is any behavior unacceptable? Are any thoughts outside the norm potentially harmful, warranting action to address them? How would you address behavior which presents danger to oneself or others, or incapacitates one's daily functionality?

As I said, I think that the only form of social control that I consider legitimate is the criminal justice system for reasons I have already explained. This is not to say that I do not care for people who suffer. But just as the general principle of respect for freedom of speech means that things like this are allowed to happen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps , so I think that there is no legitimate role for government to impose "the APA notion of happiness" to unwilling or "unhappy" citizens.

 

Citizens should be free to be happy or unhappy (including killing themselves) if they choose to. For "danger to others" there is the criminal justice system which has a lot of safeguards to prevent abuse, including that you cannot be locked up unless you commit a crime (not because you "might" commit a crime) or because there is probable cause that you have committed said crime (for the initial arrest). As I said, by the top leaders of psychiatry own admission, psychiatry is unable to predict who is likely to become violent and when (and I can cite you studies that show this if you are so inclined). There should be no role whatsoever in our legal system for involuntary commitment or involuntary drugging on non criminal defendants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Medicine, not just psychiatry, is an inexact science. This does not invalidate its utility or promote bigotry towards disease.

Jeffrey Lieberman, the current president of the APA, acknowledged here http://www.npr.org/2013/05/31/187534467/bad-diagnosis-for-new-psychiatry-bible that psychiatry is a "step child" of medicine. There is precision, and there is imprecision. Compared to legitimate areas of medicine (I do not consider psychiatry to be one), psychiatry is at least an order of magnitude less precise. And here is the irony. It is an imprecise "step child" of medicine and much of its prescriptions are non scientific baloney (even though its practitioners are required to have an MD degree for PR reasons), yet it has the undeserved right to impose itself on innocent victims. If "saving lives" were the rationale for allowing coercive psychiatry, I think that a more scientific case can be made for having a coercive HIV policy in place (based on the Cuban experience and the Truvada studies).

 

Coercive psychiatry is not about "saving lives" but about social control. It is about telling people, hey, do not think about deviating from the APA behavioral orthodoxy or else... For terrorists to impose fear, they do not need to kill a lot of people, just the threat of violence is enough. Consider this Justina situation. Imagine that after all the PR, expose, etc, Justina's parents still lost the battle against the BCH quacks. What is the message that would be sent? That the quacks at BCH are in charge even when a competing medical diagnosis is available. So do not dare contradict a BCH quack or said quack will steal your child from you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there are some of us whose level of tolerance for HIV transmission risk is lower than the average person. Period.

Sounds like rationalizing your phobia. FYI HIV is pretty wimpy outside the body, and unless you're participating in high risk activities like anal receptive intercourse or IV drug abuse, the risk of transmission is low. For heterosexual males, the risk is estimated at 0.05-0.1% per act of vaginal intercourse. Doesn't mean you shouldn't protect yourself, but I'll bet you participate in much riskier activities without even thinking about it.

 

And HIV is a treatable chronic illness at this point, thanks in part to bigots like me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You realize there are many non-psychiatric diseases with no validated diagnostic test(s)? Are physicians making these diagnoses bigoted too?

 

And even in the absence of demonstrable changes on path specimens, there are tools which show the brains of certain psychiatric patients don't function "normally"? If a functional MRI shows differences in neuroactivity among those with mental illness, and their thought process leads to debility and/or endangers self/others, should we attempt to treat them? Or wait for a brain biopsy?

 

To your first point, Gary Greenberg put it best,

 

"GREENBERG: Yes. And that can't be denied. I'd just say two things about that. One of them is that psychiatry, as I said earlier, is the only field as you says - I think you said it's a stepchild - it's the only field that can't - hasn't been able to keep up with this. With respect to all of its diagnoses, and I think that's an important problem. It doesn't mean that psychiatry is not a valuable profession. It means that it needs to be understood where it fits in in the panoply of scientific medicine."

 

I have no problem if psychiatrists told their patients that the chemical imbalance is an urban legend -as Ron Pies admits when there is nobody listening- and that the mechanism for which psychiatric drugs seem to work for some people is not understood (implying that it is likely due to a placebo response). And of course, if psychiatry were to be an entirely voluntary endeavor as legitimate areas of medicine are. I don't think the average psychiatrist is there. I for one, have yet to meet a practicing psychiatrist that rejects all forms of involuntary commitment for non criminal defendants.

 

As for your final point, again, the fMRI correlates is the new scam that psychiatry is using to justify itself. The problem? By that measure, they should get homosexuality back into the DSM,

 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

 

"Swedish researchers have found that some physical attributes of the homosexual brain resemble those found in the opposite sex, according to an article published online (June 16) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

Some psychological tests have shown differences between men and women in the extent to which they employ the brain’s hemispheres in verbal tasks. Other research has hinted that homosexuals may exhibit the tendencies of the opposite sex in brain behavior unrelated to sexual activity."

 

No matter how it spins the matter, psychiatry continues to be about the thing it always was: social control by self appointed, unaccountable MD degree holders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like rationalizing your phobia. FYI HIV is pretty wimpy outside the body, and unless you're participating in high risk activities like anal receptive intercourse or IV drug abuse, the risk of transmission is low. For heterosexual males, the risk is estimated at 0.05-0.1% per act of vaginal intercourse. Doesn't mean you shouldn't protect yourself, but I'll bet you participate in much riskier activities without even thinking about it.

 

And HIV is a treatable chronic illness at this point, thanks in part to bigots like me.

Look many people, including famously Isaac Asimov, fear(ed) air travel more than what I consider rational. Should government force people into behavioral therapy to make sure that all citizens are ready to take a plane if needed? I hope you understand the slippery slope there.

 

You are not going to change me. My "enhanced precautions" as I call them is part of who I am. Period. As I said, this aspect of my personality has served me very well in life.

 

What I find most ironic about this is that many gay psychiatrists use the DSM against people like me -who fear HIV more than they would like- in the same way the DSM was used against gays 40 years ago. A lot of revanchism among these people, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×