Justina Pelletier

[NewbieJr 541]

or calling anyone that disagrees with anything he says "zealots".

I support incest.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Just so I'm clear:

 

1) We all know phschosurvivor is a situationally developed alias.

 

2) But, since I won't read through 9 pages of schlock, who is this? Another google balls?

 

1. Maybe...could actually have been searching for this topic and found this place. Given his obsessive nature displayed so far, that seems plausible.

2. Now...GP is not smart enough to talk like him...or is he good at bringing that many links to support (even if some of it does not say exactly as he claims it does).

[Googballz 39]

Looks like the same crew who got pummeled by Psych yesterday is trying to regroup.

[Sho Nuff 720]

[NewbieJr 541]

Looks like the same crew who got pummeled by Psych yesterday is trying to regroup.

You sure have a strange definition of pummel. Also, congrats. You are on the same side as a committed loon.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Since you've convinced me you are adamant in you opinions, I won't try to debate the current state of psychiatry. I am still waiting for you to explain the action of the non-psychiatrists - the ones who doubted the diagnosis of mitochondrial disease in the first place. What was their motivation? And even though there are challenges in diagnosing mitochondrial disease, why do you think the most frequently used diagnostic test (muscle biopsy) was omitted in Justina? How do you choose one non-validated diagnosis over another?

 

And what is your science background? Don't name drop or tell me how smart you are. What is your degree and current profession?

 

All those questions are irrelevant since Mark Korson testified UNDER OATH in his professional capacity. Why would he risk his career and license (I remind you that lying under oath is a crime)? If the court found Korson not credible, why wasn't he charged with a crime? If the judge found his testimony credible, even if BCH doctors disagreed, then by Massachusetts' own laws he had no right to decide that BCH's doctors treatment plan was the way to go. The final decision in situations like these rests with the parents, not the court.

 

And finally, as I said, per numerous news reports, Justina was seen last week by Mark Korson, which makes the whole kidnapping rationale even more ridiculous.

 

With respect to my background, well, part of remaining anonymous to hide that info. Obviously, I am smarter than you .

[IGotWorms 4,060]

While it would certainly explain a few things if MensaMind had been forcibly committed to a psychiatric institution at some point, I tend to think psychsurvivor is a legitimate moonbat who found this place through a Google search.

 

Being nutty as hell certainly doesn't preclude one from the Geek Club. I'd say we should welcome him with open arms if only he wasn't so g0ddamned obsessed about one topic

[psychsurvivor 2]

1. Maybe...could actually have been searching for this topic and found this place. Given his obsessive nature displayed so far, that seems plausible.

2. Now...GP is not smart enough to talk like him...or is he good at bringing that many links to support (even if some of it does not say exactly as he claims it does).

People, I came here through an internet search. This shows in the first/second results page if you restrict the search to the last 24 hours.

 

With respect to the links that I brought. Very clear, despite disagreement on other issues, Tom Insel (director of the National Institute of Mental Health), David Kupfer (chairman of the DSM-5 task force) and Allen Frances (chairman of the DSM-IV task force) agree that the DSM labels lack scientific validity. Period.

 

The disagreements among them on other issues is also great. Dividing the elites has always been the method to achieve meaningful change when massive civil rights abuses, like those psychiatry perpetrates every day, are committed.

[psychsurvivor 2]

While it would certainly explain a few things if MensaMind had been forcibly committed to a psychiatric institution at some point, I tend to think psychsurvivor is a legitimate moonbat who found this place through a Google search.

However being nutty as hell certainly doesn't preclude one from the Geek Club. I'd say we should welcome him with open arms if only he wasn't so g0ddamned obsessed about one topic

Who is MensaMind?

[Googballz 39]

How do you choose one non-validated diagnosis over another?

 

 

 

One could ask you the same question. You have chosen the BCH diagnosis and dismissed the Tufts diagnosis.

[FeelingMN 273]

Research who is Allen Frances and why his opinion matters.

Where bright lines are difficult to draw, common sense and good will must prevail. Granted that allowing the necessity of any coercion is a slippery slope, but never applying psychiatric coercion even under extreme circumstances can both be dangerous in the short run and result in much worse coercion in the longer run.

 

http://educationupdate.com/allenfrances/2013/10/when-is-it-justified-to-force-treatment-on-someone.html

 

[psychsurvivor 2]

One could ask you the same question. You have chosen the BCH diagnosis and dismissed the Tufts diagnosis.

The important point here is that under Massachusetts' own laws, the government does not have the legal prerogative to pick diagnosis it prefers in cases like this. Even giving psychiatry the validity it doesn't have, Alan Dershowitz said that it doesn't matter which hospital is right. In a case like this, the prerogative of choosing treatment is with the parents, not a juvenile court judge.

[psychsurvivor 2]

http://educationupdate.com/allenfrances/2013/10/when-is-it-justified-to-force-treatment-on-someone.html

Correct, and here is the Huntington Post article on the same http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/when-is-it-justified-to-f_b_4038218.html . As you can see in the comments section, I vehemently disagree with him on this issue.

 

Again, this is a straw man argument on your side. Small minded people like you -who by your own nature are intellectually challenged- might have difficulty understanding that it is possible to agree with somebody on some issues and strongly disagree with that same person on other issues. Binary thinking is not a winner in life my friend!

[psychsurvivor 2]

I support incest.

So you support incest after all? That was what I originally thought given that you introduced blood ties in your argument when said blood ties were not warranted, but then recanted about it. Can you please clarify whether you support or do not support incest? I am confused at this point .

[FeelingMN 273]

People, I came here through an internet search. This shows in the first/second results page if you restrict the search to the last 24 hours.

With respect to the links that I brought. Very clear, despite disagreement on other issues, Tom Insel (director of the National Institute of Mental Health), David Kupfer (chairman of the DSM-5 task force) and Allen Frances (chairman of the DSM-IV task force) agree that the DSM labels lack scientific validity. Period.

The disagreements among them on other issues is also great. Dividing the elites has always been the method to achieve meaningful change when massive civil rights abuses, like those psychiatry perpetrates every day, are committed.

Meh. I'm sure they disagree about a lot of things within psychiatry. But I'm guessing they all agree that psychiatry is an "essential part of the mix" in fighting mental illness.

 

I bet you'll wow them with your solutions to differential equations though.

[FeelingMN 273]

Binary thinking is not a winner in life my friend!

There a few things in life that are indeed black or white and coercive psychiatry is one of them.

[OldMaid 2,134]

With respect to the "chemical imbalances" being an urban legend, that's a statement by Ron Pies, former chief editor of the Psychiatric Times,http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blogs/couch-crisis/psychiatry-new-brain-mind-and-legend-chemical-imbalance

"And, yes—the “chemical imbalance” image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.3 In truth, the “chemical imbalance” notion was always a kind of urban legend- - never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists."

It seems that there are a lot of misinformed (or shall I say "under" informed?) people around here.

With respect to intelligent design, I am fine with evolution, but the issue evolution/intelligent design is not one I lose my sleep over. Neither has any predictive power of the kind that physics has. I would be much more worried if suddenly somebody were to discover that there are non negligible situations in which the acceleration due to gravity deviates significantly from its assumed value 9.8 m/s^2 making it possible for cars to crash in a non predictive manner as a result of said deviations.

How about a link I don't have to register for?

 

Or better yet... Do you or do you not believe in chemical imbalances or mental illness? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

[FeelingMN 273]

Correct, and here is the Huntington Post article on the same http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/when-is-it-justified-to-f_b_4038218.html . As you can see in the comments section, I vehemently disagree with him on this issue.

Again, this is a straw man argument on your side. Small minded people like you -who by your own nature are intellectually challenged- might have difficulty understanding that it is possible to agree with somebody on some issues and strongly disagree with that same person on other issues. Binary thinking is not a winner in life my friend!

I see. Dr. Frances' opinion matters.....only when you agree with it. Got it.

 

And you're right. We here at the Geek Club aren't that smart. Not Ivy League educated. Can't solve differential equations. Small minded and intellectually challenged.

 

But we know crazy when we see it.

[psychsurvivor 2]

But I'm guessing they all agree that psychiatry is an "essential part of the mix" in fighting mental illness.

 

Of course they do! Again, I have never said otherwise. But my whole point is that it is not because they believe that in its current form psychiatry is a scientific discipline (since they are all on record agreeing that none of the diagnosis labels is scientific, rather they all agree it is the result of what committees of MD degree holders vote).

 

They agree that psychiatry is essential I suppose for the same reason I am sure Coca Cola executives think that drinking soda is an essential part of life: they make a living out of people accepting that as a dogma, even though there is no science to back it up.

 

But again, you are mixing up stuff here:

 

1- Psychiatry is not scientific (they agree with me).

 

2- Psychiatry is a dangerous pseudoscience that destroys lives. They disagree with me on this, but here is where the Irvin Kirsch and EH Turner metastudies come into picture; psychiatrists these days drug people for life -in most cases voluntarily but that's what they do. The most serious, non corrupted studies on the efficacy of these drugs, even using psychiatry's own measures of efficacy like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Rating_Scale_for_Depression , show that these drugs are essentially active placebos. That onto itself wouldn't be too bad if it weren't because these drugs have very bad side effects, including http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/informationbydrugclass/ucm096273 "update the existing black box warning on their products' labeling to include warnings about increased risks of suicidal thinking and behavior, known as suicidality, in young adults ages 18 to 24 during initial treatment ".

 

Now, here is a very important fact. We do know that between 1999 and 2009, the prescription of antidepressants skyrocketed (it is unlikely that that was due to a sudden epidemic of "depression", rather, it was more likely do to effective direct to consumer advertising). What would be the expected result of a massive drugging of society with drugs that while no more effective than placebos, are known to increase the risk of suicide in people taking them? Well, you'd expect an increase in the suicide rate (not just the number of suicides which itself depends on population growth). Wait! That is precisely what happened,

 

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p0502-suicide-rates.html

 

"Suicide deaths have surpassed deaths from motor vehicle crashes in recent years in the United States. In 2010 there were 33,687 deaths from motor vehicle crashes and 38,364 suicides. Suicide rates among middle-aged Americans have risen substantially since 1999, according to a report in today’s CDC journal, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. "

 

Now, I do not know of any study that compared the percentage of people who committed suicide in 1999 who were on SSRIs vs the percentage of people who committed suicide in 2009 who were on SSRIs but the numbers of the CDC are consistent with what the expected result would be if you massively drug society with suicide inducing drugs. I would love to see that study but that info is regularly suppressed mostly by the family members of the deceased one (understandably so).

[psychsurvivor 2]

I don't get your point.

 

A few things are black or white (true) but that is perfectly compatible with agreeing with somebody only on certain issues. I don't get the connection, but my point is that when you look for arguments, you don't need to agree 100% with somebody to agree with some (or most) of the things he/she says.

 

At the same time, I, as an individual, hold certain issues as being absolute, my rejection of coercive psychiatry being one of them.

 

If there is a smart argument you are trying to make, you'll have to explain yourself better .

[psychsurvivor 2]

How about a link I don't have to register for?

Or better yet... Do you or do you not believe in chemical imbalances or mental illness? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

The Psychiatric Times doesn't bite, you should be OK registering .

 

With respect to your question. I do not believe that any of the DSM disorders are caused by a "chemical imbalance" in the brain. And, once you register in the Psych Times and read article, you'll understand that mainstream psychiatry doesn't believe in that either.

 

As Tom Insel explains in his posts, psychiatry is moving from its past scam (the "chemical imbalance") to the scam of the future ("neural circuits" seen in fMRI).

[NewbieJr 541]

So you support incest after all? That was what I originally thought given that you introduced blood ties in your argument when said blood ties were not warranted, but then recanted about it. Can you please clarify whether you support or do not support incest? I am confused at this point .

I am against it. Except when Kay Parker is involved. Then I support it.

[OldMaid 2,134]

The Psychiatric Times doesn't bite, you should be OK registering .

With respect to your question. I do not believe that any of the DSM disorders are caused by a "chemical imbalance" in the brain. And, once you register in the Psych Times and read article, you'll understand that mainstream psychiatry doesn't believe in that either.

As Tom Insel explains in his posts, psychiatry is moving from its past scam (the "chemical imbalance") to the scam of the future ("neural circuits" seen in fMRI).

I grew up with first hand knowledge of mental illness and chemical imbalances. I can tell you for a fact, they are real.

 

My mother was a paranoid schizophrenic. Without the proper medication, she would essentially get "high" off her own body chemistry-Full blown delusions, talking to people who weren't there, thinking there were people "out to get her", etc. She was in and out of psychiatric hostipals her entire life. The only way she could function normally, was on certain medications.

 

Not sure how or why anyone could argue that wasn't a chemical imbalance. I'm also not sure what your agenda is here, but it seems arrogant and foolish.

[FeelingMN 273]

I don't get your point.

A few things are black or white (true) but that is perfectly compatible with agreeing with somebody only on certain issues. I don't get the connection, but my point is that when you look for arguments, you don't need to agree 100% with somebody to agree with some (or most) of the things he/she says.

At the same time, I, as an individual, hold certain issues as being absolute, my rejection of coercive psychiatry being one of them.

If there is a smart argument you are trying to make, you'll have to explain yourself better .

Thinking things are black or white is binary thinking. Surprised someone of my intellectual capacity had to explain it to someone of yours.

 

I get what you're saying....I agree. I agree with someone on some points while disagreeing with them on others. But I'm not going to prop you as someone whose opinion matters when the gist of your argument is wrong.

 

Your raison d'être is to erase psychiatry from mental health care. You think psychiatrists are frauds. Yet you prop up certain select psychiatrists to help solidify your position when it doesn't. Their opinions help promote making changes within psychiatry in order to improve it as a tool in treating mental disorders.....not in doing away with psychiatry altogether.

 

Even advocates against coercive treatment like Elanor Longden ultimately agree that in some instances such treatment is necessary...it's in the link I posted above. The people at the fore of bringing about meaningful change are discussing in shades of gray. No one agrees with you in your binary thinking....because as you rightly conclude....such thinking is not a winner in life.

[drobeski 3,061]

I grew up with first hand knowledge of mental illness and chemical imbalances. I can tell you for a fact, they are real.

 

My mother was a paranoid schizophrenic. Without the proper medication, she would essentially get "high" off her own body chemistry-Full blown delusions, talking to people who weren't there, thinking there were people "out to get her", etc. She was in and out of psychiatric hostipals her entire life. The only way she could function normally, was on certain medications.

 

Not sure how or why anyone could argue that wasn't a chemical imbalance. I'm also not sure what your agenda is here, but it seems arrogant and foolish.

the looney apple didnt fall far from the tree eh ?

[Sho Nuff 720]

. Small minded people like you -who by your own nature are intellectually challenged-

 

 

Yeah...you are so not into name calling.

[Sho Nuff 720]

So you support incest after all? That was what I originally thought given that you introduced blood ties in your argument when said blood ties were not warranted, but then recanted about it. Can you please clarify whether you support or do not support incest? I am confused at this point .

 

For someone claiming to be so smart...you have zero grasp on obvious sarcasm.

[NewbieJr 541]

 

Yeah...you are so not into name calling.

Plus, that was a grammatical train wreck.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Plus, that was a grammatical train wreck.

 

We just don't have the mental capacity to understand his artistic use of the English language.

[OldMaid 2,134]

the looney apple didnt fall far from the tree eh ?

Awesome contribution, Drobs.

[MDC 7,679]

Excuse me, cured of what? Of some made up disease by MD degree holders that voted in "OCD" as a disease. As I said, 40 % of the voting APA members that participated in the 1974 referendum on the status of homosexuality should be appalled that these people, gays, not only were never "cured" of their disease but that they managed to impose their disease on the public sphere. Outrage!

 

As I said, the burden of proof lies on you to explain to me what part of my body is diseased. Where is the blood test, MRI or autopsy that explains that my brain is diseased. For genuine diseases, like CJD or Alzheimer's, you can see them in autopsies. Not so much for any of the DSM labels. I say yes, ANY. And the reason is simple. While in the past the DSM had genuine brain diseases (like Alzheimer's), as soon as these were shown to be such, they became the domain of neurology, not psychiatry. Psychiatry is by definition the labeling of behavior that the APA bigots think it is inappropriate.

 

And it also works with the dual purpose of "normalizing behavior" that is traditionally rejected. In 40 years, the APA has gone from calling homosexuality a disease to endorsing gay marriage. Gay activists use the exclusion of homosexuality of the DSM as "proof" that they are "normal". It was neither acceptable to call homosexuality a disease nor to impose it as "normal" because the APA thinks it is. It is an alternative lifestyle not shared by 95% of humans and that's OK. It is neither a disease nor something "normal". It is, that people are sexually attracted to people of their same sex. Period.

 

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

 

And there are some other people who hear voices. Period.

 

None of that is a disease just because MD degree holders call it so. For something to be scientific we expect hypothesis tested in falsifiable experiments, none of which exist in psychiatry.

I totally saw this episode of Law and Order just last week.

[penultimatestraw 473]

All those questions are irrelevant since Mark Korson testified UNDER OATH in his professional capacity. Why would he risk his career and license (I remind you that lying under oath is a crime)? If the court found Korson not credible, why wasn't he charged with a crime? If the judge found his testimony credible, even if BCH doctors disagreed, then by Massachusetts' own laws he had no right to decide that BCH's doctors treatment plan was the way to go. The final decision in situations like these rests with the parents, not the court.

 

And finally, as I said, per numerous news reports, Justina was seen last week by Mark Korson, which makes the whole kidnapping rationale even more ridiculous.

 

With respect to my background, well, part of remaining anonymous to hide that info. Obviously, I am smarter than you .

The questions are very relevant, as a confirmed medical diagnosis would go a long way to dispelling the psych one. Granted psychiatric diagnoses can coexist in those afflicted with medical illness, but the BCH doctors aren't claiming that as far as I can tell - they stopped her therapies for mitochondrial disease.

 

If Korson really has conviction in his diagnosis and wants to help the child and family, he should do everything in his power to promote an accurate diagnosis. But why do you hold his non-scientifically proven diagnosis above that of the BCH docs?

 

You may be smarter than me, but intelligence <> knowledge. I'd like to know your credentials so I can discern if any of your scientist bravado holds water. Unless your position or training is unique, it is unlikely it would allow your identification. Ex. I am an MD in Hawaii. Who am I?

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

 

One could ask you the same question. You have chosen the BCH diagnosis and dismissed the Tufts diagnosis.

I've answered that question, several times.

[MDC 7,679]

Rut roh, genius versus genius ... it's on!!!

[penultimatestraw 473]

http://educationupdate.com/allenfrances/2013/10/when-is-it-justified-to-force-treatment-on-someone.html

 

Don't have an email, but Nikki could probably do something with this: https://twitter.com/AllenFrancesMD

[penultimatestraw 473]

The important point here is that under Massachusetts' own laws, the government does not have the legal prerogative to pick diagnosis it prefers in cases like this. Even giving psychiatry the validity it doesn't have, Alan Dershowitz said that it doesn't matter which hospital is right. In a case like this, the prerogative of choosing treatment is with the parents, not a juvenile court judge.

The prerogative is protecting the child.

[penultimatestraw 473]

[penultimatestraw 473]

Of course they do! Again, I have never said otherwise. But my whole point is that it is not because they believe that in its current form psychiatry is a scientific discipline (since they are all on record agreeing that none of the diagnosis labels is scientific, rather they all agree it is the result of what committees of MD degree holders vote).

 

They agree that psychiatry is essential I suppose for the same reason I am sure Coca Cola executives think that drinking soda is an essential part of life: they make a living out of people accepting that as a dogma, even though there is no science to back it up.

 

But again, you are mixing up stuff here:

 

1- Psychiatry is not scientific (they agree with me).

 

2- Psychiatry is a dangerous pseudoscience that destroys lives. They disagree with me on this, but here is where the Irvin Kirsch and EH Turner metastudies come into picture; psychiatrists these days drug people for life -in most cases voluntarily but that's what they do. The most serious, non corrupted studies on the efficacy of these drugs, even using psychiatry's own measures of efficacy like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Rating_Scale_for_Depression , show that these drugs are essentially active placebos. That onto itself wouldn't be too bad if it weren't because these drugs have very bad side effects, including http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/informationbydrugclass/ucm096273 "update the existing black box warning on their products' labeling to include warnings about increased risks of suicidal thinking and behavior, known as suicidality, in young adults ages 18 to 24 during initial treatment ".

 

Now, here is a very important fact. We do know that between 1999 and 2009, the prescription of antidepressants skyrocketed (it is unlikely that that was due to a sudden epidemic of "depression", rather, it was more likely do to effective direct to consumer advertising). What would be the expected result of a massive drugging of society with drugs that while no more effective than placebos, are known to increase the risk of suicide in people taking them? Well, you'd expect an increase in the suicide rate (not just the number of suicides which itself depends on population growth). Wait! That is precisely what happened,

 

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p0502-suicide-rates.html

 

 

Now, I do not know of any study that compared the percentage of people who committed suicide in 1999 who were on SSRIs vs the percentage of people who committed suicide in 2009 who were on SSRIs but the numbers of the CDC are consistent with what the expected result would be if you massively drug society with suicide inducing drugs. I would love to see that study but that info is regularly suppressed mostly by the family members of the deceased one (understandably so).

The utility of SSRIs and ethics of pharmaceutical companies are irrelevant to the issue of Justina's underlying diagnosis - does she have a mitochondrial disorder or is she a victim of medical child abuse?

[penultimatestraw 473]

I grew up with first hand knowledge of mental illness and chemical imbalances. I can tell you for a fact, they are real.

 

My mother was a paranoid schizophrenic. Without the proper medication, she would essentially get "high" off her own body chemistry-Full blown delusions, talking to people who weren't there, thinking there were people "out to get her", etc. She was in and out of psychiatric hostipals her entire life. The only way she could function normally, was on certain medications.

 

Not sure how or why anyone could argue that wasn't a chemical imbalance. I'm also not sure what your agenda is here, but it seems arrogant and foolish.

He is arguing semantics - "chemical imbalance" is a simplistic way of describing the neurobiology of mental illness. And improvement on medications which impact neurotransmitters in no way proves (or disproves) anything about what constitutes a normal chemical "balance" in the brain.

 

The failure to provide concrete evidence of things like altered neurotransmitters or pathologic changes on brain biopsy in many (not all) psych illnesses is central to his stance that psychiatry is not a "science." Of course all of that is irrelevant to the person who cannot function without psychoactive drugs.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Rut roh, genius versus genius ... it's on!!!

Don't derail my attempt to make this thread more entertaining!