Justina Pelletier

[Googballz 39]

I've answered that question, several times.

 

Yes. The BCH diagnosis agrees with your diagnosis you made with no facts from thousands of miles away, so you question the qualificatiins of the Drs at Tufts.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Yes. The BCH diagnosis agrees with your diagnosis you made with no facts from thousands of miles away, so you question the qualificatiins of the Drs at Tufts.

Try again.

[Googballz 39]

Try again.

no thanks.

 

I have you pegged.

[OldMaid 2,134]

What happened to CuckooForCocoaPuffs? Did the men in the white coats come and take him away?

[penultimatestraw 473]

no thanks.

 

I have you pegged.

How can you know anything about somebody so far away? Based on what you read?!?

[penultimatestraw 473]

What happened to CuckooForCocoaPuffs? Did the men in the white coats come and take him away?

He posts mostly late at night, when the psychiatric overlords aren't watching. He disinfects his keyboard during the day so he doesn't catch the AIDS.

[Sho Nuff 720]

How can you know anything about somebody so far away? Based on what you read?!?

Because you dont agree with him.

And he doesnt understand what you have actually said vs. his opinion of what you said.

[Googballz 39]

How can you know anything about somebody so far away? Based on what you read?!?

I have read your innerweb diagnoses, and the information you base them on, or more accurately the lack thereof. That is what I am commenting on.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Because you dont agree with him.

And he doesnt understand what you have actually said vs. his opinion of what you said.

It's pretty funny how you can copy text verbatim and it can still be willfully misinterpreted. Meanwhile, psychsurvivor has gone so tangential with his ramblings that he misses the central issue: what is the correct diagnosis?

[psychsurvivor 2]

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.

 

I am not arguing semantics but I agree with your description that "improvement on medications which impact neurotransmitters in no way proves (or disproves) anything about what constitutes a normal chemical "balance" in the brain."

 

This is the most articulate explanation I have read about this (particularly the video) by Joanna Moncrieff, a British psychiatrist who is not against medications. She just says that what these drugs do (and more importantly what they do not do) should be explained to people taking them,

 

http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/10/bitterest-pills-troubling-story-antipsychotic-drugs/

 

 

With respect to "Of course all of that is irrelevant to the person who cannot function without psychoactive drugs", I would say that all that is very relevant to the people that, again according to Tom Insel,

 

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/antipsychotics-taking-the-long-view.shtml

 

"It appears that what we currently call “schizophrenia” may comprise disorders with quite different trajectories. For some people, remaining on medication long-term might impede a full return to wellness. For others, discontinuing medication can be disastrous. For all, we need to realize that reducing the so-called “positive symptoms” (hallucinations and delusions) may be necessary, but is rarely sufficient for a return to normal functioning. Neither first nor second generation antipsychotic medications do much to help with the so-called negative symptoms (lack of feeling, lack of motivation) or the problems with attention and judgment that may be major barriers to leading a productive, healthy life. Family education, supported employment, and cognitive behavioral therapy have all demonstrated efficacy in reducing the likelihood of relapse events, increasing the ability to function in daily life, and improving problem-solving and interpersonal skills."

 

Or put in more lay terms, the idea of putting people who experience a first episode of psychosis (however you define "psychosis") on neuroleptics for life has been shown to prevent some people from recovering from that episode.

 

So while you are concerned about the people that according to you cannot lead normal lives unless they take these drugs, I am concerned about the people who cannot lead normal lives PRECISELY because they have been put on these drugs.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,544]

11 pages? Can I get the short version of what's transpired up in here?

[psychsurvivor 2]

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?

Again, Justina has been sent back to Tufts recently; I mentioned that at the beginning of my interventions here and you keep ignoring the point altogether (mentioned towards the end),

 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3445821032001/why-was-justina-pelletier-taken-from-her-parents/

 

With respect to my scientific training, it is certainly more rigorous than an MD training for people destined for clinical work (vs research, which is what I do for a living). If you are so sure of your arguments, my credentials shouldn't matter.

 

For some reason you keep defending BCH in spite of the fact that,

 

- Mark Korson testified under oath that Justina's problems were due to mitochondrial disease.

 

- The chief of the psychiatry department at BCH, David DeMaso, has been a close collaborator, at least in the past, of Joseph Biederman, the guy who was responsible to put children on neuroleptics for the invented diagnosis of "Pediatric Bipolar Disorder" (a diagnosis that Allen Frances himself is very ashamed to have let in the DSM-IV; preventing fads like bipolar in children is one of the reasons he cites to have come out of obscurity to criticize DSM-5) while on the payroll of Johnson & Johnson who was disciplined by Harvard for hiding this conflict of interest from them.

 

- DCF has now agreed that Justina be sent back to Mark Korson.

 

Any smart person that is unbiased by whatever bias pushes you to believe BCH doctors can see what happened here, specially since BCH has had no issues leaking whatever they wanted to leak to the Boston Globe, including HIPAA protected information for their December 2013 articles. You rationalize BCH's actions for reasons only you can understand.

[NewbieJr 541]

11 pages? Can I get the short version of what's transpired up in here?

psychosurvivor apparently was institutionalized years ago. He doesn't feel it was warranted. Now he is trying to spread the word that ALL psychiatrists are evil.

Penultimate is giving his opinions using his medical background

Worms is giving his opinion using his law background.

Googleballz is trolling using his trolling background.

And I support incest.

[psychsurvivor 2]

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?

 

If your concern is that admitting that BCH doctors abusing their power (which includes whatever cozy relationship they have with Massachusetts' DCF which uses BCH doctors as their medical experts in a clear conflict of interest) poses some kind of threat to your own idealized vision of "doctors" in general, well, I'd say, welcome to the real world in which doctors, but also lawyers, scientists, etc, can be as crooks as the average person.

 

As I have said several times, after being Ivy League educated and working with highly smart people, I truly appreciate smarts, but I have also accepted that highly smart people are no better or worse than the average guy. They can be as subjected to their own conflicts of interests (including intellectual conflict of interests) and biases as anybody else. It seems to me you have a problem accepting this in spite of the cases of Joseph Biederman, Martin Keller, Charles Nemeroff or Alan Schatzberg (the latter was the president of the APA when his own conflict of interests was uncovered by an investigation initiated by US senator Chuck Grassley).

[psychsurvivor 2]

And I support incest.

You qualified your support to a very narrow set of circumstances but happy to read that you finally came clean! .

[Sho Nuff 720]

You qualified your support to a very narrow set of circumstances but happy to read that you finally came clean! .

 

Still not good at the sarcasm I see.

You really shouldn't brag about being smart anymore.

[psychsurvivor 2]

psychosurvivor apparently was institutionalized years ago. He doesn't feel it was warranted. Now he is trying to spread the word that ALL psychiatrists are evil.

 

I will qualify this by adding I also think that psychiatry is a dangerous pseudoscience that on average destroys lives (even though some people claim to have been helped by it). For the data that I use to back this assertion up, people can listen to the talk by Bob Whitaker, based on his book "Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America" http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Epidemic-Bullets-Psychiatric-Astonishing/dp/0307452425

 

[psychsurvivor 2]

Still not good at the sarcasm I see.

You really shouldn't brag about being smart anymore.

Actually I am outsmarting you, even when it comes to sarcasm .

[NewbieJr 541]

I will qualify this by adding I also think that psychiatry is a dangerous pseudoscience that on average destroys lives (even though some people claim to have been helped by it).

You don't have to qualify it. I was just making fun of you.

[psychsurvivor 2]

For those interested, here comes info on the Charles Nemeroff/Alan Schatzberg affair.

 

To claim that "highly educated" psychiatrists can do no wrong in spite of this is to live in "fantasy land". Probably appropriate for a fan of "Fantasy Football" I suppose!

 

 

http://www.pogo.org/our-work/letters/2010/ph-iis-20101208.html

 

 

Mr. Stuart C. Clark

Carr Ferrell

120 Constitution Drive

Menlo Park, CA 94025

 

Lawrence J. Myers

Smith Moore LLP

Atlantic Center Plaza

1180 West Peachtree Street, NW

Suite 2300

Atlanta, GA 30309-3482

 

Dear Mr. Clark and Mr. Myers:

 

In response to your letters (Attachment A) and after a comprehensive internal review, the Project On Government Oversight (“POGO”) will make minor changes to the online version of its November 29, 2010, letter to National Institutes of Health (“NIH”), which expressed concerns about the integrity of federally funded research.

 

Your letters describe alleged “false statements” by POGO as related to the physician handbook titled Recognition and Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders: A Psychopharmacology Handbook for Primary Care, which listed as authors Alan F. Schatzberg, MD, of Stanford Medical Center and Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, formerly with Emory University School of Medicine and now at University of Miami School of Medicine.

 

First, when the handbook was published, Dr. Nemeroff and Dr. Schatzberg thanked Scientific Therapeutics Information, Inc. (“STI”) for “editorial assistance” and GSK for “providing an unrestricted educational grant.” In your letter, you describe the initial materials provided by STI as “boilerplate.” That statement, as you can see from the discussion below, appears to be far from the truth. Therefore, we will only make minor changes to POGO’s letter to NIH, which is posted on POGO’s website. (Attachment

 

According to the 2007 deposition taken in cases involving Paxil against SmithKline Beecham Corporation, now operating as GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”), Ms. Sally Laden calls herself a “freelance writer” specializing in “science and medical writing.” Her testimony further stated that she takes data, condenses it into a manuscript, and works “with the authors to make sure they are happy with the data as presented.” She further agreed that her role was to help in the preparation of the initial draft, edit the subsequent draft, and address reviewers’ comments.

 

In a letter dated February 4, 1997, and addressed to Dr. Nemeroff, Ms. Laden provided an updated status of the handbook. Ms. Laden’s letter stated that “We have begun development of the text,” and she established a timeline for which Dr. Nemeroff and Dr. Schatzberg would receive draft copies of that text. That letter introduced Ms. Coniglio as the “primary technical writer and project manager” and Ms. Laden as the “technical editor.” (Emphasis added) POGO understands that the letter was also circulated to GlaxoSmithKline employees.

 

After a review of the February 25, 1997, “PRELIMINARY DRAFT” (emphasis and capitalization in original) and of the 1999 published version of the handbook, POGO feels strongly that its statements regarding STI’s involvement in the drafting of the handbook are accurate and supported by the evidence. Complete sentences and paragraphs that were in the 1997 “preliminary draft” created by STI appear in the handbook. For example, the draft “developed by” Ms. Coniglio and Ms. Laden reads:

 

Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) is the most common primary, progressive degenerative dementia in the elderly and the fourth leading cause of death in the United States (Keefover, 1996; Raskind, 1993). At an annual cost of more than $67 billion in the US alone, AD has important public health implications, especially in concert with the unparalleled growth of the aged population (Keefover, 1996).

 

This nearly mirrors the text that appears in the published book, which reads:

 

Dementia of the Alzheimer’s type, or Alzheimer’s disease (AD), is the most common primary, progressive, degenerative dementia in the elderly and the fourth leading cause of death in the US. At an annual cost of more than $90 billion in the US alone, AD has important public health implications, especially in concert with the unparalleled growth of the aged population. [Footnotes omitted]

 

Additional language and tables on Alzheimer’s Disease follow nearly word for word the 1997 “preliminary draft,” as do passages involving Tacrine, Cholinergic Agonists, and Selegiline, and the glossary. As POGO stated in its NIH letter, that first edition was “Developed by” Diane M. Coniglio, PharmD and Sally K. Laden, MS of STI.

 

According to a statement from the American Psychiatric Association the book “was written by the two authors….They did receive editorial assistance, but they were the authors.” In a statement to the Miami Herald, Dr. Nemeroff was quoted saying, “Such editorial assistants can provide help with such tasks as tracking down references and the like, but certainly do not have the clinical expertise or experience to put such a volume together.” These statements are undermined by Ms. Laden’s February 4, 1997, letter to Dr. Nemeroff that outlines technical and editorial assistance that was to be provided by STI as well as the detailed content of STI’s “preliminary draft” which was published in the book. Per written guidance about “Byline Authors” from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (“ICMJE”), Ms. Coniglio and/or Ms. Laden should have been listed as “authors” if their support included conception and design, gathering data, drafting or revising intellectual content, and approving the version to be published.

 

Second, according to your letters, the allegation “that GSK was given all three drafts, and was sent page proofs for final approval” is false. We would like to point out that this process is laid out in the timeline provided to Dr. Nemeroff by Ms. Laden of STI. We would also like to point out that this timeline and STI’s “preliminary draft” were provided by GSK during litigation in another case and therefore were in GSK’s possession. We also note that with regards to GSK’s involvement in the handbook, Dr. Nemeroff’s told the Miami Herald:

 

I would guess that [GSK] would have had to review the content to comply with [Food and Drug Administration] regulations on a pharmaceutical company distributing a publication, but this is hardly my area of expertise.

 

The evidence available at this time indicates that GSK apparently was involved in the handbook drafting process. Because POGO is currently unable to document the nature and extent of GSK’s actual involvement, POGO will alter the NIH letter as indicated in Attachment B.

 

Finally, your allegations concerning Mr. Thacker’s previous employment with the Senate are extremely vague and not related to POGO or our work. Please contact the Senate directly if you have concerns about the actions of a Senator or his staff.

 

Sincerely,

 

Scott H. Amey

General Counsel

 

 

Enclosures: 2

 

cc: Francis S. Collins, MD, Ph.D., Director

National Institutes of Health

[OldMaid 2,134]

For all, we need to realize that reducing the so-called “positive symptoms” (hallucinations and delusions) may be necessary, but is rarely sufficient for a return to normal functioning.

I take issue with that particular statement from your quote. I fail to see how someone who is living with delusions and hallucinations can ever be considered normal funticioning. Maybe there might be a few rare instances, but for the most part these people accept their delusions and hallucinations as real.

 

My mother once dumped everything in our house out in the sinks, toilet, and bathtub. Food, shampoo, OTC medications, dish soap, laundry detergent, perfume... if it was in a container or box-you name it, she poured it out. All because she thought someone was trying to poison us.

 

Another time, I remember waking up in the middle of the night with paramedics standing over me. She had called the police and said my grandfather had raped and murdered my sister and me.

 

This was normal behavior when she wasn't on her medication. No way anyone would consider that to be a normal functioning human being.

[psychsurvivor 2]

I take issue with that particular statement from your quote. I fail to see how someone who is living with delusions and hallucinations can ever be considered normal funticioning. Maybe there might be a few rare instances, but for the most part these people accept their delusions and hallucinations as real.

My mother once dumped everything in our house out in the sinks, toilet, and bathtub. Food, shampoo, OTC medications, dish soap, laundry detergent, perfume... if it was in a container or box-you name it, she poured it out. All because she thought someone was trying to poison us.

Another time, I remember waking up in the middle of the night with paramedics standing over me. She had called the police and said my grandfather had raped and murdered my sister and me.

This was normal behavior when she wasn't on her medication. No way anyone would consider that to be a normal functioning human being.

Again, that's YOUR MOTHER. The quote is from Tom Insel, the current director of the NIMH. The NIMH is a federal agency part of the NIH which an annual budget of around 1.5 billion dollars. It is the most important, in terms of dollars, funding agency for research on so called "mental health".

 

The evidence that long term use of neuroleptics harm at least some people is, again, mainstream psychiatric thinking. The APA issued the following in response to the Insel blog last September,

 

http://www.madinamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Choosing-Wisely.pdf

 

The copy/paste of the PDF gives a lot of formatting errors, but you can read for yourself.

 

It has been a constant battle in this thread (in all fairness also in other venues) to educate pro psychiatry zealots of the developments that occurred in 2013. You guys are now denying the orthodoxy of the APA and the NIMH!!!

[OldMaid 2,134]

Again, that's YOUR MOTHER. The quote is from Tom Insel, the current director of the NIMH. The NIMH is a federal agency part of the NIH which an annual budget of around 1.5 billion dollars. It is the most important, in terms of dollars, funding agency for research on so called "mental health".

The evidence that long term use of neuroleptics harm at least some people is, again, mainstream psychiatric thinking. The APA issued the following in response to the Insel blog last September,http://www.madinamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Choosing-Wisely.pdf

The copy/paste of the PDF gives a lot of formatting errors, but you can read for yourself.

It has been a constant battle in this thread (in all fairness also in other venues) to educate pro psychiatry zealots of the developments that occurred in 2013. You guys are now denying the orthodoxy of the APA and the NIMH!!!

Yes, but MY MOTHER was a pretty typical schizophrenic. So I'm not sure how he can make statements like the one I have an issue with.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Yes, but MY MOTHER was a pretty typical schizophrenic. So I'm not sure how he can make statements like the one I have an issue with.

From the above quote "It appears that what we currently call “schizophrenia” may comprise disorders with quite different trajectories". News for you "schizophrenia", just as it happens with the other DSM labels, has not been shown to correspond to anything biological.

 

So it is not even clear what you mean with "pretty typical schizophrenic". You can meet a few who were diagnosed "pretty typical schizophrenic" here, but who recovered to productive lives only after stopping all their meds,

 

http://openparadigmproject.com/

 

And of course, for a pretty famous case of "pretty typical schizophrenic" who recovered to normal functioning without any drugs whatsoever (he makes it clear around minute 25 that the movie "A Beautiful Mind" distorted this aspect of his life story),

 

http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=429

 

So the notion that "pretty typical schizophrenic" people have to be disempowered with neuroleptics for life doesn't hold any ground, really.

[FeelingMN 273]

From the above quote "It appears that what we currently call schizophrenia may comprise disorders with quite different trajectories". News for you "schizophrenia", just as it happens with the other DSM labels, has not been shown to correspond to anything biological.

The risk of schizophrenia is elevated in biologic relatives of persons with schizophrenia but not in adopted relatives.[18] The risk of schizophrenia in first-degree relatives of persons with schizophrenia is 10%. If both parents have schizophrenia, the risk of schizophrenia in their child is 40%. Concordance for schizophrenia is about 10% for dizygotic twins and 40-50% for monozygotic twins.

 

Genome-wide association studies have identified many candidate genes, but the individual gene variants that have been implicated so far account for only a small fraction of schizophrenia cases, and these findings have not always been replicated in different studies. The genes that have been found mostly change a genes expression or a proteins function in a small way.

 

Some loci of particular interest include the following:

 

Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene

RELN gene

Nitric oxide synthase 1 adaptor protein (NOS1AP) gene

The COMT gene codes for the postsynaptic intracellular enzyme COMT, which is involved in the methylation and degradation of the catecholamine neurotransmitters dopamine, epinephrine, and norepinephrine. The several allelic variants of COMT affect its activity. The valine-valine variant degrades dopamine faster than the valine-methionine variant does; subjects with 2 copies of the methionine allele were less likely to develop psychotic symptoms with cannabis use than were other cannabis-using subjects without that variant.[19]

 

The RELN gene codes for the protein reelin, which plays a role in brain development and GABAergic activity. In an international study, a common variant in this gene increased the risk of schizophrenia, but only in women.[20]

 

The NOS1AP gene codes for the enzyme nitric oxide synthase, which is found in high concentration in inhibitory neurons in the brain. Nitric oxide acts as an intracellular messenger. Using a newly developed statistical technique, the posterior probability of linkage disequilibrium, researchers have identified a single-nucleotide polymorphism associated with higher levels of expression of this gene in postmortem brain samples from individuals with schizophrenia.[21]

 

Other genetic changes involve the structure of the gene. For example, copy number variants are deletions and duplications of segments of DNA; they can involve genes or regulatory regions. These variants are usually inherited, but can arise spontaneously. Copy number variants such as the deletions found at 1q21.1, 15q13.3, and 22q11.2 increase the risk of developing schizophrenia.[22, 23] At most, however, these findings probably account for only a small part of the heritability of schizophrenia.

 

In addition, the effects of some of these copy number variants are not restricted to schizophrenia. Other copy number variant disorders include autism, intellectual disability, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and epilepsy.[24]

 

In a study of 39,000 people referred to a diagnostic laboratory, about 1000 had a copy number variant at 1 of the following loci: 1q21.1, 15q11.2, 15q13.3, 16p11.2, 16p13.11, and 22q11.2. Clinically, these people had various neurologic or psychiatric disorders, including developmental delay, intellectual disability, and autism-related disorders. Subjects also had congenital anomalies.[25]

 

Many studies have also looked for abnormalities in neurodevelopmental genes. Disruptions in the DISC1, NRG1, DTNBP1, KCNH2, AKT1, and RGS4 genes have been associated with schizophrenia, albeit with significant variability between studies.[26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38] These findings also lend support to the hypothesis that schizophrenia is a disease in which multiple rare genetic variants lead to a common clinical outcome.

 

Some people with schizophrenia have no family history of the disorder. These cases may be the result of new mutations. De novo mutations in the exome (the part of the chromosome that codes for proteins) seem to be more common in patients with schizophrenia than would otherwise be expected.[39, 40] In a pair of exome sequencing studies, researchers identified de novo genetic mutations in patients with schizophrenia that cluster in specific proteins involved in brain function and overlap with mutations that have been identified in patients with autism, mental retardation and intellectual disability.[41, 42]

 

A recent genome-wide association study beginning with a Swedish sample of 5,000 cases and 6,000 controls compared the results with a previous genome-wide association study and findings of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in independent examples. It found a clustering at 22 loci, 14 of which were new. Most of the SNPs were common and, collectively, could account for perhaps as much as one third of the variance in liability for schizophrenia. In other words, common genetic variation may be involved in schizophrenia. This is somewhat similar to the understanding of other complex trait diseases such as coronary artery disease.[43]

 

Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are likely to have a large overlap in genetic risk factors, but only a small portion of this genetic risk has been identified.[44]

 

As can be seen, working out the details of these genetic factors is difficult. Interactions with the rest of the genome and with the environment will doubtless prove to be important. Nonetheless, a meta-analysis of twin studies estimated that genetic factors account for about four fifths of liability to schizophrenia.[45]

 

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/288259-overview#aw2aab6b2b3

 

Non Ivy League educated minds will agree.....sounds pretty biological.

[FeelingMN 273]

Psychsurvivor, what's your field of study?

[OldMaid 2,134]

From the above quote "It appears that what we currently call “schizophrenia” may comprise disorders with quite different trajectories". News for you "schizophrenia", just as it happens with the other DSM labels, has not been shown to correspond to anything biological.

So it is not even clear what you mean with "pretty typical schizophrenic". You can meet a few who were diagnosed "pretty typical schizophrenic" here, but who recovered to productive lives only after stopping all their meds,http://openparadigmproject.com/

And of course, for a pretty famous case of "pretty typical schizophrenic" who recovered to normal functioning without any drugs whatsoever (he makes it clear around minute 25 that the movie "A Beautiful Mind" distorted this aspect of his life story),http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=429

So the notion that "pretty typical schizophrenic" people have to be disempowered with neuroleptics for life doesn't hold any ground, really.

 

Again... I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that those instances are pretty rare. Or maybe they were misdiagnosed to begin with. Who knows what factors may or may not make them different. I can only speak from my own experiences: that if my mother had not been medicated, my life would have been more of a living hell, as a child, than it already was.

 

One of the reasons that treating schizophrenia is so difficult, is that most patients can't distinguish between what is the delusion, and what is real. If they could, then it would be a whole different ball game. But to say that it's rarely sufficent to medicate these people in order for them to lead a productive life, seems very dangerous, IMO.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

I know that this has a lot of people on both sides riled up. There have been death threats against the nurses caring for her. Plenty of nutty folks.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Actually I am outsmarting you, even when it comes to sarcasm .

 

By outsmarting you must mean that your intent was for me to not take much of what you say seriously anymore.

Congrats.

Now go run and fetch a bunch of links and videos to guys you agree with while ignoring all the ones you don't agree with.

[Sho Nuff 720]

For those interested, here comes info on the Charles Nemeroff/Alan Schatzberg affair.

 

To claim that "highly educated" psychiatrists can do no wrong in spite of this is to live in "fantasy land". Probably appropriate for a fan of "Fantasy Football" I suppose!

 

 

Nobody in this thread has done what you are accusing in bold.

However, you have labeled all of them evil and inferred they can do no right.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I am not arguing semantics but I agree with your description that "improvement on medications which impact neurotransmitters in no way proves (or disproves) anything about what constitutes a normal chemical "balance" in the brain."

 

This is the most articulate explanation I have read about this (particularly the video) by Joanna Moncrieff, a British psychiatrist who is not against medications. She just says that what these drugs do (and more importantly what they do not do) should be explained to people taking them,

 

http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/10/bitterest-pills-troubling-story-antipsychotic-drugs/

 

 

With respect to "Of course all of that is irrelevant to the person who cannot function without psychoactive drugs", I would say that all that is very relevant to the people that, again according to Tom Insel,

 

 

Or put in more lay terms, the idea of putting people who experience a first episode of psychosis (however you define "psychosis") on neuroleptics for life has been shown to prevent some people from recovering from that episode.

 

So while you are concerned about the people that according to you cannot lead normal lives unless they take these drugs, I am concerned about the people who cannot lead normal lives PRECISELY because they have been put on these drugs.

I said nothing about lifelong drugs, nor have I criticized a multifaceted approach to treating mental illness. Only you have characterized all psychiatrists as evil.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Again, Justina has been sent back to Tufts recently; I mentioned that at the beginning of my interventions here and you keep ignoring the point altogether (mentioned towards the end),

 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3445821032001/why-was-justina-pelletier-taken-from-her-parents/

 

With respect to my scientific training, it is certainly more rigorous than an MD training for people destined for clinical work (vs research, which is what I do for a living). If you are so sure of your arguments, my credentials shouldn't matter.

 

For some reason you keep defending BCH in spite of the fact that,

 

- Mark Korson testified under oath that Justina's problems were due to mitochondrial disease.

 

- The chief of the psychiatry department at BCH, David DeMaso, has been a close collaborator, at least in the past, of Joseph Biederman, the guy who was responsible to put children on neuroleptics for the invented diagnosis of "Pediatric Bipolar Disorder" (a diagnosis that Allen Frances himself is very ashamed to have let in the DSM-IV; preventing fads like bipolar in children is one of the reasons he cites to have come out of obscurity to criticize DSM-5) while on the payroll of Johnson & Johnson who was disciplined by Harvard for hiding this conflict of interest from them.

 

- DCF has now agreed that Justina be sent back to Mark Korson.

 

Any smart person that is unbiased by whatever bias pushes you to believe BCH doctors can see what happened here, specially since BCH has had no issues leaking whatever they wanted to leak to the Boston Globe, including HIPAA protected information for their December 2013 articles. You rationalize BCH's actions for reasons only you can understand.

Ah, a "researcher" that dislikes MD's. I encountered that quite a bit when performing research, some of which involved mitochondria of all things. And unless you're an MD/PhD, it is ludicrous to declare anything about your training more rigorous than clinical medicine. I have both research and medical training, and I assure you they're both tough.

 

You've never answered why a muscle biopsy was never performed. Try typing the explanation in a couple sentences or less.

 

Apparently there are a lot of other people who understand BCH's actions. Sorry you aren't one of them.

[penultimatestraw 473]

If your concern is that admitting that BCH doctors abusing their power (which includes whatever cozy relationship they have with Massachusetts' DCF which uses BCH doctors as their medical experts in a clear conflict of interest) poses some kind of threat to your own idealized vision of "doctors" in general, well, I'd say, welcome to the real world in which doctors, but also lawyers, scientists, etc, can be as crooks as the average person.

 

As I have said several times, after being Ivy League educated and working with highly smart people, I truly appreciate smarts, but I have also accepted that highly smart people are no better or worse than the average guy. They can be as subjected to their own conflicts of interests (including intellectual conflict of interests) and biases as anybody else. It seems to me you have a problem accepting this in spite of the cases of Joseph Biederman, Martin Keller, Charles Nemeroff or Alan Schatzberg (the latter was the president of the APA when his own conflict of interests was uncovered by an investigation initiated by US senator Chuck Grassley).

There are good and bad people in all fields and all levels of intelligence/training. This point is so self-evident you don't need paragraphs to elaborate.

 

Yet another way you might want to change your approach if your actual goal is convincing people you have a valid point.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Psychsurvivor, what's your field of study?

He can't tell you, as it will destroy his anonymity.

 

I'm gonna guess he studied biology with a psych minor. Pretty common combo for "pre-meds" who don't make it into medical school.

 

And I bet he is a full time internet activist, as his OCD doesn't allow him to leave the home.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Again... I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that those instances are pretty rare. Or maybe they were misdiagnosed to begin with. Who knows what factors may or may not make them different. I can only speak from my own experiences: that if my mother had not been medicated, my life would have been more of a living hell, as a child, than it already was.

 

One of the reasons that treating schizophrenia is so difficult, is that most patients can't distinguish between what is the delusion, and what is real. If they could, then it would be a whole different ball game. But to say that it's rarely sufficent to medicate these people in order for them to lead a productive life, seems very dangerous, IMO.

You are correct; most schizophrenics require meds at some point in their course, many of them lifelong. But there are mimics of schizophrenia, including substance-induced mood disorder (high on something) and depression with psychotic features than can resolve on their own.

[psychsurvivor 2]

You are correct; most schizophrenics require meds at some point in their course, many of them lifelong. But there are mimics of schizophrenia, including substance-induced mood disorder (high on something) and depression with psychotic features than can resolve on their own.

I don't know what's worse. NAMI types like OldMaid spreading falsehoods or MD degree holders doing the same. In any case, I again encourage both of you to read the Insel post entirely in which he analyzes the results of a study done in the Netherlands (emphasis mine)

 

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/antipsychotics-taking-the-long-view.shtml

 

That is not to say that people are not remitting or recovering from serious mental illness. An article recently posted online in JAMA-Psychiatry tells an interesting story about medications and recovery.1 Wunderink and colleagues from the Netherlands report on a seven-year follow-up of 103 people with schizophrenia and related disorders who had experienced a first episode of psychosis between 2001 and 2002. After six months of symptomatic remission following antipsychotic treatment, patients were randomly assigned to either maintenance antipsychotic treatment or a tapering-off and discontinuation of the drug. As expected, the group that stopped taking their medications experienced twice the relapse rates in the early phase of the follow-up. But these rates evened out after a few years, as some patients in the maintenance group also stopped taking their medication. Most important, by seven years, the discontinuation group had achieved twice the functional recovery rate: 40.4 percent vs. only 17.6 percent among the medication maintenance group. To be clear, this study started with patients in remission and only 17 of the 103 patients—21 percent of the discontinuation group and 11 percent of the maintenance group—were off medication entirely during the last two years of follow-up. An equal number were taking very low doses of medication—meaning that roughly one-third of all study patients were eventually taking little or no medication.

 

 

There is plenty of evidence that more antipsychotics mean less quality of life for a significant percentage of people that experience a first episode of psychosis. That's what Bob Whitaker book is all about http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Epidemic-Bullets-Psychiatric-Astonishing/dp/0307452425 .

 

In fact, the reason Insel is taking the NIMH in a different direction is precisely that. The massive drugging of people "suspected" of so called "mental illness" not only has had zero effect on measures such as suicide (in fact, rates have increased) but more people than ever are joining the social security disability ranks disabled by so called "mental illness". Now, these people have been declared "disabled" by psychiatrists who were overseeing their "care", in other words, they were receiving standard psychiatric treatment: drugging. That's why Bob Whitaker calls his book "Anatomy of an Epidemic". The "epidemic" of the title is an epidemic of "mental illness".

 

For OldMaid, I am going to tell you something that maybe you don't want to hear. Perhaps if your mom had followed non drug (or minimum drug) "treatments" of demonstrated efficacy such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteria_%28psychiatric_treatment%29 or http://www.dialogicpractice.net/open-dialogue%E2%84%A0/ for whatever issues she was going through, your mom would be a productive member of society like John Nash instead of the likely "fat" elements that neuroleptics for life usually produce!

[psychsurvivor 2]

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/288259-overview#aw2aab6b2b3

Non Ivy League educated minds will agree.....sounds pretty biological.

You can spin matters as much as you want, but the generally accepted "genetic" component for "schizophrenia", however you define "schizophrenia", from twin studies is 50%. Of course, you can spin studies as much as you want, but that's what a respected psychiatrist who has looked at the data will tell you.

 

Now, this 50%, if anything, disproves the notion that "schizophrenia" is genetic. Identical twins have exactly the same DNA, yet half of the twins of people diagnosed with "schizophrenia" are not diagnosed with the same, which takes the whole genetic theory under the bus. "sex" is a purely genetic trait. If one identical twin is female, the other is female 100% of the time. You get the idea.

[psychsurvivor 2]

He can't tell you, as it will destroy his anonymity.

 

I'm gonna guess he studied biology with a psych minor. Pretty common combo for "pre-meds" who don't make it into medical school.

 

And I bet he is a full time internet activist, as his OCD doesn't allow him to leave the home.

If you say so, I take that description of my background and lifestyle! .

[psychsurvivor 2]

Apparently there are a lot of other people who understand BCH's actions. Sorry you aren't one of them.

 

I am pretty sure that Joseph Biederman, DeMaso's pal, understand BCH's actions,

 

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/07/harvard_scientists_disciplined.html

Three US psychiatrists, responsible for trailblazing the use of antipsychotic drugs in children, are facing sanctions for their failure to declare their acceptance of millions of dollars from pharmaceutical companies between 2000 and 2007.

 

To this day, Joseph Biedderman maintains that "Pediatric Bipolar Disorder" is real, even though Allen Frances concedes that it should have never made it to DSM-IV (again, per Frances' own statements, warning against similar fake diagnoses is the reason he came out of the shadows in 2010 to warn against DSM-5).

 

Speaking of DSM-5, the psychologist who diagnosed Justina, http://www.brazelton-institute.com/bujorbio.html , maintains that half of all children who present difficult symptoms suffer from Somatic Symptom Disorder. So if you don't see the clear conflict of interest, well, that only speaks of your own biases which you have still to elaborate. You are willing to give BCH the benefit of the doubt for reasons only you understand.

[OldMaid 2,134]

I don't know what's worse. NAMI types like OldMaid spreading falsehoods or MD degree holders doing the same. In any case, I again encourage both of you to read the Insel post entirely in which he analyzes the results of a study done in the Netherlands (emphasis mine)

There is plenty of evidence that more antipsychotics mean less quality of life for a significant percentage of people that experience a first episode of psychosis. That's what Bob Whitaker book is all about http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Epidemic-Bullets-Psychiatric-Astonishing/dp/0307452425 .

In fact, the reason Insel is taking the NIMH in a different direction is precisely that. The massive drugging of people "suspected" of so called "mental illness" not only has had zero effect on measures such as suicide (in fact, rates have increased) but more people than ever are joining the social security disability ranks disabled by so called "mental illness". Now, these people have been declared "disabled" by psychiatrists who were overseeing their "care", in other words, they were receiving standard psychiatric treatment: drugging. That's why Bob Whitaker calls his book "Anatomy of an Epidemic". The "epidemic" of the title is an epidemic of "mental illness".

For OldMaid, I am going to tell you something that maybe you don't want to hear. Perhaps if your mom had followed non drug (or minimum drug) "treatments" of demonstrated efficacy such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteria_(psychiatric_treatment) or http://www.dialogicpractice.net/open-dialogue℠/ for whatever issues she was going through, your mom would be a productive member of society like John Nash instead of the likely "fat" elements that neuroleptics for life usually produce!

Ok... now I'm just going to dismiss you as an idiot. You may like to think you are educated on this matter, but you keep showing just how ignorant you are by dismissing anything that doesn't fit with what you think you "know". And I use that term loosely.

 

I'm not spreading any falsehoods. I'm sharing FIRST HAND expirence. The fact that you don't want to hear it, isn't my fault.

 

Oh and BTW... the ONLY time my mother was able to be a productive member of society was when she was taking her meds. But I know you won't like that answer.