Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Phurfur

Justina Pelletier

Recommended Posts

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.

I am also speaking of experience. Not only the study discussed by Insel, but some of the people who tell their stories of recovery here with whom I have corresponded,

 

http://openparadigmproject.com/

 

You might start with Dorothy Dundas' story. Remember, this could have been your mother!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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_%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!

You don't comprehend what you read very well. You have misinterpreted both my post and the psych blog/JAMA study. All those people got neuroleptics early in their course. More power to them if tapering meds later lead to a higher quality of life. You have no idea what would have happened without any meds, which is what you are advocating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. You have no idea what would have happened without any meds, which is what you are advocating.

Neither do you .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GP still coming back for more is crassic.

Even his golden boy is showing some major weaknesses in his so-called brilliance and expertise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GP still coming back for more is crassic.

Even his golden boy is showing some major weaknesses in his so-called brilliance and expertise.

CuckooForCocoaPuffs is a loon. He reminds me of the mothers that think that vaccinations cause Autism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't comprehend what you read very well. You have misinterpreted both my post and the psych blog/JAMA study. All those people got neuroleptics early in their course. More power to them if tapering meds later lead to higher quality of life. You have no idea what would have happened without any meds, which is what you are advocating.

Again, the study is only part of the story. For approaches of demonstrated efficacy which in many cases involve ZERO drugs,

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteria_%28psychiatric_treatment%29

 

http://www.dialogicpractice.net/open-dialogue%E2%84%A0/

 

Loren Mosher, who was the director of the schizophrenia section at the NIMH when he developed the Soteria approach, was kicked out of his job for proving that there were alternatives to neuroleptics. He eventually left the APA in protest a few years before passing away.

 

I guess he would be amused with both the NIMH and the APA officially accepting that indeed, drug less recovery is both possible and desirable for a significant portion of those with a first episode of psychosis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Nobody said schizophrenia was a genetic disorder. :doh:

 

But it does have a genetic component which is why monozygotic > dizygotic > sibling and so forth.

 

You said schizophrenia doesn't correlate to anything biological. That's wrong.

 

What field of research are you in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

You don't understand genetics. Look up concepts like penetrance and epigenetics to begin to understand why identical twins aren't lifelong clones of one another. And like most diseases, schizophrenia is probably a combination of genetic potential intertwined with environmental influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody said schizophrenia was a genetic disorder. :doh:

But it does have a genetic component which is why monozygotic > dizygotic > sibling and so forth.

You said schizophrenia doesn't correlate to anything biological. That's wrong.

What field of research are you in?

Please let me know where I have stated that "schizophrenia doesn't correlate to anything biological".

 

What I have said consistently, and I repeat is that schizophrenia has not been shown to be a biological disease. Correlation and causation are two different things. I would not expect a NAMI daughter to differentiate the two but you can learn more about the difference between them here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't understand genetics. Look up concepts like penetrance and epigenetics to begin to understand why identical twins aren't lifelong clones of one another. And like most diseases, schizophrenia is probably a combination of genetic potential intertwined with environmental influence.

 

Actually, I understand genetics better than you do. For "genuine" genetic traits, if one twin has it, the other has it as well 100 % of the time. If you are saying that mind wise, twins are two different people, sure, I agree. But tell that to the zealots who deny the mind, many of whom populate the psychiatric departments of the Ivy Leagues. The mind and the brain are two different things, even though the mind needs the brain (I explained this with an analogy to software and hardware a few posts back). Apparently you didn't understand the analogy, and it shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

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.

I'll give you the biggest reason: we don't have all the info. But their drastic action speaks to the clinical impression the non-psychiatrists had to initiate the psych eval. And the state maintaining custody over a year later, despite investigation by outside parties, suggests something is terribly out-of-whack with the parents. The case isn't helped by the mitochondrial expert not seeking to confirm his diagnosis either. The conflicts of interest you mentioned have nothing to with how this process was initiated, although I'll concede they would prolong her legal battle if the massive conspiracy you've concocted is remotely accurate.

 

We'll find out eventually, but until them I'll err in believing the non-conspiratorial version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither do you .

But I do know antipsychotics help many schizophrenics, particularly during acute psychoses. Google "Pubmed" and search "neuroleptic", limiting to recent randomized control trials. Or believe the disjointed rants of your new buddy.

 

BTW, what do you think about the genetics/brain markers of homosexuality? Might wanna tell psychsurvivor before becoming BFF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I understand genetics better than you do. For "genuine" genetic traits, if one twin has it, the other has it as well 100 % of the time. If you are saying that mind wise, twins are two different people, sure, I agree. But tell that to the zealots who deny the mind, many of whom populate the psychiatric departments of the Ivy Leagues. The mind and the brain are two different things, even though the mind needs the brain (I explained this with an analogy to software and hardware a few posts back). Apparently you didn't understand the analogy, and it shows.

Elaborate "genuine", Dr. Mendel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you are 100% right. That is precisely my background and lifestyle :)!

Explains a lot. Sorry you couldn't get the career of your dreams. But somebody has to devote their life to psychiatry blogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give you the biggest reason: we don't have all the info. But their drastic action speaks to the clinical impression the non-psychiatrists had to initiate the psych eval. And the state maintaining custody over a year later, despite investigation by outside parties, suggests something is terribly out-of-whack with the parents. The case isn't helped by the mitochondrial expert not seeking to confirm his diagnosis either. The conflicts of interest you mentioned have nothing to with how this process was initiated, although I'll concede they would prolong her legal battle if the massive conspiracy you've concocted is remotely accurate.

 

We'll find out eventually, but until them I'll err in believing the non-conspiratorial version.

 

I am sorry, but I take a strong issue with the notion that you need a "conspiracy" to explain that somebody like Simona Bujoreanu would push Somatic Symptom Disorder against anybody who gets in the way if she is aware that DCF uses, as they do, BCH doctors are their "medical experts". Plain old self interest does the trick, both on the side of Simona Bujoreanu and BCH as an institution.

 

This situation has all the hallmarks of a cover up by self interested parties that do not necessarily collude.

 

I see it very similar to the action by the catholic church which denied for decades the scandal of sexual abuse. Even when the evidence was uncovered in the US, it insisted it was an "Anglo-Saxon" thing due to their more depraved society (I am not making this up). It took that church many years to finally officially acknowledge it had a worldwide problem of dioceses protecting pedophiles for the sake of the reputation of the church (in other words, the local bishops did it not because they got direct orders from the top but because the whole catholic culture was one that made such massive abuse possible with the expectation that individual dioceses would cover up the abuse cases to protect the reputation of the institution).

 

The similarities between the two situations are so obvious that it begs the question as to why you are still giving BCH some "benefit of the doubt". Again, Justina WAS NOT seen by any mito expert at BCH during her 14 months ordeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I do know antipsychotics help many schizophrenics, particularly during acute psychoses. Google "Pubmed" and search "neuroleptic", limiting to recent randomized control trials. Or believe the disjointed rants of your new buddy.

 

BTW, what do you think about the genetics/brain markers of homosexuality? Might wanna tell psychsurvivor before becoming BFF.

How does any of that have anything to do with the fact you have no clue what would have happened without any drugs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or believe the disjointed rants of your new buddy.

 

My request is different. Trust the director of the NIMH and the APA that neuroleptics are over-prescribed and probably preventing recovery in a significant percentage of cases :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does any of that have anything to do with the fact you have no clue what would have happened without any drugs?

Get back to me when you've interacted with a psychotic patient. Hell, try and talk to some homeless people and ask how their non-medication lifestyle is doing. To be fair, most of them are medicating themselves with alcohol and drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My request is different. Trust the director of the NIMH and the APA that neuroleptics are over-prescribed and probably preventing recovery in a significant percentage of cases :).

I agree that psych meds are overprescribed, and may hamper the recovery of some. That doesn't preclude them for being helpful to many people. Or make all psychiatrists evil. Or invalidate any scientific basis for psychiatry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please let me know where I have stated that "schizophrenia doesn't correlate to anything biological".

 

News for you "schizophrenia", just as it happens with the other DSM labels, has not been shown to correspond to anything biological.

Might wanna get a refund for that rigorous scientific training.

 

What field of research are you in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get back to me when you've interacted with a psychotic patient. Hell, try and talk to some homeless people and ask how their non-medication lifestyle is doing. To be fair, most of them are medicating themselves with alcohol and drugs.

Sorry.

 

I was expecting you to explain what would have happened without any drugs. I guess I misjudged your ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elaborate "genuine", Dr. Mendel.

Read the software/hardware analogy, then come back. Genetics deals with hardware issues, not "mind issues". That identical twins (ie, identical hardware) have different minds is not surprising at all.

 

It the same reason why I can give two people two brand new computers with same hardware and same initial software and different users will end up with different computers two years later if you consider the combination software/hardware holistically (different additional software, different erosion due to different activity patterns in the computers, maybe even different peripherals, etc).

 

The resulting computers will be the result of two different minds acting on identical initial hardware. How our different minds are embedded in our brains is something that it is not well understood, but the fact that identical twins are different people proves the existence of "different minds".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might wanna get a refund for that rigorous scientific training.

 

What field of research are you in?

LOL. I give you credit for actually reading his posts. Have you watched all the videos? The homosexuality one is classic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that psych meds are overprescribed, and may hamper the recovery of some.

That's an astonishing admission on your side, especially that "may hamper the recovery of some". I am glad that you finally see "the light". It wasn't your original position though :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the software/hardware analogy, then come back. Genetics deals with hardware issues, not "mind issues". That identical twins (ie, identical hardware) have different minds is not surprising at all.

 

It the same reason why I can give two people two brand new computers with same hardware and same initial software and different users will end up with different computers two years later if you consider the combination software/hardware holistically (different additional software, different erosion due to different activity patterns in the computers, maybe even different peripherals, etc).

 

The resulting computers will be the result of two different minds acting on identical initial hardware. How our different minds are embedded in our brains is something that it is not well understood, but the fact that identical twins are different people proves the existence of "different minds".

Too simplistic a view of genetics, which isn't surprising considering how concrete your thought process is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an astonishing admission on your side, especially that "may hamper the recovery of some". I am glad that you finally see "the light". It wasn't your original position though :).

You never asked what I thought about psych meds. I'd say the same thing about every medication BTW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too simplistic a view of genetics, which isn't surprising considering how concrete your thought process is.

Not simplistic, realistic. If you take a computer, and you deny the existence of software (after all, you cannot see the source code of Windows on your computer, can you), you can still see the whole thing as a piece of hardware and try to analyze everything in terms of trillions of switches but that will not get you very far because you have a bad model for your computer.

 

Your model for the mind/genetics is equally bad, which is why debunking the psychiatric pseudo science matters. Insisting in your bad model has consequences for real people, like lives destroyed when recovery would have been possible without drugs (ie, dealing with the mind as a mind not as a "chemical imbalance").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too simplistic a view of genetics, which isn't surprising considering how concrete your thought process is.

And while we are at it, you are welcome to read about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy , which is clearly a disorder that affects you,

 

"In science, the term physics envy is used to criticize a tendency (perceived or real) of softer sciences and liberal arts to try to obtain mathematical expressions of their fundamental concepts, as an attempt to move them closer to harder sciences, particularly physics.

 

The success of physics in "mathematicizing" itself, particularly since Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica, is generally considered remarkable and often disproportionate compared to other areas of inquiry.[1] "Physics envy" refers to the envy (perceived or real) of scholars in other disciplines for the mathematical precision of fundamental concepts obtained by physicists. It is an accusation raised against disciplines (typically against soft sciences and liberal arts such as literature, philosophy, psychology, social sciences) when these academic areas try to express their fundamental concepts in terms of mathematics, which is seen as an unwarranted push for reductionism.

 

Evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr discusses the issue of the inability to reduce biology to its mathematical basis in his book What Makes Biology Unique?.[2] Noam Chomsky discusses the ability and desirability of reduction to its mathematical basis in his article "Mysteries of Nature: How Deeply Hidden."[3]"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you watched all the videos?

Since you seem to like my videos, I encourage you to watch this by Robert Burton on his book "A Skeptic's Guide to the Mind: What Neuroscience Can and Cannot Tell Us About Ourselves" http://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Guide-Mind-Neuroscience-Ourselves/dp/1250001854

 

 

 

You'll learn a thing or two about your "simplistic" understanding of the "mind" :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the old saying "You can't argue with crazy", really is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the old saying "You can't argue with crazy", really is true.

Does he really think mental illness doesn't exist? I just scanned this thread, but it seams as if he doesn't think mental illness is real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does he really think mental illness doesn't exist? I just scanned this thread, but it seams as if he doesn't think mental illness is real.

He wouldn't answer the question when I put it to him directly. He did however say that he thinks chemical brain imbalances are an urban legend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He wouldn't answer the question when I put it to him directly. He did however say that he thinks chemical brain imbalances are an urban legend.

Ok then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He wouldn't answer the question when I put it to him directly. He did however say that he thinks chemical brain imbalances are an urban legend.

I will bypass the insult for a second. My position with respect to "mental illness" is that it is a useless abstraction. A "myth" as Thomas Szasz would call it. I have already given an analogy with software/hardware to explain what I mean. You can learn more about how much we don't know about the mind -and how much we will never know through neuroscience- by watching the video with the Robert Burton talk although my experience is that the average NAMI person lacks the intellect to understand that sophistication. They only know how to repeat NAMI propaganda about chemical imbalances even though mainstream psychiatry has abandoned the concept altogether.

 

The great Phil Hickey, who has the great gift of explaining things in very clear terms, wrote a post on this matter, here http://www.behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2014/01/09/psychiatry-is-not-based-on-valid-science/ . I agree 100 % with what he says there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will bypass the insult for a second. My position with respect to "mental illness" is that it is a useless abstraction. A "myth" as Thomas Szasz would call it. I have already given an analogy with software/hardware to explain what I mean. You can learn more about how much we don't know about the mind -and how much we will never know through neuroscience- by watching the video with the Robert Burton talk although my experience is that the average NAMI person lacks the intellect to understand that sophistication. They only know how to repeat NAMI propaganda about chemical imbalances even though mainstream psychiatry has abandoned the concept altogether.

 

The great Phil Hickey, who has the great gift of explaining things in very clear terms, wrote a post on this matter, here http://www.behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2014/01/09/psychiatry-is-not-based-on-valid-science/ . I agree 100 % with what he says there.

I'm not reading your links. Can you just say yes or no? Do you believe mental illness exists? You're opinion, not links of others. I've seen people with PTSD wide awake having tramatic flashbacks. Would you call that a mental issue/problem/sickness? Again, I'm not reading links, just your opinion. I've also seen people live very "ordinary lives" on medication, then when off said meds, they talk to people not there, or sleep days on end due to depression or bipolar. How do you explain this if there isn't anything wrong with them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will bypass the insult for a second. My position with respect to "mental illness" is that it is a useless abstraction. A "myth" as Thomas Szasz would call it. I have already given an analogy with software/hardware to explain what I mean. You can learn more about how much we don't know about the mind -and how much we will never know through neuroscience- by watching the video with the Robert Burton talk although my experience is that the average NAMI person lacks the intellect to understand that sophistication. They only know how to repeat NAMI propaganda about chemical imbalances even though mainstream psychiatry has abandoned the concept altogether.

The great Phil Hickey, who has the great gift of explaining things in very clear terms, wrote a post on this matter, here http://www.behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2014/01/09/psychiatry-is-not-based-on-valid-science/ . I agree 100 % with what he says there.

I'm going to guess you're off your meds, as you're starting to come off as quite manic. My guess is if you continue down this path, you won't be a psych "survivor" much longer.

 

:wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not reading your links. Can you just say yes or no? Do you believe mental illness exists? You're opinion, not links of others. I've seen people with PTSD wide awake having tramatic flashbacks. Would you call that a mental issue/problem/sickness? Again, I'm not reading links, just your opinion. I've also seen people live very "ordinary lives" on medication, then when off said meds, they talk to people not there, or sleep days on end due to depression or bipolar. How do you explain this if there isn't anything wrong with them?

What you are providing is "psychiatry for dummies" as propagandized by the APA and NAMI. In reality things are more complicated. You say you are not reading my links, you should.

 

The concept "mental illness" is a misnomer. A brain can be ill -examples of genuine brain diseases are Alzheimer's and CJD, both of which show up in autopsies-, a mind cannot "ill" except as a metaphor.

 

Phil Hickey explains,

 

"Psychiatry’s most fundamental tenet is that virtually all significant problems of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving are illnesses that need to be studied and treated from a medical perspective. What’s not usually acknowledged, however, is that this is an arbitrary assumption.

 

In common speech and within the medical profession, the word “illness” indicates the presence of organic pathology: i.e. damage or malfunction in an organ. Historically, mental illnesses came into being, not because some scientist or group of scientists had recognized and established that problems of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving are caused by an organic malfunction, but rather because the APA had simply decided to extend the concept of illness to embrace these kinds of problems. For the record, some problems of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving are known to be caused by organic pathology, and I exclude those from the present discussion."

 

That's the point. Do I think that DSM labels are made up and not been shown to correspond to actual brain diseases? Sure, but that's what psychiatry's leaders like Insel, Allen Frances or David Kupfer believe too.

 

So if you are looking for a simple "yes or no", I'd say, we need first to agree to which I am saying "yes" or "no". I am saying no to the notion that "all significant problems of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving are illnesses that need to be studied and treated from a medical perspective".

 

Your average MD degree has as much expertise on problems of living as your car mechanic. In other words, a psychiatrist's MD training is irrelevant to his/her mission of being a "mind guardian".

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  

×