Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Phurfur

Justina Pelletier

Recommended Posts

I did see he's a scientist. Did he say what field? What country he was involuntarily admitted? It was out outside of the US right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

WOW, diagnosis on the spot. I am manic, what else? According to penultimatestraw I am also locked up at home because of OCD.

 

It is no wonder that psychiatry, and its believers, have such a bad reputation in scientific circles. For all you know, I could just be a robot that comes close to passing the Turing test. You'll never know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More trying to use a lot of words to sound smart rather than just answering what is actually a very simple question.

psst...you are still nowhere near as smart as you keep claiming to be...it is becoming painfully obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did see he's a scientist. Did he say what field? What country he was involuntarily admitted? It was out outside of the US right?

 

No...won't answer direct questions as to what he actually studies, researches, any degrees or what field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More trying to use a lot of words to sound smart rather than just answering what is actually a very simple question.

psst...you are still nowhere near as smart as you keep claiming to be...it is becoming painfully obvious.

Oh, the issue of what "mental illness" is is complex. There was a whole debate on this very topic hosted by the CATO institute. Even Allen Frances conceded,

 

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2012/08/08/allen-frances/clinical-reality-check

 

"I agree completely with Schaler and Szasz that mental disorders are not diseases and that treating them as such can sometimes have noxious legal consequences."

 

It is patently clear that this forum is full of "useful idiots" for psychiatry. Now, before somebody accuses me of insulting, I am not. The concept of "useful idiot" has a rich tradition when nonsensical, totalitarian enterprises impose their nonsense to large portions of the population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot .

 

You are being useful idiots for psychiatry even when psychiatry's own leaders reject your simplistic positions when they have to speak for the record!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what would YOU say to these people who are having, I'll use the term issues, instead off illness then? What would you say the problem is with our troops coming home with issues of flashbacks, nightmares, night terrors, things of that issue? What about things like old maid said about her mother? Can I get your opinion not cut and pastes of others? What causes that stuff in your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shocking...asked for his own opinion, brings more links to other people's opinions as if that will impress us.

 

"Im so smart Im so smart...here is what a lot of other people are saying but I won't actually give a real opinion of my own other than saying psychiatrists are evil".

 

Holy fock how quick you have turned into a complete waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what would YOU say to these people who are having, I'll use the term issues, instead off illness then? What would you say the problem is with our troops coming home with issues of flashbacks, nightmares, night terrors, things of that issue? What about things like old maid said about her mother? Can I get your opinion not cut and pastes of others? What causes that stuff in your opinion.

Sure, now that we have established what we are talking about.

 

For people with so called "PTSD", which is not the result of a "chemical imbalance" but rather the result of having experienced war, I would say that a support network and an education campaign for society at large that we be more understanding to the troops is going to do way more than "happy pills" which fix nothing.

 

In fact, the horrors of war is nothing new. Millions of Americans went to Europe to fight the Nazis (seeing horrors that are at least an order of magnitude higher than whatever our current troops are seeing in Iraq or Afghanistan). Those veterans were not drugged when they came back, but given opportunities, etc. There was a different mindset back then since society understood that war was part of life. Now we have that wars are fought by an increasingly small segment of the population who serves many tours of duty and when they are back they encounter rejection in many cases. So I don't think this can be understood in terms of "chemical imbalances" in the brain of the veterans.

 

For OldMaid's mom, I have already proposed alternatives like Soteria or Open Dialogue. In fact, you have John Nash's example. It took him 20 good years to "come back" from whatever troubled mind state he found himself in. He refused drugs and rightly so, otherwise he would be probably dead by now (people on long term neuroleptics die on average 25 years sooner than the general life expectancy). Instead, he came back, reclaimed his status as a math expert and a few years later he was awarded a Nobel Prize. Putting somebody who experiences an extreme mental state on neuroleptics for life is to disempower that person for life. That's simply wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shocking...asked for his own opinion, brings more links to other people's opinions as if that will impress us.

 

"Im so smart Im so smart...here is what a lot of other people are saying but I won't actually give a real opinion of my own other than saying psychiatrists are evil".

 

Holy fock how quick you have turned into a complete waste.

I am so smart that when I claim that something has been scientifically established (or the consensus among experts is that it has not been established), I provide the appropriate citation, as it is customary when you do rigorous research.

 

Science is not about "made up stuff" or "opinions". As I said, it is about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability . Opining that however you define "mental illness" is caused by a "chemical imbalance" doesn't make it so. You have to first establish scientifically that that is the case. No such thing has ever been done, and that's why citing the leaders of American psychiatry that state the lack of scientific validity of DSM labels is relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a quick, very quick look at info regarding soteria. The study showed no difference in Soteria type treatment versus hospitalization and med therapy. I think it was an Oxford study. I'm sure there's studies showing for and against that kind of treatment. What about people who swear that meds help them? Are they lying or just tricked into thinking they're better? I don't get why you think meds don't/can't help. Not bashing, just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a quick, very quick look at info regarding soteria. The study showed no difference in Soteria type treatment versus hospitalization and med therapy. I think it was an Oxford study. I'm sure there's studies showing for and against that kind of treatment. What about people who swear that meds help them? Are they lying or just tricked into thinking they're better? I don't get why you think meds don't/can't help. Not bashing, just curious.

It was not an Oxford study, but an NIMH study by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loren_Mosher in the 1970s.

 

With respect to the people who claim that meds help them. I do not think that they are lying, but I do not think that the "meds" fix anything. It is like saying, gee, I had a back pain, I took a pill of ibuprofen and I feel better. Does this mean that ibuprofen fixes a "chemical imbalance"? Obviously not. There are all sorts of reasons why some people claim to feel better after taking neuroleptics. These drugs are psychoactive, meaning, they alter the brain chemistry (but "alter" does not mean the same as "fixing"). There is also the powerful placebo effect. What we also know is that there are a great deal of side effects from taking these drugs long term, including brain shrinkage http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110207/full/news.2011.75.html . These are not "candy" even though they are prescribed as if they were.

 

What I am saying is that nobody should be forced into these drugs. In addition, people who voluntarily take them should be told about the risks associated with them and the non drug alternatives to deal with their problems (which include getting used to hearing voices and not being scared of them as Eleanor Longden and the members of the Voice Hearing Network do http://www.intervoiceonline.org/ ).

 

There are all sorts of alternatives outside taking drugs for life for people who go through extreme mind states (and BTW, I never claimed that people cannot go through those states, only that what the DSM calls diseases have not been shown to be such).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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]"

Ever hear of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Psychological projection is the act or technique of defending yourself against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in yourself, while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is rude may accuse other people of being rude.

 

Although rooted in early developmental stages,[2] and classed by George Eman Vaillant as an immature defence,[3] the projection of one's negative qualities onto others on a small scale is nevertheless a common process in everyday life.[4]

Do you have a differential equation to determine who that describes best?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a quick, very quick look at info regarding soteria. The study showed no difference in Soteria type treatment versus hospitalization and med therapy. I think it was an Oxford study. I'm sure there's studies showing for and against that kind of treatment. What about people who swear that meds help them? Are they lying or just tricked into thinking they're better? I don't get why you think meds don't/can't help. Not bashing, just curious.

Basically Soteria is a methodology which may reduce psychotropic medication usage. But most patients still use meds at some point.

 

Psychsurvivor would have you believe they are useless poison. He also thinks all psychiatrists are forcing medication on their patients, without any discussion of the risk/benefit of their use. On all counts he is wrong, but confirmation bias makes him ignore anything which conflicts with his agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I feel like an ass. :(

 

I never bothered opening this thread since I thought it was about some hot TV sideline reporter or weathergirl I never heard of, not a sick girl who received extremely shabby treatment and care at the hospital and court system. What a horrible story. The only reason I'm here now is it reached 13 pages and I had to see if I was missing out on some epic Geek Club thread.

 

I have some catching up to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I feel like an ass. :(

 

I never bothered opening this thread since I thought it was about some hot TV sideline reporter or weathergirl I never heard of, not a sick girl who received extremely shabby treatment and care at the hospital and court system. What a horrible story. The only reason I'm here now is it reached 13 pages and I had to see if I was missing out on some epic Geek Club thread.

 

I have some catching up to do.

It was a good thread, but it's been derailed a bit. Get it back on track!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was not an Oxford study, but an NIMH study by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loren_Mosher in the 1970s.

 

With respect to the people who claim that meds help them. I do not think that they are lying, but I do not think that the "meds" fix anything. It is like saying, gee, I had a back pain, I took a pill of ibuprofen and I feel better. Does this mean that ibuprofen fixes a "chemical imbalance"? Obviously not. There are all sorts of reasons why some people claim to feel better after taking neuroleptics. These drugs are psychoactive, meaning, they alter the brain chemistry (but "alter" does not mean the same as "fixing"). There is also the powerful placebo effect. What we also know is that there are a great deal of side effects from taking these drugs long term, including brain shrinkage http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110207/full/news.2011.75.html . These are not "candy" even though they are prescribed as if they were.

 

What I am saying is that nobody should be forced into these drugs. In addition, people who voluntarily take them should be told about the risks associated with them and the non drug alternatives to deal with their problems (which include getting used to hearing voices and not being scared of them as Eleanor Longden and the members of the Voice Hearing Network do http://www.intervoiceonline.org/ ).

 

There are all sorts of alternatives outside taking drugs for life for people who go through extreme mind states (and BTW, I never claimed that people cannot go through those states, only that what the DSM calls diseases have not been shown to be such).

And arguably ibuprofen addresses a "chemical imbalance" in inflammatory pathways: limiting pain, swelling, fever etc. Although it "cures" nothing, it treats symptoms effectively. And it has some potentially deleterious effects. Should we abandon this poison in favor of psychic surgery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a good thread, but it's been derailed a bit. Get it back on track!

I think it's been an awesome thread. Hell, OldMaid found out after all these years that her mother was never really sick. Just misdiagnosed. Loony physchosurvivor has been a Godsend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the issue of what "mental illness" is is complex. There was a whole debate on this very topic hosted by the CATO institute. Even Allen Frances conceded,

 

It is patently clear that this forum is full of "useful idiots" for psychiatry. Now, before somebody accuses me of insulting, I am not. The concept of "useful idiot" has a rich tradition when nonsensical, totalitarian enterprises impose their nonsense to large portions of the population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot .

You are being useful idiots for psychiatry even when psychiatry's own leaders reject your simplistic positions when they have to speak for the record!

From your link:

 

Let’s start with a summary of where I stand. I agree completely with Schaler and Szasz that mental disorders are not diseases and that treating them as such can sometimes have noxious legal consequences. But I strongly disagree that mental disorders are worthless “myths” and think it greatly over-simplifies a complex clinical and legal conundrum to categorically assert that involuntary treatment should be completely eliminated.

Mental disorders are real and involuntary treatment shouldn't be completely eliminated. You made the mistake of arguing otherwise in this thread....because you do not understand the nuance of the argument. Binary thinking is for losers.

 

Also from your link.

 

Patient reaction to involuntary treatment varies greatly depending on the person, the circumstances, when they are asked, how it is done, and the family’s attitude. A minority of patients is angry about the initial commitment and stays angry even after they have gotten better — sometimes feeling abused and humiliated for life. Another minority feels relief — unwilling to volunteer for treatment, they are happy enough to go along with it. The majority are unhappy at the moment when involuntary treatment is imposed on them, but they understand why it was necessary once they have recovered from their acute symptoms.

You're in the minority here.

 

What did you say you studied again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From your link:

 

 

Mental disorders are real and involuntary treatment shouldn't be completely eliminated. You made the mistake of arguing otherwise in this thread....because you do not understand the nuance of the argument. Binary thinking is for losers.

 

Also from your link.

 

 

You're in the minority here.

 

What did you say you studied again?

He studied YouTube

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another problem with CuckooForCocoaPuffs alternative treatments for schizophrenics is: in order for them to work, the patient has to be willing to cooperate; but only about 1/2 of diagnosed schizophrenics are self aware. The other 1/2 are not willing to accept that there is anything wrong with them and resist treatment.

 

My mother falls into the latter group. She would go to great lengths and concoct elaborate stories to explain her stays in the hospital. She also would inevitably stop her medication, and her symptoms would return. It was a vicious cycle.

 

But hey, I'm glad he thinks he knows how best to treat it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He would probably be better off studying YouPorn. :lol:

Unless his cuckoo meds have made him limp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I've gotten to the point where I'm just kinda skimming his posts. The more quotation marks I see, the quicker I skim as he's probably already made that point before.

 

I'm interested in watching some of these vids but killing an hour or two on them is a bit much to ask. I'll probably watch the Burton vid though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And arguably ibuprofen addresses a "chemical imbalance" in inflammatory pathways: limiting pain, swelling, fever etc. Although it "cures" nothing, it treats symptoms effectively. And it has some potentially deleterious effects. Should we abandon this poison in favor of psychic surgery?

Again, false conclusion. I'd say that they introduce a "chemical imbalance" rather than addressing one. Take people who are naturally shy. You give them a couple of beers and most of them suddenly become more chatty. Does alcohol address a "chemical imbalance" for these people or rather introduces one that causes them to become more disinhibited? And why is being "shy" not "normal", just because DSM quacks say so? And should we treat "shy" people by turning them into alcoholics by force if necessary? That is what people like you want to do to people like me with psychiatric poisons!

 

With respect to the comment on lobotomy, it says more about you than about me. You are so bought into the idea that the notion of "behavioral normality" that comes out of the DSM needs to be enforced at all costs that you don't spare means. If not drugs, you suggest lobotomy. What about NOT ENFORCEMENT AT ALL and leave behavioral control where it belongs, the criminal justice system not self appointed unaccountable MD holders mind guardians? Is that something that a self appointed god like you is willing to consider as a possibility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another problem with CuckooForCocoaPuffs alternative treatments for schizophrenics is: in order for them to work, the patient has to be willing to cooperate; but only about 1/2 of diagnosed schizophrenics are self aware. The other 1/2 are not willing to accept that there is anything wrong with them and resist treatment.

My mother falls into the latter group. She would go to great lengths and concoct elaborate stories to explain her stays in the hospital. She also would inevitably stop her medication, and her symptoms would return. It was a vicious cycle.

But hey, I'm glad he thinks he knows how best to treat it.

Oh please. Not because it was expected it is less surprising. I said earlier that you are a "useful idiot" for psychiatry and NAMI (which itself is a proxy for the pharmaceutical companies as uncovered by Chuck Grassley). This appeal to their invented notion of "anosognosia" in the context of so called "mental health" is another urban legend used to force people on drugs. Psychiatrist and Mad In America blogger Sandra Steingard explains here,

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bipolar-advantage/201208/anosognosia-how-conjecture-becomes-medical-fact

 

Neurologists use the term anosognosia to describe a peculiar syndrome in which a person has a profound lack of awareness of an obvious deficit. For instance, a person who has a stroke on the right side of his brain and is paralyzed of the left side of his body has no awareness of the problem. He might not recognize his left arm as his own. When given a page to read, he might only read the words on the right side of the page. He would only put his shirt on his right arm but when asked if he was adequately dressed, he would answer, yes. This phenomena is regularly associated with damage to the right side of the brain in the section called the parietal lobe.

 

In the 1990′s, a psychologist, Xavier Amador, began to use this term in the context of describing a person who was experiencing psychotic symptoms and did not believe that his problems were due to an illness. For instance, if a person heard voices that no one else heard, he might conclude that he was communicating with dead relatives. When his doctors or family told him that he was sick, he would disagree. Doctors would call this “lack of insight” and Amador was one of the first to appropriate the neurological term anosognosia to describe this.

 

There is a history in neuroscience of trying to apply what has been learned from studying the cognition and behavior of people who have had strokes to develop a more general understanding of the connection between brain function and behavior. In that spirit, there have been multiple studies to address whether there were changes in the brains of people who were psychotic and were described as having a “lack of insight” that were similar to the changes found in people who had right hemisphere strokes.

 

Readers on this site have wondered how the notion of a “chemical imbalance” could have been accepted by so many when the research did not actually support the concept. A recent paper from the Treatment Advocacy Center that summarizes studies of anosognosia in psychosis gives some clue as to how this type of thinking becomes entrenched and accepted.

 

 

You can read the rest. Note that the two urban legends work marvels for people like you,

 

- The "chemical imbalance" urban legend makes people like you believe that DSM labels are scientific (even though psychiatrists themselves know that not to be true).

 

- The "anosognosia" lie makes people like you buy into the notion of abusing civil liberties for the sake of the DSM even though as Sandra Steingard explains there is no scientific proof that the neurological concept of "anosognosia" applies to the invented DSM labels.

 

With useful idiots like these, no wonder the evil psychs and big pharma will continue to make money. The only deterrent for big pharma companies has been the action by the US DOJ, which is causing these companies to stop the development of new psychiatric drugs. The executives at these companies, I suppose, might have come to the right conclusion that with so many multi billion dollar fines to settle criminal violations for marketing of psychiatric drugs off label, it is only a matter of time that one of them ends up in jail if they continue to play the game of the Biedermans of the world. So they are diverting their R&D efforts to areas where at least progress can be measured with an objective biological test (like cholesterol drugs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gotten to the point where I'm just kinda skimming his posts.

This reads like a commitment to the goal of remaining ignorant about the lies promoted by psychiatry for its consumption by useful idiots :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please. Not because it was expected it is less surprising. I said earlier that you are a "useful idiot" for psychiatry and NAMI (which itself is a proxy for the pharmaceutical companies as uncovered by Chuck Grassley). This appeal to their invented notion of "anosognosia" in the context of so called "mental health" is another urban legend used to force people on drugs. Psychiatrist and Mad In America blogger Sandra Steingard explains here,

 

You can read the rest. Note that the two urban legends work marvels for people like you,

- The "chemical imbalance" urban legend makes people like you believe that DSM labels are scientific (even though psychiatrists themselves know that not to be true).

- The "anosognosia" lie makes people like you buy into the notion of abusing civil liberties for the sake of the DSM even though as Sandra Steingard explains there is no scientific proof that the neurological concept of "anosognosia" applies to the invented DSM labels.

With useful idiots like these, no wonder the evil psychs and big pharma will continue to make money. The only deterrent for big pharma companies has been the action by the US DOJ, which is causing these companies to stop the development of new drugs. The executives at these companies, I suppose, might have come to the right conclusion that with so many multi billion dollar fines to settle criminal violations for marketing of psychiatric drugs off label, it is only a matter of time that one of them ends up in jail if they continue to play the game of the Biedermans of the world. So they are diverting their R&D efforts to areas where at least progress can be measured with an objective biological test (like cholesterol drugs).

 

Yes... so my personal expirence HAS TO BE WRONG? Because, you know... you're just smarter than everyone else. Can you say delusions of grandeur? I'm willing to bet you are typing this from a psych ward as we speak.

 

You are so off the mark, it isn't even funny anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psychsurvivor would have you believe they are useless poison. He also thinks all psychiatrists are forcing medication on their patients, without any discussion of the risk/benefit of their use. On all counts he is wrong, but confirmation bias makes him ignore anything which conflicts with his agenda.

It is a well established principle in criminal law that when you do something under the threat of retaliation, you are not truly consenting to that something. Take rape. You don't need a violent assault to classify an unwanted sexual contact as rape. The contact can be non violent, and thus "consensual" on the surface, but might still be considered non consensual for legal purposes if there was a perceived threat by the victim (violent or non violent like stealing money from your bank account in case of spouses).

 

When the psych that puts you drugs has the power to force them onto you lying if necessary

 

http://psychrights.org/force_of_law.htm#Corruption

 

It would probably be difficult to find any American Psychiatrist working with the mentally ill who has not, at a minimum, exaggerated the dangerousness of a mentally ill person's behavior to obtain a judicial order for commitment.

 

many things that pass as "voluntary" in psychiatry are not so much.

 

This reminds me an anecdote I experienced myself during my civil commitment. I was there against my will and I made it very clear. But others were there in theory "voluntarily". When you got into the facility you were handed a nice pamphlet with your "alleged rights" including the right to ask for a discharge at any time if your stay was deemed voluntarily.

 

So a girl who was there "voluntarily" got fed up of being there and she asked to be released. Instead, she got restrained by security guards long enough for the psychs to get a court order for her to stay "involuntarily".

 

You have just becoming a laughing stock with your continuous rationalizations and defense of psychiatrists. I assume that you do that because corporatism among MD holders is alive and well.

 

Here is my challenge for you. If the AMA wants to stop defending these quacks it has it very easy: adopt a resolution by which it distances itself from the APA and declares psychiatry non medical. Since Jeffrey Lieberman, the current president of the APA, already admits that psychiatry is a "step child" of medicine, this should not be very hard to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I willing to bet I can find a bunch of cancer survivors who claimed to have healed themselves through the power of positive thinking. It doesn't mean that cancer or that cancer treatments are a hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes... so my personal expirence HAS TO BE WRONG? Because, you know... you're just smarter than everyone else. Can you say delusions of grandeur? I'm willing to bet you are typing this from a psych ward as we speak.

You are so off the mark, it isn't even funny anymore.

WOW! Another diagnosis on the spot and another bet of where I am. People, decide,

 

- Am I locked up at home for fear of OCD and haven't worked in years as a result?

 

- Am I writing this from a psych ward where I have been locked up for "delusions of grandeur"?

 

I offer again a third possibility. I might be a robot that passes the Turing test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test :).

 

I am not discounting your experience, what I am saying, again, is that "your experience" doesn't have any bearing on whether the "chemical imbalance" or "anosognosia for DSM labels" are scientific concepts. Neither is a scientific concept no matter how much the useful idiots from NAMI repeat that they are :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"useful idiot"

This reads like a commitment to the goal of remaining ignorant about the lies promoted by psychiatry for its consumption by useful idiots :).

 

Yeah...still showing how you don't like namecalling aren't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to see a Hannibal Lector-type of weirdo here in this phschosurvivor dude.

 

Minus the cannibalism, of course. But an obviously educated fella who is a total social outcast and is probably under some sort of detainment right now. Would be a harm to himself if allowed in the real world. Book smart, but real-life stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I willing to bet I can find a bunch of cancer survivors who claimed to have healed themselves through the power of positive thinking. It doesn't mean that cancer or that cancer treatments are a hoax.

This is a false analogy.

 

Even though spontaneous cancer cures do happen, whether the "cure" actually happened can be determined via objective biological tests, not "the opinion of a psych".

 

More importantly, there is the famous former CEO of America's most valuable company that used that method for several months after his diagnosis and I didn't see you in a demonstration demanding that somebody get a court order to force him on chemotherapy. The guy went to chemotherapy on his own, but could have decided not to as long as he has wished, which makes your whole "anosognosia" rationale for psychiatry sponsored civil rights abuses moot.

 

In fact, I am convinced that if Justina's parents, instead of being Lou and Linda Pelletier, had been Bill and Melinda Gates, the BCH quacks would have not dared to do what they did to Justina.

 

Which shows that after all, this is not about "saving lives" or "caring for others" but who makes the most bucks. And please, if you are going to read me the NAMI "tricks list", I encourage you to read http://www.madinamerica.com/ where said tricks have been duly debunked by psychiatrists like Sandra Steingard :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooooh...she just sounds evil with a name like that. Funny how you believe here though...as evil as she must be as a psychiatrist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But an obviously educated fella who is a total social outcast and is probably under some sort of detainment right now.

 

OK, I am accepting bets, where am I detained? :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW! Another diagnosis on the spot and another bet of where I am. People, decide,

- Am I locked up at home for fear of OCD and haven't worked in years as a result?

- Am I writing this from a psych ward where I have been locked up for "delusions of grandeur"?

I offer again a third possibility. I might be a robot that passes the Turing test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test :).

I am not discounting your experience, what I am saying, again, is that "your experience" doesn't have any bearing on whether the "chemical imbalance" or "anosognosia for DSM labels" are scientific concepts. Neither is a scientific concept no matter how much the useful idiots from NAMI repeat that they are :).

I think you are the only one arguing the scientific concept theory. I'm just telling you that these things which you have labeled as "urban legends" do in fact exist in patients. I could give a rat's azz if they're scientific or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a false analogy.

Even though spontaneous cancer cures do happen, whether the "cure" actually happened can be determined via objective biological tests, not "the opinion of a psych".

More importantly, there is the famous former CEO of America's most valuable company that used that method for several months after his diagnosis and I didn't see you in a demonstration demanding that somebody get a court order to force him on chemotherapy. The guy went to chemotherapy on his own, but could have decided not to as long as he has wished, which makes your whole "anosognosia" rationale for psychiatry sponsored civil rights abuses moot.

In fact, I am convinced that if Justina's parents, instead of being Lou and Linda Pelletier, had been Bill and Melinda Gates, the BCH quacks would have not dared to do what they did to Justina.

Which shows that after all, this is not about "saving lives" or "caring for others" but who makes the most bucks. And please, if you are going to read me the NAMI "tricks list", I encourage you to read http://www.madinamerica.com/ where said tricks have been duly debunked by psychiatrists like Sandra Steingard :).

Oh dear God... are you really going to compare Steve Job's cancer with someone with schizophrenia?

 

You're not helping yourself, here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reads like a commitment to the goal of remaining ignorant about the lies promoted by psychiatry for its consumption by useful idiots :).

Meh....I've read several articles by Allen Frances....just like you recommended earlier. I tend to agree with him. I've just decided to cut the manic middle man out of the equation here because he offers very little of substance any more. He cherry picks quotes, selectively ignores questions posed to him, and makes faulty inferences from the information posted. He is part of a disgruntled minority who cannot see the forest from the trees.

 

I might start listening to what you say if you talk about the parable of the kick ass Jesus. I think we need some of that in here. Otherwise.....yawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh....I've read several articles by Allen Frances....just like you recommended earlier. I tend to agree with him. I've just decided to cut the manic middle man out of the equation here because he offers very little of substance any more. He cherry picks quotes, selectively ignores questions posed to him, and makes faulty inferences from the information posted. He is part of a disgruntled minority who cannot see the forest from the trees.

 

I might start listening to what you say if you talk about the parable of the kick ass Jesus. I think we need some of that in here. Otherwise.....yawn.

 

Don't forget he also does not like binary arguments unless they are his...nor does he like namecalling unless he is doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooooh...she just sounds evil with a name like that. Funny how you believe here though...as evil as she must be as a psychiatrist.

As I have said, I am only using psychiatrists to divide them. Sandra Steingard is a good example. You can read her posts at Mad In America here http://www.madinamerica.com/author/ssteingard/ . She has been blogging for Mad In America for around 2 years and you can see a clear evolution in her thinking, mostly from having conversations with survivors who benefit from the anonymity of the internet that takes away the threat of coercion. That allowed her to hear from the survivor experience in ways that were not possible in an office visit. She still defends "drugs in some cases" and "coercive treatment in some cases" but she concedes that he has changed,

 

http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/01/how-you-have-changed-me/

 

It has been a year since the Mad In America website launched and I posted my first blog. On so many levels it has been a remarkable year for me. I traveled to Finland and began training at the Institute for Dialogic Practice I have tracked my experiences with neuroleptic drug taper and presented the first year of data at the Institute for Psychiatric Service meeting. At my clinic, we have initiated a new program where peers and professionals work as colleagues and we offer support to individuals who are in acute distress. I have joined the board of the Foundation for Excellence in Mental Health Care and have had the great privilege of meeting my fellow board members.

 

Much of what has been positive this year has come about from my connection to this website and to Robert Whitaker.

 

Having been in the dark side for so long, I would say that Sandra Steingard is "work in progress". I do not lose faith that she will renounce psychiatry as a valid medical discipline in years to come (just I think that Allen Frances might do the same).

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  

×