Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Phurfur

Justina Pelletier

Recommended Posts

They've done studies, you know. 60 percent of the time it works, every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good that you see dead people. I see people at the Democratic Underground mobilizing to #freejustina,

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024816943

 

And I also see that http://www.mindfreedom.org/ has chosen #freejustina as their theme for the annual demonstration at the APA convention, which will take place this year on May 4th in NYC,

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153984862255462&set=gm.624609384288226

 

Say hello to my hero Ronald Reagan :).

Why have you avoided my question?

Are you on permanent disability,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roses are red, violets are blue. I'm a schizophrenic, and so am I.

So you have been diagnosed with schizophrenia? I am curious to know about it, tell me more :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've tried your best and failed miserably. The lesson is....never try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. May god have mercy on your soul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. May god have mercy on your soul

I don't think I have failed.

 

Rather, I think you and those like you are going through the denial/rationalization phase :). Nobody in this forum has seriously challenged my statements about the lack of scientific validity of DSM labels . Difficult to do so BTW, when both the director of the NIMH and the chairman of the current edition of the DSM agree that none of DSM labels has scientific validity.

 

Science is not like politics. Voting, democracy and opinion are irrelevant in science. The only thing that matters is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability and none of the DSM labels passes that test!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't give a tuppeny fock about your moral conundrum, you meat-headed shitt sack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you are confusing "correlation with causation". By your own logic, homos should go back to the DSM since,I explained this with the hardware/software analogy. You can find hardware correlates for genuine software problems like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_leak but "memory leaks" are not caused by the underlying hardware. Similarly, fMRI correlates with human behavioral patters say nothing about said patterns being a "brain disease". Genuine brain diseases are CDJ and Alzheimer's. This might be a bit too challenging for you intellectually, but you are in good company with many pro psychiatry zealots around here :).

You mention homosexuality more than drobeski.

 

Your link supports what I'm talking about.....that the biology of the brain underlies behavior. If a homosexual male's brain is similar to a female's brain....it makes sense that they're both attracted to males. :doh:

 

A depressive's brain looks different than a schizophrenic's which looks different than a bipolar's. Dr. Insel is on to something here. His vision will win out. Not yours.

 

Who cares if the patterns don't translate into a disease. Everyone refers to them as disorders. If you hear voices and can live independently....or live dependently without causing too much a burden, then you're fine. Problems arise when you can't...and this is your area of expertise. You're a genius of can't. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mention homosexuality more than drobeski.

Your link supports what I'm talking about.....that the biology of the brain underlies behavior. If a homosexual male's brain is similar to a female's brain....it makes sense that they're both attracted to males. :doh:

A depressive's brain looks different than a schizophrenic's which looks different than a bipolar's. Dr. Insel is on to something here. His vision will win out. Not yours.

Who cares if the patterns don't translate into a disease. Everyone refers to them as disorders. If you hear voices and can live independently....or live dependently without causing too much a burden, then you're fine. Problems arise when you can't...and this is your area of expertise. You're a genius of can't. :(

First of all, gay brains look different on "brain imaging" which, using my computer analogy, it's like saying that you can find patterns in memory activity among computers that run Windows different from computers that run MacOS. What does it say about MacOS being a software bug just because most personal computers run Windows? Absolutely nothing. If I give you a computer that is turned off, you cannot tell a computer that ran Windows from a computer that run MacOS. The same is true with dead brains and DSM labels: you cannot tell one from another in an autopsy. So the whole notion of "mental illness as brain diseases" is nonsense.

 

With respect to "causing too much a burden", since that is the responsibility of the criminal justice system (ie, policing that people do not bother other people and punish those that do), can you explain to me why do we need psychiatrists and their made up notions of "normality" that they can impose by force?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-roving-psychologist/201109/has-psychiatry-been-corrupted-beyond-repair

 

Has Psychiatry Been Corrupted Beyond Repair?

Fake science is causing real harm

Published on September 15, 2011 by John D. Gartner, Ph.D. in The Roving Psychologist

 

We know that corporations can show few scruples in hiding the damage done by their products. Cigarette makers hid the link to lung cancer for decades. Energy companies and their political allies deny any link between burning fossil fuels and global warming. But no industry has been as systematic nor as successful as drug companies in infiltrating the knowledge base concerning their products. The results have been high profits. The top ten pharmaceutical companies in the Fortune 500 make more money than the other 490 companies combined.

 

Imagine this: What if every scientist studying global warming was paid by Exxon? New York would be underwater before anyone knew global warming even existed. Yet, that is exactly the state of scientific research in psychiatry. Over 80 percent of the psychiatric research studies conducted in academic medical centers are funded by the drug industry. And that's the good news. With increasing frequency, Big Pharma is paying marketing companies with no ties to academia to generate studies that put their products in the best possible light; they then pay academics to put their names on the resulting studies as authors, even though they had no participation in the research whatsoever. To see what results, take the example of Neurontin.

 

About 12 years ago, I noticed that many of my bipolar type II patients were being put on a new drug, Neurontin. None of my patients seemed to get much benefit from it, and most suffered side effects. Now, I understand why.

 

We now know from independent research--research not funded by drug companies--that Neurontin produces absolutely no benefit in the treatment of bipolar disorder. None. But then, why did we ever believe it did? The Neurontin story is a particularly egregious example of science run amok, but not an atypical one. Psychiatrists were falsely induced to prescribe a medicine that was both unsafe and ineffective.

 

The study that Warner Lambert used to prove Neurontin was effective for the treatment of bipolar disorder was flawed and titled toward positive results, according to a recent article published in the Archives of Internal Medicine. Even worse, evidence of adverse consequences in this study was suppressed: 73 patients in this trial had adverse reactions, and 11 patients died.

 

How did this happen? In 1993 Warner Lambert had a problem. Neurontin, their new anti-epilepsy drug, had been given only limited FDA approval for use only as a second line epilepsy drugs--it could only be used if other epilepsy drugs already on the market failed. "Neurontin was a turkey." Wrote Daniel Carlat in Unhinged. What to do?

 

The company hired marketing firms--not scientists--to produce scientific articles demonstrating the benefits of Neurontin for bipolar disorder, and paid physicians $1,000 a piece to allow their names to be listed as authors of the studies that they neither conducted nor wrote (and perhaps never even read).

 

While the FDA requires a reasonably high level of scientific evidence to approve a drug for the treatment of a specific condition, once the drug is approved, doctors are free to prescribe any drug for any condition, off label. To convince them to do this, weak or massaged data can be dressed up to prove a drug is effective, and no FDA scrutiny is required. It's a crime for a drug company to market drugs to doctors for off label purposes, but that's exactly what happened. Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote: "the company had carried out a massive illegal scheme to promote Neurontin for off label uses--mainly by paying academic experts to put their names on flimsy research."

 

Drug reps descended on practicing psychiatrists. Warner Lambert senior executive John Ford exhorted his reps to "hold their hands and whisper in their ears...Neurontin for bipolar disorder." He went further, encouraging them to exceed the FDA recommended dose of 1800 mg/day, adding "I don't want to hear that safety crap." Warner Lambert paid 430 million in fines for its deceptive and illegal marketing of Neurontin to psychiatrists.

 

Is Neurontin isolated incident? Academic ghost authorship of studies produced by marketing companies is standard procedure. In 2001, drug companies paid $7 billion to a thousand contract research organizations to produce data that put their drugs in a most favorable light. How deeply has this penetrated psychiatry? Some 57 percent of the published scientific articles about Zoloft, for example, were written by the marketing firm Current Medical Directions and ghost authored by academics who had no part in the studies. These articles appeared in top journals including the American Journal of Psychiatry and the Journal of the American Medical Association. "Thus, for at least one anti-depressant, the bulk of the medical literature was literally written by the drug company that manufactured the drug, which is about as glaring a manipulation of science as one can imagine," wrote Carlat. And in a New York Times op-ed piece Carl Elliot wrote, "Pharmaceutical companies promote their drugs with pseudo-studies that have little if any scientific merit."

 

There are many ways to put your finger on the scales. One is to simply not publish negative results. Not surprisingly, drug company sponsored research is four times more likely to produce positive results than independent research. Wrote Carlat: "If I relied on the published medical literature (and what else can I rely on?) it would appear that 94 percent of antidepressant trials are positive." However, using the power of the Freedom of Information Act, Erick Turner demanded the FDA turn over all antidepressant trial data, and reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that across all the studies only 51 percent of the results were positive. Essentially, you might as well flip a coin.

 

In The Emperor's New Drugs, Irving Kirsh who also used the Freedom of Information Act to get suppressed FDA research reports, found similar results: 40 percent of antidepressant clinical trial data had been suppressed because they showed negative results. "When we analyzed all the data--those that had been published and those that had been suppressed--my colleagues and I were led to the inescapable conclusion that antidepressants are little more than active placebos."

 

Not only has the effectiveness of psychiatric drugs been oversold, but the real harm they may be doing has gone mostly unreported. For example, according to an impressive array of evidence presented by Pulitzer Prize nominated investigative reporter Robert Whitaker in Anatomy of an Epidemic, antidepressants appear to increase the lifetime rates of rapid cycling in bipolar patients. So the drugs that provide short-term relief actually worsen the disease they are meant to treat in the long-term. The response has been to add mood stabilizers and anti-psychotics, which have their own often disabling side effects, to offset the long-term instability produced by the antidepressants. So suppressing findings doesn't just give us billion dollar placebos. It gives us patent medicine that may be doing real harm.

 

Psychiatry, to its credit, has not taken these shocking ethical breeches lying down. Recently, the field had brought in tighter regulations in direct response to this and other scandals. Grand rounds speakers now must disclose their drug company funders; doctors can no longer accept valuable gifts, trips, or lavish meals from drug companies; drug reps' access to residents has been restricted; the FDA puts all results on-line, including negative results. That's progress.

 

But we need to face facts: Psychiatric research has become corrupted, not around the margins, but at its core. The scientific evidence that underlies psychiatrists' day-to-day prescription decisions is really marketing propaganda packaged as science. As a result, we can no longer trust psychiatrists' judgments and recommendations. "Garbage in, garbage out" is an old research aphorism--if the data is biased the results will be too. In this case, garbage data may be putting garbage toxic chemicals into our patient's bodies. We don't know, and can't know, if the pill psychiatrists are pushing today is the next Neurontin, or worse.

 

While pharmaceutical companies claim they spend 30 billion dollars a year on research, and this conjures images of bench scientists peering through microscopes searching for the next miracle drug, we now know most of that money is directed toward a wildly successful systematic misinformation campaign that has fooled doctors and harmed patients. The only way the field of psychiatry will ever have credibility again is if we can trust that its science is actually science. The current system of funding psychiatric research has a built-in conflict of interest the industry has shown an unrelenting ability to exploit. It can never be fixed, only at best it can be regulated around the margins. A slide before grand rounds showing the presenter's list of drug sponsors won't do it. The fox can't guard the henhouse. Period. We need a radical solution.

 

A psychiatric colleague of mine (who asked not to be named in this article) has come up with the only credible plan I've heard that can save psychiatry. Pass a law. Make drug companies give half of its $30 billion in research to the National Institute of Mental Health. Let them dole out the money to independent scientists around the country. The topics of study would be chosen by scientific merit to provide honest answers. The designs employed would be rigorous. The results would be accurately reported, including negative results, side effects, and both short-term and long-term adverse responses. And we could ask questions drug companies don't want us to ask. Are expensive patented drugs really more effective than cheaper off-patent drugs, or naturalistic cures, or therapy treatments?

 

We need to reevaluate ALL the psychiatric literature with a fine tooth comb. All studies conducted by marketing companies under the false pretenses of ghost authorship must be discarded.We need to figure out how they made it into the best peer reviewed journals and plug that gap.It's urgent that we assess what misinformation has already made it's way into clinical practice, and correct it. If there are more Neurontins out there, every working psychiatrist needs to get the memo. Actually it would be good if they all read the memo about Neurontin. There are still docs using it for bipolar disorder.

 

Even legitimate studies funded by drug companies in academic settings need new scrutiny. It's human nature to want to please the patron who is writing you a six or seven figure check and helping to make your career. It could influence what might appear to be small things, like not emphasizing problems "just a few" patients had with the drug. Those studies and their data should be reviewed by independent experts. While studies funded by NIMH grants and other independent sources should be given more weight.Maybe drug-money-free studies should have their own prominent logo to alert the reader to their added value.

 

This pollution of science challenges the legitimacy of the profession. We can't trust psychiatrists' medication recommendations when their "knowledge base" is in large part industry propaganda dressed in scientific clothing.

 

Not that long ago, most psychiatrists were therapists. But the profession has reinvented itself in a generation because Big Pharma offered them a deal they couldn't refuse. "Doing psychotherapy doesn't pay well enough. I can see three or four patients in an hour if I focus on medications" wrote Carlat. "The income differential is a powerful incentive to drop therapy from our repertoire of skills, and psychiatrists have generally followed the money."

 

Psychopharmacology has another advantage for psychiatrists: it's turf no other mental health profession can encroach on, whereas therapy has been invaded by psychologists, social workers, and counselors, commoditizing the practice of therapy, and driving down the insurance companies rates of reimbursement A psychiatrist can easily earn $600 and hour doing 15-minute med checks, where a psychologist typically earns $65 dollars an hour as a Blue Cross Blue Shield provider. When I got out of graduate school psychiatrists were earning about 50% more than psychologists. (A joke published in the APA Monitor at that time was "What's the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist? Answer: about $40,000 a year.") But now, psychiatrists can earn a 1,000% more.

 

Big Pharma has made psychiatrists rich, and now they can't live without it. If psychiatrists were not giving out samples and writing prescriptions for this industry's products... what expertise would they have and how could they earn a living? Big Pharma owns them.

 

Will incidents like the Neurontin scandal lead to fundamental reform? I doubt it. I mentioned the Neurontin debacle to an Ivy league affiliated psychiatric colleague yesterday. He seemed unimpressed. Waving his hand dismissively he said, "Neurontin doesn't work for bipolar disorder. We all know that now," as if it were yesterday's news. "But we're finding it works for anxiety," he added cheerfully. Really, says who? Shrugging off their half-billion dollar fine, it appears Neurontin's manufacturer is now pushing a new off-label use: anxiety. Big Pharma hasn't missed a beat, and psychiatry continues to march to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys... you're wasting your breath, with this one. He's repeating the same nonsense, over and over and OVER! Meanwhile, he hasn't figured out that nobody is taking him seriously.

 

You'd be better off telling him "you hope he drowns in a puddle of AIDS", and get it over with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys... you're wasting your breath, with this one. He's repeating the same nonsense, over and over and OVER! Meanwhile, he hasn't figured out that nobody is taking him seriously.

You'd be better off telling him "you hope he drowns in a puddle of AIDS", and get it over with.

Instead of spewing insults, are you able to provide any intelligent commentary to the post "Has Psychiatry Been Corrupted Beyond Repair? Fake science is causing real harm". I am probably asking too much, nonetheless the facts are the facts, like

 

- some 57 percent of the published scientific articles about Zoloft, for example, were written by the marketing firm Current Medical Directions and ghost authored by academics who had no part in the studies.

 

- Big Pharma has made psychiatrists rich, and now they can't live without it. If psychiatrists were not giving out samples and writing prescriptions for this industry's products... what expertise would they have and how could they earn a living? Big Pharma owns them.

 

The latter point is what I have said numerous times: psychiatry is a scam that benefits economically pharmaceutical companies and psychiatrists with the help of useful idiots like you :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by psychsurvivor. View it anyway?

You've been relegated to the padded room here at the Geek Club. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've been relegated to the padded room here at the Geek Club. :)

Honestly, I found this googling about Justina Pelletier.

 

I don't give a damn about what a group of proud ignorant people decide to do with the information I have provided. Now you have the facts. The decision to continue to live in ignorance and obscurity is now your own not mine :).

 

I feel for your poor mother. What a pathetic control freak daughter she had. No wonder you drove her nuts, LITERALLY :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're an emotional focking cripple. Your soul is dogshitt. Every single focking thing about you is ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry.

 

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

Google "natural history schizophrenia". Hint: Most patients with acute psychosis do worse without meds, often to the point of severe debility. And once the acute problem is addressed, relapse rates without meds are higher. None of this is relevant if you don't recognize acute psychosis is a problem, however.

 

But most of the data come from resource limited/developing world settings. Is it ethical to withhold medication which has proven effective to determine how people do without it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of spewing insults,

 

...... useful idiots like you :).

 

Classic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you ignore posts?

Under your screen name in the top right corner there is an option for manage ignore prefs. Just type in his screen name and you can "poof" him. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under your screen name in the top right corner there is an option for manage ignore prefs. Just type in his screen name and you can "poof" him. :)

But then how will you ever see the guy who hates the entire mental healthcare industry prove top everyone that he needs all the care they can possibly offer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the 6th grades girls are back in class to gossip about the ugly girl again,

You focking losers realize how pathetically focking gay you are ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then how will you ever see the guy who hates the entire mental healthcare industry prove top everyone that he needs all the care they can possibly offer?

This is the first time (and probably the last) I have ever had to use that function. But the insults about how I took care of my mother were about to make me postal. Obviously, it's a touchy subject...

 

And I probably have thicker skin than most around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the 6th grades girls are back in class to gossip about the ugly girl again,

You focking losers realize how pathetically focking gay you are ?

Let me guess, you're defending the basket case ass hole who is against all psychiatric care and has determined that Old Maid totally screwed up and mistreated her mother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me guess, you're defending the basket case ass hole who is against all psychiatric care and has determined that Old Maid totally screwed up and mistreated her mother?

im not defending anyone, im just calling you and your group of grade school girls behavior as i see it, in almost every thread, pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the 6th grades girls are back in class to gossip about the ugly girl again,

You focking losers realize how pathetically focking gay you are ?

You best pipe down or we're coming for you next, fat man :bandana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not defending anyone, im just calling you and your group of grade school girls behavior as i see it, in almost every thread, pathetic.

Then leave, Neanderthal. You offer nothing anyway. NO one would miss you one bit. Except other doodhbags like phurfur and the mental patient in this thead. All you do is post smilies and pat the board ass holes on the back. The fatter you've gotten, the more bitter you've gotten. It's a shame what's become of you. Try eating a few salads. Once you stop hating yourself, you'll stop hating everyone else. :wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the 6th grades girls are back in class to gossip about the ugly girl again,

You focking losers realize how pathetically focking gay you are ?

 

 

im not defending anyone, im just calling you and your group of grade school girls behavior as i see it, in almost every thread, pathetic.

 

Talk about grade school...and how is this different than what you did in this thread...what you do in almost every political thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope ill stay here and berate you pathetics losers again and again and again :)

As you get fatter and fatter and fatter. And more bitter. :music_guitarred:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not defending anyone, im just calling you and your group of grade school girls behavior as i see it, in almost every thread, pathetic.

:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to read the thread without scrolling through paragraphs of word salad. :dunno:

so do i, was enjoying the debate between yourself and phsyc, but you know how grade school girls get when the attention spotlight doesn't shine on them for a little while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no. The fat plumber who can't get a date called me a grade school girl. :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread was awesome. :lol:

:thumbsup: Agreed

 

It's not often we get a guest mental patient to liven things up. And to reiterate just why there are insane asylums.

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  

×