Justina Pelletier

[IGotWorms 3,316]

Some defenders of BCH claim that since all their other children are adults, there is no custody to be taken away. But of course, that avoids the fact that my understanding is that at least at the beginning of the ordeal, one of their other daughters was still I minor (now she is in college and there was never any word that she should be taken from their parents' custody). Also, Connecticut DCF had been in the Pelletiers' home checking the parents (it begs repeating that this visits were always AFTER JUSTINA'S CUSTODY WAS STOLEN, NOT EARLIER) and saw no reasons to open a case against the Pelletiers under Connecticut law.

 

So Massachusetts' DCF, without having visited the Pelletiers' home or their neighbors, think they have a case of "medical child abuse". Connecticut's DCF after having visited the Pelletiers on the request of Massachusetts' DCF thinks that there is no case.

 

You add the evil nature of psychiatrists, and you have all you need to understand this case!

That's just absurd. Surely you don't believe every single practicing psychiatrist is malicious at their very core?

[penultimatestraw 473]

You know, when gay activists were asking for gay marriage 15 years ago, they were told the same thing, "too extreme". Look now. If you had told me two years ago that Tom Insel would be writing this http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml or this http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/antipsychotics-taking-the-long-view.shtml I would have said "you must be kidding me". Yet, those two posts echo many points that just two years ago were dismissed as "anti psychiatry". Boy, the first one is Thomas Szasz on steroids!

Get back to me in 15 years. I'll wager psychiatry and psychopharmacotherapy will still be around, and a very small subset of patients will be hospitalized against their will. But keep fighting the good fight!

[psychsurvivor 2]

OK, I'm gonna go nuclear here: what if someone had sought civil commitment of Adam Lanza before he murdered all those little kids? Of Jared Lee Loughner? James Holmes? Ted Kaczinsky? Etc, etc.

Would committing those individuals be "unacceptable on civil rights grounds"?

Obviously I'm going with some extreme examples here, but you are making a very extreme argument

Also, you know that by locking up preemptively black people you could avoid half of all 11000 crimes that are committed each year, way more than those "allegedly" committed by so called "seriously mentally ill". Are you willing to make a case for the preemptive lock up of black, particularly young black makes in inner cities which are the ones that kill most of those 5000 killed by blacks in the US? Isn't a dead body, a dead body?

[Googballz 39]

Nobody is avoiding it, you're asking for a degree of speculation we just can't engage in. Maybe they think this child is the only one being abused for whatever reason. Maybe they just don't know enough about how the other children are treated. Maybe they figure taking away all the kids is too extreme so they're only focusing on the worst case. Who the hell knows without more facts, just like who knows whether the father's story is the be all and end all without hearing any other perspective.

 

Or if psychsurvivor is right and none of them are minors anymore, then that pretty much ends the inquiry right there

Oh. So now guys need all the facts.

 

That's strange since Penultimate made several medical diagnosis simply from reading a single quote in a news story.

 

Also, Psych pointed out at least one was still a minor when they took away Justina. Every case of child abuse I have read about involves removing all other minors from the home to avoid them being abused. That did not occur in this case.

[IGotWorms 3,316]

You know that Stephen King is known to have had similar thoughts but he decided NOT TO do anything rather to write about them and make a lot of money in the process?

 

It might be uncomfortable to you but according with that hate group called the "Treatment Advocacy Center" there are 2 million so called "seriously mentally ill" in circulation http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/09/25/guns-mental-health-gun-control-mass-shooting-editorials-debates/2873387/ . If these people were as dangerous as you make them look like, we would be having a Sandy Hook style massacre every minute. We do not see that happen because there is a great deal of baloney behind your propaganda.

 

Once you think scientifically about this, you see your argument for what it is: propaganda inspired by bigotry towards what you don't understand.

So you concede that you would've opposed any efforts to commit Lanza, Loughner, Kaczinsky or any of the other mentally ill people whose illness later caused them to commit many heinous acts?

 

I am fully aware that many mentally ill people never harm anyone. That's beside the point here as I'm simply trying to point out that your absolutist anti-psychiatry views are quite extreme.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Get back to me in 15 years. I'll wager psychiatry and psychopharmacotherapy will still be around, and a very small subset of patients will be hospitalized against their will. But keep fighting the good fight!

15 years is too ambitious of a goal (although given how things precipitated in 2013, it is difficult to say). I can say this. After the 2013 debacle, I see the abolition of coercive psychiatry as achievable in my lifetime (say next 30-40 years). Unlike previous crises of psychiatry, that happened behind the APA doors, the debate about the validity of the DSM-5, and the DSM in particular, happened in the internet and there is plenty of online testimony (including video) that will come back to bite them. In fact, the Justina case is already pushing some in Washington for the passage of a federal law that says that psych diagnoses cannot override medical diagnoses. The Pelletiers are today in DC meeting with federal legislators about their experience. So!!!

[IGotWorms 3,316]

Oh. So now guys need all the facts.

 

That's strange since Penultimate made several medical diagnosis simply from reading a single quote in a news story.

 

Also, Pshych pointed out at least one was still a minor when they took away Justina. Every case of child abuse I have read about involves removing all other minors from the home to avoid them being abused. That did not occur in this case.

You, psychsurvivor, Phurfur, and drobeski (quite a distinguished list of names there!) are the ones who are convinced that the father's self-serving account in the media is absolutely 100% accurate and complete.

 

All penultimate said is "hey wait a minute, there's probably another side to the story that we won't hear because the doctors are obliged not to betray confidential patient information." And he was right. HTH

[psychsurvivor 2]

So you concede that you would've opposed any efforts to commit Lanza, Loughner, Kaczinsky or any of the other mentally ill people whose illness later caused them to commit many heinous acts?

I am fully aware that many mentally ill people never harm anyone. That's beside the point here as I'm simply trying to point out that your absolutist anti-psychiatry views are quite extreme.

Sure, just as I opposed locking up all black people even though such preemptive lock up would have a far more reaching effect reducing violent deaths than your proposal of letting psychs decide who should be locked up. It's called, I am a civil libertarian while you are a bigot .

[psychsurvivor 2]

That's just absurd. Surely you don't believe every single practicing psychiatrist is malicious at their very core?

Well, I am sure that there were masters that were good to their slaves while slavery was legal in the US, but the moral principle that slavery was evil prevailed. I hope the same will happen with coercive psychiatry. People like you will be laughed at in 50 years for defending social control on innocent people who have committed no crimes.

[Phurfur 70]

To me this is about a socialist government taking a child from her parents.

[Googballz 39]

You, psychsurvivor, Phurfur, and drobeski (quite a distinguished list of names there!) are the ones who are convinced that the father's self-serving account in the media is absolutely 100% accurate and complete.

 

All penultimate said is "hey wait a minute, there's probably another side to the story that we won't hear because the doctors are obliged not to betray confidential patient information." And he was right. HTH

 

 

I have seen the parents interviewed a few times. They don't seem crazy to me, but who knows. On the face of it I think the hospital is out of line.

 

 

That is twice in this thread I used that post to make you look like an idiot.

 

And Penultimate is not just saying there is another side. He said the parents were crazy and the sister was hiding abuse do to some syndrome he diagnosed.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Listening to him, you would get the impression that there is NEVER any legitimate use for psychiatry. Guy doesn't even limit his discussion to involuntary commitment even though that's really the only part of psychiatric treatment relevant to his argument.

And he blames the psychiatrists for everything, equating their actions to slavery/racism/homophobia/etc. The key point he fails to address is the non-psychiatrists doubted the mitochondrial diagnosis to initiate the psych evaluation. Are their medical opinions similarly invalid?

[psychsurvivor 2]

And he blames the psychiatrists for everything, equating their actions to slavery/racism/homophobia/etc. The key point he fails to address is the non-psychiatrists doubted the mitochondrial diagnosis to initiate the psych evaluation. Are their medical opinions similarly invalid?

I am sorry, but indeed, psychiatrists in the past labelled both gays and black people seeking freedom as "mentally ill". Are you disputing the historical record? Are you some sort of denialist who also denies this,

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4

 

"The programme officially ran from September 1939[5][6] to August 1941 during which 70,273 people were killed at various extermination centres located at psychiatric hospitals in Germany and Austria"

 

There is also evidence that the label "schizophrenia" was used to suppress civil rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protest_Psychosis .

 

In light of this evidence (and that psychiatry as you yourself admit "makes up" its diseases out of thin air), I don't see how any decent person can still defend the BCH actions in this case, really.

[penultimatestraw 473]

It looks like a defense of astrology to me. I have met many people for whom knowing their "natal chart" served them very well. I could say the same thing about homeopathy. I don't think that I should work very hard to convince you that government should have no business enforcing pseudo science.

Psychiatry is an imperfect science, not akin to your comparators. There are scientifically validated trails of psychiatric therapies, including medications. But there are also problems with holding psychiatry to the standards of other medical disciplines; this article briefly mentions some of the challenges: http://www.bmj.com/content/319/7209/562

[IGotWorms 3,316]

To me this is about a socialist government taking a child from her parents.

What if this were an abuse situation that would be a little easier for you to wrap your head around: say they were savagely beating this child on a regular basis, to the extent she was going to the hospital with broken bones, etc. Would that still be a case of "a socialist government taking a child from her parents"?

[Sho Nuff 719]

Even giving psychiatry a value that ontologically doesn't deserve, when such a situation happens, per Massachusetts own laws according to Alan Dershowitz stated, it is the parents' prerogative not the judge's to make the final call.

 

This is the big obstacle that nobody willing to give BCH the benefit of the doubt has yet surmounted: judges DO NOT HAVE a legal right to override the parents' decisions in medical disputes unless there is a crime being committed (and we would all agree that no criminal charges have been filed against the Pelletiers).

 

BTW, I would appreciate you use the work "psych survivor" or "psych" alone to refer to me. "Psycho" has very negative connotations, like calling "negro" a black person or "######" a gay man. You get the idea.

 

I have typically referred to you as psych...if I did use psycho it was a mistake. My bad.

Though, I also ask that you speak in a civil tone to others and don't just start throwing out terms like bigot because they don't believe as you do.

 

Not all abuse cases or those where a child is removed from a home result in legal charges against the parent.

So people can take that line of defense here and pretty much throw it out as it really has no bearing on anything.

[Phurfur 70]

You, psychsurvivor, Phurfur, and drobeski (quite a distinguished list of names there!) are the ones who are convinced that the father's self-serving account in the media is absolutely 100% accurate and complete.

All penultimate said is "hey wait a minute, there's probably another side to the story that we won't hear because the doctors are obliged not to betray confidential patient information." And he was right. HTH

Link to where I said this you Lyin' pile of crap.

[Phurfur 70]

BTW, I would appreciate you use the work "psych survivor" or "psych" alone to refer to me. "Psycho" has very negative connotations, like calling "negro" a black person or "######" a gay man. You get the idea.

wow, you must be a massive loser. I cannot believe someone actually posted crap like this. You truly are a Psycho.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Some defenders of BCH claim that since all their other children are adults, there is no custody to be taken away. But of course, that avoids the fact that my understanding is that at least at the beginning of the ordeal, one of their other daughters was still I minor (now she is in college and there was never any word that she should be taken from their parents' custody). Also, Connecticut DCF had been in the Pelletiers' home checking the parents (it begs repeating that this visits were always AFTER JUSTINA'S CUSTODY WAS STOLEN, NOT EARLIER) and saw no reasons to open a case against the Pelletiers under Connecticut law.

 

So Massachusetts' DCF, without having visited the Pelletiers' home or their neighbors, think they have a case of "medical child abuse". Connecticut's DCF after having visited the Pelletiers on the request of Massachusetts' DCF thinks that there is no case.

 

You add the evil nature of psychiatrists, and you have all you need to understand this case!

 

Or just because they have reason to believe there was medical abuse of one child...does not mean they take all of them away without reason to do so.

In addition,the bolded is what makes your argument weaker.

Its an absolute to you that psychiatrists are evil...impliying they all are...which is a ridiculous claim.

[NewbieJr 540]

wow, you must be a massive loser. I cannot believe someone actually posted crap like this. You truly are a Psycho.

I'm sure you prefer the word 'elderly' over 'batshit crazy ole' geezer'. Please respect others as well.

[Sho Nuff 719]

To me this is about a socialist government taking a child from her parents.

 

Of course it is that to you...though, none of this has anything to do with socialism...and what does the government gain from doing so?

[NewbieJr 540]

 

Of course it is that to you...though, none of this has anything to do with socialism...and what does the government gain from doing so?

You, sir, do NOT understand MK Ultra!!!

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

 

 

 

That is twice in this thread I used that post to make you look like an idiot.

 

And Penultimate is not just saying there is another side. He said the parents were crazy and the sister was hiding abuse do to some syndrome he diagnosed.

 

Ill break my vow to not really reply to you.

Your bolded statement is false...I proved it a few pages ago with what Pen actually said.

 

 

Wouldn't be surprised if this is a case of Munchausen by proxy or medical child abuse, where her parents are fabricating Justina's illness because they are crazy.

 

There it is again...apparently the whole "would be surprised if" part is completely lost on you.

So you have repeated this claim that he stated they were crazy over and over again hoping it would stick.

In essence, you continue to just look completely stupid every time you post this.

He destroyed every argument you made.

At least psychsurvivor has come with knowledge, links, facts...despite his bias clouding some of what he has said...he makes great points.

You...your typical talking out your ass without having any clue.

[Googballz 39]

 

Ill break my vow to not really reply to you.

 

 

That vow lasted about an hour.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

That vow lasted about an hour.

 

Actually it had been a while since I directly replied to you...you aren't very good at this.

Oh, and I destroyed your point.

Funny also how this reply is the exact same as when you tried it as RP.

But yeah, you can keep claiming you are not him.

 

Better yet...let the two people who actually have a clue about this topic talk...rather than you butting in to add nothing more than a very bad misrepresentation of what Pen actually said.

[drobeski 3,061]

Amazing jump to conclusions from self proffesed proffesionals.

[psychsurvivor 2]

So mischaracterization of now acceptable behaviors in the past invalidates the entire discipline of psychiatry for all eternity?

 

Whether you admit it or not, or whether applicable to you individually, many people function better and live more productive lives as a result of psychiatrists. Some of them benefit immensely from psychiatric medications. It isn't a big conspiracy perpetuated by egomaniacal, Svengalian physicians and the pharmaceutical industry, or government for that matter. And most of them aren't forced to take their meds.

 

No conspiracy implied in any way. Capitalism does the trick. With respect to "many people function better and live more productive lives as a result of psychiatrists" the same is true of astrologers and practitioners of homeopathy. How do we know? Because there are many of them in business with people willingly giving them money without government coercion ; for every pseudo science there is a market, be it the "position of the stars", the "infinitesimal dilutions" or the "chemical imbalance". That is how we humans are!

[psychsurvivor 2]

Psychiatry is an imperfect science, not akin to your comparators. There are scientifically validated trails of psychiatric therapies, including medications. But there are also problems with holding psychiatry to the standards of other medical disciplines; this article briefly mentions some of the challenges: http://www.bmj.com/content/319/7209/562

How do you have the guts to bring a study from 1999, the golden eara of Big Pharma corrupted trials! Let me give you some more recent information,

 

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045

 

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa065779

 

Both performed on data obtained with Freedom of Information Act (aka FOIA) requests submitted to the FDA to get the data that Big Pharma companies do not publish. If you are too lazy or lack the scientific background to understand either, let me give you the version that 60 Minutes did for the general public,

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zihdr36WVi4

[psychsurvivor 2]

Though, I also ask that you speak in a civil tone to others and don't just start throwing out terms like bigot because they don't believe as you do.

 

Thanks for your comment. On the "bigot" thing, believing that there is scientific "truth" to the DSM labels is bigotry. In fact, Bob Whitaker gave this talk about how the notion of "normal" vs "not normal" that lies in the DSM categories traces its origins historically to the eugenics movement (it's the modern manifestation of "fit" vs "unfit") ,

 

 

 

With every form of massive civil rights abuse, there is always somebody who calls it for what it is, despite the fact that many get offended when the truth is presented naked to them.

[IGotWorms 3,316]

Thanks for your comment. On the "bigot" thing, believing that there is scientific "truth" to the DSM labels is bigotry. In fact, Bob Whitaker gave this talk about how the notion of "normal" vs "not normal" that lies in the DSM categories traces its origins historically to the eugenics movement (it's the modern manifestation of "fit" vs "unfit") ,

 

 

 

With every form of massive civil rights abuse, there is always somebody who calls it for what it is, despite the fact that many get offended when the truth is presented naked to them.

Is it your contention that every doctor who has ever diagnosed any form of mental illness is a bigot?

 

Certainly there is some stigma attached to mental illness and that is wrong--you'll get no argument from me there. But it is a couple bridges too far to say that recognizing mental illness is "bigoted" in every instance.

 

It'd be like calling me a bigot for recognizing that someone has a broken leg and suggesting that they might need to get it set.

[penultimatestraw 473]

How do you have the guts to bring a study from 1999, the golden eara of Big Pharma corrupted trials! Let me give you some more recent information,

 

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045

 

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa065779

 

Both performed on data obtained with Freedom of Information Act (aka FOIA) requests submitted to the FDA to get the data that Big Pharma companies do not publish. If you are too lazy or lack the scientific background to understand either, let me give you the version that 60 Minutes did for the general public,

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zihdr36WVi4

Holy crap, you didn't even read my link. It isn't a study, but a commentary on the difficulties in performing randomized controlled trials in psychiatry. In case you weren't aware, RCTs are considered the gold standard in performing medical research, assigned the highest level of quality of evidence when used to develop treatment guidelines. The two articles you link are derived from meta analyses and literature reviews, which are OK but far less convincing in terms of scientific merit.

 

If you want recent studies, enter your psych therapy of choice into Pubmed's search engine, and limit results to randomized trials done in the last 5 years. I tried it for antidepressants and got 1731 results...so the scientific data exists. Care to repeat that strategy for astrology, homeopathy, etc.?

[penultimatestraw 473]

Is it your contention that every doctor who has ever diagnosed any form of mental illness is a bigot?

Yes. And racist, homophobic, greedy, self-serving, and downright evil. There is no human, nay organism, worse than a psychiatrist. Thank goodness psychsurvivor has devoted his life to stamping them out before we are all enslaved at their hands.

[FeelingMN 273]

My cousin has OCD with Tourette's and has been on meds forever. He lives in Chicago and is a school counselor. Next time I talk to him, I'll have to ask how his civil rights have been trampled.

[NewbieJr 540]

I can't help but to compare psychsurvivor to a guy who bought a Lincoln in 1992 and had problems with it and has spent the rest of his life saying that he'll never own another Lincoln. Not only that, but he's trying to convince everyone else that all Lincolns are bad and should not be owned. Definitely a case of a guy with an agenda based on a personal bad experience. To dismiss the entire psychiatrist field as scammers, evil, greedy, etc is showing signs that he's not totally cured.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I can't help but to compare psychsurvivor to a guy who bought a Lincoln in 1992 and had problems with it and has spent the rest of his life saying that he'll never own another Lincoln. Not only that, but he's trying to convince everyone else that all Lincolns are bad and should not be owned. Definitely a case of a guy with an agenda based on a personal bad experience. To dismiss the entire psychiatrist field as scammers, evil, greedy, etc is showing signs that he's not totally cured.

Pretty good comparison, except all Lincolns are terrible. Except that guy who freed the slaves, only to have them captured by the diabolical psychiatrists.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Thanks for your comment. On the "bigot" thing, believing that there is scientific "truth" to the DSM labels is bigotry. In fact, Bob Whitaker gave this talk about how the notion of "normal" vs "not normal" that lies in the DSM categories traces its origins historically to the eugenics movement (it's the modern manifestation of "fit" vs "unfit") ,

 

 

 

With every form of massive civil rights abuse, there is always somebody who calls it for what it is, despite the fact that many get offended when the truth is presented naked to them.

 

For all your talk of how smart you are...you don't seem to understand the term bigot or how some might find it offensive in a discussion like this.

 

In addition, by the definition of the word, you seem more like the bigot here as far as your tolerance of other people's opinions as well as your level of hatred in the tone you have had for those who don't agree with you 100%.

[psychsurvivor 2]

For all your talk of how smart you are...you don't seem to understand the term bigot or how some might find it offensive in a discussion like this.

 

In addition, by the definition of the word, you seem more like the bigot here as far as your tolerance of other people's opinions as well as your level of hatred in the tone you have had for those who don't agree with you 100%.

Oh, I am smart. I have the credentials and the nature of my work to prove it. I might not be "Einstein type of smart" but I can comfortably say that I place in the top 1-2 % of the general population. That aside. With respect to the discussion that matters, what "bigotry" is, it is in the eye of the beholder. With today's standards, the 40% of the APA members that voted to keep homosexuality as "mental illness" are bigoted. Needless to say those who believed in "Drapetomania" during the XIX-th century. It might be that those of us who are anti psychiatry have a deeper understanding of civil rights than people like you or those who insist that because psychiatry "helps some people", it is a legitimate form of medicine.

 

My position on psychiatry is 100% coincident with what Phil Hickey explains here http://www.behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2014/01/09/psychiatry-is-not-based-on-valid-science/ . I have come up with an analogy of my own which explains in more lay terms what this means, so here it is. It comes from the world of computers and that I have used at several places to attack psychiatry: hardware and software.

 

I don't know what operating system you use for your personal computer, but it is likely to be Windows or MacOS. In either case, one thing is the "software", ie, the "instructions" that tell the computer what to do, which, with current computers, are executed at the rate of several billions per second, quite another the computer that runs those instructions. By "instructions" I do not mean just the instructions of the CPU but the general concept of a set of deterministic rules that tell the computer what to do in every interaction with users but also with peripherals (your printer, scanner, camera, etc). These "instructions" are a pure abstract concept that are usually expressed in some kind of computing language, but they remain an "idea". But the instructions themselves and their expression in a given language are different things, just as the idea "I love chocolate" can be expressed in many different languages.

 

If I give you a computer and it were possible for you to monitor the billions of switches that run "software" you are not going to "see" any of those abstractions. You will see a computer running the abstractions.

 

Now, going back to this. In computer science, and science in general, the distinction hardware vs software is perfectly understood. Nobody would call a software engineer to fix your broken hard disk, just as nobody would call a hardware engineer to fix a genuine software problem such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_leak . Surely, adding memory to the computer can provide temporary relief, but the right way to fix it is to reprogram the computer.

 

In this analogy, psychiatrists are hardware engineers trying to fix software problems.

 

When I say this, I am usually told that the analogy is too simplistic, which I concede but, the ways the analogy breaks make the case against psychiatry stronger, not weaker:

 

- Computers do not have "free will", we do. Whether this "free will" is real or an illusion is irrelevant. "Free will" is embedded in our laws and is a basic prerequisite for the establishment of civil society. So, while in theory it is perfectly possible to predict what a given computer will do in every case (the same inputs, no matter how large those inputs are, always result in the same result), in humans, the same inputs not only result in different results for different humans but also the same human at different times. This aspect of human nature is what makes endeavors like economics so unable to make good predictions.

 

- In computers what a good "hardware" is can be perfectly defined. It's equivalent in humans, "a good brain" can also be defined to a certain degree using only biological parameters. To a certain degree, what "good software" is can also be defined with metrics such as "how fast does the operating system boots" or "how many scientific computations does this computer do per second". I say to a certain degree because there is no possible way to say whether the user interface of Windows is "better looking" than that of MacOS; it's a matter of taste. In humans, because of our subjectivity, there is no real definition of "good software" (ie, "good mind") or "normal software" (ie "normal mind"). The right way to deal with "abnormal minds" is the criminal justice system. And even then, at least in constitutional democracies that protect individual rights, there are issues the criminal system cannot criminalize, such as political speech. Again, psychiatry sells the lie that there is such a thing as a "normal mind" that can be "fixed" through biological interventions.

 

So, with this understanding, surely I believe that those who think that the "disorders" categories of the DSM are actual "mind diseases" are bigoted. You might not like a guy who hears voices, but as long as he/she doesn't commit any crimes, it is not your business that he does. There are plenty of voice hearers who lead productive lives only after they sent psychiatry to hell, like

 

 

PS: I know what you might be thinking. Is this guy for real, namely, a highly educated guy that doesn't buy into the secular sacred text known as "DSM"? Sure I am for real. I might even be your neighbor, you never know!

[Sho Nuff 719]

Long posts don't make you smart.

And most who are actually smart...don't have to brag about it.

No doubt you have done a lot of homework on the subject....doesn't really make you smart.

 

I doubt you are my neighbor...one is a psychiatrist...the other owns a gas station.

 

Anyway...carry on...interesting stuff when you are not coming off as a biased person with an axe to grind against everyone.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Holy crap, you didn't even read my link. It isn't a study, but a commentary on the difficulties in performing randomized controlled trials in psychiatry. In case you weren't aware, RCTs are considered the gold standard in performing medical research, assigned the highest level of quality of evidence when used to develop treatment guidelines. The two articles you link are derived from meta analyses and literature reviews, which are OK but far less convincing in terms of scientific merit.

 

If you want recent studies, enter your psych therapy of choice into Pubmed's search engine, and limit results to randomized trials done in the last 5 years. I tried it for antidepressants and got 1731 results...so the scientific data exists. Care to repeat that strategy for astrology, homeopathy, etc.?

I am not surprised you missed what happened in the last 5 years that made all your arguments about how good RTCs in psychiatry "allegedly" are to be invalid. Since it would take me too long to explain, I invite you to read http://1boringoldman.com/ which is written by a believer in psychiatry (he is a retired psychiatrist). He has written extensively about the fraud that has affected many of these "alleged" rigorous studies.

 

When you have massive fraud of the kind that affected the clinical trials in psychiatry during the 1980s, 1990s and the most part of the 2000s, metastudies on the raw data are about the only thing that can tell what is going on with some degree of accuracy (since they average out things like selection and publication bias). And the result for SSRIs cannot be more conclusive: they are basically "active placebos". This also explains why they work for "some people" but they don't work for "other people" or why whatever boost people might get from an increase of serotonin in their brain, a death of a loved one is still the death of a loved one.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Long posts don't make you smart.

And most who are actually smart...don't have to brag about it.

No doubt you have done a lot of homework on the subject....doesn't really make you smart.

 

I doubt you are my neighbor...one is a psychiatrist...the other owns a gas station.

 

Anyway...carry on...interesting stuff when you are not coming off as a biased person with an axe to grind against everyone.

I never said that long posts make me smart. I am saying my own credentials and the type of work that I do for a living is what prove that I am smart (I plan to out myself at some point in the next 10-20 years to work exclusively in anti psychiatry). If I don't die earlier because of some unfortunate event, you'll understand then what I mean.

 

As to the "long posts", well, if you find something that you would like to refute in the analogy with computers, let me know and I'll be happy to engage in a discussion with you on the topic.

 

I stand by what I said, those who believe that DSM labels are genuine diseases are bigots and I have explained cogently why. The burden of proof lies on you to tell me what is "diseased" in the case of somebody like Eleanor Longden or yours truly. You might not understand the way our minds operate, which is fine, but to call them "disordered" is an exercise of bigotry.