Justina Pelletier

[psychsurvivor 2]

Again, most of the studies performed up to around 2008 are suspect of publication/selection bias. E H Turner, the author of the review published at the New England Journal of Medicine on SSRIs, did a larger study on other areas of psychiatry. His conclusion,

 

You can continue to have faith on the psychopharmacological industrial complex, but you do it at your own peril.

Looks like the link to the entire article is missing, here is a link to the abstract from PubMed,

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23696308

 

"Publication bias undermines the integrity of the evidence base by inflating apparent drug efficacy and minimizing drug harms, thus skewing the risk-benefit ratio. This paper reviews the topic of publication bias with a focus on drugs prescribed for psychiatric conditions, especially depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and autism. Publication bias is pervasive; although psychiatry/psychology may be the most seriously afflicted field, it occurs throughout medicine and science. Responsibility lies with various parties (authors as well as journals, academia as well as industry), so the motives appear to extend beyond the financial interests of drug companies. The desire for success, in combination with cognitive biases, can also influence academic authors and journals. Amid the flood of new medical information coming out each day, the attention of the news media and academic community is more likely to be captured by studies whose results are positive or newsworthy. In the peer review system, a fundamental flaw arises from the fact that authors usually write manuscripts after they know the results. This allows hindsight and other biases to come into play, so data can be "tortured until they confess" (a detailed example is given). If a "publishable" result cannot be achieved, non-publication remains an option. To address publication bias, various measures have been undertaken, including registries of clinical trials. Drug regulatory agencies can provide valuable unpublished data. It is suggested that journals borrow from the FDA review model. Because the significance of study results biases reviewers, results should be excluded from review until after a preliminary judgment of study scientific quality has been rendered, based on the original study protocol. Protocol publication can further enhance the credibility of the published literature."

[penultimatestraw 473]

The brains of OCD folks have a unique signature and have shown heritability. Seems like it's biological in origin.

 

Whatever. Just part of the continuum of what form the brain can take. So I can buy into no such thing as a "diseased" brain.

 

The thing is there is a distinction between normal/abnormal behavior. All societies draw this distinction. And in our society, if your behavior precludes you from assimilating successfully within our society....don't get along with others.....can't hold a job...then we start to look for reasons such behaviors might arise.

 

OCD isn't a big deal if you can integrate yourself into society. If it prevents you from doing so.....if you are constantly late to work because you need to constantly check if the front door is locked....yeah, it might be a problem.

Yep. OCD also happens to respond very well to therapy, both pharmacologic and cognitive. The problem is people start treatment, feel better, then stop and relapse into pathological behavior. Where one draws the line between normal and abnormal is subjective, of course, but the ability to lead a productive life is easier to define.

 

But you're right that it doesn't really matter if their disease doesn't prevent them from functioning in society, which is conveniently included in most DSM diagnoses.

[psychsurvivor 2]

But you're right that it doesn't really matter if their disease doesn't prevent them from functioning in society, which is conveniently included in most DSM diagnoses.

Sorry for insisting in this, it is the scientist within me, really, not the "OCD". Do you have any scientific evidence that "OCD" is a "brain disease" just as CJD is a "brain disease"? I would love to learn about it really (and I assume so would the APA folks who are desperate for said evidence so people like me stop accusing them of inventing diseases ).

 

Until that happens, speaking of OCD in terms of "disease" is pure speculation.

[penultimatestraw 473]

This dude is nearly a textbook case of delusional disorder. No I am not a psychiatrist but you run into people with psychotic disorders fairly often in the criminal justice system, as you might imagine

Read up on narcissistic personal disorder: http://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/carrerasdegrado/psicologia/sitios_catedras/practicas_profesionales/820_clinica_tr_personalidad_psicosis/material/dsm.pdf

[psychsurvivor 2]

Read up on narcissistic personal disorder: http://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/carrerasdegrado/psicologia/sitios_catedras/practicas_profesionales/820_clinica_tr_personalidad_psicosis/material/dsm.pdf

WOW, on the spot, contradictory diagnoses!

 

I am enjoying this. When the facts are put on the table that clearly state that psychiatry is a non scientific discipline that invents diseases, the pro psychiatry zealots resort to what they now best, throwing DSM insults.

 

In fact, that different pro psychiatry zealots arrive to different diagnoses based on same observed behavior was already documented in 1968 http://journals.lww.com/jonmd/Citation/1968/10000/Suggestion_Effects_in_Psychiatric_Diagnosis.3.aspx . It seems not much has changed in 50 years of psychiatric "research" .

[Googballz 39]

Read up on narcissistic personal disorder: http://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/carrerasdegrado/psicologia/sitios_catedras/practicas_profesionales/820_clinica_tr_personalidad_psicosis/material/dsm.pdf

Why did you have to bring politics into this thread? Leave Obama out of it.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Again, most of the studies performed up to around 2008 are suspect of publication/selection bias. E H Turner, the author of the review published at the New England Journal of Medicine on SSRIs, did a larger study on other areas of psychiatry. His conclusion,

 

 

 

You can continue to have faith on the psychopharmacological industrial complex, but you do it at your own peril.

Try Pubmed search, limiting to RCT after 2008.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Why did you have to bring politics into this thread? Leave Obama out of it.

This was an important experiment though, something that has been repeatedly found in experiments such as Rosenhan's and the work of Maurice Temerlin. The DSM-III was supposed to fix this issue, but apparently with DSM-5 things got our of hand,

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201205/newsflash-apa-meeting-dsm-5-has-flunked-its-reliability-tests

The whole purpose of having a manual of psychiatric diagnosis is to promote diagnostic agreement. The great value to the field of DSM III was that it established reliability and preserved the credibility of psychiatry at a time when it was becoming irrelevant because it seemed that psychiatrists could not agree on a diagnosis. Everyone knew that the reliability achieved in DSM field testing far exceeds what is possible in clinical practice, but DSM III took the major step of proving that reliability could be achieved at all. Until now, the DSM's have facilitated communication across the clinical/research interface, promoted research, and provide credibility in the court room.

 

But bad news has just been reported from the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Philadelphia. The hard won credibility of psychiatric diagnosis is compromised by the abysmal results reported by the DSM 5 Field Trials.

 

Again, not psychsurvivor, but Allen Frances who said that!

[psychsurvivor 2]

Try Pubmed search, limiting to RCT after 2008.

You are mixing up stuff. Sure, there have been RTCs published since 2008, but they do not enjoy any credibility. In fact, the NIMH has changed the its policy for the type of trials it will fund in the future,

 

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2014/a-new-approach-to-clinical-trials.shtml

 

An explicit admission that existing RTC trials in psychiatry are baloney.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Sorry for insisting in this, it is the scientist within me, really, not the "OCD". Do you have any scientific evidence that "OCD" is a "brain disease" just as CJD is a "brain disease"? I would love to learn about it really (and I assume so would the APA folks who are desperate for said evidence so people like me stop accusing them of inventing diseases ).

 

Until that happens, speaking of OCD in terms of "disease" is pure speculation.

I am not a psychiatrist or neuropsychiatric researcher, but I can assure you OCD, as defined by the DSM, is a maladaptive behavior which limits the functionality of some of the afflicted. And it is treatable using both drugs and behavioral therapies. Understanding every aspect of its neurobiology will not change those facts, nor will labeling it a disease/disorder. Or removing the label.

[penultimatestraw 473]

You are mixing up stuff. Sure, there have been RTCs published since 2008, but they do not enjoy any credibility. In fact, the NIMH has changed the its policy for the type of trials it will fund in the future,

 

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2014/a-new-approach-to-clinical-trials.shtml

 

An explicit admission that existing RTC trials in psychiatry are baloney.

You read exceedingly fast to have reviewed all the RCT since 2008. Or you are dismissing things prematurely out of ignorance and obstinance. I bet it's the latter.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Pen I'm dead serious about the delusional thing. You're beating your head against the wall here with this guy

[penultimatestraw 473]

WOW, on the spot, contradictory diagnoses!

 

I am enjoying this. When the facts are put on the table that clearly state that psychiatry is a non scientific discipline that invents diseases, the pro psychiatry zealots resort to what they now best, throwing DSM insults.

 

In fact, that different pro psychiatry zealots arrive to different diagnoses based on same observed behavior was already documented in 1968 http://journals.lww.com/jonmd/Citation/1968/10000/Suggestion_Effects_in_Psychiatric_Diagnosis.3.aspx . It seems not much has changed in 50 years of psychiatric "research" .

No diagnosis has been made, at least not by me. Just thought Worms would enjoy the read.

[psychsurvivor 2]

I am not a psychiatrist or neuropsychiatric researcher, but I can assure you OCD, as defined by the DSM, is a maladaptive behavior which limits the functionality of some of the afflicted. And it is treatable using both drugs and behavioral therapies. Understanding every aspect of its neurobiology will not change those facts, nor will labeling it a disease/disorder. Or removing the label.

Again, my standard for calling something "scientific" is pretty high. I do not consider "voting something" into the DSM to be scientific.

 

The actual scientific evidence I am searching is more in things like the following:

 

- I give you the DNA of 1000 people, 500 of whom have been diagnosed as "OCD" using DSM-IV/5. Can you tell from the DNA alone, without knowing anything else, who has "OCD" with the type of prediction power that we expect from an HIV test (99%)?

 

- I give you 1000 brains of diseased people, 500 of whom had been diagnosed as "OCD" using DSM-IV/5. Can you tell me from the analysis of the brains alone, without knowing anything else, who had "OCD" with the type of prediction power that we expect from an HIV test (99%)?

 

I am not aware of any such evidence (and believe me, if the APA had any hint that that was possible, they would be engaged in the most aggressive PR campaign yet).

 

The most I have seen are fallacious studies based on the premise correlation=causation. But because they are fallacious, when the above type of falsifiable testing is done on the "alleged" biomarkers for OCD (or any other DSM label), they all fail spectacularly.

[psychsurvivor 2]

No diagnosis has been made, at least not by me. Just thought Worms would enjoy the read.

What is clear to me is that you guys have lost the debate (very difficult to go against what the leaders of American psychiatry like Insel, Kupfer or Frances admit to be true) and are engaging in some sort of team building exercise by using me as some sort of punching bag . No problem, but the honorable thing is to admit that you guys were clueless about the debacle that afflicted psychiatry in 2013 that invalidates most of what people like you have traditionally said to defend psychiatry from legitimate criticism. If I gave you the first few paragraphs of the post "Transforming Diagnosis" by Tom Insel without telling you who wrote it, your most likely initial reaction would have been that it was one of Thomas Szasz's essays. That's how damming 2013 was for psychiatry: the guardians of the field accepted as legitimate so called "anti psychiatry" points!

[penultimatestraw 473]

What is clear to me is that you guys have lost the debate (very difficult to go against what the leaders of American psychiatry like Insel, Kupfer or Frances admit to be true) and are engaging in some sort of team building exercise by using me as some sort of punching bag . No problem, but the honorable thing is to admit that you guys were clueless about the debacle that afflicted psychiatry in 2013 that invalidates most of what people like you have traditionally said to defend psychiatry from legitimate criticism. If I gave you the first few paragraphs of the post "Transforming Diagnosis" by Tom Insel without telling you who wrote it, your most likely initial reaction would have been that it was one of Thomas Szasz's essays. That's how damming 2013 was for psychiatry: the guardians of the field accepted as legitimate so called "anti psychiatry" points!

No, we have just realized we are debating an intractable ideologue. One who suffers from mental illness. I have no expectation to have intelligent discourse with you, or your less educated, but equally closed-minded new cronies.

 

And putting a smiley in your condescending, insulting posts makes them no more palatable.

[psychsurvivor 2]

No, we have just realized we are debating an intractable ideologue. One who suffers from mental illness. I have no expectation to have intelligent discourse with you, or your less educated, but equally closed-minded new cronies.

It is clear that you are great at name calling, but I am not interested in that .

 

Can you please give me the scientific evidence that backs your contention that OCD is a "brain disease"? Again, surely somebody as "smart" as you wouldn't call OCD a "disease" without having evidence that it is. Or perhaps you would? You are disappointing me really!

[IGotWorms 4,060]

It is clear that you are great at name calling, but I am not interested in that

Must've been someone else that started throwing around the "bigot" label

[psychsurvivor 2]

No, we have just realized we are debating an intractable ideologue. One who suffers from mental illness. I have no expectation to have intelligent discourse with you, or your less educated, but equally closed-minded new cronies.

 

And putting a smiley in your condescending, insulting posts makes them no more palatable.

Not really condescending , just spelling out that I have brought to the discussion:

 

- Unequivocal statements by Tom Insel (director of the NIMH), David Kupfer (chairman of the DSM-5) and Allen Frances (chairman of the DSM-IV) that none of the DSM labels has scientific validity.

 

- Peer reviewed studies published at medicine most prestigious venues that publications based on SSRI clinical trials up to 2008 are corrupted by publication and selection bias.

 

- A post by the director of the NIMH, this one http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2014/a-new-approach-to-clinical-trials.shtml, that says that the NIMH will only fund in the future clinical trials that adhere to a methodology destined to test scientific hypotheses (even though the result might be negative), an implicit admission that past trials were not like that.

 

All sorts of other evidence that supports my point of view. On the other hand, you have brought nothing but DSM name calling and speculation that DSM labels are "brain diseases" without any scientific proof to back that up.

 

People are smart and can decide by themselves who are the clowns here .

[psychsurvivor 2]

EDIT: I made a mistake confusing IGotWorms with penultimatestraw. Still, the statement by penultimatestraw is a clear example of bigotry towards people that the DSM committee members label as "OCD".

 

Must've been someone else that started throwing around the "bigot" label

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

 

": a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance "

 

You have provided several statements that fit that description, for example,

 

The problem is people start treatment, feel better, then stop and relapse into pathological behavior. Where one draws the line between normal and abnormal is subjective, of course, but the ability to lead a productive life is easier to define.

 

But you're right that it doesn't really matter if their disease doesn't prevent them from functioning in society, which is conveniently included in most DSM diagnoses.

I see that comment as a prime example of bigotry. "pathological behavior" according to whom? Did those "OCD" people commit a crime? Do you realize that until 1974 the APA also called homosexuality "pathological behavior". Again, you are a bigot by your own statements .

[FeelingMN 273]

Allen Frances.....in his own words.

 

Psychiatric diagnosis is simply too important to be left exclusively in the hands of psychiatrists. They will always be an essential part of the mix but should no longer be permitted to call all the shots.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/12/opinion/break-up-the-psychiatric-monopoly.html?_r=0

 

Americans are spending billions of dollars on psychiatric medications, but according to Dr. Allen Frances (Saving Normal: An Insider's Revolt Against Out-of-Control Psychiatric Diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the Medicalization of Ordinary Life) "We are ignoring the people who have severe psychiatric illness; so that, one-third of people with severe depression see a mental health clinician, two-thirds don't. Two-thirds of people with severe depression get no treatment at all. At the same time, we're way over-diagnosing people who have milder problems that would get better on their own."

http://brainsciencepodcast.com/bsp/2013/dangers-of-diagnostic-inflation-bsp-102

 

Seems like Allen Frances believes mental illness really does exist.....and that psychiatry is an essential part of helping people. Also seems like he thinks psychiatry has overstepped its bounds. I agree with him.

[wiffleball 4,793]

Jesus I wish you guys would jump in a f****** wood chipper and get it over with

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Jesus I wish you guys would jump in a f****** wood chipper and get it over with

You're just saying that because it's how society wants you to think! And Bill Johnson, Pete Mandowski and Greg Bannister all agree with me

[psychsurvivor 2]

Seems like Allen Frances believes mental illness really does exist.....and that psychiatry is an essential part of helping people. Also seems like he thinks psychiatry has overstepped its bounds. I agree with him.

 

Of course he does! I never said otherwise (I challenge you to find in this thread a statement by me that Allen Frances is anti psychiatry). What Allen Frances has said though is that mental illness is "bullshit" and that there is no clear definition of mental illness, example,

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/gun-control-cant-work-if-_b_2359049.html

 

The boundary between mental illness and normality is fuzzy and arbitrary, providing no practical way for deciding how much restriction should be applied to whom.

 

Allen Frances still promotes the idea that psychiatry is legitimate but I haven't lost hope that he might recant altogether before he dies. There is a clear evolution between his first statements against the DSM-5 in the 2010 Wired Magazine interview and the things he has been saying lately.

 

My whole point is that where these people and I agree is that no DSM label has been shown to have scientific validity (that is a statement of fact).

 

Then Frances, Insel, Kupfer and the like express their "hope" or "faith" that at some point so called "mental disorders" will have a scientific definition. But that is a statement of "hope" not of "fact".

 

Again, in science what matters is falsifiability, not "opinion" or "faith". Psychiatry has not established scientific validity for any of its invented diseases.

[FeelingMN 273]

Allen Frances.....agent of social control.

 

 

The diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders can be beneficial when done judiciously, but can cause serious unintended consequences when done poorly. Good diagnosis requires training, patience, careful evaluation, and longitudinal observation.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2013/1015/od1.html

 

 

You are mixing up stuff.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Allen Frances.....agent of social control.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2013/1015/od1.html

 

I don't know what you are talking about. To summarize on Allen Frances:

 

- He concedes that DSM labels are not scientific and that "boundary between mental illness and normality is fuzzy and arbitrary". I agree.

 

- He still thinks that psychiatry is worthwhile practiced as "Allen Frances says it has to be practiced". I disagree.

 

You will notice though that I, and those in the anti psychiatry front, are the ones having the consistent position. Since we agree with Frances that DSM labels are not scientific, we think that psychiatrists should explain that to their patients and relinquish all their coercive powers at least until they achieve the kind of precision that we have come to expect from other areas of medicine that we see as legitimate. It's Allen Frances who has a lot explaining to do for his cognitive dissonance. He is in a crusade to criticize many issues with DSM-5 based on his belief that the DSM-5 amplified what Frances sees as the DSM-IV worst errors (creating false epidemics of ADHD and bipolar pediatric disorder that in DSM-5 will affect many other categories). On this issue I don't care much other than his criticism of DSM-5 is yet another weapon that I have to undermine psychiatry as a whole. In reality, I think that DSM-IV is as fraudulent as DSM-5. However, "dividing the elites" has always been a very useful strategy when it comes to civil rights battles. So it is fun to watch the match Allen Frances vs the APA.

[FeelingMN 273]

Of course he does! I never said otherwise (I challenge you to find in this thread a statement by me that Allen Frances is anti psychiatry). What Allen Frances has said though is that mental illness is "bullshit" and that there is no clear definition of mental illness, example,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/gun-control-cant-work-if-_b_2359049.html

Allen Frances still promotes the idea that psychiatry is legitimate but I haven't lost hope that he might recant altogether before he dies. There is a clear evolution between his first statements against the DSM-5 in the 2010 Wired Magazine interview and the things he has been saying lately.

My whole point is that where these people and I agree is that no DSM label has been shown to have scientific validity (that is a statement of fact).

Then Frances, Insel, Kupfer and the like express their "hope" or "faith" that at some point so called "mental disorders" will have a scientific definition. But that is a statement of "hope" not of "fact".

Again, in science what matters is falsifiability, not "opinion" or "faith". Psychiatry has not established scientific validity for any of its invented diseases.

The point is they think mental illness exists. And they're smart. And they're scientists.

 

You're cobbling together random quotes and basing your entire argument on it. Frances believes depression and schizophrenia and OCD exist. He believes they're mental disorders. He also believes that psychiatry has gotten too big for itself. It needs oversight and regulation. Yes....it's way too overzealous.

 

It's not going away man. It's not the evil enterprise you make it out to be. Maybe let Frances et al. have their hand at meaningful reform and you try something else for a living. I mean, it's cool that you can solve a differential equation and link a bunch of wiki articles....but I doubt the establishment will be shaking in their shoes when you use it trying to crush psychiatry.

[psychsurvivor 2]

The point is they think mental illness exists. And they're smart. And they're scientists.

 

You are very confused here. Something is not "scientific" because a scientist says so, rather because that "something", in this case, the concept of "mental illness" passes falsifiable experiments. You can learn more about falsifiability here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability .

 

What Allen Frances and the others have said is that so far, none of the DSM labels have passed said tests. That's it. The rest is pure speculation.

 

You're cobbling together random quotes and basing your entire argument on it. Frances believes depression and schizophrenia and OCD exist. He believes they're mental disorders. He also believes that psychiatry has gotten too big for itself. It needs oversight and regulation. Yes....it's way too overzealous.

 

No, I have not. I am differentiating two issues:

 

- The current status of psychiatry. The fact is that none of the DSM labels has been shown to be scientific. There is no "cherry picking" or random selection of quotes. This is a very consistent message throughout Allen Frances writing and I agree with it.

 

- The "future" status of psychiatric labels and whether some day, some how, psychiatric labels will be described with validity. An opinion on this issue is not a scientific statement, rather, an "opinion". I disagree with Frances here and all he needs to do to show me wrong is to come up with an empirical test that shows that at least one (I am not asking for much) of the DSM labels achieves falsifiability. Not much asking really.

 

It's not going away man. It's not the evil enterprise you make it out to be. Maybe let Frances et al. have their hand at meaningful reform and you try something else for a living. I mean, it's cool that you can solve a differential equation and link a bunch of wiki articles....but I doubt the establishment will be shaking in their shoes when you use it trying to crush psychiatry.

 

If what you are saying is that psychiatry employs a lot of people (psychiatrists, nurses, workers at mental health institutions and the people who work for Big Pharma companies) and that they are not going to let it go without a serious fight, I agree with you.

 

But I remind you that a similar battle was fought, and won, against Big Tobacco companies. We are just at the early stages and I am more encouraged now than ever that this battle can be won in my lifetime even though I concede that it is not going to be easy and there will be many steps back along the way.

[FeelingMN 273]

It's Allen Frances who has a lot explaining to do for his cognitive dissonance.

I'm sure Dr. Frances is sleeping just fine tonight.

[psychsurvivor 2]

I'm sure Dr. Frances is sleeping just fine tonight.

I cannot speak for him, of course, but if you were to read his Psychology Today blog, as I regularly do, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/saving-normal you will see he has his own "temper tantrums" with respect with what the APA and Insel do and how they "fail" to listen to him. Very recently, he had this to say about Tom Insel,

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/science/blazing-trails-in-brain-science.html

 

"“Instead of being an institute of mental health, he has made it almost exclusively a brain research institute,” Dr. Allen Frances, an emeritus professor of psychiatry at Duke and the author of the book “Saving Normal,” wrote in an email. “N.I.M.H. is betting the house on the long shot that neuroscience will come up with answers to help people with serious mental illness.” He added, “It does little or no psychosocial or health services research that might relieve the current suffering of patients.”"

 

As I said, dividing the elites is great. I agree with Frances there as well. Tom Insel will fail but I am happy that he conceded that the DSM labels are not scientific!

[OldMaid 2,134]

Holy crap!!!!

 

I've had a little wine, and I admit that I only skimmed through this thread, but is CuckooForCocoaPuffs really trying to argue that mental illness and chemical imbalances aren't real?

 

Somebody please tell me I read that wrong.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

Holy crap!!!!

 

I've had a little wine, and I admit that I only skimmed through this thread, but is CuckooForCocoaPuffs really trying to argue that mental illness and chemical imbalances aren't real?

 

Somebody please tell me I read that wrong.

 

Sorry you're a bigot

[OldMaid 2,134]

Sorry you're a bigot

I wonder what this guy's stance is on intelligent design?

[psychsurvivor 2]

I wonder what this guy's stance is on intelligent design?

With respect to the "chemical imbalances" being an urban legend, that's a statement by Ron Pies, former chief editor of the Psychiatric Times,

 

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blogs/couch-crisis/psychiatry-new-brain-mind-and-legend-chemical-imbalance

 

"And, yes—the “chemical imbalance” image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.3 In truth, the “chemical imbalance” notion was always a kind of urban legend- - never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists."

 

It seems that there are a lot of misinformed (or shall I say "under" informed?) people around here.

 

With respect to intelligent design, I am fine with evolution, but the issue evolution/intelligent design is not one I lose my sleep over. Neither has any predictive power of the kind that physics has. I would be much more worried if suddenly somebody were to discover that there are non negligible situations in which the acceleration due to gravity deviates significantly from its assumed value 9.8 m/s^2 making it possible for cars to crash in a non predictive manner as a result of said deviations.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I wonder what this guy's stance is on intelligent design?

I wonder what his body fat % is.

[wiffleball 4,793]

Just so I'm clear:

 

1) We all know phschosurvivor is a situationally developed alias.

 

2) But, since I won't read through 9 pages of schlock, who is this? Another google balls?

[penultimatestraw 473]

With respect to the "chemical imbalances" being an urban legend, that's a statement by Ron Pies, former chief editor of the Psychiatric Times,

 

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blogs/couch-crisis/psychiatry-new-brain-mind-and-legend-chemical-imbalance

 

"And, yes—the “chemical imbalance” image has been vigorously promoted by some pharmaceutical companies, often to the detriment of our patients’ understanding.3 In truth, the “chemical imbalance” notion was always a kind of urban legend- - never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists."

 

It seems that there are a lot of misinformed (or shall I say "under" informed?) people around here.

 

With respect to intelligent design, I am fine with evolution, but the issue evolution/intelligent design is not one I lose my sleep over. Neither has any predictive power of the kind that physics has. I would be much more worried if suddenly somebody were to discover that there are non negligible situations in which the acceleration due to gravity deviates significantly from its assumed value 9.8 m/s^2 making it possible for cars to crash in a non predictive manner as a result of said deviations.

Since you've convinced me you are adamant in you opinions, I won't try to debate the current state of psychiatry. I am still waiting for you to explain the action of the non-psychiatrists - the ones who doubted the diagnosis of mitochondrial disease in the first place. What was their motivation? And even though there are challenges in diagnosing mitochondrial disease, why do you think the most frequently used diagnostic test (muscle biopsy) was omitted in Justina? How do you choose one non-validated diagnosis over another?

 

And what is your science background? Don't name drop or tell me how smart you are. What is your degree and current profession?

[penultimatestraw 473]

Just so I'm clear:

 

1) We all know phschosurvivor is a situationally developed alias.

 

2) But, since I won't read through 9 pages of schlock, who is this? Another google balls?

Not an alias, though personality similar to IMMensamind.

[drobeski 3,061]

Pen I'm dead serious about the delusional thing. You're beating your head against the wall here with this guy

oh god what a pathetic douche, yeah that's a disorder many of you pompous queers are afflicted with.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Must've been someone else that started throwing around the "bigot" label

or calling anyone that disagrees with anything he says "zealots".