Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: PYCHIATRY IS PSEUDOSCIENCE

  1. #1 PYCHIATRY IS PSEUDOSCIENCE 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    88
    http://www.dantescure.com/conversation.html

    Aren't you going against the grain by saying that schizophrenia is a not a brain disease? Most of what we read is that mental illness, and schizophrenia in particular, is due to abnormal brain chemistry.

    Yes, I am going against the grain. The psychiatrist-drug company cabal would have us believe that mental suffering means we have diseases of the brain-broken brains. They tell us that chemical imbalances in the brain cause depression, anxiety and madness. Nothing could be further from the truth. One can find brain correlates of any mental state. But what causes the mental state? It is hopelessly simplistic and reductive to say that a singular measurement of cellular activity causes something as complex as a mental state. The measurement is much more likely to be the result of a mental state. Trying to understand mental life using a medical model-seeing mental life as nothing more than brain activity — is too limiting. Measurement is the catechism of science. There are some things you cannot measure, such as the experience of being human. How do you measure my tears when I stand in front of a painting by Vermeer? You might get a few measurements within my brain, but that would tell you very little. One cannot reduce mental life down to cellular activity anyway. It is like saying that an opera is nothing but notes. Mental illnesses are not illnesses at all. Mental struggles are states of mind, responsive to the human spirit. The official word, however, is that Catherine suffered from a broken brain. It says right on the NIMH web site that schizophrenia is a brain disease. If Catherine had had a broken brain, how is it that she recovered? There was nothing broken about Catherine's brain.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Starlight, we encourage people to make a point of their own in the forum, not just layout an extensive quotation from a linked site.

    So, what is your point? What do you think the interview reveals? do you agree with it? Do you think mistreatement and misunderstanding of mental illness is a major problem? Etc?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Starlight, we encourage people to make a point of their own in the forum, not just layout an extensive quotation from a linked site.
    I'm only an average person. There is more weight when respected professionals say it.

    "The fields of human psychology and psychiatry are ... a mess of competing but fundamentally incompatible theories ... Academic psychiatry has all but lost contact with the population it is supposed to serve ... Criticism is, if not actiely discouraged, then politely but very firmly ignored."
    N. McLaren, MD, Australian psychiatrist , 1999



    "What's happening in the training of psychiatrists and in the quality of a psychiatrist is that they have become drug pushers. They have ... forgotten how to sit down and talk to patients as to what their problems are."
    - Walter Afield, psychiatrist, 1994



    "... in 40 years, 'biological psychiatry' has yet to validate a single psychiatric condition/diagnosis as an abnormality/disease, or as anything 'neurological', 'biological', 'chemically imbalanced', or 'genetic'."
    Dr. Fred A. Baughman Jr., Pediatric Neurologist
    "Malpractice and Violation of Informed Consent"



    "Everyone is neurotic. I have no trouble giving out diagnoses. In my office I only see abnormal people. Out of my office, I see only normal people. It's up to me. It's just a joke. This is what I mean by this fraud, this arrogant fraud ... To make some kind of pretension that this is a scientific statement is ... damaging to the culture."
    - Ron Leifer, psychiatrist, quoted in
    Beverly Eakman, Cloning of the American Mind, 1997



    "... modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the genetic/biological cause of any single mental illness ... Patients [have] been diagnosed with 'chemical imbalances' despite the fact that no test exists to support such a claim, and ... there is no real conception of what a correct chemical balance would look like."
    - David Kaiser, psychiatrist
    "Commentary Against Biological Psychiatry"
    Psychiatric Times, December 1996



    "We do not have proof either of the cause of the physiology for any psychiatric diagnosis ... In the absence of any verifiable diseases, in recent decades, psychopharmacology has not hesitated to construct 'disease models' for psychiatric diagnoses."
    - Dr. Joseph Glenmullen
    Clinical Instructor in Psychiatry
    Harvard Medical School, 2000



    "Hyperactivity is not a disease. It's a hoax perpetrated by doctors who have no idea what's really wrong with these children."
    - Dr. Sydney Walker III, psychiatrist
    The Hyperactivity Hoax



    "Freud was wrong in almost every important respect."
    - Frank Sulloway, Professor of Psychology, quoted in
    John Horgan, The Undiscovered Mind



    "What do you do when you don't know what to do? No wonder there are more suicides among psychiatrists than in any other profession."
    Psychiatrist R. D. Laing
    Wisdom, Madness, and Folly, p. 126



    "Over the years it [the National Committee for Mental Hygiene] has championed for the promotion of 'mental health' despite the fact that nobody knows what it is or how to do it."
    E. Fuller Torrey, psychiatrist
    Nowhere to Go, New York: Harper and Row, 1988



    "The basic question with which psychiatrists and particularly those interested in mental hygiene start is -- What are the causes of mental and nervous disease? This question has been repeatedly raised during the twenty-two years of organized mental hygiene until it has almost become a ritual and like a ritual has led to nothing except repetition -- not even a start."
    Frankwood E. Williams, Director,
    National Committee for Mental Hygiene,
    "Is there a Mental Hygiene",
    Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 1932, p. 113-20



    "Many psychiatrists have had, at least to some degree, the unsettling and bewildering feeling that what they have been doing has been largely worthless and that the premises on which they have based their professional lives were partly fraudulent"
    E. Fuller Torrey, M.D., psychiatrist

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    So, what is your point?
    Psychiatry is way off-course. There are many evidence proving their mainstream way of treatment needs a complete overhaul.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    What do you think the interview reveals? do you agree with it? Do you think mistreatement and misunderstanding of mental illness is a major problem? Etc?
    I agree with the interview completely. Medication should be the last thing they should try because it is very dangerous. Psychiatrists introduce medication way to early without trying safer alternatives!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/21/he...y/21schiz.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Just a few thoughts:

    While I agree with you, based on my very limited knowledge, that many psychiatrists reach first for the prescription pad, and that psychiatric theory is still ambiguous and poorly validated, I think it is going too far to say it is a pseudoscience.

    The long list of quotations does nothing for me. It is entirely possible to take a quotation out of context and give an entirely wrong impression of the intent of the author.

    What is your solution? Remember the psychiatrists are only meeting a perceived need. (If people didn't want to drink, all the pubs would go out of business.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    While I agree with you, based on my very limited knowledge, that many psychiatrists reach first for the prescription pad, and that psychiatric theory is still ambiguous and poorly validated, I think it is going too far to say it is a pseudoscience.
    When mainstream psychiatrists claim it is biological disease and many many people are recovering, there is something wrong!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    The long list of quotations does nothing for me. It is entirely possible to take a quotation out of context and give an entirely wrong impression of the intent of the author.
    I should have included the titles.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Remember the psychiatrists are only meeting a perceived need. (If people didn't want to drink, all the pubs would go out of business.)
    Psychiatrists are not telling their patients how dangerous the drugs are. I was told it was very safe and I need to be on it for the rest of my life. THEY SHOULD BURN IN HELL! They are playing with fire. There are many books, forums, and people who I met had the same experiences. There are lawsuits against drug industries that remain very quiet to the public. If only people knew of the dangers and an alternative treatment, the drug industries would go out of business. I hope it is not from many millions of people who have blood clot problems which can lead to greater problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    What is your solution?
    There was already a solution! It is a CURE not some mask from meds.
    http://www.moshersoteria.com/soteri.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    88
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    I don't think psychology/psychiatry is pseudoscience, I just think it's extremely difficult science. You can't study people as reliably as you can study rocks, or look at a spectrum of starlight, measure speeds of falling objects, or see what happens when 2 chemicals mix. The human brain and human behavior has a lot more variables and is a lot more complex. I think it's unfair to label these disciplines pseudoscience simply because it's so difficult to get results in the same manner that you can in the harder sciences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    I don't think psychology/psychiatry is pseudoscience, I just think it's extremely difficult science.
    I agree. This is a useful and important point.

    The difficulty of practising this science can lead to erroneous conclusions. Also, since people are very directly and personally effected by such conclusions, this can lead to emotional judgements about the practice of the science.

    Additionally, it is probably easier to be a charlatan in the practice of psychiatry than in the harder sciences, because of the complexity of the issues involved.

    As always there is a danger of throwing the baby out with the the dirty bathwater. The solution that starlight favours has been introduced, after all, by psychiatrists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    88
    BAD science until a certain point. Since their theories does not hold up and their way of treatment is based on that. It is pseudoscience. PEOPLE RECOVER.

    http://www.newstarget.com/z011353.html

    SS: Modern psychiatry claims that these psychiatric drugs correct pathological brain chemistry. Is there any evidence to back up their claim that abnormal brain chemistry is the culprit in schizophrenia and depression?

    RW: This is the key thing everyone needs to understand. It really is the answer that unlocks this mystery of why the drugs would have this long-term problematic effect. Start with schizophrenia. They hypothesize that these drugs work by correcting an imbalance of the neurotransmitter dopamine in the brain.

    The theory was that people with schizophrenia had overactive dopamine systems; and these drugs, by blocking dopamine in the brain, fixed that chemical imbalance. Therefore, you get the metaphor that they're like insulin is for diabetes; they're fixing an abnormality. With the antidepressants, the theory was that people with depression had too low levels of serotonin; the drugs upped the levels of serotonin in the brain and therefore they're balancing the brain chemistry.

    First of all, those theories never arose from investigations into what was actually happening to people. Rather, they would find out that antipsychotics blocked dopamine and so they theorized that people had overactive dopamine systems. Same with the antidepressants. They found that antidepressants upped the levels of serotonin; therefore, they theorized that people with depression must have low levels of serotonin.

    But here is the thing that one wishes all of America would know and wishes psychiatry would come clean on: They've never been able to find that people with schizophrenia have overactive dopamine systems. They've never been able to find that people with depression have underactive serotonin systems. They've never found consistently that any of these disorders are associated with any chemical imbalance in the brain. The story that people with mental disorders have known chemical imbalances -- that's a lie. We don't know that at all. It's just something that they say to help sell the drugs and help sell the biological model of mental disorders.

    But the kicker is this. We do know, in fact, that these drugs perturb how these chemical messengers work in the brain. The real paradigm is: People diagnosed with mental disorders have no known problem with their neurotransmitter systems; and these drugs perturb the normal function of neurotransmitters.

    SS: So rather than fixing a chemical imbalance, these widely prescribed drugs distort the brain chemistry and make it pathological.

    RW: Absolutely. Stephen Hyman, a well-known neuroscientist and the former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, wrote a paper in 1996 that looked at how psychiatric drugs affect the brain. He wrote that all these drugs create perturbations in neurotransmitter functions. And he notes that the brain, in response to this drug from the outside, alters its normal functions and goes through a series of compensatory adaptations.

    In other words, it tries to adapt to the fact that an antipsychotic drug is blocking normal dopamine functions. Or in the case of antidepressants, it tries to compensate for the fact that you're blocking a normal reuptake of serotonin. The way it does this is to adapt in the opposite way. So, if you're blocking dopamine in the brain, the brain tries to put out more dopamine and it actually increases the number of dopamine receptors. So a person placed on antipsychotic drugs will end up with an abnormally high number of dopamine receptors in the brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    88
    http://www.antipsychiatry.org/mosher.loren.1.htm

    How Drug Company Money Has Corrupted Psychiatry
    by Loren R. Mosher, M.D.
    The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is the nationwide organization to which most psychiatrists belong. In some ways it is a trade union. A large proportion of its income is from drug company advertising in its journals and newspaper. It also receives "unrestricted educational grants" and convention revenue from drug companies. Drug company sponsored symposia and exhibitions dominate the two major annual psychiatric conventions. Of course, the symposia speakers are paid handsomely for their half-day appearances. In my opinion, the APA is so dependent on pharmaceutical company support that it can not afford to criticize the overuse and misuse of psychotropic drugs. Perhaps more importantly, the APA is unwilling to mandate education of psychiatrists about the the seriousness of the short and long-term toxicities and withdrawal reactions from the drugs.
    The drug companies pay speakers ($1000-2000 per appearance) who give psychiatric grand rounds and/or evening speeches (dinner provided by the company) to local psychiatric societies. Speakers come from lists of psychiatrists who will basically endorse their products. Doctors training to be psychiatrists are specially targeted for these speakers.
    The drug companies give contracts to university based and private psychiatric research companies to conduct drug trials that are required for U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the drugs they sell. The company provides the protocol and the researcher may receive as much as $40,000 per patient that completes the study. This allows the drug company considerable influence on the way the drug studies are conducted. All of these drug manufacturer activities have increased in scope and intensity since the introduction of newly patented drugs, beginning with Prozac in 1989. They must reap the profits before patents run out.
    Research protocols used in studies of psychiatric drugs required for the approval of the FDA are supposed to be reviewed by Institutional Review Boards (IRB's) to be sure they do not pose undue risks to the study subjects. Members of these boards have been found to be highly paid consultants to drug companies whose protocols they review. That is, they have obvious conflicts of interests and are not objective, unbiased reviewers of the psychiatric drug studies over which they pass judgment. The latest "novel" anti-psychotic drug that has been approved by our federal drug regulatory agency (FDA) is Zeldox, which the FDA allowed to be introduced to the US market despite Zeldox's dangers.
    In my view American psychiatry has become drug dependent (that is, devoted to pill pushing) at all levels - private practitioners, public system psychiatrists, university faculty and organizationally. What should be the most humanistic medical specialty has become mechanistic, reductionistic, tunnel-visioned and dehumanizing. Modern psychiatry has forgotten the Hippocratic principle: Above all, do no harm.

    THE AUTHOR, Loren R. Mosher, holds a B.A. from Stanford University and an M.D., with honors, from Harvard Medical School, where he subsequently received his psychiatric training. He is now Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, and Director of Soteria Associates, 2616 Angell Avenue, San Diego, Calif. 92122, (858) 550-0312, Fax (858) 558-0854. See www.mosher-soteria.com.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    The solution that starlight favours has been introduced, after all, by psychiatrists.

    as Loren Mosher said in his letter of resignation from the APA.

    "After nearly three decades as a member it is with a mixture of pleasure and disappointment that I submit this letter of resignation from the American Psychiatric Association. The major reason for this action is my belief that I am actually resigning from the American Psychopharmacological Association. Luckily, the organization's true identity requires no change in the acronym."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    88
    http://www.madinamerica.com/CHAPTERS.HTM

    The World Health Organization has repeatedly found that people diagnosed with schizophrenia in the U.S. and other developed countries fare much worse than schizophrenia patients in poor countries. In the poor countries, a high percentage of patients recover and lead active social lives. In the U.S. and other developed countries, most patients so diagnosed become chronically ill. An understanding of this failure of modern medicine can be found by tracing the history of medical treatments for madness to the present day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman weirdesky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    27
    Nice summarising the first paragraph, but what poof do you have that this is true? I'm not saying I disagree with this (even though I do), but what othe evidence do these people have?
    Another thing, something as complicated and as difficult as psychology should be written off as a pseudoscience. Their methods may not work, but they are still fully a science.
    It's hard to soar like an eagle when your flying with turkeys
    It's hard to be humble when your as great as I am.
    The world changes so fast, you couldn't be wrong all the time even if you tried
    Judging by the way some church members live, they need fire insurance
    The only thing in life acheived without effort is failure
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by weirdesky
    Their methods may not work, but they are still fully a science.
    Antipsychotic drugs act like a leash to patients. It is basically use for social control. Make them a zombie or a vegetable in high doses but in lower doses reduces the performance of the brain. The side effect is nasty and can damage the brain. Psychiatrists will not TELL their patients, people recover from schizophrenia without medications. There are over twenty ways to have symptoms of schizophrenia and there first treatment is with dangerous medication. Something SMELLS.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •