RainAndSadness

RainAndSadness

Administrator
Jun 12, 2018
1,775
Why is the science you agree with more valid that the science you dont like?

There are plenty of studies that demonstrate the efficacy of antidepressants.

You mean studies that were funded and approved by the pharma industry? You're naive if you really believe money doesn't play a big role here. They don't publish studies which portray anti-depressants in a bad light, obviously - which is also explained in the meta-study which I've linked previously. Studies that remained unpublished showed smaller efficiency of anti-depressants than published ones. I wonder why...
Again, read the study which I've linked.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/6/e024886
Here is a snippet of the conclusion:
Publication bias of antidepressant trials is pervasive and distorts the evidence base. Many industry funded antidepressant trials remain unpublished or are inadequately reported. Cipriani included 436 published and 86 unpublished studies, but as many as a thousand antidepressant studies may have been conducted. We did a random-effects meta-analysis of the placebo comparisons according to publication status and found that the average effect size was lower in unpublished studies than in published studies. Our findings are very similar to those reported by Turner in 2008 of published versus unpublished antidepressant trials registered by the United States Food and Drug Administration[...].

Here is more research:
[...]people who read scientific papers as part of their jobs have come to rely on meta-analyses, supposedly thorough reviews summarizing the evidence from multiple trials, rather than trust individual studies. But a new analysis casts doubt on that practice as well, finding that the vast majority of meta-analyses of antidepressants have some industry link, with a corresponding suppression of negative results.

Almost 80 percent of meta-analyses in the review had some sort of industry tie, either through sponsorship, which the authors defined as direct industry funding of the study, or conflicts of interest, defined as any situation in which one or more authors were either industry employees or independent researchers receiving any type of industry support (including speaking fees and research grants). Especially troubling, the study showed about 7 percent of researchers had undisclosed conflicts of interest.
 
Last edited:
S

Secrets1

Specialist
Nov 18, 2019
312
You mean studies that were funded and approved by the pharma industry? You're naive if you really believe money doesn't play a big role here. They don't publish studies which portray anti-depressants in a bad light, obviously - which is also explained in the meta-study which I've linked previously. Studies that remained unpublished showed smaller efficiency of anti-depressants than published ones. I wonder why...
Again, read the study which I've linked.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/6/e024886
Here is a snippet of the conclusion:


Here is more research:

:heart: x 1,000,000

FWIW 1/3 of population is resistant to the mechanism of antidepressants. We don’t know how to pre-identify this group yet, they get negative effects, not positive. Science is in part to blame. Behind the companies or universities are individuals with similar motivation that has little to do with wellness of the global population
 
Last edited:
N

noaccount

Paragon
Oct 26, 2019
944
Pointing out psychiatry being fake and fraudulent doesn't give us "The Answers," no, but it does the first step of getting a lot of neuro-mythology (as opposed to neuro-science) out of the way.

But of course, even a scientifically-accurate psychiatry could still be abusive, still caging and silencing people, still telling the disabled that their consent doesn't matter.

Many of us don't find doctors sane...
 
H

Hyperborean

Member
Dec 19, 2020
67
Pointing out psychiatry being fake and fraudulent doesn't give us "The Answers," no, but it does the first step of getting a lot of neuro-mythology (as opposed to neuro-science) out of the way.

But of course, even a scientifically-accurate psychiatry could still be abusive, still caging and silencing people, still telling the disabled that their consent doesn't matter.

Many of us don't find doctors sane...
Just because you don't have a good grasp on science doesn't make it "fake and fraudulent". That sounds more like a lack science education on your part.
 
Deleted member 94

Deleted member 94

Wizard
Mar 24, 2018
696
In this country a project is being undertaken called genome the medical profession came to realise that a person genetical make up effects the work of medicine. They are trying to understand through genetics why the same medicine doesn't work out for different people. They believe this will help in prescribing medicine in the future also lessen the risk of side effects developing.
 
jd300100

jd300100

Member
May 13, 2020
16
What do you guys think about this? Apparently, there is no scientific evidence that any of what psychiatry claims is true?



It’s definitely something to consider.. I guess just telling us to take probiotics and anti-inflammatory supplements wouldn’t be as profitable?

i am 100% positive these people are fakes.
last i checked my trauma was real. last i checked psychopharmacology was rooted in true science. i hate hacks like these people.
 
K

Kat!

-
Sep 30, 2020
838
Tumors pressing against certain areas of the brain can cause extreme hostility and aggression, so I wouldn't rule it out entirely.
Take this man for example ;

Tumblr nws0sdPIJr1u2roero1 250


Charles Whitman, he murdered 15 people +1 unborn child from a high position at a university in Texas.
Reason? He pointed it out in his own pre-written suicide note :

"I don’t quite understand what it is that compels me to type this letter.... I don’t really understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately (I can’t recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts.... and since then I have been fighting my mental turmoil alone.... After my death I wish that an autopsy would be performed on me to see if there is any visible physical disorder. I have had some tremendous headaches in the past and have consumed two large bottles of Excedrin in the past three months."

After the autopsy it was determined, he was right, he had a glioblastoma, a brain tumor.
 
EmbraceOfTheVoid

EmbraceOfTheVoid

Part Time NEET - Full Time Suicidal
Mar 29, 2020
690
Psychiatry is a corporate controlled pseudoscience based on subjective opinions and personal bias. "Mental illness" is not a product of a disease; it's a product of social precursors like abuse, poverty, disability, homelessness, etc. The awful things that people go through can profoundly damage the body but the origins of those symptoms are not because of a illness or disease.
“Classifying thoughts, feelings and behaviors as diseases is a logical and semantic error, like classifying whale as fish.” ―Thomas Szasz

“Is psychiatry a medical enterprise concerned with treating diseases, or a humanistic enterprise concerned with helping persons with their personal problems? Psychiatry could be one or the other, but it cannot--despite the pretensions and protestations of psychiatrists--be both.” ―Thomas Szasz


“When and why do we attribute a person's behavior to brain disease, and when and why do we not do so? Briefly, the answer is that we often attribute bad behavior to disease (to excuse the agent);never attribute good behavior to disease (lest we deprive the agent of credit); and typically attribute good behavior to free will and insist bad behavior called mental illness is a "no fault" act of nature.” ― Thomas Stephen Szasz, Cruel Compassion: Psychiatric Control of Society's Unwanted
 
Last edited:
demuic

demuic

Life was a mistake
Sep 12, 2020
1,371
You mean studies that were funded and approved by the pharma industry? You're naive if you really believe money doesn't play a big role here. They don't publish studies which portray anti-depressants in a bad light, obviously - which is also explained in the meta-study which I've linked previously. Studies that remained unpublished showed smaller efficiency of anti-depressants than published ones. I wonder why...
Again, read the study which I've linked.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/6/e024886
Here is a snippet of the conclusion:


Here is more research:
People really don't know just how easily manipulated "science" can be.

Especially the realm of "science" such as psychology and psychiatry.

There is a huge replication crisis in many many areas.

There are lots of moneyed interests which influence what gets published.
 
EmbraceOfTheVoid

EmbraceOfTheVoid

Part Time NEET - Full Time Suicidal
Mar 29, 2020
690
Each individual's psychiatry is purely a manifestation of their environment and has nothing to due with biology/science, pure and simple.

I agree that most are a manifestation of the environment but they still causes long term impacts to your health. I read a heavy book over a year ago called Neurobiology of Traumatic Disassociation and it does a good job of explaining the impact of being in prolonged states of fight/flight/freeze which cause damage to the nervous system. I've had lifelong health problems due to the freeze response; fatigue, physical/emotional numbness, poor coordination& attention span, ringing in my ears, heightened sensitivity to light/sound, extreme gaps in memory, brain fog, difficulty to consciously think, fibromyalgia, etc.

None of this stuff of course comes up in any modern tests really because what we have now may as well be compared to a caveman attempting open heart surgery with a stick. FMRIs do however show overactivation and underactivation of various parts of the brain for people who have been traumatized, I fit the latter category.
 
Last edited:
Life_and_Death

Life_and_Death

typically not in the mental frame to converse..
Jul 1, 2020
5,348
Each individual's psychiatry is purely a manifestation of their environment and has nothing to due with biology/science, pure and simple.
How not?
1) our brains react to things the way they do for a reason and everyone is different. Science and studying the brain can explain this. So it's not entirely environmental if 2 people can go through the exact same thing but come out on the other side differently.

2) what about people that are just born with disorders like myself? I can point to YEARS before any abuse would have changed things and I haven't changed much between now and then. How is that not biological if I was born with some of my disorders?
 
EmbraceOfTheVoid

EmbraceOfTheVoid

Part Time NEET - Full Time Suicidal
Mar 29, 2020
690
Going to throw this in here from wikipedia:

"Mental illness" is an expression, a metaphor that describes an offending, disturbing, shocking, or vexing conduct, action, or pattern of behavior, such as packaged under the wide-ranging term schizophrenia, as an "illness" or "disease". Szasz wrote: "If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; If you talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic."[13]:85 He maintained that, while people behave and think in disturbing ways, and those ways may resemble a disease process (pain, deterioration, response to various interventions), this does not mean they actually have a disease. To Szasz, disease can only mean something people "have", while behavior is what people "do". Diseases are "malfunctions of the human body, of the heart, the liver, the kidney, the brain" while "no behavior or misbehavior is a disease or can be a disease. That's not what diseases are." Szasz cited drapetomania as an example of a behavior that many in society did not approve of, being labeled and widely cited as a disease. Likewise, women who did not bend to a man's will were said to have hysteria.[14] He thought that psychiatry actively obscures the difference between behavior and disease in its quest to help or harm parties in conflicts. He maintained that, by calling people diseased, psychiatry attempts to deny them responsibility as moral agents in order to better control them.

In Szasz's view, people who are said by themselves or others to have a mental illness can only have, at best, "problems in living". Diagnoses of "mental illness" or "mental disorder" (the latter expression called by Szasz a "weasel term" for mental illness) are passed off as "scientific categories" but they remain merely judgments (judgments of disdain) to support certain uses of power by psychiatric authorities. In that line of thinking, schizophrenia becomes not the name of a disease entity but a judgment of extreme psychiatric and social disapprobation. Szasz called schizophrenia "the sacred symbol of psychiatry" because those so labeled have long provided and continue to provide justification for psychiatric theories, treatments, abuses, and reforms.

The figure of the psychotic or schizophrenic person to psychiatric experts and authorities, according to Szasz, is analogous with the figure of the heretic or blasphemer to theological experts and authorities. According to Szasz, to understand the metaphorical nature of the term "disease" in psychiatry, one must first understand its literal meaning in the rest of medicine. To be a true disease, the entity must first, somehow be capable of being approached, measured, or tested in scientific fashion. Second, to be confirmed as a disease, a condition must demonstrate pathology at the cellular or molecular level.

A genuine disease must also be found on the autopsy table (not merely in the living person) and meet pathological definition instead of being voted into existence by members of the American Psychiatric Association. "Mental illnesses" are really problems in living. They are often "like a" disease, argued Szasz, which makes the medical metaphor understandable, but in no way validates it as an accurate description or explanation. Psychiatry is a pseudoscience that parodies medicine by using medical-sounding words invented especially over the last one hundred years. To be clear, heart break and heart attack, or spring fever and typhoid fever belong to two completely different logical categories, and treating one as the other constitutes a category error. Psychiatrists are the successors of "soul doctors", priests who dealt and deal with the spiritual conundrums, dilemmas, and vexations – the "problems in living" – that have troubled people forever.

Psychiatry's main methods are assessment, medication, conversation or rhetoric and incarceration. To the extent that psychiatry presents these problems as "medical diseases", its methods as "medical treatments", and its clients – especially involuntary – as medically ill patients, it embodies a lie and therefore constitutes a fundamental threat to freedom and dignity. Psychiatry, supported by the state through various Mental Health Acts, has become a modern secular state religion according to Szasz. It is a vastly elaborate social control system, using both brute force and subtle indoctrination, which disguises itself under the claims of being rational, systematic and therefore scientific..
 
EmbraceOfTheVoid

EmbraceOfTheVoid

Part Time NEET - Full Time Suicidal
Mar 29, 2020
690
So it's not an actual study on mental illness however its someone's POV on mental illness.

No, it isn't a study, it's him challenging the notion that what people have is not actually a illness. While I'm sure some things like Autism and some forms of Schizophrenia are genetic; things like personality disorders or post traumatic stress are products of abuse. The entire point of his argument is that you can't actually verify most of what is in the DSM as an actual disease or illness using science because that isn't what they actually are.

Szasz argued throughout his career that mental illness is a metaphor for human problems in living, and that mental illnesses are not "illnesses" in the sense that physical illnesses are; and that except for a few identifiable brain diseases, there are "neither biological or chemical tests nor biopsy or necropsy findings for verifying DSM diagnoses."
 
Last edited:
Life_and_Death

Life_and_Death

typically not in the mental frame to converse..
Jul 1, 2020
5,348
No, it isn't a study, it's him challenging the notion that what people have is not actually a illness. While I'm sure some things like Autism and some forms of Schizophrenia are genetic; things like personality disorders or post traumatic stress are products of abuse. The entire point of his argument is that you can't actually verify most of what is in the DSM as an actual disease or illness using science because that isn't what they actually are.
Agreed but not entirely. Like the personality disorder example. That's the one I was specifically referring to when I said "born with". However ptsd I agree with.

Illness- a disease or period of sickness affecting the body or mind.

Disease - a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms.

So take ptsd, technically an illness as it is effecting the mind but this is debatable because it says "disease or period of sickness". A disease however it is, yes. Of course they can only be so specific because everyone's different but for the most part is does fall under disease which brings us back to illness "a disease..." At which I've already stated that it is and there for fits the definition of illness.
 
EmbraceOfTheVoid

EmbraceOfTheVoid

Part Time NEET - Full Time Suicidal
Mar 29, 2020
690
Agreed but not entirely. Like the personality disorder example. That's the one I was specifically referring to when I said "born with". However ptsd I agree with.

Illness- a disease or period of sickness affecting the body or mind.

Disease - a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms.

So take ptsd, technically an illness as it is effecting the mind but this is debatable because it says "disease or period of sickness". A disease however it is, yes. Of course they can only be so specific because everyone's different but for the most part is does fall under disease which brings us back to illness "a disease..." At which I've already stated that it is and there for fits the definition of illness.

I'm diagnosed with a form of PTSD but I don't consider it a illness in the traditional sense because it is caused by traumatic events. I didn't catch it from someone and I certainly wasn't born with it, but it does have various health implications despite being caused by the environment. What the DSM contains is a collection of behaviors thrown together and labeled as diseases without a way to verify them. While it may be the best we have; it has little to no credibility in reality.

If I went to 10 different psychiatrists I'd be given a different diagnosis from just about all of them. One would give me Schizoid PD, one would give me Avoidant, another would give me disassociative PTSD, and the list goes on. If I had for instance a brain tumor and went to 10 different Neurologists to seek a diagnosis I'd get essentially the same diagnosis from all of them barring any human error.

I'm sure that certain personality traits can be genetic to an extent but even the various psychiatric books I've read have admitted personality disorders fall under post traumatic stress and are a ingrained means of coping with various forms of trauma or stressors and are interrelated with the fight, flight, freeze response. If you are interested I'd recommend reading Complex PTSD by Pete Walker.

There is a biological component to what I have but it was still caused by life events and is not a disease.

Edit: One more thing, personally I wouldn't care how I was labeled if that label wasn't used as a means to stigmatize me and discredit me as being crazy or incapable of deciding things for myself. The labels from the DSM are often used as a means to abuse and incarcerate people without any evidence beyond a psychiatrists personal opinion. Psychiatry has too much power despite being a pseudoscience, little credibility, and is not held accountable for depriving people of their human rights.
 
Last edited:
H

Hyperborean

Member
Dec 19, 2020
67
Each individual's psychiatry is purely a manifestation of their environment and has nothing to due with biology/science, pure and simple.
This is ridiculous! There are people born with brain disorders who have psychiatric disorders. Also the chemicals in your brain are what controls if you're depressed or not, same with hallucinations! Why do you think if you take something like magic mushrooms you hallucinate? Because the chemicals are messing with your biology and causing hallucinations!

What you listed does play a part in some mental illness as stress and such can cause mental illness. But that's the stress causing your biology to go out of whack and create a chemical imbalance.

Did you pay attention in biology at all?
 
I

Itsjustme21

Member
Dec 4, 2020
33
The period in my life where I was most depressed and suicidal was when I was eating very healthy and working out a lot. I looked very fit and got a lot of compliments. Still wanted to die. Now it doesnt really matter how healthy I eat, i always feel like shit but not as bad as back then.
 
S

Secrets1

Specialist
Nov 18, 2019
312
I agree that most are a manifestation of the environment but they still causes long term impacts to your health. I read a heavy book over a year ago called Neurobiology of Traumatic Disassociation and it does a good job of explaining the impact of being in prolonged states of fight/flight/freeze which cause damage to the nervous system. I've had lifelong health problems due to the freeze response; fatigue, physical/emotional numbness, poor coordination& attention span, ringing in my ears, heightened sensitivity to light/sound, extreme gaps in memory, brain fog, difficulty to consciously think, fibromyalgia, etc.

None of this stuff of course comes up in any modern tests really because what we have now may as well be compared to a caveman attempting open heart surgery with a stick. FMRIs do however show overactivation and underactivation of various parts of the brain for people who have been traumatized, I fit the latter category.

Problem is fMRI’s which show capability to produce better hard science haven’t made it out of research and into normal diagnostics. I go to Mayo Clinic have a traumatic brain injury and couldn’t get one.

There’s hard science in psychiatry/neurology/neurobiology it’s just looks like a piece of Swiss cheese compared to other aspects of medicine. On one hand it’s not the psych dr.’s fault because they’re dealing with much more complex biological issues (often stemming from trauma). Still their overall ish is still weak as fuck given the investments made. A few influential people moved the field off course at dif points in history.

ALSO!!! A lot of people here including myself should be happy. It looks like “BPD” as a personality disorder is going to disappear in the next DSM and be replaced with C-PTSD or other ailments because of the inaccuracies and bullshit stigma that the a-holes who came up with diagnosis and made it official 40-80 years ago set the stage for. Progress is happening just slowly
 
Last edited:
EmbraceOfTheVoid

EmbraceOfTheVoid

Part Time NEET - Full Time Suicidal
Mar 29, 2020
690
Problem is fMRI’s which show capability to produce better hard science haven’t made it out of research and into normal diagnostics. I go to Mayo Clinic have a traumatic brain injury and couldn’t get one.

There’s hard science in psychiatry/neurology/neurobiology it’s just looks like a piece of Swiss cheese compared to other aspects of medicine. On one hand it’s not the psych dr.’s fault because they’re dealing with much more complex biological issues (often stemming from trauma). Still their overall ish is still weak as fuck given the investments made. A few influential people moved the field off course at dif points in history.

ALSO!!! A lot of people here including myself should be happy. It looks like “BPD” as a personality disorder is going to disappear in the next DSM and be replaced with C-PTSD or other ailments because of the inaccuracies and bullshit stigma that the a-holes who came up with diagnosis and made it official 40-80 years ago set the stage for. Progress is happening just slowly

I agree, they don't have anything tangible in reality. I had a neurologist do various tests a while back to make sure my issues weren't at least partially caused by a head injury as a kid and he waved away the idea of doing a FMRI as it's mainly used for research. Of course, even finding something on an fMRI is meaningless because they can't do anything about it.

And while I understand it isn't a therapists fault that they don't have real methods of dealing with trauma or the damage it has caused to the nervous system; it's still really shitty of many of them to approach people like they have the answers. A lot of harmful forms of "therapy" are pushed as solutions because they are the fastest and cheapest solutions even if they've been proven to be ineffective.

I think a year ago I read they were trying to add CPTSD to the ICD and they were going to do away with personality disorders entirely & go with personality traits that fall under post traumatic stress. Don't quote me on that, I don't know if that actually happened.
 
muffin222

muffin222

Enlightened
Mar 31, 2020
1,188
I'm really shocked by some of the things being stated in this thread. There have been actual studies that look into the genetic basis of some mental illnesses. Even suicide and suicidal thoughts can be traced back to certain genes in many people. It's not all environmental.

Some people actually are genetically pre-disposed or vulnerable to developing certain mental illnesses and ailments. Yes, for many people there does need to be an environmental trigger in the form of abuse, chronic stress, trauma, etc to trigger the mental illness to develop, but that doesn't negate the fact that certain people are genetically inclined to become mentally ill.

Mental illness isn't just some label used to peddle pills or a byproduct of brain inflammation, nor is it always caused by abuse and trauma. I don't understand how some of you are so comfortable stating such blatantly false ideas as though they're fact.
 
H

Hyperborean

Member
Dec 19, 2020
67
I'm really shocked by some of the things being stated in this thread. There have been actual studies that look into the genetic basis of some mental illnesses. Even suicide and suicidal thoughts can be traced back to certain genes in many people. It's not all environmental.

Some people actually are genetically pre-disposed or vulnerable to developing certain mental illnesses and ailments. Yes, for many people there does need to be an environmental trigger in the form of abuse, chronic stress, trauma, etc to trigger the mental illness to develop, but that doesn't negate the fact that certain people are genetically inclined to become mentally ill.

Mental illness isn't just some label used to peddle pills or a byproduct of brain inflammation, nor is it always caused by abuse and trauma. I don't understand how some of you are so comfortable stating such blatantly false ideas as though they're fact.
Gotta love wilful ignorance of some people!
 
fixitinpost

fixitinpost

Arriving Somewhere But Not Here
Oct 20, 2020
161
Each individual's psychiatry is purely a manifestation of their environment and has nothing to due with biology/science, pure and simple.

And this manifestation occurs through brain chemistry. I'm no neurologist, but I don't think it takes one to see that the environment affects our chemistry, and the chemistry affects how we respond to our environment. This is what I learned in high school biology. It's really just one big feedback loop of scientific nature. And we're all born with different chemistries, and thus different mental predispositions.

Autism spectrum disorders is a perfect example. Symptoms are present in the infant stage, and the disorders are thus believed to be highly genetics-based. And if ASDs are, why can't other disorders even to a much lesser degree be?

Psychiatry without question has merit as far as I'm concerned, but the brain is so complex and so uniquely adaptable that we still understand so little and treatment typically boils down to trial and error much more so than in most other areas of medicine.
 
Last edited:
N

noaccount

Paragon
Oct 26, 2019
944
I'm really shocked by some of the things being stated in this thread. There have been actual studies that look into the genetic basis of some mental illnesses. Even suicide and suicidal thoughts can be traced back to certain genes in many people. It's not all environmental.

Some people actually are genetically pre-disposed or vulnerable to developing certain mental illnesses and ailments. Yes, for many people there does need to be an environmental trigger in the form of abuse, chronic stress, trauma, etc to trigger the mental illness to develop, but that doesn't negate the fact that certain people are genetically inclined to become mentally ill.

Mental illness isn't just some label used to peddle pills or a byproduct of brain inflammation, nor is it always caused by abuse and trauma. I don't understand how some of you are so comfortable stating such blatantly false ideas as though they're fact.
The words "neurological" and "illness" make semiotic sense together. A sleight-of-hand is performed when "neurological" is replaced with "mental."

(But that's about what I'd expect from psych-iatrists meaning, literally, "soul doctors" - less doctors than priests.)

EVERY experience, is a manifestation of something happening in our bodies, biologically, neurologically.

Having a religion, is a biochemical experience. Learning to play saxophone, is a biochemical experience. Falling in love, is a biochemical experience. Grieving a parent, praying, disliking a certain food - these all depend on neurological reactions.

Which ones are then called illness? One guideline, that might make sense, is "when the person's thoughts and feelings about it are causing them great distress or stopping them from functioning."

But such self-knowledge, such self-determination, is not allowed by psych-iatry, the gatekeepers of the soul, who say it is Illness to disagree with them, Illness to have different goals than them.

The education, is out there for those who want it.






 
H

Hyperborean

Member
Dec 19, 2020
67
The words "neurological" and "illness" make semiotic sense together. A sleight-of-hand is performed when "neurological" is replaced with "mental."

(But that's about what I'd expect from psych-iatrists meaning, literally, "soul doctors" - less doctors than priests.)

EVERY experience, is a manifestation of something happening in our bodies, biologically, neurologically.

Having a religion, is a biochemical experience. Learning to play saxophone, is a biochemical experience. Falling in love, is a biochemical experience. Grieving a parent, praying, disliking a certain food - these all depend on neurological reactions.

Which ones are then called illness? One guideline, that might make sense, is "when the person's thoughts and feelings about it are causing them great distress or stopping them from functioning."

But such self-knowledge, such self-determination, is not allowed by psych-iatry, the gatekeepers of the soul, who say it is Illness to disagree with them, Illness to have different goals than them.

The education, is out there for those who want it.






I take it you've never delt with a paranoid schizophrenic off their meds have you?

I can tell you for a fact that my mother having full blown auditory hallucinations is far from normal and definitely a sign that part of her brain isn't functioning properly! I've delt with her schizophrenia for 18 years now and in that time I've been there whenever she's had an episode, where she's screaming at the fucking trees at one in the morning thinking people are following or when she thinks she's been recruited by the government.

That's definitely not my mother that's her broken brain causing her to have delusions!

Whilst psychiatry isn't perfect it has helped a lot of people. Took years for my mother to find a medication that was suitable for her. If it wasn't for her medication she'd be locked in a psyche ward and unable to see her granddaughter.

Quite frankly what you're pushing is dangerous to the people with mental illness and the general public!
 
E

everydayiloveyou

Arcanist
Jul 5, 2020
483
This gut biome/entropy crap is pseudoscience at its finest. There's no basis in those claims besides the word of a bunch of snake oil salesmen -- most of whom have never dealt with people with a severe mental illness nor have had it themselves -- they make loads more money than Big Pharma because they take advantage of desperate people like you, often without the oversight that is offered by the FDA and other structures made to protect consumers from these "treatments" that have 0 evidence as to whether or not they work.

The actual science already says that meds may or not work. Just like the science says that psychotherapy may or not work. The difference between a "big pharma" study conducted by trained and licensed professionals, and a ~~study~~ by some vitamin seller is that big pharma actually has to go by the scientific method, get their research peer-reviewed, go through trials, etc. Anecdotal evidence is not good evidence, especially not when it comes to medicine, where outcomes can vary due to all sorts of variables.

Maybe meds didn't work for you because you have some kinda no-meds gene. For someone else, DBT might not be working because their favorite color is purple and they're left handed. We don't know the specifics yet. The issue is that mental illness is extremely complicated and there are lots of variables that are very hard to control for. Being poor, for example, could be the simple "cause" of multiple different mental illnesses in different types of people. We can't control for that, because it's almost impossible to gather up even 10 people who've had the exact same circumstances, traumas, and life experiences that would make such a study fair and perfectly controlled. This makes mental illness treatment research very different from medical research for other conditions. It's easier to find treatments for things when the problem is easy to locate, e.g. checking your eye pressure to detect and then treat glaucoma, or when the problem has obvious, specific symptoms that can be managed to a degree, e.g. taking certain meds clearly helps people with hypertension or diabetes.

It's so wrong to spread this kinda thing on a site where very desperate and lonely people go, many of whom have never sought professional treatment before (for a variety of reasons).

anyways if your brain is actually inflamed then you should probably see a doctor asap, thats a wholeeeee different thing