Stop demonizing medication.

[Fomalhaut]

Yeah, it's historically been and still is in many ways, a form of social control that masquerades itself as help, previously more to the "loved ones" of the mentally ill rather than the patient themselves. (Ie: controlling men used to be able to send their wives to asylums or to get lobotomies over shit like not keeping the home tidy enough, and schizophrenia as a diagnoses has historically been used to discredit and institutionalize anti-establishment Civil Rights activists).


And the psychotherapies, diagnostic manual, and medication racket aren't as transparent as they should be, or as scientifically accurate as people would like to pretend or are lead to believe. So many times, I've asked the psychiatrists to explain the nature of how exactly these medications fix specific emotional problems and traits and gotten a big, fat, educated  "we really don't know the answer to that,  but there are many  studies that show positive results and millions of people use them every day."

In Merica we could have just as easily ended up with a mental health system that used the Homeopathic Constitutional Types to diagnose mental problems, if not for the oil-money backed Pharmeceutical industry largely killing the practice of Homeopathy here  (or at the very least killing the respect it still held in the early 1900s as an equally valid school of medicine). I'm not so much defending Homeopathy as trying to say their idea of Constitutional Types makes just as much sense as the diagnosis criteria in the DSM and that psychiatry is really equally "pseudoscientific", since  they also do no tests and diagnose based on a couple observable traits in that moment and any traits reported by the patient. Homeopaths actually go into a lot more detail about the patient as a whole to diagnose their "type"  than Psychiatry generally does to diagnose your "disorder". They're both equally Platonic (ideologically based in assuming there is an "essence" of normality that all humans should strive to be, usually based during treatment on the practitioner's own self due to the nature of doctor/patient relationship but which probably doesn't actually exist in reality, and if the tables were turned the practitioner would likely find themselves to also fit into one or more of these "disordered" categories, any one of them with integrity hopefully DOES go see their own practitioner if only to keep their ego at bay).

Neurology really is the future of mental treatment. The more we've come to understand the brain, the more we can drop this philosophical guesswork in regards to healing it and have a more transparent system of doing so. A lot of money will be lost in a lot of fields though, so there will probably be backlash still for quite some time to keep that kind of progress at bay and more onslaughts of propaganda to keep funneling folks (and keep convincing them to funnel their loved ones) into the offices of pseudoscientists.

[chaotic neutral observer]

In Merica we could have just as easily ended up with a mental health system that used the Homeopathic Constitutional Types to diagnose mental problems, if not for the oil-money backed Pharmeceutical industry largely killing the practice of Homeopathy here  (or at the very least killing the respect it still held in the early 1900s as an equally valid school of medicine).

Hardly.  Homeopathy is complete nonsense.  You don't need the pharmaceutical industry to tell you that, a class in high-school chemistry will do.

Homeopaths actually go into a lot more detail about the patient as a whole to diagnose their "type"  than Psychiatry generally does to diagnose your "disorder".

It doesn't matter how much effort the homeopaths put into "diagnosis", if the treatment does nothing.  Quacks have to spend more time on the sideshow, to distract from the fact that they're selling placebo as a cure-all.

Neurology really is the future of mental treatment.

Funny that antidepressants serve the function of modifying brain chemistry.  I'm not going to claim that the pharmaceutical industry is exactly a model of virtue, but things have improved since the days of trepanning and electroshock.

What do you think a neurology-based treatment for mental illness would look like?

[Rev Thwack]

What do you think a neurology-based treatment for mental illness would look like?

nanobots that can map out the activation of synaptic pathways during certain emotional states and then re-wire them to create a more pleasing and desired outcome?

[Fomalhaut]

In Merica we could have just as easily ended up with a mental health system that used the Homeopathic Constitutional Types to diagnose mental problems, if not for the oil-money backed Pharmeceutical industry largely killing the practice of Homeopathy here  (or at the very least killing the respect it still held in the early 1900s as an equally valid school of medicine).

Hardly.  Homeopathy is complete nonsense.  You don't need the pharmaceutical industry to tell you that, a class in high-school chemistry will do.

Homeopaths actually go into a lot more detail about the patient as a whole to diagnose their "type"  than Psychiatry generally does to diagnose your "disorder".

It doesn't matter how much effort the homeopaths put into "diagnosis", if the treatment does nothing.  Quacks have to spend more time on the sideshow, to distract from the fact that they're selling placebo as a cure-all.

Neurology really is the future of mental treatment.

Funny that antidepressants serve the function of modifying brain chemistry.  I'm not going to claim that the pharmaceutical industry is exactly a model of virtue, but things have improved since the days of trepanning and electroshock.

What do you think a neurology-based treatment for mental illness would look like?

I don't know, was more trying to say that hopefully in the future medications will work better, be less harmful, and psychiatric issues will be diagnosed in a less pseudo-scientific way, maybe using actual brain scans instead of just depending on the Doctor's subjective observations within a usually very short visit, and the patients subjective reports.  Because right now, a lot of psychiatric treatment in regards to diagnosis and medicating disorders (because it goes beyond just SSRI's) is hilariously similar to the same bullshit that Homeopathy does, just with actual psychoactive drugs as the prescribed medicine and not sugar pills.

ETA: that other guy's idea about nanobots sounds cool though.

I think you misread me in my wordiness and sarcasm and took away  that I was defending Homeopathy. I was dissing the way psychiatrists still diagnose by comparing it to the way Homeopaths diagnose, not trying to say "Homeopathy good".

Although, yeah, in the early 1900s it was in most of The U.S still considered just as valid, but the pharma companies had the financial backing from the Rockefellers. That doesn't mean that Homeopathy isn't bullshit, either, it's just what I've been lead to think was historically true. People in the early 1900s didn't know what people do now. America tends to lend the most credence to the system that makes the most money or has more money backing it. Back then, killing that school had little if anything to do with enlightened intellectuals realizing Homeopathy was B.S. like we do now and trying to save people from bullshit treatments. It was about money. Again, that doesn't mean I think Homeopathy IS equally  valid, just that money is a huge motivator and people care more about money than keeping people "safe" from pseudoscientists.

You can still go pay a homeopath and see one if you want, they're still around, even today nobody really cares about protecting anyone from Bullshit. Also, if someone goes to one for a minor ailment and feels better due to the Placebo Effect, I don't see why we give a shit as long as nobody is getting harmed. The Placebo Effect can be amazing. It may be a tad dishonest on the doctor's part, but ultimately the patient got what they wanted which was to feel and function better. I could care less if people want to use faith healing or any of that shit to feel better, despite the fact that I don't believe in the validity of it. It triggers the  mind's ability to heal itself in some people. If we could harness that without using B.S. catalysts, that would be great, but most people can't do that (yet?).

The doctor my husband's family sees is both an M.D. and a certified homeopath, and certified in  Nutritional Medicine, Peptide Therapy, Stem Cell Therapy, and "Anti-Aging" treatments. He'll take everybody's money. He gives no fucks or qualms. He'll give you whatever whacked out treatment you want as long you put money in his pocket, and got all the professional pieces of paper necessary to do it legally. More power to him. Is he open minded and just a huge advocate for patients being able to have a lot of options, or just a really smart medical con man? I lean towards the latter mostly, but I don't know. Maybe both. He is, to the dude's merit, apparently very honest to his patients about what should be treated only with modern medicinal practices, and what could potentially be healed by homeopathic Placebo or more experimental treatments.

Why is it so easy to see the B.S. in regards to Homeopathy but not that currently respected practices of medicine may eventually be come to seen as archaic B.S. ? That was more my point.

[The Johnny]

[...]
And the psychotherapies, diagnostic manual, and medication racket aren't as transparent as they should be, or as scientifically accurate as people would like to pretend or are lead to believe. So many times, I've asked the psychiatrists to explain the nature of how exactly these medications fix specific emotional problems and traits and gotten a big, fat, educated  "we really don't know the answer to that,  but there are many  studies that show positive results and millions of people use them every day."
[...]
Neurology really is the future of mental treatment. The more we've come to understand the brain, the more we can drop this philosophical guesswork in regards to healing it and have a more transparent system of doing so. A lot of money will be lost in a lot of fields though, so there will probably be backlash still for quite some time to keep that kind of progress at bay and more onslaughts of propaganda to keep funneling folks (and keep convincing them to funnel their loved ones) into the offices of pseudoscientists.

Its because psychiatry treats the superficial symptoms, with the assumption that its all organic (without getting into or having a representation of underlying causes which can be NOT organic)... meanwhile any informed psychotherapy considers that "illness" is psychosomatic, that is to say, organic function can affect psychic function, and the inverse as well, psychic function can have physical manifestations.

And well, neurology does seem to have a bright future cause its very loyal to medical advances and practice... but to says its the future for the whole field? I disagree, there's a whole side of "mental illness" that you cannot treat with surgery or medication.

[Fomalhaut]

[...]
And the psychotherapies, diagnostic manual, and medication racket aren't as transparent as they should be, or as scientifically accurate as people would like to pretend or are lead to believe. So many times, I've asked the psychiatrists to explain the nature of how exactly these medications fix specific emotional problems and traits and gotten a big, fat, educated  "we really don't know the answer to that,  but there are many  studies that show positive results and millions of people use them every day."
[...]
Neurology really is the future of mental treatment. The more we've come to understand the brain, the more we can drop this philosophical guesswork in regards to healing it and have a more transparent system of doing so. A lot of money will be lost in a lot of fields though, so there will probably be backlash still for quite some time to keep that kind of progress at bay and more onslaughts of propaganda to keep funneling folks (and keep convincing them to funnel their loved ones) into the offices of pseudoscientists.

Its because psychiatry treats the superficial symptoms, with the assumption that its all organic (without getting into or having a representation of underlying causes which can be NOT organic)... meanwhile any informed psychotherapy considers that "illness" is psychosomatic, that is to say, organic function can affect psychic function, and the inverse as well, psychic function can have physical manifestations.

And well, neurology does seem to have a bright future cause its very loyal to medical advances and practice... but to says its the future for the whole field? I disagree, there's a whole side of "mental illness" that you cannot treat with surgery or medication.

Yeaaah, calling neurology "the future of mental treatment" was hyperbolic of me, and the hyperbole overshadowed the point I was attempting to make, which was just that it seems to have the potential to reshape a lot of our current practices in mental treatment and hopefully make a lot of the guesswork still remaining obsolete. But in doing so could potentially run a lot of folks monetizing off of current or pseudoscientific practices out of business, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's  backlash towards it from those fields.

[chaotic neutral observer]

I think you misread me in my wordiness and sarcasm and took away  that I was defending Homeopathy. I was dissing the way psychiatrists still diagnose by comparing it to the way Homeopaths diagnose, not trying to say "Homeopathy good".

That's fair.  I'm admittedly a bit trigger-happy where pseudo-science is concerned.

Why is it so easy to see the B.S. in regards to Homeopathy but not that currently respected practices of medicine may eventually be come to seen as archaic B.S. ? That was more my point.

Well, archaic, at any rate, but at least the outcomes of treatment are often positive.  You are free to cast any aspersions you like on the psychiatrist I saw a couple years ago, but if you think I should quit antidepressants, you'll have to pry the pill bottle from my cold dead fingers.

[Fomalhaut]

I think you misread me in my wordiness and sarcasm and took away  that I was defending Homeopathy. I was dissing the way psychiatrists still diagnose by comparing it to the way Homeopaths diagnose, not trying to say "Homeopathy good".

That's fair.  I'm admittedly a bit trigger-happy where pseudo-science is concerned.

Why is it so easy to see the B.S. in regards to Homeopathy but not that currently respected practices of medicine may eventually be come to seen as archaic B.S. ? That was more my point.

Well, archaic, at any rate, but at least the outcomes of treatment are often positive.  You are free to cast any aspersions you like on the psychiatrist I saw a couple years ago, but if you think I should quit antidepressants, you'll have to pry the pill bottle from my cold dead fingers.

Yeah, I'm not one of those lunatic anti-med people that wants to take away anybody's Prozac, or any drug that makes them feel or function better, for that matter. As long as it isn't leading to their demise or harming anyone else, then it becomes a murky ethical debate. I lost a boyfriend to Heroin overdose when I was 19, and I'm 99% certain he would rather still be here now to watch his daughter grow up than have relapsed on heroin no matter how good it made him feel in the moment. But SSRIs are pretty damn safe and even most other prescribed psych meds (antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, etc) usually cause the worst physiological issues slowly over time, so I'm more for making better meds with less side effects than people getting off of them now.

Not pro-Homeopathy either, my father in law is though, which is how I even know so much about how it supposedly "works". He's got books on it, I got bored and read them one day. I think it worked for him because of the Placebo Effect. Maybe he just has a particularly strong self-healing mechanism and the belief that the homeopathic remedy was doing anything triggered that. He also used to be very religious, so his capacity for belief in general is particularly strong. Both working simultaneously really did somehow make his lifelong, debilitating migraines go away. 

If it works sometimes via Placebo Effect, for minor things, for those few people left who are more willing to believe in the Healing Power of Bullshit than in the perceived safety of daily pharmaceutical use, why exactly should we care so much that we get combative and angry about it just because it's pseudoscience (beyond there being some mild dishonesty and manipulation on the Doc's part, which you can still find in modern medicine all the time as well?) my whole argument is that the practice of Psychiatry hasn't caught up yet to get on so much of a high horse. The only thing real going for it is that the drugs are REAL and cause real, psychoactive affects. In SSRI's that's usually safe, in some others it can cause more negative effects if they don't pare well with your body chemistry, and pretty much all of them other than SSRI's cause health problems over time. So there's still room for improvement with our whole view of medicine, especially mental health treatment.

Im just an advocate for progress.

I'm not intending for any of my comments  to take away from the many positive experiences people  have had with Psychiatry, or to sound "Anti-Psychiatry/Doctor", but I've already said that earlier in the thread and didn't think to constantly repeat it to avoid misunderstandings. Apologies for that. I also am really wordy, sarcastic, and can be hyperbolic sometimes. Will work on that, it doesn't lend well to online discussions.

[Fomalhaut]

For real though, funnily enough, I've noticed that sometimes people who've been helped by Psychiatry even sound the same as the people who they perceive as "stupid" Homeopathy believers when they hear criticism of it. Any criticism of the thing that helped them is taken as somehow detracting from the fact that they were/are helped by it, and triggers an internal defense mechanism. "It's not Pseudoscience, it's REAL science, my doctor told me so, and he went to school for a long time to learn this stuff. There are studies. It's that OTHeR ThIng that's the fake science" on both sides

That and disordered thinking has become super prevalent, so it's hard to have a non-judgmental open discussion about anything. Maybe more people need to go through DBT as well as take whatever psychoactive/Placebo medication works best for them.

DBT: It's not just for the Borderlines anymore!

[chaotic neutral observer]

I think your post was better before you amended it.  Maybe instead of repeatedly editing, if you think of something else to say, just add another post.  That's accepted etiquette on this forum.  (To the extent that we have any etiquette.)

If it works sometimes via Placebo Effect, [...] why exactly should we care so much that we get combative and angry about it just because it's pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is the systematization of false ideas.  You can't be an "advocate for progress" while giving pseudoscience a pass.

The only thing real going for it is that the drugs are REAL and cause real, psychoactive affects.

The only real thing going for it is that...it's real?  Isn't that a good thing?

I'm not intending for any of my comments  to take away from the many positive experiences people  have had with Psychiatry, or to sound "Anti-Psychiatry/Doctor", but I've already said that earlier in the thread and didn't think to constantly repeat it to avoid misunderstandings.

I'm not asking you to repeat yourself, but I when I see a conversation involving Fujikoma, I scroll on by. I only dropped in because The Johnny started posting.

I also am really wordy, sarcastic, and can be hyperbolic sometimes. Will work on that, it doesn't lend well to online discussions.

I'm fine with wordy and sarcastic.  I might misinterpret hyperbole, but now that I've been warned, it's all on me.

[Fomalhaut]

I think your post was better before you amended it.  Maybe instead of repeatedly editing, if you think of something else to say, just add another post.  That's accepted etiquette on this forum.  (To the extent that we have any etiquette.)

If it works sometimes via Placebo Effect, [...] why exactly should we care so much that we get combative and angry about it just because it's pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is the systematization of false ideas.  You can't be an "advocate for progress" while giving pseudoscience a pass.

The only thing real going for it is that the drugs are REAL and cause real, psychoactive affects.

The only real thing going for it is that...it's real?  Isn't that a good thing?

I'm not intending for any of my comments  to take away from the many positive experiences people  have had with Psychiatry, or to sound "Anti-Psychiatry/Doctor", but I've already said that earlier in the thread and didn't think to constantly repeat it to avoid misunderstandings.

I'm not asking you to repeat yourself, but I when I see a conversation involving Fujikoma, I scroll on by. I only dropped in because The Johnny started posting.

I also am really wordy, sarcastic, and can be hyperbolic sometimes. Will work on that, it doesn't lend well to online discussions.

I'm fine with wordy and sarcastic.  I might misinterpret hyperbole, but now that I've been warned, it's all on me.

Not giving pseudoscience a pass, necessarily, just saying that The Placebo Effect can honestly be very powerful for some people, so if The Placebo Effect heals the odd person occasionally, why does everyone care so much beyond feeling defensive because they personally needed real psychoactive drugs and their brains couldn't do it through pure belief in the power of bullshit? It doesn't harm anybody as long as it's tried for minor, non-life threatening things.

I take psych meds and I'm just not so effing defensive about it. If somebody can heal themselves or trigger an internal healing mechanism through Belief in Bullshit, I think it's kind of cool and has interesting implications.

[chaotic neutral observer]

For real though, funnily enough, I've noticed that sometimes people who've been helped by Psychiatry even sound the same as the people who they perceive as "stupid" Homeopathy believers when they hear criticism of it. Any criticism of the thing that helped them is taken as somehow detracting from the fact that they were/are helped by it, and triggers an internal defense mechanism. "It's not Pseudoscience, it's REAL science, my doctor told me so, and he went to school for a long time to learn this stuff. There are studies. It's that OTHeR ThIng that's the fake science" on both sides

The process which led to my being prescribed antidepressants was almost entirely arbitrary, and did little to give me any confidence in the system, or in the practitioners therein.

The science underlying the development of said antidepressants, I have rather more confidence in.

I don't think the comparison with homeopathy is apt.

[Fomalhaut]

For real though, funnily enough, I've noticed that sometimes people who've been helped by Psychiatry even sound the same as the people who they perceive as "stupid" Homeopathy believers when they hear criticism of it. Any criticism of the thing that helped them is taken as somehow detracting from the fact that they were/are helped by it, and triggers an internal defense mechanism. "It's not Pseudoscience, it's REAL science, my doctor told me so, and he went to school for a long time to learn this stuff. There are studies. It's that OTHeR ThIng that's the fake science" on both sides

The process which led to my being prescribed antidepressants was almost entirely arbitrary, and did little to give me any confidence in the system, or in the practitioners therein.

The science underlying the development of said antidepressants, I have rather more confidence in.

I don't think the comparison with homeopathy is apt.

Not seeing it as an apt comparison is fair enough, and I respect your opinion and am glad that you find antidepressants helpful, and that you're a person who thinks for themselves.

[chaotic neutral observer]

Not giving pseudoscience a pass ,necessarily, just saying that The Placebo Effect can honestly be very powerful for some people, so if The Placebo Effect heals the odd person occasionally, why does everyone care so much beyond feeling defensive because they personally needed real psychoactive drugs and their brains couldn't do it through pure belief in the power of bullshit? It doesn't harm anybody as long as it's tried for minor, non-life threatening things.

Those quack remedies are being used to treat life-threatening illnesses, and people have died as a result.

Do you see why lending that type of pseudoscience legitimacy, even if it's only to call it "harmless" might be a problem?

[Fomalhaut]

Not giving pseudoscience a pass ,necessarily, just saying that The Placebo Effect can honestly be very powerful for some people, so if The Placebo Effect heals the odd person occasionally, why does everyone care so much beyond feeling defensive because they personally needed real psychoactive drugs and their brains couldn't do it through pure belief in the power of bullshit? It doesn't harm anybody as long as it's tried for minor, non-life threatening things.

Those quack remedies are being used to treat life-threatening illnesses, and people have died as a result.

Do you see why lending that type of pseudoscience legitimacy, even if it's only to call it "harmless" might be a problem?

No, because those people are just being dumb. they either see really bad homeopaths, or are the type that would just do it themselves at home which isn't recommended in Homeopathic medicine anyway. They're likely the same kind of people who would take their friend's pharmaceuticals without talking to a doctor, which can also kill you, but we don't talk about taking away pharmaceuticals because people do that (that would be stupid). Although people have also died as a result of doing that, too.

That just makes me think there should be more homeopaths who are also M.D.s, like the one my Father in Law goes to mentioned above, who are more honest with their patients about what it can potentially be used for and when to say "fuck that" and pursue actual modern medical treatment.

Not a reason to take away the practice entirely. Continuing the practice, in a safe way, could potentially help teach us a lot more about harnessing the Placebo Effect and using our minds to heal ourselves of minor things.

Maybe it means we should give it a little more legitimacy if only  just to better make sure that people won't do that, and that the "remedies" they're getting are actual sugar pills with teeniest of trace amounts (not enough to actually affect the body) of whatever the fuck, and not poorly regulated, store bought poison. Although I'm skeptical as to whether the "remedies" are really supposed have anything at all in them or if the homeopath just says they have trace amounts of whatever.

This conversation actually just lead me to realize that maybe is why their doctor does both, so thanks for that even though it wasn't your intention.