As you would expect from the New York Review of Books, this (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/23/epidemic-mental-illness-why/?pagination=false) is an excellent article:
QuoteA large survey of randomly selected adults, sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and conducted between 2001 and 2003, found that an astonishing 46 percent met criteria established by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) for having had at least one mental illness within four broad categories at some time in their lives. The categories were "anxiety disorders," including, among other subcategories, phobias and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); "mood disorders," including major depression and bipolar disorders; "impulse-control disorders," including various behavioral problems and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); and "substance use disorders," including alcohol and drug abuse. Most met criteria for more than one diagnosis. Of a subgroup affected within the previous year, a third were under treatment—up from a fifth in a similar survey ten years earlier.
Nowadays treatment by medical doctors nearly always means psychoactive drugs, that is, drugs that affect the mental state. In fact, most psychiatrists treat only with drugs, and refer patients to psychologists or social workers if they believe psychotherapy is also warranted. The shift from "talk therapy" to drugs as the dominant mode of treatment coincides with the emergence over the past four decades of the theory that mental illness is caused primarily by chemical imbalances in the brain that can be corrected by specific drugs. That theory became broadly accepted, by the media and the public as well as by the medical profession, after Prozac came to market in 1987 and was intensively promoted as a corrective for a deficiency of serotonin in the brain. The number of people treated for depression tripled in the following ten years, and about 10 percent of Americans over age six now take antidepressants. The increased use of drugs to treat psychosis is even more dramatic. The new generation of antipsychotics, such as Risperdal, Zyprexa, and Seroquel, has replaced cholesterol-lowering agents as the top-selling class of drugs in the US.
What is going on here? Is the prevalence of mental illness really that high and still climbing? Particularly if these disorders are biologically determined and not a result of environmental influences, is it plausible to suppose that such an increase is real? Or are we learning to recognize and diagnose mental disorders that were always there? On the other hand, are we simply expanding the criteria for mental illness so that nearly everyone has one? And what about the drugs that are now the mainstay of treatment? Do they work? If they do, shouldn't we expect the prevalence of mental illness to be declining, not rising?
There is a lot more at the link, including a thorough debunking of the "chemical imbalance" "theory" of mental illness:
QuoteWhen it was found that psychoactive drugs affect neurotransmitter levels in the brain, as evidenced mainly by the levels of their breakdown products in the spinal fluid, the theory arose that the cause of mental illness is an abnormality in the brain's concentration of these chemicals that is specifically countered by the appropriate drug. For example, because Thorazine was found to lower dopamine levels in the brain, it was postulated that psychoses like schizophrenia are caused by too much dopamine. Or later, because certain antidepressants increase levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin in the brain, it was postulated that depression is caused by too little serotonin. (These antidepressants, like Prozac or Celexa, are called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) because they prevent the reabsorption of serotonin by the neurons that release it, so that more remains in the synapses to activate other neurons.) Thus, instead of developing a drug to treat an abnormality, an abnormality was postulated to fit a drug.
That was a great leap in logic, as all three authors point out. It was entirely possible that drugs that affected neurotransmitter levels could relieve symptoms even if neurotransmitters had nothing to do with the illness in the first place (and even possible that they relieved symptoms through some other mode of action entirely). As Carlat puts it, "By this same logic one could argue that the cause of all pain conditions is a deficiency of opiates, since narcotic pain medications activate opiate receptors in the brain." Or similarly, one could argue that fevers are caused by too little aspirin.
But the main problem with the theory is that after decades of trying to prove it, researchers have still come up empty-handed. All three authors document the failure of scientists to find good evidence in its favor. Neurotransmitter function seems to be normal in people with mental illness before treatment. In Whitaker's words:
Prior to treatment, patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, depression, and other psychiatric disorders do not suffer from any known "chemical imbalance." However, once a person is put on a psychiatric medication, which, in one manner or another, throws a wrench into the usual mechanics of a neuronal pathway, his or her brain begins to function...abnormally.
Carlat refers to the chemical imbalance theory as a "myth" (which he calls "convenient" because it destigmatizes mental illness), and Kirsch, whose book focuses on depression, sums up this way: "It now seems beyond question that the traditional account of depression as a chemical imbalance in the brain is simply wrong."
QuoteWith long-term use of psychoactive drugs, the result is, in the words of Steve Hyman, a former director of the NIMH and until recently provost of Harvard University, "substantial and long-lasting alterations in neural function." As quoted by Whitaker, the brain, Hyman wrote, begins to function in a manner "qualitatively as well as quantitatively different from the normal state." After several weeks on psychoactive drugs, the brain's compensatory efforts begin to fail, and side effects emerge that reflect the mechanism of action of the drugs. For example, the SSRIs may cause episodes of mania, because of the excess of serotonin. Antipsychotics cause side effects that resemble Parkinson's disease, because of the depletion of dopamine (which is also depleted in Parkinson's disease). As side effects emerge, they are often treated by other drugs, and many patients end up on a cocktail of psychoactive drugs prescribed for a cocktail of diagnoses. The episodes of mania caused by antidepressants may lead to a new diagnosis of "bipolar disorder" and treatment with a "mood stabilizer," such as Depokote (an anticonvulsant) plus one of the newer antipsychotic drugs. And so on.
Some patients take as many as six psychoactive drugs daily. One well- respected researcher, Nancy Andreasen, and her colleagues published evidence that the use of antipsychotic drugs is associated with shrinkage of the brain, and that the effect is directly related to the dose and duration of treatment. As Andreasen explained to The New York Times, "The prefrontal cortex doesn't get the input it needs and is being shut down by drugs. That reduces the psychotic symptoms. It also causes the prefrontal cortex to slowly atrophy."
Getting off the drugs is exceedingly difficult, according to Whitaker, because when they are withdrawn the compensatory mechanisms are left unopposed. When Celexa is withdrawn, serotonin levels fall precipitously because the presynaptic neurons are not releasing normal amounts and the postsynaptic neurons no longer have enough receptors for it. Similarly, when an antipsychotic is withdrawn, dopamine levels may skyrocket. The symptoms produced by withdrawing psychoactive drugs are often confused with relapses of the original disorder, which can lead psychiatrists to resume drug treatment, perhaps at higher doses.
I'd like to think,
a la Scientology, that there is some kind of sinister, social-control style agenda behind all of this, but in all likelihood it is due to biased initial approaches to mental illness, plus money. Nevertheless, I think it suggests a critical attitude towards psychiatry is not the preserve of cranks but, rather, quite a sensible position to hold.
I'm looking forward to part two of the article.
Wow, that was a very well written piece. Thanks for sharing that Cain.
Nice find, very interesting article.
Really interesting stuff; thank you, Cain!
Psychiatry is very flawed, and as a current end user of mental health services its of a personal concern to me.
Thanks Cain.
...having a brother who is a Scientologist, I find this very interesting, as well as putting me in the odd situation of possibly having to admit that he came to correct conclusions while still presenting erroneous evidence.
I mostly agree with [what Cain quoted from] the article, except this bit, which strikes me as a littlebit too quickly reasoned:
Quote"By this same logic one could argue that the cause of all pain conditions is a deficiency of opiates, since narcotic pain medications activate opiate receptors in the brain." Or similarly, one could argue that fevers are caused by too little aspirin.
Or maybe, I'm understanding it wrong. But if you have an illness Q that is
not directly caused by a deficiency of X, but which can be treated with drug Z that stimulates, produces or "inhibits reuptake of" X, then I would still pose that Z is a reasonable treatment for Q, right?
Because pain-relief medications are a reasonable treatment for chronic pain, right?
Certainly it would be wrong to claim that Z somehow "fixes" or "cures" Q, but barring an actual drug that does so, Z would be the next best thing.
That said, I'll repeat I don't want to argue against the general position taken in the article as the rest of the stuff said seems pretty spot-on, but I just wanted to highlight that bit that strikes me as somewhat shady reasoning.
Reading again, I see that the point they're making is that depressive disorders apparently were retroactively chalked up to be caused by serotonin deficiencies because that's what the drugs appeared to be "fixing". On the one hand I wonder if it's really as black-and-white as that, though on the other hand I can totally see sloppy medical research coming to such a backwards conclusion.
Also, I especially like this bit:
QuoteAnd what about the drugs that are now the mainstay of treatment? Do they work? If they do, shouldn't we expect the prevalence of mental illness to be declining, not rising?
Excellent stuff, Cain.
I can't remember the name of the book I picked up about this very subject, but it was written by a Psychiatrist who had the realization that he had gone from being a 'talk therapist' into a conveyor belt script writer. In one part of the book he found himself prescribing certain drugs to his patients because he thought the sales rep from the drug company was 'cute' and they had some nice lunches together!
So, he snaps out of it and is now concerned about the same kinds of things this article gets into - that psychiatrists rarely, if ever, do the job they actually trained for. Instead, the therapy is doled out to psychologists, counselors etc.
On the other hand, are we simply expanding the criteria for mental illness so that nearly everyone has one?
I think, yes. And not just mental disorders but for other things. Blood Pressure, Bone Density, Blood Sugar, Cholesterol - the levels of these have all been redefined (lower) so that it increases the catchment for diagnosis. Plus we have bullshit terms like 'pre-diabetic' (it's the disease before the disease) and 'osteopenia' (the non-disease you get before osteoperosis).
We need more articles and research like this. [My particular bugbear is that Doctors have been getting women to gorge themselves on calcium which has caused no drop in the incidence of bone fractures or fatalities from bone fractures. IT DOES NOT WORK. Arghh!!]
I had a client a few months ago who was seen by both a psychiatrist and a psychologist. She had been diagnosed with multiple 'issues' and for the life of me, I couldn't see anything abnormal about her. The bottom line was that the poor girl was stressed. She worked tough job, had to live at home because she was broke and she was planning a career change that her family & peer group didn't support. You're not sick, you're frustrated.
It's those damn Spiders.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on June 14, 2011, 04:45:18 PM
It's those damn Spiders.
And, as I have said, WE are the spiders.
We've made life so fucking complex and stressful that the only way to stay reasonably sane is to stun yourself stupid with chemicals.
Looking around, you may have noticed that everyone seems a little...Off? Except for me, I am clever and empowered with the libido of a tyrannosaurus.
The reason everyone is a little off is because they are either stunned as per above, or drowning in information that they don't need at a rate they cannot process.
So of course they're all crazy. I mean, it's not like the species was wired properly in the first place.
I have. To. Get. Out.
Quote from: Your Mom on June 14, 2011, 06:09:11 PM
I have. To. Get. Out.
Just turn around and go out the way you came in.
I now need to shoop a pic of me looking in a mirror, and a spider looking back out.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on June 14, 2011, 06:30:55 PM
I now need to shoop a pic of me looking in a mirror, and a spider looking back out.
Heh. If we didn't demand this shit, we wouldn't have these problems.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 14, 2011, 05:47:16 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on June 14, 2011, 04:45:18 PM
It's those damn Spiders.
And, as I have said, WE are the spiders.
We've made life so fucking complex and stressful that the only way to stay reasonably sane is to stun yourself stupid with chemicals.
Looking around, you may have noticed that everyone seems a little...Off? Except for me, I am clever and empowered with the libido of a tyrannosaurus.
The reason everyone is a little off is because they are either stunned as per above, or drowning in information that they don't need at a rate they cannot process.
So of course they're all crazy. I mean, it's not like the species was wired properly in the first place.
:mittens: You are spot on there.
I just like, personally, an approach to being skeptical about EVERYFUCKINGTHING. I guess I am lucky in that the doctor I'm married to is naturally inclined towards this personality-wise AND human experience-wise (shit, grow up in a civil war after first Russians then Afghan Communists take over and yeah, you might be a little cynical about everything). So there's no over-Rxing in this house unless of course you MEAN to over-Rx.
Medicine for TOO LONG has been so quick to prescribe everything they can with a broadbrush because they just wana FIX it almost before they KNOW wtf it is. And the science is ever-changing. So last decade's FIX is what's being "fixed" NOW. Repercussions don't come down the pike for years and years. But jumping the gun and using trial drugs is what gets the happy on. So why the fuck not, right?
I think Rog is so right on when he says we've painted ourselves into a virtual fucking corner. That's why articles like this are so awesome--they show you exactly how easy it is to paint that corner. And it's neat and tidy with no drips so it's so believable as THE answer to EVERYTHING.
Why should there be MORE than one answer? The easiest and quickest solution should always work best, right?
I'm sure what Rog says is part of it.
But I also think it kinda lets off the quacks a little too easy, as well. Because they'll keep saying modern life is stressful (which it is) but they'll insist it's an environmental cause regardless of the evidence for it, because they have as little a clue as everyone else, and their little books (which are written by people whose wages are paid by the people who make the drugs) keep on diagnosing ever larger numbers of people...
Quote from: Cain on June 14, 2011, 08:13:07 PM
I'm sure what Rog says is part of it.
But I also think it kinda lets off the quacks a little too easy, as well. Because they'll keep saying modern life is stressful (which it is) but they'll insist it's an environmental cause regardless of the evidence for it, because they have as little a clue as everyone else, and their little books (which are written by people whose wages are paid by the people who make the drugs) keep on diagnosing ever larger numbers of people...
Oh, yeah, there's loads of money to be made on future shock.
Another piece, if it hasn't already been said, is that the doctor-patient relationship has shifted over the past 10 years. It used to be, that you went to a Doctor, you told him what was wrong, and he told you how to fix it. Nowadays, it really has shifted to the point where many will go into the Doctor's office, tell him what's wrong AND how they think it should be fixed and what script the Doctor should be writing to fix it. You see this reflected in the Rx ads, which of course have also fueled this evolution in the Doctor/patient relationship.
And the Doctors can get in a real bind too if they don't prescribe something because they can't be seen to NOT be responding to the patient's pain, whether it is legitimate, hyped up, or non-existent. People expect to be medicated. They expect a little pill to make everything right.
Sure, modern medicine has helped to solve needless suffering, but, I think perhaps some suffering is good. Not the kind that is debilitating. But the kind that tells you, yeah, you're sick, but your body is going to work through it.
That, and I think people have forgotten how to step back from the rat race and decompress. Or maybe they don't know how to do it in the first place. Everyone has to unplug on a regular basis.
Maybe that's why I'm not getting any drugs when I go to sickcall. I am doing it wrong.
Ah, you guys make me happy. I have trouble seeing past myself when I read articles like this. I'm always full of indignant "Yeah? Well when I went off meds, the only thing I thought about was killing myself over and over. So.. what do you say to that, huh?" types of thought. That's not to say that I don't think things are horribly fucked up in psychiatry today, but it's nice to have other perspectives to consider.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 14, 2011, 09:10:50 PM
Another piece, if it hasn't already been said, is that the doctor-patient relationship has shifted over the past 10 years. It used to be, that you went to a Doctor, you told him what was wrong, and he told you how to fix it. Nowadays, it really has shifted to the point where many will go into the Doctor's office, tell him what's wrong AND how they think it should be fixed and what script the Doctor should be writing to fix it. You see this reflected in the Rx ads, which of course have also fueled this evolution in the Doctor/patient relationship.
And the Doctors can get in a real bind too if they don't prescribe something because they can't be seen to NOT be responding to the patient's pain, whether it is legitimate, hyped up, or non-existent. People expect to be medicated. They expect a little pill to make everything right.
Sure, modern medicine has helped to solve needless suffering, but, I think perhaps some suffering is good. Not the kind that is debilitating. But the kind that tells you, yeah, you're sick, but your body is going to work through it.
That, and I think people have forgotten how to step back from the rat race and decompress. Or maybe they don't know how to do it in the first place. Everyone has to unplug on a regular basis.
There's been SOME movement toward this--at least in Pediatrics. When it was shown that otitis media resolves on its own, APA stopped recommending anything to "fix" it with. You can imagine this might piss off a mom who, in the late 90's, got a script to fix the kid's ear infection but in 2005, didn't get squat and was told to give the kid baby Tylenol.
You see, when protocol recommendations CHANGE, people overreact instead of applying logic of "oh, so science shows BETTER results for X sort of treatment NOW." Instead they want the "fixitquickhurryhurryhurry." Thinking for yourself = at a premium.
And they take blogger news as sacrosanct, so THERE goes the neighborhood with the folks who won't vaccinnate, etc. because of the internet scares that happen all over the fucking place.
It's inevitable, really, that insurance companies AND drug companies would be able to, through the help of corporate-friendly government, take over a large part of what is the "service industry" sector of medicine. It's ripe for that sort of treatment, since really, no one gives a doctor a personality test to see if they are the RIGHT SORT OF PERSON to be one.
Nope. It's trial by fire in med school and then residency, and that's that. So any gaps left in the field (pedantism, fear of change, fear of technology, giantism of the ego, lack of ability to accommodate for difference in culture, language, upbringing, etc.) can be manipulated by outside forces.
Quote from: Eve on June 14, 2011, 09:53:43 PM
Ah, you guys make me happy. I have trouble seeing past myself when I read articles like this. I'm always full of indignant "Yeah? Well when I went off meds, the only thing I thought about was killing myself over and over. So.. what do you say to that, huh?" types of thought. That's not to say that I don't think things are horribly fucked up in psychiatry today, but it's nice to have other perspectives to consider.
Patients who have high success rates with treatment are actually the norm, or at least, not so thin on the ground. It's the reason why the SSRIs are so popular, period. And they fix a LOT of shit...more than they were originally intended for.
I think hearing about success stories is JUST as important, for perspective, as hearing about failures. Helps the big picture, really.
I recently went off prescription anti-depressants because I had been stable for awhile and hated the side effects. I can definitely tell the difference, but I'm really working to stay off them because I hate the idea of being medicated forever. I am being absolutely truthful when I say that anti-depressants saved my life more than once. Whether or not they work the way it is described they do work and they work better for me than herbals or other options. I truly feel there is a physical cause for severe depression, articles like this are good (research is almost always a good thing!) but it has taken so long for depression to be recognized as a real issue that they concern me because of the possibility of it going back to "oh just buck up and get over it."
My doctor is a close friend. She keeps up with all the current research and has been on anti-depressants herself. I love her dearly but she does tend to be medicate first, ask questions later, although she goes light on that with me because I dig my heels in like a pissed off mule. The pediatrician, on the other hand, has a very wait and see mentality. That's good for some things, but it meant that my son went undiagnosed for a lot longer than he might have if she was a different type of doctor.
I think a lot of it has to do with which doctor you get and how much the actually give a shit.
I just stuff myself full of little yellow pills and never worry about it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2011, 03:19:14 AM
I just stuff myself full of little yellow pills and never worry about it.
I'm on the pink and white ones, and I'm quite happy with the product, though one can never be TOO perfectly healthy through the magic of modern science. Would you reccommend the little yellow ones, as well?
Quote from: Jenkem and SPACE/TIME on June 15, 2011, 03:33:43 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2011, 03:19:14 AM
I just stuff myself full of little yellow pills and never worry about it.
I'm on the pink and white ones, and I'm quite happy with the product, though one can never be TOO perfectly healthy through the magic of modern science. Would you reccommend the little yellow ones, as well?
Yes, but if you're gonna mix 'em, you'd better use some whiskey as a binding agent.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2011, 03:34:28 AM
Quote from: Jenkem and SPACE/TIME on June 15, 2011, 03:33:43 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2011, 03:19:14 AM
I just stuff myself full of little yellow pills and never worry about it.
I'm on the pink and white ones, and I'm quite happy with the product, though one can never be TOO perfectly healthy through the magic of modern science. Would you reccommend the little yellow ones, as well?
Yes, but if you're gonna mix 'em, you'd better use some whiskey as a binding agent.
Does it have to be whiskey, or will rum do?
Quote from: Luna on June 15, 2011, 04:50:28 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2011, 03:34:28 AM
Quote from: Jenkem and SPACE/TIME on June 15, 2011, 03:33:43 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2011, 03:19:14 AM
I just stuff myself full of little yellow pills and never worry about it.
I'm on the pink and white ones, and I'm quite happy with the product, though one can never be TOO perfectly healthy through the magic of modern science. Would you reccommend the little yellow ones, as well?
Yes, but if you're gonna mix 'em, you'd better use some whiskey as a binding agent.
Does it have to be whiskey, or will rum do?
Has to be whiskey.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2011, 03:16:51 PM
Quote from: Luna on June 15, 2011, 04:50:28 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2011, 03:34:28 AM
Quote from: Jenkem and SPACE/TIME on June 15, 2011, 03:33:43 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 15, 2011, 03:19:14 AM
I just stuff myself full of little yellow pills and never worry about it.
I'm on the pink and white ones, and I'm quite happy with the product, though one can never be TOO perfectly healthy through the magic of modern science. Would you reccommend the little yellow ones, as well?
Yes, but if you're gonna mix 'em, you'd better use some whiskey as a binding agent.
Does it have to be whiskey, or will rum do?
Has to be whiskey.
:x
If I have to drink whiskey, I reserve the right to rinse it with something sweeter.
Quote from: OP
Carlat refers to the chemical imbalance theory as a "myth" (which he calls "convenient" because it destigmatizes mental illness),
Quote from: (Dr.) Ben Goldacre, BadScience.com
Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 9 October 2010
What does it mean to say that a psychological or behavioural condition has a biological cause? Over the past week more battles have been raging over ADHD, after a paper published by a group of Cardiff researchers found evidence that there is a genetic association with the condition. Their study looked for chromosomal deletions and duplications known as "copy number variants" (CNV) and found that these were present in 16% of the children with ADHD.
What many reports did not tell you – including the Guardian – is that this same pattern of CNV was also found in 8% of the children without ADHD. So that's not a massive difference.
But more interesting were the moral and cultural interpretations heaped onto this finding, not least by the authors themselves. "Now we can say with confidence that ADHD is a genetic disease and that the brains of children with this condition develop differently to those of other children," said Professor Anita Thapar. "We hope that these findings will help overcome the stigma associated with ADHD."
Does the belief that such problems have a biological cause really help to reduce stigma?
In 2001, Read and Harre explored attitudes among first year undergradute psychology students, with questionnaires designed to probe belief about the causes of mental health problems, and responses on 6-point scales to statements like "I would be less likely to become romantically involved with someone if I knew they had spent time in a psychiatric hospital". People who believed more in a biological or genetic cause were more likely to believe that people with mental health problems are unpredictable and dangerous, more likely to fear them, and more likely to avoid interacting with them. An earlier study in 1999 by Read and Law had similar results.
In 2002 Walker and Read showed young adults a video portraying a man with psychotic symptoms, such as hallucinations and delusions, then gave them either biogenetic or psychosocial explanations. Yet again, the "medical model" approach significantly increased perceptions of dangerousness and unpredictability.
In 2004 Dietrich and colleagues conducted a huge series of structured interviews with three representative population samples in Germany, Russia and Mongolia. Endorsing biological factors as the root cause for schizophrenia was associated with a greater desire for social distance.
And lastly, more compelling than any individual study, a review of the literature to date in 2006 found that overall, biogenetic causal theories, and labelling something as an "illness", are both positively related to perceptions of dangerousness and unpredictability, and to fear and desire for social distance. They identified 19 studies addressing the question. 18 found that belief in a genetic or biological cause was associated with more negative attitudes to people with mental health problems. Just one found the opposite, that belief in a genetic or biological cause was associated with more positive attitudes.
These findings are at odds with everything that many people who campaign against stigma have assumed for many years, but they're not entirely nonsensical. As Jo Phelan explains in her paper "Genetic bases of mental illness – a cure for stigma?", a story about genetic causes may lead to people being conceived of as "defective" or "physically distinct". It can create an "associative stigma" for the whole family, who in turn receive new labels such as "at risk" or "carrier". What's more, this stigma may persist long after the ADHD symptoms have receded in adulthood: perhaps a partner will wonder: "do I really want to risk having a child with this person, given their genetic predisposition?"
Perhaps it will go further than that: your children, before they even begin to show any signs of inattentiveness or hyperactivity, will experience a kind of anticipatory stigma. Do they have this condition, just like their father? "It's genetic you know." Perhaps the threshold for attaining a diagnosis of ADHD will be lower for your children: it's a condition, like many others, after all, with a notably flexible diagnostic boundary.
Blaming parents is clearly vile. But before reading this research I think I also assumed, unthinkingly, like many people, that a "biological cause" story about mental health problems was inherently valuable for combatting stigma. Now I'm not so sure. People who want to combat prejudice may need to challenge their own prejudices too.
Whooops...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 14, 2011, 05:47:16 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on June 14, 2011, 04:45:18 PM
It's those damn Spiders.
And, as I have said, WE are the spiders.
We've made life so fucking complex and stressful that the only way to stay reasonably sane is to stun yourself stupid with chemicals.
Looking around, you may have noticed that everyone seems a little...Off? Except for me, I am clever and empowered with the libido of a tyrannosaurus.
The reason everyone is a little off is because they are either stunned as per above, or drowning in information that they don't need at a rate they cannot process.
So of course they're all crazy. I mean, it's not like the species was wired properly in the first place.
Yes!
Excellent thread to all.
I've been off and on SSRIs for the past 8 years and I am still surprised at how quickly psychiatrists are to move that direction. Never mind that anxiety happens to be a complex physiological reaction to sensed stressors, and is caused as much by environmental entrainment and routine as anything else. I've noticed this quite distinctly. It's so much sister to learned helplessness that I feel like they are coupled. Low levels of seritonin may describe the reaction occurring after an Ecstasy binge (as the interactions are known), but it doesn't well describe the mechanisms behind depression and anxiety, as the mechanisms are poorly or completely unknown.
The level of pretension in medicine, especially psychiatric medicine, is palpable. The purpose of psychiatry is to produce conforming individuals who have behaviors similar to what is considered "normal", normal being whatever the psyches think is considered normal. This does not mean sane, or happy, or fullfilled, just not bizarre or stand out or harming others in unacceptable ways (as there are definitely accepted methods of harm in our culture). This goes back to the beginnings of psychiatric institutions, where undesirables were hauled off so the general population didn't have to look at them.
And while theres a great deal of evidence that talk-therapy and other non-Rx methods work, I feel less and less inclined to go to therapy these days because I don't see the psychs as dedicated to that sort of work, and it's also expensive. "Ordinary" people may at times actually serve as better therapists than those who are professionally trained, because they have less ivory tower pronounced notions about psychological disease and health. It's hard to take a psych seriously when they come at you from a seat of condescending "I know better/more than you" smiles, rather than sincere openness to understanding. It's especially hard when their main occupation is to generalize psychological conditions with no known mechanisms to proscribe drugs.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 14, 2011, 05:28:18 AM
Excellent thread to all.
I've been off and on SSRIs for the past 8 years and I am still surprised at how quickly psychiatrists are to move that direction. Never mind that anxiety happens to be a complex physiological reaction to sensed stressors, and is caused as much by environmental entrainment and routine as anything else. I've noticed this quite distinctly. It's so much sister to learned helplessness that I feel like they are coupled. Low levels of seritonin may describe the reaction occurring after an Ecstasy binge (as the interactions are known), but it doesn't well describe the mechanisms behind depression and anxiety, as the mechanisms are poorly or completely unknown.
The level of pretension in medicine, especially psychiatric medicine, is palpable. The purpose of psychiatry is to produce conforming individuals who have behaviors similar to what is considered "normal", normal being whatever the psyches think is considered normal. This does not mean sane, or happy, or fullfilled, just not bizarre or stand out or harming others in unacceptable ways (as there are definitely accepted methods of harm in our culture). This goes back to the beginnings of psychiatric institutions, where undesirables were hauled off so the general population didn't have to look at them.
And while theres a great deal of evidence that talk-therapy and other non-Rx methods work, I feel less and less inclined to go to therapy these days because I don't see the psychs as dedicated to that sort of work, and it's also expensive. "Ordinary" people may at times actually serve as better therapists than those who are professionally trained, because they have less ivory tower pronounced notions about psychological disease and health. It's hard to take a psych seriously when they come at you from a seat of condescending "I know better/more than you" smiles, rather than sincere openness to understanding. It's especially hard when their main occupation is to generalize psychological conditions with no known mechanisms to proscribe drugs.
Theres a great book, opening Skinners box. The author repeats the experement of a guy who tries to get admitted under false pretense. This time though, exactly the same scenario, they give her pills.
New here. So sorry if I'm late on the congrats, but thank you.
There is a "corporate culture" if you will, of insanity in this fucked up place we call a world.
The same chemical reactions, when reinforced by that culture induce more insanity, by the lesser mentally reinforced. As you well know, being driven insane is as bad as being that way. The real sick ass fucks recognize this and enjoy every opportunity to make it seem as if you always have been that way as if it is your fault instead of theirs.
Like Cancer, so called 'Mental Illness' has become a huge industry these days, and rather than being primarily concerned with it's eradication, the people who crew 'The Good Ship Madness', seem to be solely committed to finding more and more of it. Every day, more 'conditions' and 'syndromes' are discovered, thereby justifying more and more research funding, more and more facilities dedicated to the study of it, which all need filling with more and more test subjects, providing more and more specialist employment to more and more people. Who all need specialist training in recognising more and more of the new 'syndromes'. The power these people have when it comes to methods of treatment is frightening and disproportionate. All it generally takes is a couple of them to agree on a certain diagnosis, and they'll have you strapped down on a table in a secure facility with electrodes stuck in your head, and experimental medications demolishing your personality. I'm not making light of the very real anguish suffered by anyone with a serious mental disorder, but the people we allow to have the power of life and death over them are quite obviously out of control.
And all because we are uncomfortable with having to look at people who have a different mental process? That really isn't good enough. In fact, it's shameful. It's no longer about understanding or compassion, it's about control. It's about money. It's about career driven reputations. The myths are perpetuated by the media, who present sanitised, unhealthy models of 'normal' for our children to aspire to. Ridiculous role models are paraded in front of us wherever we look by the Cult of Celebrity, distorting our worldviews and perverting our values, and anyone who shows too much deviation from the moral and ethical toilet of 'Industry standard' is ostracised and disenfranchised by those who have vested interest in perpetuating this destructive circlejerk of total control. There are no good things coming from it. Worse, we have come to accept the symptoms of this collective madness as healthy and normal. And it fucking isn't. Someone once said, "Once you've got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain't true, you've got them by the balls" and he was right. They have us all by the balls. We know that. But now they want us all by the minds and fucking souls too. They want a commodity, not a community. So what is our price for letting them do this to us all? Think about that, the next time they ask you to bend over. What's in it for us?
Primates' brains are designed to handle certain stresses:
1. Am I going to get to eat, today?
2. Am I going to get laid, today?
3. Is there a safe place to sleep tonight?
4. What is my place in the tribe's pecking order?
5. Is that a leopard coming through the grass, or just the wind?
That's it. Those are the stresses your brain is designed to cope with. Today, however, you have a blizzard of information to deal with, a million-ton shit hammer of worries, no less stressful for the fact that you may realize most of them are artificial. This was described in the 60s/70s as "future shock", and due to the rapid rise in information technology, you are subjected to more and more of it, each and every day.
This is why everyone's fucking crazy.
So they deal with it by using booze, drugs of one kind or another, weird religion, etc. Not coincidentally, the booze/drug/religion pushers are making a killing off of it.
Eventually, there's so many crazy people that it becomes fashionable to be one, or the parent of one. Little Billy isn't doing well at school, because you were to lazy to discipline him? He must be autistic. He has so much energy that he runs around and plays? ADHD, so stuff the little bastard full of ritalin.
THEN, these "conditions" are turned into some mystical crap..."Indigo children", etc, and the rest of us have to hear about how "special" Little Billy is.
And flamethrowers are still illegal in many states. This country is retarded.
QuoteAnd flamethrowers are still illegal in many states. This country is retarded.
Flame-retardant, even.
I heard recently that they're going to put being a picky eater in the DSM.
Quote from: Nigel on August 29, 2011, 03:51:20 PM
I heard recently that they're going to put being a picky eater in the DSM.
:lulz:
http://www.livescience.com/10301-adult-picky-eaters-recognized-disorder.html
I want to ship them all to Somalia and see how picky they are then.
Quote from: Nigel on August 29, 2011, 03:57:13 PM
http://www.livescience.com/10301-adult-picky-eaters-recognized-disorder.html
I want to ship them all to Somalia and see how picky they are then.
Fuck that. We could make a fortune slapping the demons out of 'em.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 04:11:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on August 29, 2011, 03:57:13 PM
http://www.livescience.com/10301-adult-picky-eaters-recognized-disorder.html
I want to ship them all to Somalia and see how picky they are then.
Fuck that. We could make a fortune slapping the demons out of 'em.
:lulz: Plus the bonus is, we'd get to slap them.
One of my least favorite things is girls who are picky eaters, and then make it out to be this unique problem they suffer from... poor me! I'm so delicate and special! And I'm like, no, you're an attention whore who's being difficult.
Quote from: Nigel on August 29, 2011, 04:23:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 04:11:09 PM
Quote from: Nigel on August 29, 2011, 03:57:13 PM
http://www.livescience.com/10301-adult-picky-eaters-recognized-disorder.html
I want to ship them all to Somalia and see how picky they are then.
Fuck that. We could make a fortune slapping the demons out of 'em.
:lulz: Plus the bonus is, we'd get to slap them.
One of my least favorite things is girls who are picky eaters, and then make it out to be this unique problem they suffer from... poor me! I'm so delicate and special! And I'm like, no, you're an attention whore who's being difficult.
"I was kind of hoping for someone a bit tougher."
- Dok, on a date in 1989, to a woman who said something to that order.
What a crock of absolute shit. "Oh, I can't eat that, I can only eat Tangtastic Haribo" Fuck. Off.
I understand some people have food allergies, or intolerances and really can't eat some things, but this is another thing entirely. I'd like to ship them all halfway to Somalia, then ask them to eat some proper fucking food, like normal fucking people. If they still insist they can't, then throw them in the fucking sea. That wouldn't cure them, but it might cure the next lot of spoiled twats who want to be 'special'.
And as for the numb cunts who put forward stuff like
"Could they be supertasters? That is, people who, because of their genetic makeup, taste certain flavors more acutely than average tasters?"
They should be fed on nothing but their own shit for a while. They sat there happy enough expecting everyone else to swallow it, lets see how they like it! Wankers!
I wouldn't try and excuse my own rudeness or lack of sensitivity by saying,
"Sorry but I have an inflamed intolerance gland. It's genetic, and it means I won't be putting up with any of your bullshit until I chill the fuck out a little".
So stick your "Picky eater syndrome" back up your shitpipe, and just fuck off. Find something more useful to do, or I will hunt you down and feed you to hungry botflies.
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 04:27:29 PM
And as for the numb cunts who put forward stuff like
"Could they be supertasters? That is, people who, because of their genetic makeup, taste certain flavors more acutely than average tasters?"
Wait.
What?
You're taking the piss.
Seriously, talk about a classic first world problem. "Halp, there are too many kinds of food for me to eat, I don't know what to doooooo"
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 04:28:50 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 04:27:29 PM
And as for the numb cunts who put forward stuff like
"Could they be supertasters? That is, people who, because of their genetic makeup, taste certain flavors more acutely than average tasters?"
Wait.
What?
You're taking the piss.
Sadly... No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertaster
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 04:28:50 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 04:27:29 PM
And as for the numb cunts who put forward stuff like
"Could they be supertasters? That is, people who, because of their genetic makeup, taste certain flavors more acutely than average tasters?"
Wait.
What?
You're taking the piss.
That's in the quoted article. I shite you not.
Quote from: Luna on August 29, 2011, 04:30:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 04:28:50 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 04:27:29 PM
And as for the numb cunts who put forward stuff like
"Could they be supertasters? That is, people who, because of their genetic makeup, taste certain flavors more acutely than average tasters?"
Wait.
What?
You're taking the piss.
Sadly... No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertaster
Whole bunch of subjectivity there.
It's like if I kicked ten guys in the nads, and asked them to rate the pain on a scale of "one" to "watching
Charles in Charge.
Pretty soon, I'd have "Supertactiles".
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 04:33:20 PM
Quote from: Luna on August 29, 2011, 04:30:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 04:28:50 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 04:27:29 PM
And as for the numb cunts who put forward stuff like
"Could they be supertasters? That is, people who, because of their genetic makeup, taste certain flavors more acutely than average tasters?"
Wait.
What?
You're taking the piss.
Sadly... No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertaster
Whole bunch of subjectivity there.
It's like if I kicked ten guys in the nads, and asked them to rate the pain on a scale of "one" to "watching Charles in Charge.
Pretty soon, I'd have "Supertactiles".
Hm. SCIENCE!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 04:33:20 PM
Quote from: Luna on August 29, 2011, 04:30:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 04:28:50 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 04:27:29 PM
And as for the numb cunts who put forward stuff like
"Could they be supertasters? That is, people who, because of their genetic makeup, taste certain flavors more acutely than average tasters?"
Wait.
What?
You're taking the piss.
Sadly... No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertaster
Whole bunch of subjectivity there.
It's like if I kicked ten guys in the nads, and asked them to rate the pain on a scale of "one" to "watching Charles in Charge.
Pretty soon, I'd have "Supertactiles".
Or ten eunochs, and a Lawsuit.
Supertasters actually do have something like twice the normal density of taste buds, which can apparently make some foods seem overwhelmingly salty or bitter. I highly doubt that most picky eaters are supertasters, though.
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 04:36:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 04:33:20 PM
Quote from: Luna on August 29, 2011, 04:30:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 04:28:50 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 04:27:29 PM
And as for the numb cunts who put forward stuff like
"Could they be supertasters? That is, people who, because of their genetic makeup, taste certain flavors more acutely than average tasters?"
Wait.
What?
You're taking the piss.
Sadly... No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertaster
Whole bunch of subjectivity there.
It's like if I kicked ten guys in the nads, and asked them to rate the pain on a scale of "one" to "watching Charles in Charge.
Pretty soon, I'd have "Supertactiles".
Or ten eunochs, and a Lawsuit.
Then I'll just kick 'em REALLY hard, and claim that I'm trying to verify the Supertasters thing.
Also, if they are, it's just evidence that supertasters are an undesirable mutation which should be allowed to die off.
Quote from: Nigel on August 29, 2011, 04:36:52 PM
Supertasters actually do have something like twice the normal density of taste buds,
Then they are mutants, and need to be cleansed.
The OP does make a perfectly valid premise though. It's just looking at the wrong people for it's examples. It's these Diagnoctors who are all batshit crazies.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 04:39:23 PM
Quote from: Nigel on August 29, 2011, 04:36:52 PM
Supertasters actually do have something like twice the normal density of taste buds,
Then they are mutants, and need to be cleansed.
:mittens:
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 04:39:41 PM
The OP does make a perfectly valid premise though. It's just looking at the wrong people for it's examples. It's these Diagnoctors who are all batshit crazies.
Yeah, batshit all the way to the bank.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 04:40:51 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 04:39:41 PM
The OP does make a perfectly valid premise though. It's just looking at the wrong people for it's examples. It's these Diagnoctors who are all batshit crazies.
Yeah, batshit all the way to the bank.
Yeah, that says nothing for their judgement either.
"In Capitalist America, the Banks rob the people"
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 04:45:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 04:40:51 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 04:39:41 PM
The OP does make a perfectly valid premise though. It's just looking at the wrong people for it's examples. It's these Diagnoctors who are all batshit crazies.
Yeah, batshit all the way to the bank.
Yeah, that says nothing for their judgement either.
"In Capitalist America, the Banks rob the people"
See, being a Brit, you just lack the proper glands to appreciate the superiority of our culture.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 04:46:46 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 04:45:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 04:40:51 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 04:39:41 PM
The OP does make a perfectly valid premise though. It's just looking at the wrong people for it's examples. It's these Diagnoctors who are all batshit crazies.
Yeah, batshit all the way to the bank.
Yeah, that says nothing for their judgement either.
"In Capitalist America, the Banks rob the people"
See, being a Brit, you just lack the proper glands to appreciate the superiority of our culture.
Rubbish. We had the idea of getting Pirates to run the Banks long before anyone else. You lot just supersized it, and milked the tit dry.
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 04:50:23 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 04:46:46 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 04:45:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 04:40:51 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 04:39:41 PM
The OP does make a perfectly valid premise though. It's just looking at the wrong people for it's examples. It's these Diagnoctors who are all batshit crazies.
Yeah, batshit all the way to the bank.
Yeah, that says nothing for their judgement either.
"In Capitalist America, the Banks rob the people"
See, being a Brit, you just lack the proper glands to appreciate the superiority of our culture.
Rubbish. We had the idea of getting Pirates to run the Banks long before anyone else. You lot just supersized it, and milked the tit dry.
America: Biggering everything up.
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 04:39:41 PM
The OP does make a perfectly valid premise though. It's just looking at the wrong people for it's examples. It's these Diagnoctors who are all batshit crazies.
You shouldn't judge them for having an over-active diagnosis gland.
It's been shown that superdiagnoctors excrete at least like twice the amount of prescriptions than the average.
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 29, 2011, 05:56:10 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 04:39:41 PM
The OP does make a perfectly valid premise though. It's just looking at the wrong people for it's examples. It's these Diagnoctors who are all batshit crazies.
You shouldn't judge them for having an over-active diagnosis gland.
It's been shown that superdiagnoctors excrete at least like twice the amount of prescriptions than the average.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 29, 2011, 05:56:10 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 04:39:41 PM
The OP does make a perfectly valid premise though. It's just looking at the wrong people for it's examples. It's these Diagnoctors who are all batshit crazies.
You shouldn't judge them for having an over-active diagnosis gland.
It's been shown that superdiagnoctors excrete at least like twice the amount of prescriptions than the average.
Well, in that case, I've got all sorts of conditions for him. And a rather eclectic shopping list of drugs I'll be needing. For my chronic narcolepsy, my ADHD, my oppositional defiance disorder, and my terrible glaucoma.
(That'll do for starters)
No Dr. I didn't mean any of that shit earlier, I was just funning wit . . . . . . ZZZzzzzzzzzz *snores*
adhd can get you some fun stuff, though.
obviously we need to invent some disease that requires people to eat cactus?
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 29, 2011, 07:48:56 PM
obviously we need to invent some disease that requires people to eat cactus?
"Tucson".
The "Howl's frothflux"?
:lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on August 29, 2011, 04:36:52 PM
Supertasters actually do have something like twice the normal density of taste buds, which can apparently make some foods seem overwhelmingly salty or bitter. I highly doubt that most picky eaters are supertasters, though.
I suspect most picky eaters are passive-aggressive little nancies who feel forced to attend some kind of dinner party or corporate function where food is being served, and pick the most pathetic thing they still have any control over in order to demoralize those around them.
Or they do it because they're on Come Dine With Me and really want to win £1000, and will put down other people's food to do it (oh, I don't like cheese, seafood, red meats or vegetables that aren't bought from a farmer's market. What should I do today? I know, I'll enter a food and hospitality competition where I'll be asked to judge the meals of complete strangers!)
Quote from: Cain on August 30, 2011, 02:11:48 PM
I suspect most picky eaters are passive-aggressive little nancies who feel forced to attend some kind of dinner party or corporate function where food is being served, and pick the most pathetic thing they still have any control over in order to demoralize those around them.
All joking or rancour aside, this is it. They were at some point, so disempowered, the only thing they had any control over, is what they put into their bodies. And rather than let that little piece of power go, they get stuck, reinforcing a cycle where it's all they have. And that must be pretty fucking shit.
It's not to demoralise those around them though. (Although that is a consequence) It's to hang on to the shit life which is all they feel they have.
eta; I still stand by the "Halfway to Somalia" cure though. Got to be cruel to be kind.