Protracted_Fermata wrote:[mod edit]
Just a little baking soda in river of vinegar.
Protracted_Fermata wrote:[mod edit]
Copy_Cat wrote:Protracted_Fermata wrote:[mod edit]
Protracted_Fermata wrote:Copy_Cat wrote:Protracted_Fermata wrote:[mod edit]
Just a little baking soda in river of vinegar.
No, it's more than that, it's a question of personal integrity and striving to reduce or at least not increase the total amount of bs on the www. There is nothing wrong with being sceptical or critical of psychiatry but it is important to do so with cogent argument and well-sourced evidence. It is incongruous to criticise psychiatry for not having an evidence-based approach or for being unethical when you are not presenting evidence for your criticisms and inserting stuff you invent into Wikipedia articles. How can it be that you are permitted to do the things that you contend psychiatrists shouldn't do? What is your justification for maintaining essentially two ethical and evidentiary standards? What exempts you from the ethical and evidentiary standards you would like psychitarists to consistently adhere to?
Copy_Cat wrote:My sources for " [url][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_diagnosis#Past_exposure_to_psychiatric_medications_theory[/url][/url] " are very good.
I was the test subject for many years.
Protracted_Fermata wrote:Copy_Cat wrote:My sources for " [url][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_diagnosis#Past_exposure_to_psychiatric_medications_theory[/url][/url] " are very good.
No they aren't.I was the test subject for many years.
So what? There are many people in the USA that don't report a negative experience from their contact with psychiatry.
Copy_Cat wrote:Who do I report to ?
We assessed the dose-dependent effects of aripiprazole on conditioned cue-induced and cocaine-primed reinstatement of drug-seeking behavior following chronic intravenous cocaine self-administration in an animal model of relapse.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests