when will pych get punnished for Crimes against humanity?

Cheze2 wrote:

Riccola wrote:What those brain scans dont factor in is that nearly all of those are from patients who for years have taken high amounts anti-psycotics.

And what about the brain scans that are being done before a person is diagnosed? There is some evidence (though nothing is definite yet) that they may be able to notice changes in the brain up to 10 years before a person is diagnosed.

There are studies out there that do exist looking for brain differences between those that eventually do become diagnosed and those that dont, but those studies are not the ones that are extensively used to prove a point in medical textbooks that mental disorders (excluding alzheimer's, Dementia ect ect; these have proven to be degenerative decades over) such as Bipolar and Schizophrenia are degenerative.

Each study that is conducted has strict guidelines for both the control and the subject groups, often the public never see those. The comparisons shown in text books are those taken from a normal group and a long term medicated group, but often that is never bluntly stated. (Keep in mind a certain study may ask in order to participate you must be a diagnosed xxx taking xx for x time...)

By first establishing it as a fact to medical students that disease x is neuro-degenrative blame is shifted off the medication ("but what your claim has been shown to occur from the illness itself") and even is used to create the notion of why it is so important to treat schizophrenia and other illnesses with medications immediately and too stay on them.

There is also the diagnostic criteria itself, often so loose and lopsided that anyone can be diagnosed. Best case is ADHD. Child hyper? If yes= then mentally ill= mentally ill= chemical imalance chemical imbalance=medication. All based on a pseudo science, not factoring relative perception or other alternatives as to why a child might be perceived as hyper active.

-- Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:54 am --

cantremembermyname wrote:They can do whatever they want, They wont legaly be held responisble, they jump to useing the state to make sure they cant be arrested. but police wont even report. from what i saw.

I have seen it too. And if more people could see it that way the world would be a better place.

When all this is in the history books 100 years from now.

Riccola wrote:There are studies out there that do exist looking for brain differences between those that eventually do become diagnosed and those that dont, but those studies are not the ones that are extensively used to prove a point in medical textbooks that mental disorders (excluding alzheimer's, Dementia ect ect; these have proven to be degenerative decades over) such as Bipolar and Schizophrenia are degenerative.

Each study that is conducted has strict guidelines for both the control and the subject groups, often the public never see those. The comparisons shown in text books are those taken from a normal group and a long term medicated group, but often that is never bluntly stated. (Keep in mind a certain study may ask in order to participate you must be a diagnosed xxx taking xx for x time...)

By first establishing it as a fact to medical students that disease x is neuro-degenrative blame is shifted off the medication ("but what your claim has been shown to occur from the illness itself") and even is used to create the notion of why it is so important to treat schizophrenia and other illnesses with medications immediately and too stay on them.

So what you're saying is that the issue is not that schizophrenia could actually be neuro-degenerative, it's that doctors and medical students are just not placing enough emphasis on how medication can also be neuro-degenerative, and it's hard to tell how much cognitive loss is due to either the disorder, or the medication?

Cheze2 wrote:

Riccola wrote:There are studies out there that do exist looking for brain differences between those that eventually do become diagnosed and those that dont, but those studies are not the ones that are extensively used to prove a point in medical textbooks that mental disorders (excluding alzheimer's, Dementia ect ect; these have proven to be degenerative decades over) such as Bipolar and Schizophrenia are degenerative.

Each study that is conducted has strict guidelines for both the control and the subject groups, often the public never see those. The comparisons shown in text books are those taken from a normal group and a long term medicated group, but often that is never bluntly stated. (Keep in mind a certain study may ask in order to participate you must be a diagnosed xxx taking xx for x time...)

By first establishing it as a fact to medical students that disease x is neuro-degenrative blame is shifted off the medication ("but what your claim has been shown to occur from the illness itself") and even is used to create the notion of why it is so important to treat schizophrenia and other illnesses with medications immediately and too stay on them.

So what you're saying is that the issue is not that schizophrenia could actually be neuro-degenerative, it's that doctors and medical students are just not placing enough emphasis on how medication can also be neuro-degenerative, and it's hard to tell how much cognitive loss is due to either the disorder, or the medication?

Yes, well summed up. Many dont agree with it, but its my take on it.

The effects of medication are not thoroughly presented to students, and the studies that have proven negative effects are not something celebrated by pharmaceutical companies. Keep in mind that if word was to get out with solid evidence that medications cause damage to any part of the body in some way the pharmaceutical companies could loose millions on a drug. Nobody will want to take a drug that could harm their health. So in any case they will keep up damage control, heavily defending the drugs they sell with studies, trials, experiments, employees, classes all geared toward creating a perception in their favor. Anything counter to what they put fourth is fought with extreme opposition.

Nero-degenration aside for a moment, one of the best examples of damage control was for anti-depressants. For years after SSRIs and SNRIs came out, people in a large numbers began having negative reactions, not just one or two patients. Even after it was being reported to them and lawsuits being filed they fought tooth and nail to keep black box warning off of them. In the end they gave in, and immediately those drugs even to this day are often debated about before prescribed. Similar things go for other medications, anywhere they have proven to be an issue those have been covered up to the limit.


As for mental diseases themselves like Bipolar and the like are neuro-degenrative, studys have gone both ways. But overwhelmingly those done by independent scientists all over the planet with no ties to pharmaceuticals or personal gains have proven that most of these medications one way or another have serious side effects, something disputed by big Pharma's damage control.

Food for thought/rant/observations:

One a side note, most medical main stream textbooks state that schizophrenia is an illness that attacks the frontal lobes. That has never been solidly proven.

One thing also that few medical textbooks and medical programs fail to mention outside of 2 blurbs is that it has been proven that heavy metals can cause symptoms identical to medical disorders. The outcome is a patient with anywhere from depression of psychosis is never tested for heavy metal poisoning. If they were those who do have heavy metal poisoning would never be prescribed meds... think about it.

Alternative theorys arent mentioned either, childhood trauma is ignored, IQ is ignored, Diet is ignored, cultural differences are often overlooked, Dissociative disorders are said to be so rare that you should never bother looking for them, heart conditions have been misdiagnosed as epilepsy because of the skewed diagnostic criteria and testing, childhood behavior is seen as ADHD, the list goes on and on.

Point is if the system wasn't geared as seeing all symptoms needing meds and other avenues were explored first pharmaceutical companies would loose millions on top of millions. Hence why they rig it to their content.

On the epilepsy thing:

http://heartdisease.about.com/cs/genera ... eizure.htm

Riccola wrote:Alternative theorys arent mentioned either, childhood trauma is ignored, IQ is ignored, Diet is ignored, cultural differences are often overlooked, Dissociative disorders are said to be so rare that you should never bother looking for them, heart conditions have been misdiagnosed as epilepsy because of the skewed diagnostic criteria and testing, childhood behavior is seen as ADHD, the list goes on and on.

This is why I'm all for a recovery oriented approach. It's the direction that mental health is going in the US, though it's in it's infancy. It's all about treating the whole person vs the mental illness.

They re-wrote the medical books claiming schizophrenia is neuro-degenrative, showing brain scans to prove it.

This is pretty amusing given the recent study showing that a decent portion of schizophrenia sufferers spontaneously recover (I think the percentage was 30-40% in this study). There are living public/famous examples of this too. Rufus may comes to mind, a former schizophrenic who now works in clinical psychology.

People don't spontaneously permanently recover from parkinsons, or alzheimers, lol.

I don't remember hearing that in psych. Do medical textbooks really claim schizophrenia is neuro-degenerative? Seems absurd on the face of it.

Recovered45 wrote:This is pretty amusing given the recent study showing that a decent portion of schizophrenia sufferers spontaneously recover (I think the percentage was 30-40% in this study). There are living public/famous examples of this too. Rufus may comes to mind, a former schizophrenic who now works in clinical psychology.

Diagnoses are just subjective opinions after all, perhaps misdiagnosis can cover a portion of these people? Just a thought..

Cheze2 wrote:Diagnoses are just subjective opinions after all, perhaps misdiagnosis can cover a portion of these people? Just a thought..

Hmm, I dont think so. These people generally report the classical symptoms of schizophrenia (commanding and observational voices, hallucinations etc). Rufus may has a web site, and he promotes a particular therapy for schizophrenia. At minimum there are a handful of well known cases of full recovery that fit 100% the dsm definition of schizophrenia.

And its not really a diagnosis thats as easy to get wrong, in the sense, that once someone has commanding voices, voices observing behaviour, hallucinations and so forth, your not left with a wide selection of illnesses to diagnose them into.

If they were at 30-40% wrong, thats actually nearly chance. You almost may as well flip a coin to determine the diagnosis if they were that bad!

Yeah I dont think thats it.

I just reckon that its not neurodegenerative, or in fact any kind of "organic disease" model illness. Same deal with bipolar. I think they are both primarily "functional illnesses". That they study it and find large numbers return permenantly to total normal functioning, without a need for medication, where they thought that was a very very rare occurance (less than 3%), suggests their model is just plain wrong.

I am waiting for the same kind of study on bipolar. Once we have a few studies showing full, total recoveries with a couple of the major psychotic illnesses, maybe theyll start to reveiw and revise their model.

That said, the diagnostic process is supposed to be "inaccurate". Its a sort of ad hoc process. But then again tested against what objective measurement? All we have is the DSM, which is all made up. To know whether the diagnostic process was accurate or not, we would need to be able to measure the actual so called disease process. Theres no model, or measurement that allows us to do that for the organic disease model, or even a mechanistic explaination that everyone accepts, for schizophrenia, or bipolar or most of the others.

In a way, its meaningless to say "misdiagnosis". Because theres no truely objective standard to measure it against. We could equally say, they are all misdiagnoses, and we could no more, at this stage, be proven wrong or right (although I think the study i mention is suggestive in terms of schizophrenia personally)

Cheze2 wrote:Diagnoses are just subjective opinions after all, perhaps misdiagnosis can cover a portion of these people? Just a thought.

Actually, I think a diagnosis is a classification connecting real phenomana to specific name or label. What shocks me is not the lack of objective diagnosis "guidelines", but the dominating idea that all patterns of mental activity (including so-called mental illness) are permanant, or do not change with time.