Why havent we "won" yet ?

I'd like some ritalin please....seriously I think it will help my symptoms of drug induced negative symptoms./

Razael wrote:I'd like some ritalin please....seriously I think it will help my symptoms of drug induced negative symptoms./

Ritalin is alright , I had an Rx once, the window of feel good got shorter and shorter real quick and the anxiety depression crash got worse at the same time.

I was taking Dexadrine to overcome Zyprexa for a wile, be carefull with that $#%^.

These kids on ritalin so often end up labeled bipolar cause of the high then crash effect day after day year after year or just get put on more pills without the bipolar label with and that begins the endless process of tinkering with medications, adjusting dosages, and piling on more medications to treat the side effects of the drug they started with. Then these kids find oxycodone works real good at first to treat the effects of years of psychiatric pill taking but that gets expensive and now they are addicted so they goto heroin cause its cheaper.

Copy_Cat wrote:You can't tell me these kids are sick and need to be drugged, that bullcrap. They do not have any "sickness" whatsoever....Check this out "Info for Parents who are pressured to diagnose and drug their children for ADD or ADHD. Story behind our Sons death caused from ADHD drug, Ritalin.

None of this is relevant to anything that I have posted. My point was that Bush et al (2008) which you referenced in the process of trying to provide evidence that methylphenidate causes bipolar disorder doesn't actually support your claim.

Between 1990 and 2000 there were 186 deaths from methylphenidate reported to the FDA MedWatch program, a voluntary reporting scheme, the numbers of which represent no more than 10 to 20% of the actual incidence."

So are you contending that there is post-mortem evidence that demonstrates -- on the balance of probabilities -- that these fatalities were causally due to methyphenidate? I would like to see this evidence.

Also, in terms of causes of death and actualrial tables 186 deaths over a 10-year period is miniscule. In the USA 9 people per day die due to distracted driving (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/distracted_driving/).

I have all the symptoms of ADD but I am not "sick" nor do I have an "abnormality".

Who are you arguing with? I don't recall posting anything that this is relevant to.

Can you See it here ?

No. How does a report of a drug-induced death demonstrate that all novel compounds are toxic or deadly? Heroin is a naturally derived chemical compound yet deaths due to overdose are a daily occurrence in many major cities of the world.

Correlation is not causation... what ever

Are you a teenager? Saying "what ever" does not amount to a refutation of a central principle of inferential statistics and science.

Double-talk is a form of speech in which inappropriate, invented or nonsense words are used to give the appearance of erudition and so confuse or amuse the audience

The constituent words "correlation" and "causation" are neither "inappropriate, invented or nonsense words". Further, the phrase correlation does not imply causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_is_not_causation) is entirely relevant to your flawed reasoning and succinctly states a well-accepted element of clear thinking.

Tell them "Correlation is not causation"

No anecdote -- however moving -- is going to render valid the logical fallacy of conflating correlation with causation. You are repeatedly committing the fallacy of questionable cause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questionable_cause). You are assuming that simply because two things occur together one must be the cause of the other. So by your reasoning if we can find a 90 year old smoker then that counts as evidence that smoking promotes longevity.

Protracted_Fermata wrote:

Copy_Cat wrote:You can't tell me these kids are sick and need to be drugged, that bullcrap. They do not have any "sickness" whatsoever....Check this out "Info for Parents who are pressured to diagnose and drug their children for ADD or ADHD. Story behind our Sons death caused from ADHD drug, Ritalin.

None of this is relevant to anything that I have posted. My point was that Bush et al (2008) which you referenced in the process of trying to provide evidence that methylphenidate causes bipolar disorder doesn't actually support your claim.

Between 1990 and 2000 there were 186 deaths from methylphenidate reported to the FDA MedWatch program, a voluntary reporting scheme, the numbers of which represent no more than 10 to 20% of the actual incidence."

So are you contending that there is post-mortem evidence that demonstrates -- on the balance of probabilities -- that these fatalities were causally due to methyphenidate? I would like to see this evidence.

Also, in terms of causes of death and actualrial tables 186 deaths over a 10-year period is miniscule. In the USA 9 people per day die due to distracted driving (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/distracted_driving/).

I have all the symptoms of ADD but I am not "sick" nor do I have an "abnormality".

Who are you arguing with? I don't recall posting anything that this is relevant to.

Can you See it here ?

No. How does a report of a drug-induced death demonstrate that all novel compounds are toxic or deadly? Heroin is a naturally derived chemical compound yet deaths due to overdose are a daily occurrence in many major cities of the world.

Correlation is not causation... what ever

Are you a teenager? Saying "what ever" does not amount to a refutation of a central principle of inferential statistics and science.

Double-talk is a form of speech in which inappropriate, invented or nonsense words are used to give the appearance of erudition and so confuse or amuse the audience

The constituent words "correlation" and "causation" are neither "inappropriate, invented or nonsense words". Further, the phrase correlation does not imply causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_is_not_causation) is entirely relevant to your flawed reasoning and succinctly states a well-accepted element of clear thinking.

Tell them "Correlation is not causation"

No anecdote -- however moving -- is going to render valid the logical fallacy of conflating correlation with causation. You are repeatedly committing the fallacy of questionable cause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questionable_cause). You are assuming that simply because two things occur together one must be the cause of the other. So by your reasoning if we can find a 90 year old smoker then that counts as evidence that smoking promotes longevity.

IJ

I am walking proof of psychiatric drugs causing drug addiction, side effects, and severe withdrawal that are labelled as a worsening condition instead of damage caused by medication. Severe addiction and dependence occur after long term use with all modern psychiatric drugs. This happened to me when I was an adult, and you HAVE TO realize they are doing this to kids as young as 5 years old every day.

Talking with so many of these young adults and experiencing it myself as an adult is enough for me to establish causation and stand behind it.

The drugs are making the ADHD kids "bipolar" because of the endless process of tinkering with medications, adjusting dosages, and piling on more medications to treat the side effects of the drug they started with and/or severe withdrawal that are labelled as a worsening or a NEW condition such as bipolar instead of damage caused by medications.


Pills for your ills http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UnJ4H8JLmM

Copy_Cat wrote:I am walking proof of psychiatric drugs causing drug addiction, side effects, and severe withdrawal that are labelled as a worsening condition instead of damage caused by medication.

You can't "prove" anything on the basis of a sample of one. In any event, if I accept your (flawed) reasoning then I must be "walking proof" that psychiatric drugs don't cause addiction. I've likely been on more drugs and for a longer time than you. I took my first psychiatric medication in my early 20s and I sit here 20 years later having been on a veritable catalogue of drugs -- prescribed and illegally acquired -- and I have never experienced addiction.

Severe addiction and dependence occur after long term use with all modern psychiatric drugs.

That didn't happen with me so your generalisation is -- yet again -- invalid.

This happened to me when I was an adult, and you HAVE TO realize they are doing this to kids as young as 5 years old every day.

On what grounds are you generalising from your experience to every human being on the planet? Would you also generalise all of your tastes, preferences, aptitudes and deficiencies to everyone else? Can I too generalise to everyone on the basis of my experience or are only you allowed to do that?

Talking with so many of these young adults and experiencing it myself as an adult is enough for me to establish causation and stand behind it.

No it isn't enough to establish causation, at best you may have established correlation.

The drugs are making the ADHD kids "bipolar" because of the endless process of tinkering with medications, adjusting dosages, and piling on more medications to treat the side effects of the drug they started with and/or severe withdrawal that are labelled as a worsening or a NEW condition such as bipolar instead of damage caused by medications.

This is just another unsubstantiated assertion.

Just a gentle reminder to keep things civil.

Protracted_Fermata wrote:

Copy_Cat wrote:

The drugs are making the ADHD kids "bipolar" because of the endless process of tinkering with medications, adjusting dosages, and piling on more medications to treat the side effects of the drug they started with and/or severe withdrawal that are labelled as a worsening or a NEW condition such as bipolar instead of damage caused by medications.

This is just another unsubstantiated assertion.

“All of a sudden, out of nowhere, bipolar disorder was being diagnosed left, right and center.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/story/2008/11/ask-your-doctor.html


In recent years, there's been a dramatic increase in the number of children being diagnosed with serious psychiatric disorders and prescribed medications that are just beginning to be tested in children. The drugs can cause serious side effects, and virtually nothing is known about their long-term impact. "It's really to some extent an experiment, trying medications in these children of this age," child psychiatrist Dr. Patrick Bacon tells FRONTLINE.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/medicatedchild/etc/synopsis.html

One reason why we haven't won is the same reason why Jews didn't win in Nazi Germany; because when weighing our friends against our enemies in society, the latter most certainly preponderate. As in Nazi Germany (not that I am making an analogy on other grounds), the relevant prejudice (be it racial in the case of Nazi Germany, or psychiatric in our case) is seemingly scientifically enshrined, and is legally and intellectually enshrined (few intellects have had the courage to question psychiatric orthodoxy, just like few intellectuals had the courage in Nazi Germany to question the then current orthodoxy), and the masses are eternally susceptible to the beguilements of power and authority.

In our age, as in Nazi Germany, the idiom and methodology of science is being exploited to impart to psychiatric prejudice a certain cachet, as well as because by framing an issue as a scientific fact, this precludes dissent in all but the minority of people, people whose judgment, unlike the masses, isn't paralyzed whenever they encounter scientific, political, legal, medical and intellectual authorities. It is also being exploited because it allows those who shamelessly abuse science to dismiss their opponents as anti-scientific, and to dismiss opponents as not being conversant with the scientific literature.

As a result of this mental prepossession in favour of experts and other authorities amongst the herd, conquest of the public mind is next to impossible, and this is obviously essential in any ideological battle. Patients like myself are social nobodies, ergo it matters not what we say and whether we are right, we simply lack the accoutrements that signal authority and might get people to listen to us, so we are condemned to social death by silent treatment. Even other mental patients rarely listen to mental patients, because the majority themselves identify with the prejudices and biases of our culture, and are themselves, as herd-minded individuals (albeit ones who have been rejected), subject to the laws of herd psychology.

As a brilliant social-psychology experiment once showed, the mass-minded are not interested in content and the value of an argument, but who is saying it, the charisma and the attire of the speaker, his credentials, the cadence of his speech and the confidence with which it is asserted, as well as anything else that exerts an effect on the audience sufficiently forceful enough as to deprive them of their ability to think clearly and avail themselves of whatever mental endowments they could use to see through the arguments of the speaker. In this experiment, this man spoke complete and utter gibberish, yet all the psychiatry students believed it, because of the foregoing reasons. Psychiatric theory dignifies such people as "sane"! On a side note, what better proof could there be that sane/insane divide is completely meaningless?

So don't expect the public to experience some sort of awakening soon. Indeed, psychiatric tyranny is further underwritten by the fact that prejudice towards and fear of the outsider is a fundamental mechanism of mass psychology, which creates the need for institutions such as this. Psychiatry deals with such people, and confers a kind of secular sanctity on the conformist majority, dignifying them as "sane" and "mentally healthy", which redounds to the smug self-satisfaction of these people, who gain self-esteem at the expense of those denigrated as "mad" and "mentally ill", reinforcing popular credulity regarding psychiatric nonsense, because it exalts the conformist majority.

As I mentioned earlier, psychiatry also comes with the imprimatur of the legal system, and most people equate the law with morality, so the abomination that is involuntary psychiatry is deemed as just for this and of course other reasons.