The truth about pharma-psych is getting out I think

I'm on lithium, but I don't notice any side effects from it. I was also on it in elementary school, but I don't remember any side effects from it then, either.

charter wrote:Lithium does save lives.

Better for 1000 to be lied to or drugged against there will then for one person to commit suicide ??

John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty", 1859:

The only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of the community , against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant... Each person is the proper guardian of his own health.

Happy forth of July all ! Go freedom ! F_ck tyranny and oppression !!!!

Copy_Cat wrote:

charter wrote: would you consider leaving out the lithium paragraph the next time you use the form?

But its needed to combat the lithium "lithium deficiency" lie.

I agree that "lethargic and unresponsive" may be a bad description of lithium's effect on cognition since it was an observation of its effects on a lab animal not a human.

How would users describe it ?

Okay, so now I'm guessing you've never taken lithium? (Apologies if I've misunderstood).

Users describe it like users describe every intervention, including talk therapy -- in a wide variety of ways. The most common side effect is making you drink more fluid, and people's mileage varies on that too, like with everything else. Generally I'd say it's weight neutral and sleep neutral, which is cool.

Yes, you have to get your blood tested at regular intervals, which is boring if you don't like blood tests. But it's a proven mood stabiliser, and proven to reduce suicide. And I'm not in the US, but I'm guessing it's cheap too.

As to compliance, I don't know the data on that, sorry. I'll look if you want.

Do psychiatrists say that the brain has a lithium deficiency? I don't know, I don't have the data on that. I've never heard anyone report it said. If anyone does say that, they shouldn't. I'd have a problem with that, and challenge it.

But equally, I'm challenging why you're repeatedly quoting the words of two anti-psych psychologists from a piece dating back to 1991, which makes repeated exaggerated claims without any evidence. Especially as their obvious aim was to stop people taking psych meds. ("We are inclined to think that no one who was so informed would consent")

As I've said before, I do believe in informed consent, but that works both ways. Users shouldn't be scared off meds on the say-so of two anti-psych psychologists without evidence.

As I've also said, I respect your passion against coercive psychiatry. I support your call for better treatment for everyone. Sometimes lithium is a really good treatment for people.

ps

Copy_Cat wrote:Better for 1000 to be lied to or drugged against there will then for one person to commit suicide ??

Wait, what?

You're posing a false choice between coercion and lithium. If lithium was abolished tomorrow, coercive psych wouldn't be affected.

Copy_Cat wrote:Better for 1000 to be lied to or drugged against there will then for one person to commit suicide ??

Wait, what?

You're posing a false choice between coercion and lithium. If lithium was abolished tomorrow, coercive psych wouldn't be affected.[/quote][quote="charter"]

I'm not fighting lithium, it's the using of the suicide scare to push drugs that bugs me, it invites the coercive element.

Copy_Cat wrote:I'm not fighting lithium, it's the using of the suicide scare to push drugs that bugs me, it invites the coercive element.

The question of when, or if, the state should coercively intervene on someone's behalf, when the person doesn't want it, is a huge one. People have a range of views, I hear yours.

A separate issue is whether misinformation about meds should be challenged. I think the "informed" consent thing is full of misinformation, so I continue to challenge it.

charter wrote:
A separate issue is whether misinformation about meds should be challenged. I think the "informed" consent thing is full of misinformation, so I continue to challenge it.

I think it's harshly worded and kind of sarcastic but as a person that did not receive informed consent I think its almost perfect.

We just need to add "If you take these free samples of off label Zyprexa for anxiety and insomnia for a few months and then try and quit cause your tired of life as a zombie you may have withdrawal reactions from the very center of hell starting with a complete inability to sleep for days, anxiety and panic attacks, hallucinations, the belief you are loosing your mind and will never recover, daily vomiting , that extra hunger Zyprexa produced rebounds in the opposite direction and you will go 3 weeks unable to eat without vomiting it back up and truly 100% believe your going to die, you may goto the hospital and ask for help and be told Zyprexa does not cause sever withdrawal reactions and these symptoms are actually a psychiatric illness you know you never had before and know was caused by the drug and face coercive psychiatry with locked doors and injection threats for not wanting more pills in the same class as zyprexa , you may get a bill for $25,000 for this unwanted abusive mistreatment when all you wanted was a real medical explanarion for the nausia and vomiting you don't ever get and some Ativan to help with the wicked anxiety and insomnia Zyprexa withdrawal symptoms that are at least 50 times worse than the mild anxiety and insomnia that you started with.

You may find out a few years later you are not alone and the makers knew about these effects and hid these facts, but you won't get a dime of the 1.4 billion dollar lawsuit settlement "


Should we start by adding that ?

What's wrong with the informed consent form ? I like it.

That's a powerful set of bad experiences you've had.

I can see why you campaign against Zyprexa, and coercion, because they're both based on your own real experience.

Copy_Cat wrote:What's wrong with the informed consent form ? I like it.

Well, this quote springs to mind:

My enemies I can handle, but Lord save me from those who would do unto me for my own good.
— Agent Orange as a young hippie, 1968

For some reason, the authors of the piece (a professional academic and a psychologist) want to stop everyone taking meds.

I wonder what their motive is? Maybe they genuinely believe all meds are bad, and they want to stop users having meds 'for their own good', so they're happy to write misinformation because it's ultimately 'for their own good'.

Except, as we've seen, there's strong evidence that lithium actually helps people. So the professionals' campaign, while supposedly being 'for their own good', isn't 'for their own good'.

And, of course, it's not based on their experience. They've just imagined what it's like to actually take these meds. When people start imagining it's great, they can just write anything they want.

So now we have two professionals, imagining the effects of meds and telling service users 'for their own good' with the aim of getting people to stop taking meds.

As I said at the top, I can see why you campaign against Zyprexa and coercion, because it's based on your own real experience.

But when professionals campaign against meds they've never taken, using their imagination of meds effects and ignoring proven benefits, then I'll challenge it.

Like you, I'm allergic to professionals imposing their will on service users, 'for their own good'.

I'm sorry guys, this post is generating a ton of spam at the moment. I'm going to lock it for a little while to see if that helps as Masq has done with some other posts here.

Great conversation! I'm enjoying it I hope it continues!

Thanks for being patient everyone!

Let the conversation resume!