I don't think most of you have "illnesses"

by **Cheze2** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:42 am

twistednerve wrote:3. they are insane themselves and chose psychiatry to be able to fly under the radar and carry their own (sometimes evil) agenda. Only if it was the more benelovent kind of crazy (aka DSM's Axis I), but no, I'm referring to Axis II. Do you believe a person capable of willingly prescribe massive doses of dangerous brain altering chemicals, knowing of it's damages, in a such a care free manner is a healthy human being? Or do poorly executed ETC that will destroy the patients brain, knowingly, and is ok with it.

The kind of remorselesness, lack of care and overall extrapolation of what is socially acceptable, in psychiatric abuse, isn't the work of just the circumstances or a cultural bias, I believe. PSYCHOPATHS (Cluster B people) choose to work on the mental health field all too often.

Perhaps we could specify here that not ALL people diagnosed with an Axis II, or Cluster B personality disorder is a "psychopath?" I can see where you are going with this, but as someone who is diagnosed with an Axis II, Cluster B personality disorder, I personally take offense to this.

Cheze2 wrote:
twistednerve wrote:3. they are insane themselves and chose psychiatry to be able to fly under the radar and carry their own (sometimes evil) agenda. Only if it was the more benelovent kind of crazy (aka DSM's Axis I), but no, I'm referring to Axis II. Do you believe a person capable of willingly prescribe massive doses of dangerous brain altering chemicals, knowing of it's damages, in a such a care free manner is a healthy human being? Or do poorly executed ETC that will destroy the patients brain, knowingly, and is ok with it.

The kind of remorselesness, lack of care and overall extrapolation of what is socially acceptable, in psychiatric abuse, isn't the work of just the circumstances or a cultural bias, I believe. PSYCHOPATHS (Cluster B people) choose to work on the mental health field all too often.

Perhaps we could specify here that not ALL people diagnosed with an Axis II, or Cluster B personality disorder is a "psychopath?" I can see where you are going with this, but as someone who is diagnosed with an Axis II, Cluster B personality disorder, I personally take offense to this.

Nobody diagnosed with anything fills the diagnosis criteria absolutely.

However, even if the psychopathy construct doesn't apply, most people with Axis II disorders will have problems with empathy or will often put their own needs above the needs of others in a very unhealthy way. MOST, not all. And when you're dealing with BPDs, this can get even more confusing.

Nobody is 100% anything, diagnosis are just overly generalizing labels to guide communication between people and treatment. Most people fall onto the "little bit of this, little bit of that" and have personalities and lives unique to them to give it all an even more individual package and presentation.

by **Cledwyn Bulbs** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 6:20 pm

All depends on how you define "illness". Many proponents of psychiatric theory claim the sine qua non for inclusion in the category of illnesses is simply suffering, albeit persistent and causing impairment (and the reasoning underpinning this is circular; how do we know someone is ill? Because he is impaired. How do we know he is impaired? Because he is ill.) which is obviously absurd because it disqualifies many people with real empirically verified diseases that are asymptomatic (for example, you can have cancer for many years without knowing it, because it is sometimes asymptomatic until it is at its most advanced stage. Are these people saying that cancer only becomes a disease when it causes suffering?). Such people also fall foul of their own deceit, because it would disqualify a large percentage of psychiatric patients, who do not suffer any more than anyone else, that is, until the day they are either pressurized into accepting "help" or they fall prey to a psychiatrist qua coercive agent of social control, though even then people make the fundamental attribution error of attributing it to the patient's presumed illness.

For some, the sovereign criterion is empirical proof, founded upon the reasonable assumption that expert opinion is no substitute for science.

Nevertheless, the term is used inconsistently by people as semantically interchangeable with extreme suffering. I say inconsistently, because the community of the faithful have a tendency to vacillate between different meanings in accordance with what is convenient in a given discussion.

The simple fact of the matter is that the rigorous standards of evidence in other medical fields are not to be found in psychiatry, where diagnoses rest on the authority and prestige of the speaker.

TBC>

by **Cledwyn Bulbs** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 6:50 pm

The important question is; does the medical model best serve the interests of the patient? The more vociferous proponents would respond a resounding "yes" (as if in response to some demagogic preacher), ready to fulminate anthemas against anyone who dares say otherwise; after all, psychiatry is, au fond, the secular religion of a faithless age, and as Mencken said, "all religions, in fact, teach that dissent is a sin; most of them make it the blackest of all sins, and all of them punish it severely whenever they have the power."

All you have to do is oppose to such assertions the historical record, as well as some of the more trenchant analyses of the uses it is put to.

State psychiatrists like to put a highminded ideological gloss on the work they do, but as Robert Musil said, "highmindedness is the mark of every professional ideology. Hunters, for instance, would never dream of calling themselves the butchers of wild game; they prefer to call themselves the duly licensed friends of nature and animals; just as businessmen uphold the principle of an honorable profit, while businessman's god, Mercury, that distinguished promoter of international relations, is also the god of theives. So the image of a profession in the minds of its practitioners is not too reliable."

State psychiatry is about social control, as well as a subsidiary of Big pharma, which is an economic enterprise, not a moral one, notwthstanding the highmindedness of businessmen.

TBC>

by **Cledwyn Bulbs** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:13 pm

Only insofar as there is no conflict between the interests of the individual on the one hand and professional, societal, economic, and familial interests on the other, are the interests of the patient foremost.

Nevertheless the profession can always rely on the multitudes of people claiming to have been helped (and sure, it has helped in some ways historically, though I think it rare that such custom and law enshrined relations yield overall profit on the side of the patient), which of course is common amongst people who have so little imagination they cannot envisage a state better than the one they find themselves in, although this psychological compliance alluded to here can of course be secured through numerous channels, as history attests. Of course it can also rely upon a media adept at enlisting the minds of the masses on the side of its masters.

by **Riccola** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:02 pm

You know, seeing how you and I meet so eye to eye on these matters makes me think how all correct we are on our perceptions. People usually dismiss psychiatric patient stories of abuse. They think is justified, or the patient just doesn't 'want to admit they have mental issues and is hating the psychiatrist for it.

So many people are correct, but if they weren't talked out of it by psychiatry out goes the profit. Psychiatry is designed to get into peoples' heads, both the patient and those around them. Any normal person who witnesses in depth the treatment of the mentally ill will say something has to change. But, its behind close doors with psychiatrists who know how to play with someones innocence. Nothing justifys injustice against the ill or those just having a rough life. In the end everyone suffers.

A small side note: The abused patients act out in our society or commit suicide causing more harm. Many no longer want to even approach a mental health clinic because abuse stories eventually leak out. Thus those who are in real need of it such as violent individuals never seek treatment when they otherwise might. The mentally ill are going into prisons since even the legal system has lost faith in psychiatry. Insurance companies no longer are as willing to pay psychiatric institutions since they have begun catching on they were being milked all along. Rather than doing the right thing and changing the quality of institutions and seriously helping those who need it, the profit has shifted to brainwashing the public their kids are all ill in some way with ADHD. Suddenly the latest trend is putting your child on mind altering drugs because a 'respected' individual with a degree in a psedo science said so.

Of course, similarly ignorant people also believe every "shrink" (psychologist or psychiatrist) is crazy. Most of the times, they're spot on.

90% of the times (I don't think I'm exagerating), a psychiatrist will be:

Bad medical student that found an outlet to be incompetent;

A sociopath/psychopath, who's in it for the sadism and power trip;

Someone troubled that got in the field due their own issues. Even the ones with good intentions, because of said issues, will eventually harm his patients;

And those all the way at the top rig the system to get individuals into practice since its those types of character who can pull off the profit model while not giving a damn. An individual with morals would speak out. A good analogy is the recent VA hospital scam. Nurses are speaking out out of concern even though they might loose their job. To them, they would rather loose their job then be part of a crime. That is normal behavior, its only people like this who can take care of another human being. You cant have that in psychiatry. Hence why a psychopathic type of character is sought since they can commit any unethical act and not be phased to the point of trying to stop it. This is why the average mainstream psychiatric setting is ripe with the charters you speak of.

A puppet of big pharma: This, actually, is appliable to almost any medical specialization nowadays. And most of them are pushing not just meds, but "psychiatric" meds, since their use is so broad;

Pharma is the biggest influence and its been that way for over 50 years. Today they hold more power then ever. Every single bit of mental health has been touched by them, influenced to give them more profit. Medication management is saturated in the education of mental health professionals. An ever increasing number of studies are funded to justify the medication management. Everything else such alternative theories to the chemical imbalance model is not so important. And Im sure that theory does hold for some patients, but even those cases professionals can do things to help patients cope. CBT when done right is beneficial, and sensory modulation helps tremendously in inpatient settings since it teaches the individual constructed coping mechanisms. But those were skirted away from, especially in the past. Because, by having a patient stair at a white wall over teaching them how to manage a hard disease, they never get better. Symptoms increase which means more meds and being dependent on the system doing them a disservice.

He is a good doctor, good person, and healthy, however, he doesn't apply himself: He doesn't care about the more personable and circumstantial aspects of a patients illness/life. He just wants to go by the book - that is, look for obvious symptoms and prescribe a drug or therapy -, and push through psychiatry as if it were just a day job. He also doesn't keep up with research and doesn't believe any other information aside from what official pharmaceutical companies studies publish.

Exactly!!!!!! The ultimate big pharma puppet. :evil:

Usually the same applies to psychotherapists, however, due to the less "physicial" these can have on their patients, you'll often find more actual scammers in this field. Most therapists are usually little sheetz who found an outlet to have a higher status than someone or make a living by doing nothing tangible. Honestly, what 99% of psychotherapists do that you can't do for yourself? Most people who are "in therapy" are there out of false hope or because people told them this kind of issues are to be dealt with a therapist. Honestly, psychotherapy is just snake oil in my opinion. Doesn't treat or cure anything. It promises to maybe do that or do this, but in the end, it's just someone charging a lot for NOTHING you can't get by yourself.

Some do help, but others... well you put it well. Again

They should advertise it for what it really is: Renting someone to listen and sometimes pretend to be a friend. Don't like the term, but "prostitute of the mind" fits it well.
To the more active "psychotherapy approaches", you can advertise it as someone who will listen to some extent and profess an opinion at best, or someone who will force a philosophy/preach/demand actions at worst.

:lol:

Im going to use that term from now on

Its a creative one :idea:

Most people who get "success" in psychotherapy are just suffering from placebo effect.

Arguably, it can be didatical. It can teach you something. But most of the times the psychotherapist will be such a miserably excuse for a succesful and/or mentally healthy person that it completely hinders anything good. And all the USEFUL stuff has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with psychology. Like CBT varieties, such as DBT: most of it has to do with well known physical approaches to "tame" emotions and shift focus. Breathing exercises and the whole mindfulness concepts are advices my grandmother (WHO WAS THE DAUGHTER OF A BRAZILIAN NATIVE AMERICAN WOMAN AND AN ILLITERATE SPANISH MAN FOR CRYING OUT LOUD) gave me!!
Argh. Psychotherapists disgust me on how they talk, talk and use such fancy terms to produce nothing of new of useful, but keep you there hoping and paying. Psychotherapy should be Conartistology.

Some are more harm then good. :cry:

It amazes how slowly people are realizing psychotherapy is producing frustrations and placebos more often than anything tangible. And that people compare psychotherapy to a medication BAFFLES me. Depression or anxiety that requires medication has absolutely nothing to do with psychotherapy. Nor psychotherapy can guarantee to produce any improvements in your life.
If it does, it's because you "lucked out" and got a therapist who is a nice person and can relate to what you're going through, by either experience or studying anything aside from his psychology classes.
Psychology has so much crap based on nothing real, that a psychology student is more likely to unlearn how to guide people through life than the other way around.

I have seen that. Its a twisted field, and again it goes back to big pharama and institutions who control it all for profit. And of course the independent shrink who see an easy way to profit giving false hope. A real psychotherapist empowers the patient, and when they cant help or dont know how to admit they politely cant rather than play ego.

This is a f*cked up world. Honestly, I don't know if I'm crazy or people who realize these things just aren't very vocal. If it was up to me, i'd ban psychotherapy from existance. And psychiatry, honestly, I don't know how to fix it.[/quote]

IMO I think psychotherapy is of tremendous help, IF done right. Right and wrong are two separate worlds. While most can heal themselves some do need the extra support. And by no means should that support take advantage of them. Psychiatry needs an overhaul. It is IMO 2000 years behind the rest of medicine. It looks to be advancing, and in some ways it is, but the whole afr and lot is still smoke and mirrors. I really like what I read from a poster called "Kindnesstherapy". This person has the rights idea if not the ultimate idea. IMO his/her method will certainly scrub away the abuse mentally ill people endure in psychiatry. Abuse that makes them sicker further dependent on their abuser. Further dependent on a system that leads them no where.

by **dasGeek** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:19 pm

Cledwyn Bulbs wrote:Only insofar as there is no conflict between the interests of the individual on the one hand and professional, societal, economic, and familial interests on the other, are the interests of the patient foremost.

By setting an impossible to meet standard you can say that the system has failed and the interest of patients is not foremost. I think it more realistic to say that the interests of the patient must be balanced with a wide variety of other interests while meeting the needs of the patient to the greatest possible degree. You can argue that there are interests with insidious motives that should not be involved, but that is a different conversation.

Cledwyn Bulbs wrote:Nevertheless the profession can always rely on the multitudes of people claiming to have been helped (and sure, it has helped in some ways historically, though I think it rare that such custom and law enshrined relations yield overall profit on the side of the patient), which of course is common amongst people who have so little imagination they cannot envisage a state better than the one they find themselves in, although this psychological compliance alluded to here can of course be secured through numerous channels, as history attests. Of course it can also rely upon a media adept at enlisting the minds of the masses on the side of its masters.

So you would dismiss those who have been helped as unimaginative sheep, and charge their claims are invalid because of some vague hand waving about other "channels" of help? Your florid language attempts to disguise a world of assumptions and cynicism. In addition, it feels like you are taking preemptive jabs at those who may disagree with you and insulting the very patients who are seeking help.

Reality just isn't this black and white. Good and evil aren't absolutes in human nature. For every professional you encounter with impure motives, you will find others working as hard as possible in the interests of their patients.

by **twistednerve** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:50 pm

Even two people who agreed so much, disagree about psychotherapy and psychiatry.

I think psychotherapy is horrible. Having someone to support you and "life coach" you is a nice idea, but nobody ever mastered it as a science. Even less as a profession!
I still think most therapists are prostitutes of the mind/rent a buddy/paying for placebo effects regarding emotional support.

Very few therapists really support their clients and are able to guide them through life in a way that's actually better than they could by themselves (and like Riccola said, many times it is harmful).

And honestly, I don't hate big pharma. Big pharma is forcing psychotherapists to get real or get going.

Big pharma redefined psychiatry as a professional and helped many people with mental illnesses to gain back their lives.

Drug therapy is GREAT, and they are genuinely trying to improve their drugs - like most businesses, there are a lot of scummy guys who lobby for unethical things, but all in all, it does help and they try hard to get things more efficient with less side effects.

Compare Clomipramine to Mirtazapine.
Valproic acid to Sodium Valproate
Carbamazepine to Oxcarbazepine.

Imagine how many "bipolar IIs" were immensely helped by Lamotrigine (ONLY thing that can knock out bipolar II's awful depression, next to Seroquel which isn't that great)

Drug therapy is good. Misuse/misadvice by bad psychiatrists is bad.

But I'm 100% sure I get less of the drug pushing crossfire being brazilian. In the US they must be more aggressive with their marketing, as should the profits of psychiatrists be much higher. Here, it doesn't matter MUCH which drug they prescribe. Specially since a fair share of the population actually gets them for free from the government, which has a fixed buying quantity from big pharma.

I guess you can alway argue that some people get helped by this or that, as long as it's done properly. But in psychotherapy, scamming is too common. In psychiatry, misdiagnoses, poor management of medications and unnecessary violence is also too common.

Both professions need an overhaul.

by **Riccola** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:29 am

twistednerve wrote:Even two people who agreed so much, disagree about psychotherapy and psychiatry.

I think psychotherapy is horrible. Having someone to support you and "life coach" you is a nice idea, but nobody ever mastered it as a science. Even less as a profession!
I still think most therapists are prostitutes of the mind/rent a buddy/paying for placebo effects regarding emotional support.

IMO when done right and by a genuine person it works, at least for me it has. A person who truly cares, truly can intellectualize, believes in the person helps tremendously. Of course these people cant run your whole life or fix every problem, but they do help keep me together by taking some stress off. Im not going to lie, I like being heard by a therapist who understands. Certainly its not a fix all but it helps. The reduced stress helps me gather myself and heal. Finding the right doc for that is the ultimate challenge. The only ones that come close are private practice, many who have fled the large institutions that teach profit psychiatry. Admitantly those tend to be more pricey, but the few who do indeed have a talent are worth it. All the good therapists teach recovery rather then dependence. You dont walk out brainwashed your seriously ill or feeling worthless. But as I said, the rest are a danger to your well being.

Very few therapists really support their clients and are able to guide them through life in a way that's actually better than they could by themselves (and like Riccola said, many times it is harmful).

And honestly, I don't hate big pharma. Big pharma is forcing psychotherapists to get real or get going.

My beef is big pharma more than anything else. Its them who have done the most harm if we were to put profit driven institutions at #2.

Big pharma redefined psychiatry as a professional and helped many people with mental illnesses to gain back their lives.

This I highly disagree with this. Big pharma has manipulated every aspect of mental health to sell their drugs needed or not. They have controlled the DSM as well the education doctors go through like a marinate doll to see every symptom or life emotion as a diagnosable disorder requiring medication. They further inhibit, distort and manipulate what doctors learn in regards to treating disorders. Basically, the only tool they are taught is to prescribe a pill. Not to rehabilitate, not to accurately diagnose, not good CBT, psychotherapy nothing. These types of treatment dont sell a pill, and if it makes the patient better... well good by pill prescription for life.

Not everyone has a chemical imbalance. Real hyperactivity is rare. The symptoms of many mental disorders have been shown not to always have a biological cause. They might and do for some, but psychological trauma, nero toxins, ect ect are others and for these medication isnt actually the default treatment. Even biological disorders can be managed better with psychotherapy/coping skills which reduce medications.

Here are 2 examples of patients who do not have a biological imbalance but mainstream psychiatry will fail them big time:

A child who is lethargic, moody, impulsive, learns poorly has outbursts. The child has elevated levels of lead in his blood which are causing this. A mainstream psychiatrist would immediately look for symptoms and they would mostly lead him to say ADHD, ODD and learning disorder. First thing he would reach for are a drug prescription. The child now not only cause a toxin of led in his blood but powerful mind altering drugs as well. The child will not get better, and its safe to say the child will spend years on drugs with psychiatrists giving the parents the notion the child is born with a chemical imbalance. Now, take a more better trained professional, possibly a pediatric doctor or an ideal psychiatrist. A far greater in depth approach would be taken, life history, overall health, diet ect. The doctor may notice slight tremors or idiosyncratic motor activity, almost spasmatic in nature. Obviously a sign of a neurological/ nervous system problem. Then comes as to what, that could be anything. The parents may note cyclic cycles of constipation and diarrhea. As well as tired ness but that could be lots of things. Bleeding/sore gums may also be noticed. Poor diet, autoimmune? Eventually the doctor will run it down to several suspicions and run tests. One would be a blood test for toxic elements. Once the test gives a number of elevated lead levels thats on green light to go after that. The metal can be chilated out of the blood with treatment. The child will get better over time with the toxin removed. One treats the symptoms the other the cause.

Second case: This one is much more common, and I seen it all to well. Person has a difficult life, a few traumatic things happen here and there. Person develops complex PTSD and has many symptoms (anxiety, depression, flash backs, startle responces, moodiness, sleep disturbances ect) All a normal reaction to trauma. Mainstream psychiatrist influenced by big pharma education immediately labels (misdiagnosis) the symptoms as depression, mood disorders even bipolar. Gives a cocktail of drugs to treat the symptoms. Convinces patient they are defective, born with a chemical imbalance. The trauma history is ignored, nor does the doctor even know what to do with it. Most will not care. Some will say the trauma is just there because the 'inborn disorder' made them susceptible (vulnerable) to that environment. Others might even label it all a delusion or just attention seeking. The patient will believe they are sick and brought everything upon themselves. Certain medications might sedate them blurring out the flash backs but they will believe this is the best that can be offered to them. They will be fully exploited by the system given every medication possible to try as and take as much as they can take. At this point they are a slave to the system, forget the side effects of taking so many medications. The person never really recovers, and, while in treatment abusive psychiatrist will make them even worse. Inpatient will be a hell that keeps slamming them down. They may turn to drugs to self medicate since the psych meds have so many unpleasant side effects. Things that have happened to them at no fault of their own trap them in an abusive system that milks them for every dollar insurance can pay. Its a downward spiral. A well trained psychiatrist knowledgeable in trauma takes a different approach. Medication isnt used is the cure, rather, in moderation only where needed. Respect, Empathy and kindness are used, even if the patient at angry rude or overwhelmed. The psychiatrist listens and makes sense of the patients problems. Trauma history is taken seriously and not regarded as a delusion. The flash backs and PTSD are addressed via a proper diagnosis and treatment. EMDR, for example may be used to treat traumatic memories the repeatedly flooding back over and over. Powerful coping mechanism are taught, and any inpatient stays are focused on rehabilitation. Constructive ways of expressing emotion over destructive ways are taught. The core in treatment is undoing painful memories as to no longer hold the mind hostage. Gradually the patient begins to have less intense PTSD symptoms and begins to recover. Medication is needed less and less and the patient makes real progress. The person here eventually recover no longer needing such intensive services for life, if none at all.

These are 2 cases where the biological etiology with medication management failed the person. These arent rare cases but happen all the time. I know the second one so well. Big paharma however in the ideal outcomes of both lost not only medication for treatment but also for the life of the patient. By all means they will do what ever they can to make sure they rig the system in their benefit.

Drug therapy is GREAT, and they are genuinely trying to improve their drugs - like most businesses, there are a lot of scummy guys who lobby for unethical things, but all in all, it does help and they try hard to get things more efficient with less side effects.

They aren't improving the drugs they have now. They are discontinuing ones that sell less and upping the ones that sell more. They have desperately been trying to cover the side effects of SSRIs. Big pharma's latest campaign is selling legalized meth amphetamine to kids, because their normal curiosity is now a disease.

Compare Clomipramine to Mirtazapine.
Valproic acid to Sodium Valproate
Carbamazepine to Oxcarbazepine.

Imagine how many "bipolar IIs" were immensely helped by Lamotrigine (ONLY thing that can knock out bipolar II's awful depression, next to Seroquel which isn't that great)

Drug therapy is good. Misuse/misadvice by bad psychiatrists is bad.

When done right for those who do indeed have a biological cause of mental illness yes, but not all do.

But I'm 100% sure I get less of the drug pushing crossfire being brazilian. In the US they must be more aggressive with their marketing, as should the profits of psychiatrists be much higher. Here, it doesn't matter MUCH which drug they prescribe. Specially since a fair share of the population actually gets them for free from the government, which has a fixed buying quantity from big pharma.

The US is by far the biggest offender. Every other school kid here is one some type of pharmaceutical drug. The psychs in the US prescribe recklessness. Walk in for a trouble sleeping and walk out with a shopping list of drugs.

I guess you can alway argue that some people get helped by this or that, as long as it's done properly. But in psychotherapy, scamming is too common. In psychiatry, misdiagnoses, poor management of medications and unnecessary violence is also too common.

Both professions need an overhaul.

Both need a huge overhaul for the sake of or future.

by **creative_nothing** » Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:06 pm

Good discussions.

twistednerve wrote:Only thing you can rule out as illness is PTSD and anxiety related stuff.

I think the word Illness is leading to an unnecessary stigma.

Illness: A disease or period of sickness affecting the body or mind.
Disease: A particular abnormal, pathological condition that affects part or all of an organism.
Pathology: The study of disease. Pathology has been defined as "that branch of medicine which treats of the essential nature of disease.

Dammit, a little redundant.

But, what about bone fractures? For sure it has an ICD code. Even swelling have it.

But lets for a moment, not discuss the word "illness". People who have a trauma may look for an orthopedist and a physical therapist. Now people who have a psychological trauma can look for a psychiatrist or a psychologist. They could also look for a friend, a relative or a priest.

Another analogy with "General" medicine.

People complain that according to DSM V, almost everyone would have a diagnoses.

But I my self have acne, and I if go to a dermatologist, they would diagnose me with Acne Vulgaris.

I think very few people would be completely undiagnosed with minor things as Acne or Lactose Intolerance, who has a perfect phisical healthy? Looking only at the eyes few people wouldnt have Myopia, Hyperopia or Astigmatism.

I think DSM V is a great advance compared to the time were the few diagnoses were schizophrenia, maniac-depression, depression or psychopathy. If we have more "labels", that should mean that we have a better understanding of the mind.

I don't think most of you have "illnesses"

Re: I don't think most of you have "illnesses"

ADVERTISEMENT

Re: I don't think most of you have "illnesses"

Re: I don't think most of you have "illnesses"

Re: I don't think most of you have "illnesses"

Re: I don't think most of you have "illnesses"

Re: I don't think most of you have "illnesses"

Re: I don't think most of you have "illnesses"

Re: I don't think most of you have "illnesses"

Re: I don't think most of you have "illnesses"

Re: I don't think most of you have "illnesses"

Who is online