Evidence-based treatments... WTF does that mean ?

Do they refer to Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America ?

Does evidence-based treatments mean The Myth of the Chemical Cure: A Critique of Psychiatric Drug Treatment ?

Evidence based ? I just dont understand this. Is this just another psychiatric fraud word ???? like "suggests," "may" and "it is hoped."

or mabey that “No claim for a gene for a psychiatric condition has stood the test of time, in spite of popular misinformation.” —Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, Harvard Medical School psychiatrist


Chill E.B. - Prove It (official video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX0SFo_4Ago

No proof ? Realy, Even with the "magic" of science like the Stupid T.V on the wall and this computer that are nothing but overgrown light-brites built by electronic hobbiests in the garage ?

Evidence based, why not proof based ?

"Evidence-based practice in psychology (EBPP) is the integration of the best available
research with clinical expertise in the context of patient characteristics, culture, and
preferences." (5)

http://www.apa.org/practice/resources/e ... report.pdf

Copy_Cat wrote:

ZOMG!!!

Infinite_Jester wrote:"Evidence-based practice in psychology (EBPP) is the integration of the best available
research with clinical expertise in the context of patient characteristics, culture, and
preferences." (5)

http://www.apa.org/practice/resources/e ... report.pdf

30 pages ! 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-talk

-- Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:40 pm --

A am going to read it but later. Thanks.

Copy_Cat wrote: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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-talk

Hmmm. I don't think that particular paper is what Orwell had in mind when he coined the term. I think he meant more of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI) kind of sloppy talking to take up time so that everything remains exactly as it is because dissenting world views can't be presented.

*** Just so we're clear, Buckley is the sloppy talker ***

*** I've been informed that George Orwell coined the term "doublespeak" not "double talk" ***

I think I figured it out , its evidence based on infinite variables ?

In mathematics, more specifically in the field of group theory, a solvable group (or soluble group) is a group that can be constructed from abelian groups using extensions. That is, a solvable group is a group whose derived series terminates in the trivial subgroup.

Historically, the word "solvable" arose from Galois theory and the proof of the general unsolvability of quintic equation. Specifically, a polynomial equation is solvable by radicals if and only if the corresponding Galois group is solvable.



Some algorithms do have a certain desired effect on the cube (for example, swapping two corners) but may also have the side-effect of changing other parts of the cube (such as permuting some edges). Such algorithms are often simpler than the ones without side-effects, and are employed early on in the solution when most of the puzzle has not yet been solved and the side-effects are not important. Towards the end of the solution, the more specific (and usually more complicated) algorithms are used instead.

Side effects ?

Copy_Cat wrote:In mathematics, more specifically in the field of group theory, a solvable group (or soluble group) is a group that can be constructed from abelian groups using extensions. That is, a solvable group is a group whose derived series terminates in the trivial subgroup.

Historically, the word "solvable" arose from Galois theory and the proof of the general unsolvability of quintic equation. Specifically, a polynomial equation is solvable by radicals if and only if the corresponding Galois group is solvable.

Exactly. When psychologists say that Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is an evidenced based treatment for depression they mean CBT resolves problems in mathmatics. *nods*

Evidence-based usually means there have been expensive double blind clinical trials which resulted in some finding that was published in some la-ti-da medical or psych journal.

Problem with these studies is that they can be rigged to produce whatever result you want. Whoever is funding the study decides the result.

There is no actual science behind psychiatry, psychology, counseling, or therapy of any kind -- no two people are alike so even legit studies will not produce any concrete answers. What these studies do produce are long conclusions in the articles such as "what still needs to be studied are blah, blah, blah, and more blah." It's all pure crap -- a profession designed for the crazies it attracts to make it appear that they are being productive citizens.

FormerOptimist wrote:There is no actual science behind psychiatry, psychology, counseling, or therapy of any kind -- no two people are alike so even legit studies will not produce any concrete answers. What these studies do produce are long conclusions in the articles such as "what still needs to be studied are blah, blah, blah, and more blah." It's all pure crap -- a profession designed for the crazies it attracts to make it appear that they are being productive citizens.

You're right in the sense that there is no rigorous scientific description of mental illness, that is, in terms of diagnosis and treatment. The academics who study mental illness often insult true scientific minds in this regard. One example is the use of the idea of a "genetic cause" instead of "genetic correlation" - idiots! (feeble Napoleon Dynamite kick).

However, I would disagree that the profession of psychiatry is total crap. I think that medications can be treated as a temporary tool for helping someone get on their feet by giving them enough time to recover.

By the way, I honestly wish that more doctors would be like Dr. John Breeding, or other progressive psychiatrists. There are few, but they are out there...

Ian Reynir wrote:However, I would disagree that the profession of psychiatry is total crap.

I wonder how the general public would react if they were properly educated about how little psychiatry really knows, and about how medications aren't fixing a chemical imbalance. I think there is still so much fear out there of mental illness that people would still turn their heads the other way.

That isn't to say that some people haven't been/can be helped by some of psychhiatry's methods. I think that there is a big difference though if you are knowledgeable about what you're getting into, and that you're basically a lab rat in the hands of another person.

Do you want evidence?

how many can say that they were tested for a chemical imbalance when prescribed with drugs designed to correct a chemical imbalance? how many believe that if they didn't have a chemical imbalance, that they wouldn't after taking those drugs?

what is the test for chemical imbalance in the brain? where is the peer reviews of that?