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

name_changed wrote:i asked a straight forward question, you've answered it here in the same manner. appreciate the lack of politics.

I replied,

Cheze2 wrote:Currently there are no conclusive tests for any chemical imbalance.

How is that not straight forward, to the point and directly answering your question?

Razael wrote:I've seen a chemical balance test on an alternative medicine site that tests hair analysis kryptopyroles etc but yeah its really expensive like 200+dollars...funny enough they didn;t mention it to be used for dopamine balance only serotonin and the others

I have not heard of a test on the hair, but i do know of a blood test for serotonin levels. There is a thing called serotonin syndrome that they can test the amount of serotonin in your body. The issue is there is that there is no way to measure the amount of serotonin in the brain. Also, there is no conclusive evidence that a low serotonin level alone causes depression/anxiety/ocd etc. May scientists believe that this MAY be true, but they're not sure. (See Ian Reynir's thread on MAY BE and LINKED TO)

hair analysis is what should be done to determine whether the mental illness was caused by toxic build up of heavy metals that might actually be quite common? maybe

I think the evidence based $#%^ is to elevate themselves to the illusion of scientific credibility..

like someone else said I think its about what studies make it to the psychiatric journals that are heavily funded by drug industry...evidence based stuff is sponsored by the drug industry, there is hardly any money for studies that prove alternatives.....quacks would disregard opposing evidence as pseudo-science, but they are just arrogant and ignorance

quacks only know what is marketed to them by the drug industry plain and simple, and it feeds the delusions about the effects of the drugs that is bordering on magical thinking, its really obvious to me that they are deluded about everything including mental health...like if you consider that they've ignored sleep deprivation triggered psychosis and make sleep deprivation out to be a symptom even like me it ca be explained plain as simple as something else but difficult amongs the stubborness of the industry to see me as schizophrenic....with sleep deprivation the logical evidence would suggest great improvements after sleep but they put them on antipsychotics and oppress them and treat them like they have a mental illness that triggers abnormal behaviour in response to the environment, they cant see the effect of the industry over the mental health of the patients untill they are dumbed down and compliant and finally treated with some respect as long as they believe the education to delude the situation.

sorry to go on about my own situation, the quacks and treatment people are too busy seeing me as a schizophrenic to be enlightened to what the real story is behind me ever seeing a psychiatrist in the past.....they are too caught up in the illusion...

what really bothers me is they study the drugs and stuff like working memory that they claim to be a problem with schizophrenia, but the drugs cause working memory problems, it doesn;t make sense that they go to all the trouble of doing study on things like negative symptoms without a care in the world for realizing the drugs mimick these problems, its really frustrating and totally not scientific

It is very difficult for psychiatry to be scientific because they have aligned themselves so much with de practice of medication.
Already during their education they have busied themselves medicating patients.
Finding out that medication causes brain damage is the same as admitting having done harm themselves. It is much more convenient for them to claim that it is schizophrenia itself that causes brain damage.
Also because of the all importance of placebo they can rationalize the need to claim stubbornly the effectiveness of medication.
Within other medical disciplines there is the choice between different medical therapies, while psychiatry faces with the possibility that they aren’t needed at all. Studies showing that adding medication makes psychotherapy less effective in the long run, means that psychiatry is superfluous.

We need stop calling psychiatric drugs medications, otherwise we come to accept the assumptions built into these terms. The distinction between illegal recreational drugs and what psychiatrists peddle is only linguistic. These "medications" are basically mind-altering substances.

Cledwyn Bulbs wrote:We need stop calling psychiatric drugs medications, otherwise we come to accept the assumptions built into these terms. The distinction between illegal recreational drugs and what psychiatrists peddle is only linguistic. These "medications" are basically mind-altering substances.

What about the word “medications?” Does it ease peoples mind by conjuring up images of some benign cough syrup prescribed by a kindly family doctor? Nothing could be further from the truth. A psychiatric medication is a very powerful addictive drug.

Cough syrups is a good analogy, because they only work because of the placebo effect also, although reason dictates that I qualify such an assertion with an admission that sometimes psychiatric drugs work for people because of their sedative effect. Calling psychiatric drugs "medications" is to frame the issue in the terms of the oppressors. If there is to be any revolution, it must start with the language. The use of the term "medications" bears testament to just how our understanding of the world is linguistically filtered. The term suggests that real illnesses are being treated, and prejudges any improvement as being attributable to the supposed curative properties of psychiatric drugs, whereas as if we simply called them mind-altering drugs, such a term implicitly prescribes a different interpretation.

Rejection of the idiom of psychiatry is the only way one can protect oneself against an infiltration of one's mind by the assumptions built into that idiom.