Friday, October 18, 2019

Comments by R

Showing 11 of 11 comments.

  • as far as i remember from a talk by leiff which i attended, it’s basically talking back to a computer generated avatar of the voice you hear (that you can model to look like you want it to). the avatar is controlled by the therapist and you can make it sound the way the voice sounds, and the goal is to gain control over on befriend the voice or resolve the conflict underlying the meaning of the voice. it’s described here in more detail https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK373172/ and in some other papers.

  • @shook: it’s interesting you criticise whitaker for supposedly claiming causality from a naturalistic study and then make causal assumptions from an observational study. a study by the same group of people is well debunked here: http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2015/06/01/neuroleptic-drugs-and-mortality/ i guess they used the same data and just added benzo to publish a second article. there are also other problems with the study if you look closely. just one, but a major one: The identified schizophrenia patients were categorized into 4 DDD groups; (1) no antipsychotics during the follow-up, (2) small doses of antipsychotics or occasional use (0 DDD/ day–0.5 DDD/day, noninclusive), (3) moderate doses of antipsychotics (0.5 DDD/day–1.5 DDD/day, inclusive), and (4) high antipsychotic doses (>1.5 DDD/day).” [Emphasis added]

    So the individuals in the study were categorized – not by cumulative lifetime exposure to neuroleptics, but only by exposure during the five-year follow-up period. For example, a person who had been taking neuroleptics for decades, and came off the drugs in December 2005, and died in January 2006, would have been recorded as a mortality in the zero neuroleptic exposure group.

    wonder why they did it like this. hmmmmmmmmmm

  • that’s not what i meant. perhaps i have/i had some problems with communicating what i mean. of course, socioeconomic factors can lead people into psychiatry. of course, fighting poverty, economic inequality, exclusion, racism, discrimination etc is important and all those factors can drive people into psychiatry. and i think all people involved here know that. but i don’t think it’s what this article says. i think what it says is: rising disability rates are not (only) because of drugs, but (also) because of other social problems. which is, of course, partially true. still, the problem is, as long as people are entering the mental health system, for whatever reason, and the biomedical and disease model dominate – no one will ever consider those socioeconomic factors, because part of the story behind biomedical model is that the most important factor is individual, personal, vulnerability or, if you will, biological defect that has to be fixed with drugs. if we don’t change the view that drugs don’t work – also by showing that there are other causes of mental distress, basically, that bad things happen to people and they screw them up, and not that they were born with faulty brains, people will be drugged and opressed by psychiatry. addresing the CAUSES of social problems suchs as poverty and fighting them is not a job for psychiatry, it is a question of the organisation of the whole society, economy, culture etc. as long as biomedical model dominates and people believe that drugs are safe and necessary all mental health programs focused on addresing social issues will end up as mass drugging programs. and this won’t solve the problems of the poor and excluded, it will only make them drugged and poor and excluded.

  • This is horryfing. And it is the same where I live – once you are labelled mentally ill you can be kept in a psychiatric “hospital” for life and abused physically and emotionally if the masters, erm, I meant psychiatrists, wish to. Hope you will find peace of mind and all ends well…

  • Hi, i’ve been reading MiA for some years, yet i think this is my first comment.
    Firstly, i think large part of this article is using a straw man arguments when presenting both whitaker’s work and “anti-psychiatry”.
    Secondly, while i agree that rising disability rates are probably partly caused by socioeconomic factors and, as author seems to suggest, some people are going for disiabilty payments as a mean of welfare/benefits, i think the author uses this argument in order to say that drugs are not to blame, they are not as bad as whitaker and others here describe it here and that we should focus more on a bigger picture. Yet, the problems described, such as stigma, the form the benefit program takes and others all arise because of the dominance of the biomedical model! And the main practical part of the model are the drugs used! The only way to move forward is to first undermine the biomedical model by showing that the treatment proposed by it does not work and even more is probably harmful. Focusing on socioeconomic factors won’t change anything now, as it may only be used in order to push more drugs and coercion on people. I don’t understand, how, in good faith, may the author cite lip-service of insel and torrey, while actual clinical practice has got nothing to do with those statements. Maybe some people go into social disiabilities programs because of socioeconomic factors, but that does not change the fact, that they are prescribed meds which at best do not help and at worst keep them in the disabled group and in a state in which they are unable to provide for themselves! PS Sorry, I’m not a native english speaker, as you probably figured out, but I felt i needed to add my opinion here.