Monday, August 19, 2019

Comments by diaspora

Showing 2 of 2 comments.

  • No kidding. Did you read the article on Marxism and mental health? (I haven’t experienced psychosis, but major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD, etc.. and am on SSDI due to that shit combined with chronic physical illness) but feel the same way. Actually I question anyone’s sanity who doesn’t question the fact that the labor they have to do just to survive is what maintains and increases some other person’s billions. Ability to work shouldn’t be seen as a sign of health.

  • This made sense until this line towards the end: “Lastly, a longer duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) was associated with poorer outcome.”

    So, outcomes are better 10 years post-diagnosis if you were first on drugs– for how long?– and then not? Rather than if you were never on drugs? So it’s beneficial to take them when you’re first diagnosed and in a very acute phase, but not longterm? Or is it better to never take them, and to have had non-drug treatment, but still treatment of some kind? Maybe such conclusions can’t be drawn from this study. I’ve read the book Mad In America and it’s quite convincing that being on any psychotropics for more than a short-term period does more harm than good. But I’m not sure if this study shows that being on them briefly is more beneficial longterm than never taking them. So I’m not quite sure what the takeaway is here, yet at the same time am always glad when drugs are exposed as being harmful longterm, and that they are far from being cures.

    In the US there is virtually no non-drug treatment you can get without also being on drugs. Psychiatrists will tell you they won’t even see you if you refuse to take drugs.