Tuesday, June 18, 2019

Comments by Hobbes64

Showing 7 of 7 comments.

  • Scientific studies should be careful about suggesting CAUSATION given obvious limitations and confounding criteria (including bias). Unless there has been a plethora of replication (which is largely absent) the best a scientific study can do is suggest a relationship of variable strength depending on the study design and participant characteristics. Science, at its core must continue to be open to scrutiny and given the current SCIENCE as MARKETING approach, it behooves us all to be very wary of studies of any kind that suggest an “answer” to a “question” . The definition of the “question” or the “answer” are products of ……FILL in the Blank here….

  • Mike:
    Thank you for this beautifully written and thoroughly human review of the various circumstances that both contributed to the person that Robin Williams was as well as those that may have contributed to his decision to take his life.

    My mother has Parkinson’s and it is heartbreaking to see her decline as a result of the disease and the medications she takes to help with her symptoms. Sadly, the medical industrial complex that governs neurology (and Psychiatry) continually shames and blames her for the emotional responses and high levels of anxiety she suffers as a part of the side effects of the drugs she must take. She has been labeled uncooperative for her refusal to take anti-anxiety medications (which they dole out to this population heavily), they refuse to acknowledge the severe symptoms she has when there are any medication changes, and the effects can be so severe that she has prayed for death to come.

    Your article delves deeply into a person, rather than a diagnosis or a victim of some supposed imbalance. How wonderful it would be, if in my Mother’s final years, she could be met with this human kindness rather than the shame and blame game that is de rigueur in all her interactions with health professionals, and sadly, many who have adopted this stance as their own in the community.
    Thank you again.

  • Dr. Tamimi- Thank you for the critical review of the various elements that have help manipulate and sell the BIG PhrMA poison to the developing bodies of our children with the acquiesce of parents and other caregivers. You speak of the “McDonaldisation” of growing up and the “expert” opinions we have become so reliant on. That part of the equation is where we must focus to change this sad and frequently desperate situation.

    I am a parent, a former patient, someone who has worked in this field and has also been harmed by it. As a parent, I am struck by the way my daughter and her friends now describe themselves as variously disordered- Having panic attacks, anxiety disorders etc.- they own and define themselves using these terms without any real understanding of what the labels mean or subject them to in terms of their own choices and experience of agency as they deal with the very real challenges and changes experienced while growing and becoming.

    At various points in my own relationships with the “experts” I have had to make a choice about whether I thought their opinion was worthy of consideration or simply bullshit. On most occasions, the latter was the case and I escaped their intervention and the prison that would have placed me in. I continue this pattern with my child and am truthful with her about the reasons and skeptical approach I have towards those attempting to define and confine with diagnostic labels. These practices, and the narrative that drives them has become so ubiquitous and difficult to escape. It requires constant challenge and education about alternative approaches that broaden and normalize the experience of growing up. It requires parents to be informed, curious and skeptical. It requires us all to be able and willing to call – bullshit and educate our kids to do the same.

  • It seems there are quite a number of folks commenting here that have been seriously hurt by “experts” and are willing to criticize the continuing ed MIA has coordinated. It is sad to see the vitriolic expressions of the harms done. What is not acknowledged is that MIA and VERY few others, are talking about the methods and strategies individuals can use to exit the enslavement of the “expert” advice they have been given and return to themselves. The number of individuals under the “care” of psychiatry is a monumental figure. And many among them know there is something wrong, but are wed to the idea of chemical imbalance so thoroughly sold.

    Central to the mission of MIA is to get this information to the uninformed and help those who have not yet come into contact with the counter narrative (READ: the truth). Those that already have the information are hopefully in the process of some healing, those that are not and are seeking alternatives for the distress they live with daily – often a product of the medications they are taking and have been taking for decades AND the idea that they are somehow broken- REQUIRE the opportunity to learn about another way. I applaud the work MIA is doing and hope we can continue serve both those aware of the harms they have experienced as well as those who are beginning to explore the truth of their “treatment” and methods to extricate themselves from the “experts”.

  • Thank you Bob, for a wonderfully argued and well cited review of the “effectiveness” of “antidepressants”. This is an example of the type of information that could make a difference, if more thoroughly disseminated in the wider medical industrial complex. Since I have little faith that it will be read by those folks, I hope it can at least be spread more widely among those who have been or are contemplating psychiatric “treatment”. The societal impacts are profound, and too often the individual harms are ignored or minimized to keep the popular “mental” health narrative going. Wonderful work!

  • Oy, already! Does anyone else see this back and forth argument about a topic where there is quite a bit of agreement- with regard to the Mental Health counter narrative – as more than a little ridiculous? Is it necessary for each of us individually to speak using the exact same terms- sort of like the promotion and adoption of the lock step mythology of the “chemical” imbalance? Why so shrill and strident? If we cannot listen in this forum and be open to multiple perspectives, variation in expression and experience- why bother? Thank you, Sam for contributing this good and relevant article.