Sunday, October 13, 2019

Comments by SleepyMouse

Showing 3 of 3 comments.

  • Well I think you’re right that there is that strong connection with doctors and pharmaceutical industry like Whitaker has written many times. Still those doctors are human beings like are the people deciding their budget. Currently there is a very of few those studies that say “Hi that way of treating people has poor outcomes and wastes money” so it must be really hard for an average doctor to make tough decisions going out of line and trying something against the treatment standards. That way they might lose their jobs.

    Yeah Wikipedia as main channel of information is never enough, but it is still common starting point for those searching information, because otherwise the other channels would be hard to find. It is hard to stumble Mad In America by accident if someone isn’t already critically minded and searching with that kind of keywords.

    Have you read some of those studies written here? Just reading a study it is hard to know which study is impartial and which is not. It requires a lot of detective work for which I am very thankful for those being able to do it. I don’t like much about scientific language. It isn’t natural so it limits those ones able to read it and hides simple things in complex words. o_o/

  • Sites like Mad In America are great, but they have far less readers than Wikipedia like Gilbert pointed! Net neutrality won’t help to get masses talk about something. When someone searches something there is always some site that is the first and I believe in the eyes of outsider Wikipedia is more trustworthy. Changing articles there doesn’t mean only promoting something and starting a rally war but adding information and negotiating with others with completely different viewpoint to find words that everyone can agreed. And if Wikipedia would contain about those researches analysed here the more people would Google them and find this site. So it really is like making a small snowball first that after some time would start rolling by itself.

    Mad In America has made a quite a snowball already, but for others to see that “Okay snowman created that way without vegetable nose is happier and less harm to society causing snowman” they should first see something interesting related to their area of specialty and start testing it themselves. People rarely trust when someone just tells something, but if some results can be repeated like in science and is replicated enough times finally heads start turning. \( *_* )/

    I just inspected Wikipedia antipsychotics article thinking if I add something there but I still think its too much for me. Well and that what you Gilbert wrote was fun to read. It must be hard to try talking when everyone else has so strong opinions that they are correct that they won’t even like to listen. People tend to see everything they have been doing their life so normal that they have hard time even imaging something different. Then they usually use words like “can’t” or “must” in passive to describe how things are currently. I don’t think it is about that they are stupid or greedy. Everyone just loves living comfortably and even talking about something new is hard before new thing becomes something familiar.

  • Hi!

    I liked reading that article like all the other articles you have written. They go so well in line what I have seen as patient inside hospitals and outside them. Just reading them and especially about Soteria and that Norwegian way of treatment, makes me hopeful that some day things change and getting treatment really means that the way getting back up is starting. Current situation is awful when everyone working in health care just sees that those ones stopping medication alone make stupid things and go back to hospitals.

    If I had more money I definitely would support Mad In America, but instead I have some selfish suggestion that I know that in a long run would help many just buried inside mental health care with no hope to recover. It is really rare to see people being able to speak problems with medication calmly because the most ones doing it are patients and have so many bad memories taking it that they get angry. Even harder is to collect enough information and experience to be able to speak and write the way that others listen, because otherwise it sounds like “Hey expert who has studied ten years that, I don’t think science is right.”

    I for example know that I can’t do it. I think the first place where people go searching about mental health problems and treatment is Wikipedia and English Wikipedia has nothing about troubles in science behind medication. Currently it is almost like a drug ad they give us patients when we ask some information about our sicknesses. So it would be really helpful if someone good with words and enough experience would edit antipsychotics and psychosis and schizophrenia wiki-sites about those researches. I believe that many reading Wikipedia now miss that kind of knowledge that goes with what they can see with their own eyes.

    I love Robert Whitaker’s neutral tone. So well thanks really. You are a great person and doing important job. Your book I bought was the first time I ever felt that someone cared about patients. *_*/