Sunday, December 8, 2019

Comments by kris10joleen

Showing 13 of 13 comments.

  • Kerstin.
    What courage! To write is to revisit, and I imagine that it is not easy to write about these experiences. But how important it is for all of us to hear what it is like to be on your side of particular psychiatric “treatments” that seem to violate basic human rights while accomplishing little, if any, positive result. I am sure that your story will inspire others to come forward and add to the growing testimony of the violations people have suffered at the hands of psychiatry at its most reckless. Thank you and I applaud you!! And I am so glad you refused to lose yourself.

  • It seems that “space” for all perspectives to be heard would include room being made for the sharing of the historical trajectories of whatever is being discussed. The historical pathways of “schizophrenia” studies may seem “inflammatory” to some because it is an unattractive history. Should we then censor that history because it makes us feel uncomfortable? This history represents a fundamental part of any in depth understanding of this often oversimplified classification – as is any history about any other matter that is highly complex and seriously debated. Its conceptual validity is commonly misrepresented in the scientific literature (Boyle, 2003) and this, too, should absolutely be a part of the conversation. Genetic studies will always, and should always, cause some measure of thoughtful concern and pause. That unattractive, “inflammatory” history demonstrates the potentially harmful implications of research that focuses on such a sloppy “disease” construct – it speaks to the dangerous meanings that may emerge from reckless and oversimplified “gene” talk. It seems a very important perspective that should not be silenced.

  • Wow, this discussion really speaks to me. I will just add my simple thoughts as I am moved to.
    I have seen the issues we are concerned with as paralleling those of the civil rights movement, and many other movements of people pushing back against oppressive power. My inner conflict involves an almost lifelong sense of hopelessness (I was born soon after MLK – and so many others – were murdered), and a powerful unwillingness to give up in spite of that hopelessness.
    While we need a unified message and voice, it is also true that we can make room for more radical and more conservative voices to co-exist under one umbrella. MLK was not a black panther, for instance, but really, all those diverse forces were moving in the same direction. Nothing happens without a strong consensus and that is what we need, as I interpret Richard’s words to be saying.
    Sadly, the civil rights movement, though achieving what looked like a win (perhaps in large part due to our government’s need to not look like such hypocrites as we preached “freedom” to Russia), we see now another form of enslavement – the incarceration of, what is it? 1 in 3 black men? (!!!!!)
    For those of you who have seen it, The big Lebowski yells at the dude, “the bums will always lose…” and a part of me believes that – because history has shown this to be true – he with the larger weapon wins, right? But a stronger part of me knows I will never stop speaking truth to power because I live here on this earth, too, and I can’t stand by and watch in silence as another human being is transformed, in the short space of a year, into a zombie.
    We know of more flexible solutions to problems. And we can disperse our knowledge far and wide – winning hearts and minds is the key. And we can do that. Human rights issues touch every other human. Sadly, it IS about marketing – big pharma knows this very well. And we need to become equally sophisticated.
    How we use language is important – Leah makes this excellent point below. We need to be aware of the cultural discourse and the fact that our voices can easily be dismissed based on assumptions about “anti-psychiatry” and what that is.
    Again, as I may have mentioned before – I am really thankful for the amazing voices in this forum.

  • Thank you so much for this inspiring and encouraging article. I have been struggling lately against an avalanche of disheartening feelings while attempting to wrap my thesis into a fifteen-minute presentation to my peers in a master’s psychology/counseling program.
    My thesis ran along the lines of providing counselors with sound reasons to hold hope for those clients presenting with the kinds of problems that usually land them a diagnosis of schizophrenia. I reviewed literature that examined diverse cultural considerations, validity/continuum issues, links to trauma and adverse experience, alternative models of psychosis, stories of recovery, and alternative approaches to psychosis. And while my thesis provides a hopeful outlook, it is clearly not a mainstream perspective, and therefore runs counter to powerful forces that restrict counselors’ authenticity and creative freedom, while simultaneously engendering a sense of hopelessness.
    There is no easy way, within current educational institutions, to discover (or uncover) the facts about psychiatry’s classification system. I was very fortunate to obtain my education at a very progressive school and had the opportunity to dig deeply into the history of the DSM, and specifically, into that of the classification of schizophrenia. It is only against great odds that a student would gain insight into the smoke and mirrors of psychiatry. In these times of “unavailable” research, many students are not given the opportunity to review the methodological, conceptual, and statistical bases of those primary studies upon which schizophrenia’s supposed legitimacy is built, and therefore, are easily “spoon-fed” psychiatry’s “knowledge” via textbooks. These then enter the workforce with a very specific “vision” about particular “symptoms.” I feel a strong sense of urgency regarding this, because that vision seems potentially very harmful to those individuals in extreme distress – distress that is both deeply personal and unique to their lives and experiences.
    But your words encourage me. While I can only guess about the conspiratorial deceit within psychiatry, you witnessed it first-hand and bravely share that insight. Thank you! I look forward to reading your work.

  • Thank you so much for your thorough response. Much appreciated! I am relatively new to this field but much of my graduate work focused on the various problems encompassed by supposed “schizophrenia”. As I said, I continue to be shocked by what appears to be a stubborn adherence to this concept in spite of how potentially harmful conventional treatment is.
    I could rant for hours. I will refrain.
    Thanks again.
    Kristen

  • Philip,
    I was hoping you could speak to something I find confusing in this, and other, genetic studies of “schizophrenia.” I notice the authors wrote in their introduction, “The first CNV to be unequivocally implicated in schizophrenia was the 22q11.2 deletion, which also causes most cases of DiGeorge and Velocardiofacial Syndromes” (Rees et al., 2014). Here, they cited a paper by Pulver et al., 1994. I was unable to access it, but am curious about their “unequivocal” findings. It has been my understanding that “schizophrenia” is not, technically, a valid scientific concept (Boyle, 2002). If my understanding is correct, it would seem important that researchers not neglect that fact – but the assumption of validity is often casually embedded in researchers’ language, as in the example above. That prestigious scientific journals continue to allow the very unscientific reification of this sloppy construct continues to shock me. Perhaps I am missing something.
    What are your thoughts on this?
    Thanks for the timely article, by the way.
    Kristen

  • I spent one grad course this past semester focused on the history of the development of the diagnostic entity “schizophrenia”. Where it came from and how we got to our present-day criteria…I concluded that it is bogus – and really, a tragedy of devastating proportions.
    I applaud your input!!