Showing 100 of 103 comments.
Removed at request of poster.
Is the last b/w picture one of a homeless bum at a cemetery smoking and possibly drinking, with an amazon drone in the air? Is it an invitation for the “mentally ill” to f**k off and die?
They tried it in the late 30’s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4
Now they sublimely try to convince you. SUICIDE. It’s your right!! Don’t let the STATE stop you!! Philosophy says so. It’s your only chance of asserting yourself!
Bob Whitaker (one T, not 2) has developed OCD because of Donald Trump. Why you may ask? It’s hard to face the truth, you start shaking and develop a compulsion. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
“Does the state have a right to override an individual’s basic convictions about the meaning and facticity of life and death?”
Silly question. Who is the state? Our overlords? God? Or just the one who fills your pay check?
My answer to that would be there are at a least (!) a thousand ways to die and the 50 ways to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4xoHjNjxus
Silicon Valley’s New theme song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMOGaugKpzs
The Chinese seem to be a few steps ahead, though. So, best to paint Huawei in a negative light. No?
“Though cannot touch the freedom of my mind” …Milton lived in the 17th Century (right around the time when burning witches was common practice). Technology has advanced to the point where it most definitely can interfere with your thoughts. In a good way, or a bad way.
She’s a witch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
Marcello Maviglia, would you agree that neuroleptics fall under the category of “addictive medicine”? In the sense that it’s extremely difficult to get off them. And, that taking them is not in any way beneficial? Have you ever tried them yourself, to get a first-hand understanding?
“Il mito della malattia mentale” from Amazon.it. Not hard to find.
I would say it also has a lot to do with the determination to help the patient get better (which he admits to in another video). Neuroleptics which cause cognitive impairment don’t really help (in the long run).
I watched a video of his (Abrahm Hoffer) on Youtube, where he claims that if your “schizophrenic” for 10 (or 20) years you need his treatment for 10 (or 20) years before you see any improvement. That seems to me a bit odd to me. Such a 1 on 1 time dependent relationship.
Here’s the video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7CkqRLhDJU&list=PLTmIGrB3Leb40VIInDIWKoMQPo9dAQMHz&index=10
I would say, it has a lot more to do with getting off toxic neuroleptics than the B3 treatment. This is also shown in most longitudinal studies comparing drug treatment to no drugs.
I should add also that table 1 only mentions “frequency of adverse effects”, which is pretty vague, given the myriad of “side effects” from anticholinergics:
You are correct, I’m sure.
This article lists a bunch of neuroleptics (table 1) where it claims a few have negligible anticholinergic effect. It doesn’t mean no effect, though.
Olanzapine and Clozapine are the worst offenders.
Ok, if I understand correctly, the PTMF is an attempt by (some)
psychologists to gain a bit more power, now that psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry (biological model) has the upper hand. From what I can gather as to what psychology does, it is to alter the “meaning” for the individual in order to make him / her more amenable to the power structure (or framework, if you prefer).
I find it interesting there is no mention (at least in the text above) of the influence current and future technology has / will have. It’s actually key, as it’s meant to cement the power disparity most of us experience.
A 70% increase in risk with antipsychotics. It’s likely the reason for that, is that people are prescribed them for much longer. It would be more useful if they included that type of information as well. It might have an effect on prescribing practice. Or, they just switch you to an antipsychotic without an anticholinergic component.
Professor Tiihonen and his studies showing that people live longer on antipsychotics. I found this critique of the Fin11 study quite interesting:
If this critique is valid, it seems Prof Tiihonen is a master manipulator of statistical data.
Some people commenting on this site have mentioned the harms of anticholinergics for a long time. They were most likely introduced to the atypicals to hide visible movement disorders. I wonder if there is any information on chronic blocking of the 5HT receptors (I know it’s related to concentration and the forming of new memories). The antihistamines are linked to sedation, chronically blocking that would mean the whole wake / sleep cycle is damaged. Then there is the benzo-effect, also related to cognitive impairment, lack of drive, indifference, sedation. It’s no wonder the best psychiatry can do is a 15% recovery rate with maintenance treatment. It used to be 40% or more, depending on where you look.
Haldol has a very long half life wrt it’s binding with the dopamine receptors. Above 4mg given daily your bound to eventually develop movement disorders, which suggests brain damage even before it’s visibly obvious. A lot of the so-called atypicals have a lower affinity to dopamine at therapeutic doses. They mask the movement disorder by adding an anticholinergic component. The anticholinergic on it’s own can lead to early onset dementia. Clozapine works best for “psychosis”, and probably not due to it’s antagonistic effect on dopamine. It has a very short half-life and probably for that reason isn’t as likely to cause tardive dyskinesia.
Removed at request of commenter.
Upworthy, “to change what the world pays attention to”. A lofty goal, sounds a lot more like just propaganda to me. The BBC has been discredited decades ago.
Google has been altering it’s search results too, so you just get the information they want you to get.
So, people who occasionally take ecstasy, are at the benevolent mercy of drug dealers? Aren’t you exaggerating a bit?
Here’s a 1930’s video on reefer madness:
A “heroine” is a woman admired for her courage.
I think it’s an improvement, unless you think the “war against drugs” is a successful strategy.
Lord have mercy, is that what that is?
And before you know it, UFO’s enter the conversation.
if you’re sane (or at least believe you are), and on acid, and you think you can fly, then take off from the ground. Instead of jumping from a building.
MDMA assisted psychotherapy. I wonder how that works? Is it the therapist that’s on the ecstasy? To come across as more empathic and trustworthy?
Come to think of it, every psychiatrist that offers neuroleptics as a treatment and claims the effects are that you feel a bit indifferent when on them, should undergo a mandatory 6 month trial of taking 5mg haldol daily (which is still considered a low dose), and if it affects their performance, should be diagnosed as mentally inferior (for life). They should also have to take all their exams whilst on an anti-psychotic (to help them concentrate).
I noticed ADHD was also mentioned in the blog by Tim and I made a little study myself. This was in the 80’s and of the 400 hundred or so students at my school at the time, I’ve determined that 0 were afflicted with ADHD or ADD, although some took speed whilst at a concert. However, of the 30 or so teachers, one (the PE teacher, surprise) was a child molester. There you go.
I’ve also determined that there is a high prevalence of perversion among swimming instructors. The clergy in the Catholic Church is also afflicted with this curse.
Medication for mental health problems has been promoted to be helpful for “several decades”. Ok, since about the year 2000 or even 1990. Are you serious? Before that, it must have been a satanic plot, which it may well still be. What changed 20 or 30 years ago? A new drug? Greed?
It seems, from this blog post, with the way the concept “schizophrenia” is wildly thrown around, that it is now obvious what the editorial stance is of MiA.
It also seems strange, that having one of the major “mental disorders” is not an impediment to attending college.
What on earth is “an episode of schizophrenia” anyway?
Maybe it would have been wiser to allow the “clinicians” to complete their training first. It’s no wonder the “subjects” were a bit confused.
Not sure if that was the intention, but the picture of the donkey rear-ending the elephant made me chuckle. I’m quite sure they take turns, though.
Some psychiatric drugs, like antipsychotics, make it so that the person is more prone to abusing alcohol and street drugs. Nicotine use is very high among these people, it’s a stress-relief drug. I read a study recently that nicotine patches are effective treatment for antipsychotic-induced akathisia.
Point being, what’s now known as racism started off long ago as competition among tribes (driven by the leaders of said tribes). Politicians feed off this idea.
Eric Greene, aka Mr. Beast. Or is it another Eric?
To say there are no known physical causes for fidgety and nervous behavior, you are overlooking the obvious. Diet. Or is that environment?
“There’s no way of knowing; there are too many factors involved.”
I find that’s a common response from psychiatry. Just read the literature. And then to take him off in 2 days. He/she knew very well what the cause was. I think he/she panicked.
If you’re an adult and involved with psychiatry, they test the waters first to see how much you know about their profession and the claims they make. If you correct them, they will either act dumb, or respond by saying it’s a complex issue and refuse to talk about it further.
More control over the population, more restrictions. Is that the gist of the article? if you wish to reduce overall risk, however small, restricting ever more freedoms seems to be where it’s heading.
No, they haven’t. You are probably trying to view the film from another channel.
Here’s a link to the movie from their channel. It has close to 2M views now.
Also, I don’t think anyone ever got diagnosed with “schizophrenia” based on a genetic test.
“All told, the statistically significant genetic associations explained a total of 2.28% of whether a person is diagnosed with schizophrenia.”
I’m not a geneticist, ha, but how does a statistical analysis explain anything? You have “schizophrenia” because we found, of the people studied after being diagnosed with “schizophrenia”, 2.28% had something genetic in common with you. I’m probably not interpreting it correctly, but then the article needs to be a bit more clear.
I seem to recall from the DSM IV era, of which Allen Frances was the head, that he was involved in a lucrative endeavor to market Risperdal. If true, it puts into question his ethics at the time (and at any time).
Here’s an article discussing the matter (for those unaware):
“The original Finnish studies were promising, but it remained inconclusive whether the model could translate effectively to a different sociocultural context.”
It would be difficult in a culture where the reaction to anyone showing emotions is “have you taken you meds today?”
The title “Driven to distraction” sounds a bit ironic. It’s likely Catani and Mazzarello were distracted by flights of fancy themselves when writing this (or just bored).
I am happy to hear there is a return on investment.
Studies seem to show that cannabis can help reduce the brain inflammation that typically results from a TBI. But of-course, that’s a taboo subject. Children with epilepsy seem also to benefit from a low THC strain of cannabis. Epilepsy is recurring brain injury.
To be fair, the title of the article uses the word “imperialism”. It also goes a little into the relation between psychology and torture.
Devices that influence brain activity have been around at least since the 50’s. Since the advent of the computer, scientists have been trying to mimic the brain, with the goal of manipulating, controlling and predicting human behavior. Here’s a link to a video that tries to piece it together:
in a hierarchical system, it shouldn’t surprise anyone what the ultimate goal is here.
The drugs used now to subdue people pale in comparison to what is possible with these techniques.
When PHD Michael Cornwall is “defending” a targeted population it seems to me not quite authentic. He seems to act as an observer and not a participant. Which is not good.
That would be my point too. It’s helpful for most things.
I wonder who these MiA research people are? They never comment or clarify on anything. They seem to be preoccupied all the time with “research” that is inconclusive. Or, do they just have a quota, 3 new articles per week?
Of-course, it’s a very common mistake to report on the collapse of a building before it happens. Happens all the time … and the uniformity and speed at which it collapsed, when it actually did, all quite normal.
Dear Mr. Read,
You state that the “”BBC is usually quite a good, reliable source of information”. I would like to take you back to 11/09/2001 where the BBC talks about the collapse of the Solomon Brothers building a full half hour before it happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0HPqd8dPeE
Here is a reply in 2007 by the BBC on a blog: https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
Always think at least twice before you commit to something.
The link to the original article is incorrect. It should be: https://www.publicsource.org/mental-illness-was-a-label-assigned-to-me-until-i-took-ownership-of-my-identity/
I looked up the contra-indications for a typical SSRI, at a national pharmacy website here in Western Europe, for pregnant mothers on an SSRI. It only mentions the newborn can suffer withdrawal symptoms, like crying a lot. It advises to continue the SSRI (it’s a risk-benefit scenario). Wonder if they will mention possible lasting brain damage to the child in the future?
Just a small correction: “Committee Against Psychiatric Assault (CAPA)” should be “Coalition”. Also, their Youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzrW3LyoxrAjBolOO9062Hg?view_as=subscriber) doesn’t seem to be actively maintained, at least not in the last 7 months. And with only a handful of videos.
Poly-pharmacy (with psychiatric drugs) is dangerous, to say the least. It stems from a mistaken idea, that each complaint is a separate, autonomous, biological, (safely) treatable entity.
“In the future, the researchers plan to give SSRI drugs to autistic children in the hopes that it might reverse the behaviors that may have been caused by exposure to those drugs in utero.” Wishful thinking …
Maybe it would be constructive for people to know that Lou Reed wrote “Heroin” because he was pissed off at the shitty job he had at the time. Most likely he was never a heroin user. He was into stimulants, though. There is a picture of him in 1974 injecting something into his arm on stage.
Could you link to this “budding” campaigns website , and possibly name the most influential people involved?
I prefer anti-authoritarian.
To call it a “paradigm of care” is so far removed from reality, it’s almost insulting. Especially if we consider “schizophrenia”. In the 50’s, with the invention of neuroleptics, EPS symptoms were considered proof of a therapeutic effect. If the patient wasn’t displaying obvious signs of severe brain impairment, it meant the dose was too low.
This reminds me of the (patient / authority figure) conversation when it comes to med compliance. Year after year it’s the shrink that convinces you it’s the best option for you (with warnings of dire consequences if you ever stop). You become more and more ill and more and more dependent on the medication. Sad.
Some of what replaced slavery was the “Black code” and “sharecropping”.
I’m not sure what that means. If psychiatry lists pedophilia a disorder, it’s an insult to every other disorder in the DSM? The DSM should only list invalid disorders, or as you say, character traits of otherwise law abiding citizens?
When you use the word “if”, it seems to suggest your really not quite sure. Just trying to drum up support for the next “revelation”.
I find sometimes comic relief helps to put things into perspective:
don’t forget to watch the second part.
In the DSM 5 we have this: “pedophilic disorder”. Could you clarify why this constitutes hate speech? From whose perspective would you argue?
War assumes there are two opposing sides in a conflict that escalates into a declaration of war. Not just one side deciding to use military force in order to protect it’s economic interests abroad. The last time the USA declared war, was in 1942.
Schizoaffective or schizophrenia? So, there seems to be at least one biological exam psychiatry has at it’s disposal now. Measure the darkness of the patients skin. Or is it just unintended bias? Makes you wonder what psychiatrists are evaluating when they are “observing appearance”.
I meant 70% of 1%. My mistake. It comes to 0.7% of the population at large, not just the ones labelled schizophrenic. I hear other statistics, like 4% of the general population (admit to) frequently hear these voices.
Are you possibly confusing 70% x 1%, which is your 0.7%?
Judging people is problematic. I suppose using the word “absurd” could be argued as being less toxic than “despicable”? To me, it’s just more of the same. Politicians love it when their constituents are quarreling among themselves. I wonder why?
Going to a psychiatrist in the hopes he/she will help you, is a catch-22 situation, especially if a shrink diagnoses you with schizophrenia. It means, in the real world, that said shrink despises you and is going to use all tools at his / her disposal to hasten your demise. The whole concept of schizophrenia is absurd.
We all have to vent sometimes. I know I do.
A shocking revelation indeed.
Jordan Peterson explains why antidepressants work for some people and not for others. If your successful and have everything going for you, but somehow feel depressed, an SSRI could be the kick in the arse you need. If you are at the bottom of the totem pole anyway, it ain’t gonna help. You got bigger problems. Here’s where your at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U38_buPdNiI
You could make the same argument for cocaine. Cocaine helps a “different” class of people, who need that little extra push: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtYUJhdEH6A
It has improved a bit since medieval times. At least, the bits that we are aware of.
In the “long run”, antidepressants “may” not be a good idea. “Maybe”, in the “long run” it’s not a good idea to give boisterous children amphetamines. What goes around, comes around. Riding on the fence is “mostly” safe.
It seems to me, the ones that are “tricked” fall more into the category of Laura Delano. One of the Kennedy’s was also lobotomized. This went on into the 70’s. Quite a few rich families had one of theirs submitted to such treatment. Well off families who buy into it. The ones that are forced, mostly don’t have a support system. The 80’s wasn’t the start of the bio model of mental illness, it just expanded. Today’s average psychiatrist is no different than 100 years ago.
I would say the medical approach, e.g. antidepressants, require less human resources. A cost-reduction approach would be, in a socialized medical system, that the first course of action be a pill, if it doesn’t work after say 6 months, augment with psychotherapy (costs more). If that doesn’t work, ECT (an atomic bomb), or if your against it, something like rTMS. The force you mention, is just what your insurance is prepared to pay. Psychotherapy, in a society with relatively high incomes, costs more than a pill. They want you to become productive again and minimize costs in the process. They are all mostly bogus treatments.
The magic of rTMS is explained (from a website that commercializes the treatment) by the fact they can cause your thumb to twitch if they direct pulses at a certain part of the brain. I’m sure it’s a trivial step from there to curing treatment resistant depression.
The arguments you always here from clinicians is that it’s not the experience they have when dealing with patients in their practice. I wonder why this descrepency is so common. Are the trials somehow severely flawed or are the clinicians not being entirely honest?
Ah, so moralizing is just a way to not feel too guilty about unethical behavior. A bit like confession. Morality is the degree, and ethics is the standard. The problem is, if I look up ethics, it’s defined as a set of moral principals. In that sense, it becomes subjective again.
Well, ok, but it seems to me ethics are a subset or, at least, closely related to morality. Religious morals, the way you describe them, seems to me more to do with dogma. Like working on the sabbath or heresy.
Ok, so you were just generalizing. Fine.
She wasn’t dismissing it. You seem to be twisting what she said. And, quite egregiously. No offence intended.
Psychiatrists that are afraid of losing power to psychology, and psychologists with the same fear. Compromise. Share the wealth. Psychotherapy and drugs.
No, psychosis is not bad per-se. And I agree, she doesn’t explain what caused her psychosis. Only that the second time she mentioned it was 8 months after giving birth.
This post is trying to validate the long-term use of anti-psychotics. It seems to me against what Whitaker has been arguing. And it’s not just about weight gain and occasionally waking up too late. Also, it mentions an innate vulnerability to psychosis, as in a spectrum. Something psychiatry can profit from. Like bipolar spectrum or autism spectrum. Muddy the waters.
I’m not following you train of thought. Hold people accountable … (which means enforcing morality) … “otherwise, you do you and believe whatever you want …”?
Why are you against morality? Or enforcing it? And why do you think, if some higher force can predict what you are going to do, you somehow lose the capacity to choose?
According to the Genesis story, it was Eve, and then Adam, who disobeyed God in order to become “like God”. And that means understanding good and evil. So, technically, according to Jewish and Christian theology, man was given free will. It’s nearly Easter, which is celebrating the Passion. Which means, again, according to Christian theology, that God did eventually intervene.
Antipsychotics for tooth aches? I think you just made that up …
From what you are writing here, you only took antipsychotics for a few weeks, and it does have a strong sedating effect. Taken long term, it is more severe. Old people dying in hospitals can also be given low doses of antipsychotics, to make them less anxious. Also, it’s sometimes given to people before surgery.
Your being vague when you say “globally”. It causes brain damage, plain and simple.
I found this quite entertaining. CEO of the American Psychiatric Association. Ending discrimination. Ok. Most of the psychiatric news youtube channel don’t allow comments. I guess this one slipped by them.
The discrimination still abounds in psychiatry, schizophrenics are seen by psychiatry, from the article, as all being potential homicidal maniacs. What does the science tell us?
You really think that is the essence of neuroleptic drug effects on the person that takes them?
You typed: “I do find that I find it almost unbearably frustrating …”. Couldn’t you have just simplified the sentence with “I find it almost unbearably frustrating …”? I guess referring to yourself twice in a sentence in this way could be seen as a form of “mindfulness”.
Ok. In my experience, psychiatrists aren’t too concerned about “mis-diagnosing”.
Freud was known for abusing cocaine.
Do you have intimate knowledge of what “cocaine intoxication” feels like? And you came to that conclusion already as a child?
You would have to explain what a “caterpillar-shaped inflorescence of a tree” means.
Psychology does have a sinister past. In terms of investigating the meaning of life, I find humor helps.