Sunday, October 22, 2017

Comments by tablan30

Showing 16 of 16 comments.

  • This argument fails when you say there is no proof. This is where anti-psychiatry (in my opinion) falls apart.

    Lets take depression for instance: people who experience depression for extended periods of time experience changes in brain structure. Shrinkage of the hippocampus can lead to memory problems, learning issues, etc.. These discoveries have been found using MRI technology, and it’s reported in any major medical journal.

    True there is no bio-markers to diagnose depression, but that don’t mean there won’t be in the future.

    Now if you don’t want to call the shrinkage of parts in the brain an “illness” fine, call it lets say “just part of the human condition.” but the at the end of the day whatever you call it doesn’t change the fact that biological changes are present, and the person going through it is suffering.

    The challenge I think is to find more effective ways to relieve the persons depression, while drugs work for many, as you know, it can hurt people as well. Just as they have left me disabled.

  • Exactly, I often find myself agreeing with some of the anti-psych movement, but then the very logical concern is: there will be nothing in it’s place. Like today, we tons of MIA authors that advocate that human suffering shouldn’t be medicated and that we need to find it within ourselves to cope. And I like that idea, to a certain extent, meaning if we had centers or places to go that would reinforce this idea and teach us on how to manage without medication. But such places don’t exist, and that’s dangerous to advocate for people to cease their meds when there’s no back up plan.

    The anti-pschy movement has some really great concepts and theory’s but it fails at real life application.

  • CpuUsage,

    Have you ever thought about writing a personal op Ed for this site. I’ve came across many of your comments of different threads, and you seem to have a bit of an oppositional view when its comes to this site. I actually enjoy your comments and think you make a lot of sense.. So maybe Robert Whitaker would let you write something, I think it would spark some needed dialogue as it relates to anti-psychiatry vs pro-psychiatry .

    Eitherway,, just my two cents

    Best wishes

  • I’m going to sound negative hear, so bear with me. This man sounds no different than my previous psychiatrist who insisted I had a life-long brain disease. His constant referencing to it as being in illness, and that it will cause brain damage, is what always made me want to just give up, because it’s such a hopeless message. When I come to Mad in America, I always love seeing alternative ways on how to deal with depression or other forms of extreme mind states, in a way that differs from conventional psychiatry. But, I have to say, this article is perpetuating the biological and conservative view of “mental illness” in the sense of it being completely biological. THe one difference is we have an expert focusing on the psychosocial aspect, but that doesn’t mean it’s any different from what the people at the APA have preach. I’ve seen plenty of mainstream thinking psychiatrist that wouldn’t disagree with that premise.

    I’m glad other users found this talk exciting, for me I found it utterly depressing. After I got down watching it I thought to myself, “maybe I need to get on s0me medications (the same medications that have hurt me in the past) “because I’m worried about my “depression” causing brain damage.”

    Maybe i’m off base somewhere, but I don’t see how this belongs on a site that claims it’s motto is “Rethinking psychiatry” It seems very well-suited on Nami’s page, or another APA sponsored website, but here?

    Again I apologize for the negative response, I don’t mean to say anything that might come off as hurtful to others. I did find outside of the TedTalk that the author raises some good points, and it was well-written. I suppose, it really hit home to me, because this is the same message that caused my intense hopeless depression when I used to be strong supporter of biological psychiatry.

    Best Wishes,

  • I, personally, don’t believe in conventional understanding of mental illness for two main reasons.

    First, unlike most other illness’s, that have biological markers–that is not present within the biological model of mental illness. Without any conclusive evidence that can show consistent physiological abnormalities, than; I have conclude mental illness is simply a social constructed catch-all term.

    Two, when diagnosing someone as mentally ill, I feel there is a stigma that follows, and that stigma comes with side effects–so to speak. The side-effects include: social isolation, alienation, and most significant, the stripping of one’s own agency.

    However, I’m not so naive in saying people do not experience unpleasant or extreme states of consciousness, but I don’t think those unpleasant states need to be medicalized through the narrow lens of a psychiatric diagnoses.

    Lastly, if someone is experiencing extreme emotions (including myself) I would advocate for alternative methods of help. Which could be: support groups, talk-therapy, specific herbs/plants, and ultimately develop a more compassionate understanding of one’s emotions.

  • I have to agree with the first remark, “Junk Science.” Like most a lot of the social sciences, they fall short on controlling external variables that might effect the outcome of the study.

    Also, they are not linking anything to psychosis. They may at best found correlation to “psychotic like” symptoms, but a link– I seriously doubt.

    Not to mention, there is emerging evidence suggesting that CBD can actually reverse or control what we come to believe as “psychosis”

    Also, we have to recognize the obvious bias. Look at the government agency that funded this study, and even worse the study was carried out by a non-profit who’s sole goal is to try and link cannabis with psychosis. Therefore, we should question whether or not, they structured the study to find the answer they were seeking.

    Lastly, it’s studies like these that bring us back to the days of the propaganda driven movie, Reefer Madness, or the days of marijuana prohibition in the 1930’s by the likes of Harry Anslinger.