Showing 29 of 29 comments.
Removed for moderation.
Rebel, I never said the drugs are only psychological. I am saying that the damage they do is mainly psychological in it’s intent. It’s meant to snuff out the spirit, so it never occurs to you that you are being lied to and manipulated an then decide, on the basis of that insight, to stop taking drugs. The Harrow experiment is a good example, what was it that a percentage, even though their symptoms were severe at baseline, decided to stop the medication? It’s not just about the medication and it’s side effects, it’s something deeper. This is something that is not contemplated in the Harrow study, but it is crucial.
The drugs are not “evil” in and of themselves, the ones who promote them, I call “court jesters”.
Bob has done a service to many by showing numbers and percentages and all that, but that in no way qualifies you or him to judge whether or not people need anti psychotics to to lead a dignified life. The complexity is psychological at it’s origin.
Why would those people reject the “medication” by year 2. That is what lies at the crux of the deception.
He has no relationship to them. Doesn’t understand what the drugs do and the depths psychiatry will go to in order to remain afloat.
Removed for Moderation.
“Further research should focus on the methods of support and tapering protocols used in these groups to enable improved, more informed support by clinicians. Support from Governments and healthcare agencies is also needed, internationally, to address this issue.”
You don’t understand the “nature of the beast” you are dealing with. If you supply them with your knowledge, their first instinct will be “how do I benefit”.
“Baseline severity” can mean anything. Especially if a psychiatrist is the one making the judgement.
You seem to agree with me for the most part. Sleeping too much. The poisoning you suffered is also very real, though. No matter how sleepy you are.
The largest risk of suicide for the young is actually during the time they are exposed to the mental health system. You can hide the statistics, but it’s a fact.
I was wondering what the point is of such a study. At the end it becomes clear. More government control over people lives. The justification for it becoming increasingly opaque.
The damage is mainly psychological. The brain is very complex, and can recover from drug use. It already does it’s best whilst on them. I’m not sure where you got this idea from that it’s “more permanent” after two years. If you care to elucidate, I’m all ears.
There is no such thing as “more permanent”. If you mean in a statistical probabilistic sense, then say so.
You don’t know what the effects are of taking antipsychotics for any length of time, you also don’t know the psychological impact it has. You are merely speculating.
in terms of “deterioration” being the rule of the day, your time will come as well, make no mistake.
This is a good example of what psychiatrists do, beyond the drugs, especially when it comes to diagnoses like schizophrenia and bipolar. It’s mainly psychological. The drugs (which they know nothing about, why would they?), are a tool just meant to reduce your capacity to think for yourself. They lie, the only function they have is to keep you on the drugs. They serve another master.
There is no such thing as mis(treatment) when it comes to psychiatry. As Ms Furtado said, it’s torture.
I could answer at length, but I will just make this note:
A hyperbolic curve could look something like y = 1 / x (where y is the dosage and x is time). The taperingstrip for 1 month (mentioned on taperingstrips.org ) is a linear reduction with a fixed drop each day (approximately). Instead, you could offer a reduction of 10% from the previous dose given in a strip for one month. This gives the person time to adjust. And from the prices mentioned on taperingstrips.org it would halve the cost to the client (it’s called a stabilization strip on their website).
A hyperbolic (statement) could also be called “an exaggeration”. Offering a linear reduction for one month, instead of strips for one month with a 10% reduction from the previous month, is an exaggeration. Unless you can supply a credible study that contradicts that, I don’t see the point.
Most of the antipsychotics are “dirty drugs”, which means there are multiple receptor bonding scenarios as the dosage is decreased. You can’t just show one graph that looks hyperbolic and expect that is a realistic scenario.
I’ll try to remember that.
“Research recently published in JAMA Psychiatry found that people diagnosed with schizophrenia were almost three times more likely (than the “healthy” control group) to die of COVID-related causes. The researchers were at a loss to explain why.”
From what I gather from a doctor that works at a hospital’s ICU, more than 60% of the patients there due to “covid” are obese men over the age of 60 or 65. Given that one of the most common side-effects of “antipsychotics” is extreme wait gain, I think I could hazard a guess.
Of course, one must never implicate the treatment as the culprit.
A bit like all those brain anomalies found in “schizophrenia research”.
Given what we know about similar viruses (the flu or influenza), which are constantly “mutating” and seem to come back in a slightly altered form each year (in order to “survive”), there is no such thing as “herd immunity” in the case of covid-19 (and it’s successors). In the case of “influenza”, one is left to wonder if those annual flu shots somehow force the virus to mutate beyond what it would naturally do, making it a perpetual yearly problem.
Last year, in the northern hemisphere, covid cases also dropped around April, and stayed that way till the normal “flu season” came around again in October / November.
From what little I know about viruses, they seem to always tend towards a “symbiotic state” with the hosts. Live and let live.
Another thing I find curious, and that people take at face value, is that, for example, the Pfizer vaccine is advertized at being 99% effective, whereas we now know the IFR of covid-19 is about 0,23% in most countries. That means our immune system is 99,77% effective. Why take a “vaccine” that from their trials, reduces your chance of survival?
“Lies, damn lies, and statistics”.
From the BBC article, one would think the history of “treatment” began with the anti-psychotic.
“So far, patients in the acute stage of psychosis cannot be referred to medication-free units. User groups are hoping to change that, arguing that this phase often passes on its own if people can be in a place of safety and support while they weather the storm.”
This was common practice before the 1950’s, and even later, if you were lucky enough to find “a place of safety”.
You have to be careful with Peter Groot and Jim van Os and the taperingstrips method they are promoting. It seems to be a one-size-fits-all method for a large collection of psych meds. Usually it’s a strip for 1 month, where, sometimes the reduction can be 50% in one month in a linear fashion. It’s probably better to reduce by a small fixed percentage each month (say 10% in one go), and wait till the brain readjusts. And then attempt a further drop.
If you’re insurance won’t cover it, the taperingstrips method becomes very expensive (100 dollars per month). If you need to start reducing by very small amounts, which is usually the case when approaching zero, the costs can be very high.
You can find an article from them here on MiA, where they promote it (I think it was with venlafaxine, their experiment starting with 37,5 mg, half the recommended daily dose). It’s a very flawed study. They extrapolated that study to all other psyche meds and came up with taperingstrips.org.
Jim van Os, of course, is obsessed with proving vulnerability to psychosis is genetic, even though his own study of “polygenic risk factors” (polygenic just means 2 or more genes) revealed predictability of 0,5%. Here is his study:
Look at his other articles on Pubmed, you will soon see what I mean.