http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzdu3WQyIZg&feature=related
I actually agree with this guy, there is no test for a chemical imbalance. Not to mention like he says the single thing holding up psychiatry is that a mental disorder is a brain disorder, again there is no proof of that.
If they see someone acting a bit off or strange it's easy to label and judge as oh it's this mental disease here take these pills it will fix you. I see your thinking is wrong but you don't see it. The thing is you can't get into anyone else's body to know how they feel and all the past experiences they've been through and how that has effected them at that point in time.
Label's,judgments and pill pushing is easy. Don't get me wrong there are some things like serotonin which can be tested for in specialized labs. Low serotonin makes it highly likely for you to be depressed however external factors also effect serotonin it's not all brain based. Another example is low testosterone in men can cause depression, fatigue etc. If you supplement the testosterone you feel more happy and energized. Not that testosterone crosses the blood brain barrier because from my understanding it doesn't.
I'm not saying psychiatric medicine has no benefit as I think it has helped out lot's of people but that's not to say it's pseudoscience.
A odd fact I learned a while ago is that the difference between the male and the female brain is that estrogen crosses the blood brain barrier in the male brain but not in females.
I know for a fact I had some medicine which didn't help me at all so I just stopped taking it. It was totally obvious that my problem wasn't being fixed by the medicine, I had legitimate health issues which were the root of my anxiety. As I felt better physically my anxiety and obsessiveness got better, that's merely all I had.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPOrD6xfDNo&feature=related
You know yourself better then anyone else it's easy for people to judge and label like their some kind of authority when in reality they have very little to go off. Often times people only see what they want to see.
I'm reading this right now and it's quite interesting.
http://www.blehert.com/essays/pseudo.htm
.
I actually agree with this guy, there is no test for a chemical imbalance. Not to mention like he says the single thing holding up psychiatry is that a mental disorder is a brain disorder, again there is no proof of that.
If they see someone acting a bit off or strange it's easy to label and judge as oh it's this mental disease here take these pills it will fix you. I see your thinking is wrong but you don't see it. The thing is you can't get into anyone else's body to know how they feel and all the past experiences they've been through and how that has effected them at that point in time.
Label's,judgments and pill pushing is easy. Don't get me wrong there are some things like serotonin which can be tested for in specialized labs. Low serotonin makes it highly likely for you to be depressed however external factors also effect serotonin it's not all brain based. Another example is low testosterone in men can cause depression, fatigue etc. If you supplement the testosterone you feel more happy and energized. Not that testosterone crosses the blood brain barrier because from my understanding it doesn't.
I'm not saying psychiatric medicine has no benefit as I think it has helped out lot's of people but that's not to say it's pseudoscience.
A odd fact I learned a while ago is that the difference between the male and the female brain is that estrogen crosses the blood brain barrier in the male brain but not in females.
I know for a fact I had some medicine which didn't help me at all so I just stopped taking it. It was totally obvious that my problem wasn't being fixed by the medicine, I had legitimate health issues which were the root of my anxiety. As I felt better physically my anxiety and obsessiveness got better, that's merely all I had.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPOrD6xfDNo&feature=related
You know yourself better then anyone else it's easy for people to judge and label like their some kind of authority when in reality they have very little to go off. Often times people only see what they want to see.
I'm reading this right now and it's quite interesting.
http://www.blehert.com/essays/pseudo.htm
The definitions of the various conditions often overlap. No objective tests for the presence or absence of these conditions is given. Definitions are loose enough and conditions numerous enough that it is possible to find a description that will fit ANYONE. Thus, by use of DSM IV, any person can be found to suffer from a mental health disorder requiring treatment. Any person can be said to be either too active or too inactive, too anxious or too serene, too religious or too cynical -- whatever you happen to be is (or may easily be made to seem) a disorder (or dysfunction, a sexier term). There are even disorders that apply to a person who disagrees with the validity of such diagnoses. In other words, if you think the DSM is bunk, you are, per the DSM, mentally ill.
Who compiled this manual? A committee of psychiatrists on behalf of the APA. How did they compile it? By proposing new disorders (the manual expanding greatly with each edition) and voting them into the manual. One member of the committee later vented her disagreement with the process publicly, stating that she was astonished at the lack of scientific discussion and scientific evidence. She said it seemed as though they were voting on whether to order Chinese or Italian for lunch, not creating a standard list of mental illnesses
Who compiled this manual? A committee of psychiatrists on behalf of the APA. How did they compile it? By proposing new disorders (the manual expanding greatly with each edition) and voting them into the manual. One member of the committee later vented her disagreement with the process publicly, stating that she was astonished at the lack of scientific discussion and scientific evidence. She said it seemed as though they were voting on whether to order Chinese or Italian for lunch, not creating a standard list of mental illnesses
But the sense of "scientific" we usually mean when we speak of a scientific basis for something is a great deal more than jargon and trimmings. For example, in traditional (that is, non-psychiatric) medicine, a disorder or disease is typically defined as follows: First a set of symptoms is observed repeatedly. Then research is conducted to locate the cause of the symptoms -- for example, a germ, a nutritional deficiency, a toxin. Then a remedy is found. Such a set of symptoms is not labeled a "disease" until the various similar sets of symptoms have been linked to a common cause.
Why not? First, because it is dangerous to equate similar symptoms to a single illness, for example, to assume that because two people suffer from headaches, they must both have the same illness. What if one person's headache derives from a vitamin deficiency, while another's derives from a brain tumor? The second person may die of his tumor while being treated with vitamins to remedy a non-existent deficiency. The first person may die under the knife (for surgery to remove his non-existent tumor) because his immune system is weakened by the unremedied vitamin deficiency. They have similar symptoms, but until these symptoms are found to be from the same cause, it is dangerous, possibly fatal, to assume that they are the same disease.
Why not? First, because it is dangerous to equate similar symptoms to a single illness, for example, to assume that because two people suffer from headaches, they must both have the same illness. What if one person's headache derives from a vitamin deficiency, while another's derives from a brain tumor? The second person may die of his tumor while being treated with vitamins to remedy a non-existent deficiency. The first person may die under the knife (for surgery to remove his non-existent tumor) because his immune system is weakened by the unremedied vitamin deficiency. They have similar symptoms, but until these symptoms are found to be from the same cause, it is dangerous, possibly fatal, to assume that they are the same disease.
Any treatment of a condition not thus understood is experimental at best. (By that standard, all psychiatric treatments and medications are experimental at best.)
Second, inventing names for "syndromes" in the absence of such understanding creates the illusion that something is known about the cause of the supposed condition when nothing is known, only a list of symptoms. This creates a medical elite exalted by medical jargon, their status having no basis in useful expertise. It substitutes a superstition (Scientism?) for science.
Second, inventing names for "syndromes" in the absence of such understanding creates the illusion that something is known about the cause of the supposed condition when nothing is known, only a list of symptoms. This creates a medical elite exalted by medical jargon, their status having no basis in useful expertise. It substitutes a superstition (Scientism?) for science.
The Scientific approach, then, would be (and I know I'm repeating this ad nauseam, but it's a key point, if we're to have scientists, not high priests) to identify a possible illness (set of symptoms), find (by verifiable experiments) a cause, then develop a cure that handles the known cause. A non-scientific approach might be to chant spells over patients, and if one of the patients gets better, use the spell that apparently worked on every patient. Since many conditions are entirely or partly psycho-somatic, this will often work, just as a placebo will often work as well as the "real" medicine. One highly effective treatment is to have Mummy kiss it and make it well. And there are many other non-scientific approaches.
Last edited by a moderator: