Science Without a Soul

angelica

fowls wrote:

Funny how the propaganda that claims to be the voice of truth doesn't have any stated evidence in itself. Constantly saying "Psychiatry doesn't work" in a dramatic hollywood voice doesn't make it true.

There are plenty of credible published papers in psychiatry and mental health. Sure, this current fad of "everyone has a mental illness" with antidepressants being chucked all over the place to sell expensive presciptions is stupid, but that's not to say you can blame the entire field for that problem. How can you possibly say psychiatric conditions like Schizophrenia can't possibly exist? Can you state any credible scientific paper to prove that everyone's health is 100% a-ok? And no, wikipedia and youtube videos don't count.

Oh, I fully agree there are a set of variables at play that cause suffering in the individual. And that these variables include all the interpersonal interactions in the individual's lives--the environment.

The problem is, in order for a scientific claim to be made, it must have scientific proof. So until these conditions have been proven to be "disease", it's just not scientific to call them diseases.

angelica

It seems to me the current tired old dysfunctioning perspective, wherein we fudge the scientific facts a little to coerce people to take their meds is bleak and imbalanced, not to mention unethical. There are consequences for that type of thing--such as being held to account.

It seems to me to openly and continuously state false scientific claims while falsely ascribing imaginary disease to the very stressful and painful conditions one is dealing with is bleak and imbalanced.

The problem when a flawed premise is ingrained in society for so long is the illusion becomes the "truth". The double speak is normal to everyone.

It's normal that the actual truth will then cause cognitive dissonance to the masses, but, oh well! Better that we all own our environmental contributions to mental illness than continue to heap the stigma on a select few who already have a LOT on their plates.



Just for the record, the "anti-psychiatrists practise psychiatry--they just do it ethically, including prescribing meds. They don't make inaccurate power claims about science because of their own unconscious issues.

Pauk

angelica wrote:

The problem is, in order for a scientific claim to be made, it must have scientific proof. So until these conditions have been proven to be "disease", it's just not scientific to call them diseases.

Sure they don't know the exact cause of many mental illnesses, because the brain is complex. But of course then the video says "That's what they want you to think". No, it's bleeding common sense!! They give no proof to their argument, it's propaganda trying to kid you into thinking you know something everyone else doesn't. It's the same as that 9/11 conspiracy theory youtube video.

The bottom line is the brain is a complex organ that we barely understand. But that's not to say that all we do know should be disregarded just because we don't have the 100% full picture. As far as I can see that video is saying that we shouldn't diagnose everyone with the 'mental illness' of the month, which I totally agree with, but then takes everything way out of context. Are you saying autistic kids should snap out of it and behave normally? Are you saying Schizophrenics are people having a laugh? Anyone with Gulf War Syndrome must be a wuss? Anyone with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is lazy? There are WAY too many psychiatric conditions with pretty obvious symptoms to disregard them all.

angelica

fowls wrote:

Sure they don't know the exact cause of many mental illnesses, because the brain is complex. But of course then the video says "That's what they want you to think". No, it's bleeding common sense!! They give no proof to their argument, it's propaganda trying to kid you into thinking you know something everyone else doesn't. It's the same as that 9/11 conspiracy theory youtube video.

The bottom line is the brain is a complex organ that we barely understand. But that's not to say that all we do know should be disregarded just because we don't have the 100% full picture. As far as I can see that video is saying that we shouldn't diagnose everyone with the 'mental illness' of the month, which I totally agree with, but then takes everything way out of context. Are you saying autistic kids should snap out of it and behave normally? Are you saying Schizophrenics are people having a laugh? Anyone with Gulf War Syndrome must be a wuss? Anyone with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is lazy? There are WAY too many psychiatric conditions with pretty obvious symptoms to disregard them all.

So it's propaganda to make a video using no proof for your argument. What is it then when doctors label ludicrous amounts of people as diseased without proof of disease?

We cannot distort what we know in order to get people to feel they are diseased. It's highly questionable to tell people they are diseased when there is no conclusive proof. Again, no one is saying these mental health experiences don't exist--even the anti-psychiatrists. What's being said is that to paint them as a biological disease is a matter of opinion. Psychiatry is not open or clear about this being a matter of opinion in general at all, and thereby they successfully pathologize people all the time, convincing them they have an inherent defect even when it's based on speculation. I'm all for all the supports, options, and avenues for improvement for someone experiencing mental health issues. That is very different than convincing someone who is at a point in their lives when they are necessarily very reliant on and suggestible to "expert" advice that they have an inherent genetic flaw, which actually prevents recovery. This "help" coming from the psychiatric profession in general consistently tells the patient that they are diseased, to substantial human loss.

baraka

Whew, this thread has grown! Admittedly, I haven't read every post, but I have some thoughts.

I think lots of folks are misdiagnosed or falsely diagnosed. There seems to be a pill for everything these days. I think a lot of folks are 'diagnosed' with certain mental issues when they are, indeed, just having normal reactions to life circumstances. I think other routes should be pursued before meds are prescribed for most. I believe meds should be the last resort and only used temporarily for most. I also believe that the patient should be more proactive. There are a lot of folks that just want to take a pill to mask underlying issues. I also think that the term 'mental illness' is used pretty loosely, sometimes, to include both physical disease of the brain/nervous system (schizophrenia, alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, parkinson's, etc), as well as behavioral disorders that may be part of the normal variation of learned behaviors but inappropriately expressed in modern society (i.e., fear).

That said, I also believe that there are legitimate organic illnesses that require meds. I would need to locate some peer-reviewed articles, but, I have read that many mental illnesses, like schizophrenia, can be detected as brain malfunctions on MRI scans. I realize there are many folks that greatly benefit from meds. I also realize that these meds can have horrible side affects, which explains why many prefer not to take them. This is just my opinion, but I do feel that these organic issues can go in to 'remisssion'. I definitely feel folks are predisposed due to genetic factors and there are environmental triggers. Meds can be helpful in acute phases.

Just an interesting aside, I do think there is something in the view of schizophrenics as people who sometimes do possess an extraordinary clairvoyance in narrow fields (look no further than John Nash). They may see meta-attributes and abstract relationships that others cannot see, but they also have the negative aspects, such as delusions, and they also hallucinate.

angelica

'In a chapter by Harry Wiener, M.D., he asks "What is the nature of the predisposition to schizophrenia?" (p. 199). He concludes: "The results of these 80 years of research are clear and indisputable: nothing has come of it to date except utter confusion" (p. 200). He mocks biological psychiatry saying: "The belief that schizophrenia is a specific organic disease or a group of organic brain diseases has never been confirmed. We have been on the verge of confirming it since the dawn of modern psychiatry, and we are still on the verge" (pp. 193-194). He makes fun of genetic theories of mental illness by proposing the idea that impoliteness might be genetically transmitted and using the illogic of biological psychiatry to "prove" the hypothesis that impoliteness runs in families for genetic reasons. (pp. 194-197).'

http://www.antipsychiatry.org/br-pibp.htm


' Among the most poignant insights in the book is Dr. Ross' argument against biological testing for "mental" illnesses. He says: "The dream of biological psychiatrists is that an 'objective' laboratory test for one of the major mental illnesses will be discovered. ... This dream is logically unsound and can never be realized. Although biological psychiatrists speak of external validation of psychiatric diagnoses by laboratory findings and specific markers, this can never happen. Why?" (p. 101): Suppose psychiatrists decided that people become depressed because of too much or too little of a particular chemical or enzyme in the body as shown by an examination of cerebrospinal fluid or a blood test or urine test or whatever. Suppose further that you tested positive for depression on this test but that you felt perfectly fine, cheerful, and happy? Would you nevertheless start taking (supposedly) anti-depressant drugs or electroshock therapy as treatment for the depression you were not experiencing? Similarly, suppose there were some kind of biological test for schizophrenia - however defined? Despite many other definitions that have been popular in previous decades, today schizophrenia is usually thought of as psychosis, i.e., hallucinations or delusions. Suppose psychiatrists concluded "schizophrenia" is caused by some biological factor the presence of which could be determined by X-ray or MRI or PET scan of the brain. In Dr. Ross' words: "According to this logic, it would be possible to be diagnosed and treated successfully for schizophrenia without ever having had any psychiatric symptoms" (p. 102). If you were a physician or other therapist and had a patient whose X-ray of the brain or MRI or PET brain scan showed the presence of schizophrenia, but who had no behavioral or perceptual symptoms of schizophrenia - i.e., no abnormal thinking, no hallucinations, and no delusions - would you start treating the patient for schizophrenia? The conclusion is obvious: A mental or behavioral "illness" can not be diagnosed with a biological test. It's not even theoretically possible.'

angelica

'By repressing its critics, psychiatry violates one of the basic principles of the scientific method, namely free, critical inquiry and debate. Psychiatry claims to be a science. Society regards the psychiatrist as an expert in medical science. But the hallmark of the scientific method is the "null hypothesis," the systematic effort to falsify and criticize methods, observations, and theories . In principle, any statement which is not possible to falsify, or which is not subject to critical evaluation, cannot be claimed as scientific. Psychiatry's successful efforts to silence its critics is contrary to the rules of science and refutes the psychiatric claim to psychiatric validity.

By repressing its critics, psychiatry has marked itself as intolerant and indifferent to the great debates of intellectual history and resistive to the development of new ways of understanding human behavior, including that behavior on which they designate themselves to be the final authority. As Nietzsche observed there are some truths that people don't want to see. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the critical intellectual to open the debate, to propose new ways of understanding ourselves and the world. New ways of viewing human behavior might help us to understand vexing modern problems such as our endemic domestic aggression and violence, a spreading depression, and pervasive anxiety and stress. New paradigms for understanding human behavior might provide a new insights into the problems of people who seek professional help. It may even serve as the basis of a constructive critique of society. But the development of new ways of thinking is obstructed by those who control the discourse: psychiatry, the state, and the pharmaceutical industry. The State-Science Alliance. '
http://www.critpsynet.freeuk.com/critique.htm

angelica

'At present, there are two principle competing paradigms for understanding human behavior. the deterministic paradigm, of which the medical model is the driving example, and the moral paradigm. The deterministic paradigm explains human behavior in terms of causes. The moral paradigm refers not to any particular morality but to the person as moral agent who desires, intends, plans, acts and experiences the consequences of those actions, for better or for worse. It explains and judges human behavior in terms of desires, intentions, motives, purposes, ideals, actions, values, ethics, context, contracts, and laws. There are several versions of the causal deterministic paradigm: biological determinism explains behavior as caused by body and brain; social determinism explains behavior as caused by social conditions; and psychological determinism explains it in terms of historical events and traumas. Each of these paradigms discounts moral agency and hence, personal responsibility.

On the deterministic model, behavior cannot be free. It is contradictory to say an act is both caused and free. There is no freedom in causality and no cause of freedom. They are antithetical terms. If an individual's behavior is viewed as caused and, hence, not freely chosen, that person cannot be held responsible for his or her actions. If a person's behavior is viewed as a choice, then that person is responsible and accountable. The paradigm chosen to explain an individual's behavior thus defines that person socially. On the moral model, a person is defined as responsible and entitled to freedom under law. On the deterministic model, a person is defined as non-responsible and vulnerable to being deprived of freedom without accusation or trial.

Each paradigm has its own special discourse and discourse community. Academic, medical-coercive psychiatry and public mental health facilities use the deterministic paradigm. Private psychotherapists use the moral paradigm, whether they know it or not and whether they like it or not. Often they use both, explaining the patients suffering and symptoms as caused but assigning to the patient responsibility for change. The state and the pharmaceutical industry and their champions in the media favor the deterministic model. They control and dominate the public discourse with the result that the medical model, the causal-deterministic model of human behavior is the unquestioned dominant paradigm.'
http://www.critpsynet.freeuk.com/critique.htm

baraka

angelica, your thread has sparked my interest in the subject and I have read information from both the experts you have presented, as well as those from mainstream psychiatry. I disagree that the scientific method is not applied when it comes studies concerning mind and brain science. I have to say, and you know this about me, I have in the past expressed 'snobbery' towards the 'soft' sciences and I classified the field of psychiatry in that camp. While I may still hold some concerns and skepticism, I'm not willing to declare the entire field as pseudo-science as I think there is valid and needed research. I'm also not willing to declare all psychiatrist as quacks or control freaks. And being in the medical field, I do not feel psychiatrists are 'repressing' their critics any more than any other medical doctors. I can tell you from experience, they ALL tend to have big egos. As you know, I have a dear friend that is a psychiatrist and has chosen to dedicate his career to helping veterans experiencing PTSD. It wasn't too long ago that our government did not recognize this as a disorder and refused to provide treatment to our ailing vets. So I think we have to be careful to chose our words wisely and avoid terms such as 'anti-psychiatry'. I do, however, feel it is necessary for all of us to question and research all 'expert' conclusions. As far as one of the excerpts you provided concerning the dangers of biological testing. I feel the excerpt was a bit misleading and fear-mongering, imo. I do concede that there was a dark history concerning psychiatry, as well as the medical profession in general, and there are still folks out there that subscribe to counter-productive 'treatments'. Earlier I expressed my concern with the 'the chemical straightjacket' mentality and do feel meds should be reserved as a last resort and for extreme cases.

There has been a lot of research concerning schizophrenia. Although there is still a lot work to do, I do see the validity of a biological origin. There is,of course, many more factors involved and it can't be diagnosed solely on this alone. Mind & brain science is a complex field. Cancers work in a similar fashion. We can link Chronic Myeloid Leukemia to the philidelphia chromosome. This is a biological predisposition. This was one of the sites that my 'shrink' friend recommended showing particular scientific findings concerning the subject of biological origins. http://www.schizophrenia.com/research/chap07.htm#EVIDENCE

angelica

baraka wrote:

angelica, your thread has sparked my interest in the subject and I have read information from both the experts you have presented, as well as those from mainstream psychiatry. I disagree that the scientific method is not applied when it comes studies concerning mind and brain science. I have to say, and you know this about me, I have in the past expressed 'snobbery' towards the 'soft' sciences and I classified the field of psychiatry in that camp. While I may still hold some concerns and skepticism, I'm not willing to declare the entire field as pseudo-science as I think there is valid and needed research. I'm also not willing to declare all psychiatrist as quacks or control freaks. And being in the medical field, I do not feel psychiatrists are 'repressing' their critics any more than any other medical doctors. I can tell you from experience, they ALL tend to have big egos. As you know, I have a dear friend that is a psychiatrist and has chosen to dedicate his career to helping veterans experiencing PTSD. It wasn't too long ago that our government did not recognize this as a disorder and refused to provide treatment to our ailing vets. So I think we have to be careful to chose our words wisely and avoid terms such as 'anti-psychiatry'. I do, however, feel it is necessary for all of us to question and research all 'expert' conclusions. As far as one of the excerpts you provided concerning the dangers of biological testing. I feel the excerpt was a bit misleading and fear-mongering, imo. I do concede that there was a dark history concerning psychiatry, as well as the medical profession in general, and there are still folks out there that subscribe to counter-productive 'treatments'. Earlier I expressed my concern with the 'the chemical straightjacket' mentality and do feel meds should be reserved as a last resort and for extreme cases.

There has been a lot of research concerning schizophrenia. Although there is still a lot work to do, I do see the validity of a biological origin. There is,of course, many more factors involved and it can't be diagnosed solely on this alone. Mind & brain science is a complex field. Cancers work in a similar fashion. We can link Chronic Myeloid Leukemia to the philidelphia chromosome. This is a biological predisposition. This was one of the sites that my 'shrink' friend recommended showing particular scientific findings concerning the subject of biological origins. http://www.schizophrenia.com/research/chap07.htm#EVIDENCE

I undestand that you and I come from very different perspectives on this subject that have to do with our life experiences.

angelica

A radical gene theory gains momentum: 'Epigenetics' researchers say life experiences and nutrition affects gene function.

An article by Daniel Tencer of the newspaper Ottawa Citizen (Canada) covers the emerging field of epigenetics, which proposes that there is a "second code" of programming on top of our DNA, a code that -- unlike DNA -- can change during our lifetimes. Following is a summary of the Ottawa Citizen article.

In the past half decade, epigenetics researchers have theorized that our diet, the chemicals we are exposed to and even our behaviour toward one another can cause changes in the way our genes are expressed, and contribute (by making people more susceptible to) or trigger mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder - and some of the epigenetic changes may even be passed on to future generations.

That, in turn, has caused many scientists to rethink almost everything we know about how genetic information is passed on from parent to child.


SEISMIC SHIFT IN THINKING

The customary view on genetics has been in terms of black and white; we are born with certain genes, and in term they determine our “physiological existence”. Destiny isn’t written in the stars, but rather in our DNA. Scientists have deviated from this hard coded view, and found that not only are we influenced by our DNA, but our DNA is influenced by us. The life experiences we have, such as the food we eat, the people we meet, and the stress we endure, may alter the functioning of our genes, and the genes we pass on. This is the emergence of the epigenetics theory.

Only 30 year’s young, epigenetics was created to fill in the blanks left by traditional genetic theory. Identical Twins and occurrence of schizophrenia was a large question unanswered through genetic theory. Although identical twins share 100% of their DNA (meaning they have the EXACT same DNA), many cases have found 1 twin developed schizophrenia, while the other did not.

Dr. Arturas Petronis, a prominent researcher from the Canadian Center for Addiction and Mental Health, began examining this twin discordance that occurred in about 50% of the twin cases with schizophrenia, 8 years ago. Although most geneticists believe environmental factors play a significant role in mental illness development, none of them can provide specific information on what that means, or how it works. Petronis hopes that epigenetics may be the missing link. He found greater similarities between psychiatric patients in regards to epigenetic make-up, than when comparing these psychiatric patients to their own identical twins.

"Any two random people share 99.7 per cent of their DNA, but at the epigenetic level, people are very, very different," Petronis says.


CHANGES PASSED ON?

Maybe the most significant finding is the possibility that someone’s epigenetics are hereditary; studies have found evidence that at least parts of the code can be passed down to future generations. Marcus Pembrey, a geneticist from University College London, UK, is leading this theory with studies where he examined medical records of an isolated Swedish city. He found that life experiences and behaviors influenced the health and biology of future generations;

“The grandsons of men who experienced famine during mid-childhood went through puberty earlier and had longer life spans, while the grandsons of men who were well fed in early childhood had an increased likelihood of diabetes. For females, the effect was similar but it was tied to the grandmother, rather than the grandfather.”
Pembrey argues that, "This is not a 'trickle-through' (of genetic material), this is clearly an evolved response," and this response is an adjustment to random or adverse environments.
In later studies of families located in Bristol England, Pembrey found a father who began smoking prior to 11 years of age, produced sons with significantly greater weight than the average. This study provided scientific basis for the theory that our exposures can influence our genetic makeup and even the genes that are passed on to future generations, but even with support the theory is highly controversial.

Because epigenetics is a fairly young science, researchers still know very little about how it works. Even with all the new technologies, we are just beginning to understand genetics alone, and epigenetics is much more complicated. Szyf, editor-in-chief of the new Scientific Journal of Epigenetics paints a picture of the complexity of epigenetics , "Epigenetic codes are moving targets. They could change at any time. And the same gene, one gene, could have 700 epigenetic programs. So that complicates things." Szyf has focused research on connecting social interactions to epigenetic changes, which highlights the vast influence epigenetics may have; even our behaviors and interactions can influence us and our descendants.

Szyf and his colleague Michael Meaney, a researcher at Montreal's Douglas Hospital, found that epigenetic changes were the causes for why rats who were groomed and licked by their mothers, behaved much calmer than their counterparts who were neglected. The nurturing process of grooming and licking activated a gene that suppressed cortisol (a stress hormone) production. Their neglected counterparts didn’t have that activation, and as a result produced the hormone and become much more stressed out. They also found that injecting the calm rats with methionine (an amino acid found in food supplements) produced an increase in their stress levels; this illustrates the significance of simple exposures or changes in diet that can alter the way our genes work.


THE FUTURE OF EPIGENETICS?

Not only do scientists have genetic mapping and understanding on their plate, but they will have to add the understanding and mapping of epigenetics if we want to make significant progress. 2003 marked the beginning of the first Human Epigenome Project, whose goal is to have a mere 10% of the human epigenetic structure mapped by this fall. And they seem to be heading towards this goal, just last month a comprehensive mapping of three human chromosomes. The results showed about one-fifth of the genes from these chromosomes can be altered by exposures.


THE BIG PICTURE…

Things that may not receive a lot of thought in our lives, such as; the food we eat, the chemicals we are exposed to, our social interactions, and even our family’s behaviors toward us, can all have a much more significant impact on our genetic functioning than previously thought.

How to safeguard ourselves and future generations isn’t completely understood, but one thing Prembrey is certain of is the emphasis on child rearing, “Child care has a whole new meaning.”
http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/archives/003842.html

angelica

"IS IT A DISEASE OR ISN'T IT? All physicians, psychiatrists included, complete a course of study of disease-pathology. They know, full-well, that it is the physician's first duty, patient-by-patient, to determine whether the patient has an actual disease or does not-the "disease"/ "no disease" determination. We learn that substantial numbers of patients seek help from their physicians for what are "emotional," "psychological," or "psychiatric" symptoms, due to the stresses of everyday life. Such patients have no disease per se (ruled out by finding no abnormalities- no pathology, nothing objective, on physical examination, laboratory testing, x-ray, scanning, etc.). ...



In 1948, the combined specialty of 'neuropsychiatry' was divided into 'neurology,' dealing with organic or physical diseases of the brain, and 'psychiatry' dealing with emotional and behavioral problems in normal human beings. Nor was there any dispute as to the division of labor; psychiatrists made no claim that they diagnosed or treated actual brain diseases. Finding no organic disease in patients with non-specific symptoms, non-psychiatric physicians refer patients to psychiatrists. In other words, finding no objective abnormalities (disease) it can safely be concluded that the patient's symptoms are psychological in origin-psychogenic! This is the main pre-condition for referral of a patient to a psychiatrist or to any mental health professional."

http://www.oikos.org/biopsychiatry.htm

Ahnimus

Perseveration

angelica

Happy Thanksgiving, Ahnimus!

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Happy Thanksgiving, Ahnimus!

It's not thanksgiving yet is it? I thought it was monday???

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

It's not thanksgiving yet is it? I thought it was monday???

It's the Thanksgiving long weekend! And it's Octoberfest here, too!

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

It's the Thanksgiving long weekend! And it's Octoberfest here, too!

oh yea, well I'm working tonight and tomorrow night. :(

I have a poker tournament monday night.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

oh yea, well I'm working tonight and tomorrow night. :(

I have a poker tournament monday night.

Yeah, I'm doing food prep/cooking and volunteering throughout the weekend.

No turkey for you then? :(

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Yeah, I'm doing food prep/cooking and volunteering throughout the weekend.

No turkey for you then? :(

No turkey for me. Unless I win the tournament, then I'll hire a topless female chef or something. lol, only in Sarnia. No topless chefs in London :(

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

No turkey for me. Unless I win the tournament, then I'll hire a topless female chef or something. lol, only in Sarnia. No topless chefs in London :(

That Sarnia....it's a veritable Sodom and Gomorrah, it seems.