Psychiatry - a pseudoscience that simply shouldn't exist in today's modern world.

[juniortha3rd]

We offer Associate of Arts degrees generally on the state level as springboards into universities. There are advantages and disadvantages to going directly to university in the US - biggest disadvantage is the price. I went to a college and earned my AA in psychology before transferring to university, after initially attending and hating university at age 18. The smaller environment was ideal for me. I don't like being a face in a lecture hall; my school was very small and intense. Thus, no, my AA was not on par with a graduate degree, but it was intended as BA preparation.

Most of the more difficult classes I took were upper-division when I got to university.

I don't claim to be a diagnostician of any kind and unless you count the toll it takes on one's own mental health to work with attorneys, I've never applied my degree in any way. It qualifies me as little better than an informed layperson.

Junior, which class was it that got in your way, out of curiosity, if the degree is so easy to obtain? It requires more than a C average and given the number of people that want to do psychology degrees, it's probably more competitive now than when I was in college/university. Some of the professors who I took as an AA student would be facepalming at everything you've written in this thread.

I took all the courses that were a prerequesite to the first field work type of assignment, but I never progressed far enough in that I ever spoke with a "patient."

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I have been forced to talk with alot of these people for various BS reasons

 

[Sweet P]

I don't know why bluelighters and people in the drug culture in general have so much respect and admiration for psychologists/psychiatrists.

In my mind, they stand right next to the judges, cops, and probation officers...... just another part of drug war system. (drugs legalized? more than half of these clowns would be out of work)

Not to mention most these whores are complicit in the takeover of the health care industry by big pharmaceutical companies. (they hand out ritalin to kids like it was candy)

We need alot less Pro Drug War pseudodoctors in this world

I respect psychologists and psychiatrists for two reasons. 1) I'm interested in their fields of study, and 2) they have helped to treat my own personal mental issues. They are totally different to cops, judges, probation officer's, etc.

Any common citizen who is impressed by "psycholgy" as taught in Universities is an idiot as its usually Fruadien psychology and therefore GARBAGE.

Freud is sooooo early 20th century.

 

[thelung]

Without the help of a couple of my past psychiatrists and their advice on medications, I really do not believe that I would be the person I am today. I'm much happier than I was before I started taking medication for severe/major depression. For me, anti-depressants were a Godsend. Others may think otherwise and have their opinions, and I totally respect that.

For me, medication totally worked and I am not depressed in the least!

 

[Mariposa]

I took all the courses that were a prerequesite to the first field work type of assignment, but I never progressed far enough in that I ever spoke with a "patient."

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I have been forced to talk with alot of these people for various BS reasons

I never had a field work requirement for the work I did in my psych AA and there was no prerequisite (note spelling), but I elected to do an internship with runaway and pregnant teens for class credit. It was one of the most rewarding experiences I ever had. I was not qualified to do individual counseling but I was allowed to lead group therapy sessions under supervision. I did well at this even though I was ~3 years older than many of them. It was more a matter of discussing problems and developing coping skills as a group, providing a comfortable framework in which difficult issues such as teen pregnancy could be discussed, and providing support as a human being in general, not a professional. All the teens knew I was an intern and I had no disciplinary or individual counseling responsibilities. Problems happened quite rarely, and when they did, the non-intern staff handled them.

Brian, good to see you back. I kind of wondered if you were scrubbing decks with a toothbrush and being exposed to asbestos, or something. I'll forewarn you that you're speaking to the wrong audience as Scn goes. I expect you know what I mean by that.

As with any doctor, we hit it off with some psychs and we don't hit it off with others. It is important to find a trusted practitioner if your mental health is in need of improvement. These matters can be handled by friends, laypersons, family, but in more than the mildest of cases, should be handled by the pros. Try to find a competent therapist with whom you are comfortable, and you'll stack the odds in favor of your getting better. There is no substitute for professional help. Find that rapport, and you're well on your way.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

I don't know why bluelighters and people in the drug culture in general have so much respect and admiration for psychologists/psychiatrists.

In my mind, they stand right next to the judges, cops, and probation officers...... just another part of drug war system. (drugs legalized? more than half of these clowns would be out of work)

Let me guess, you were mandated to therapy and this is why you dislike therapists.

We don't have admiration for psychologists or psychiatrists as we do psychology or psychiatry. Individual people who go into the career can be just as bad as judges, cops, and probation officers. I'm not defending all psychologists or psychiatrists, just the study of psychology and psychiatry.

(they hand out ritalin to kids like it was candy)

If one doctor won't, another will. It's the parents who put their kids on medications. Trust me. They just want anything to make parenting easier. Even if it inadvertently, or eventually, makes it much harder.

We need alot less Pro Drug War pseudodoctors in this world

pro drug war "pseudodoctors" reminds me of general practicioners (GP's) a lot more than psychiatrists.

Psychiatrists prescribe great drugs for people, and often are much more liberal and understanding than GP's.

Psychologists don't prescribe drugs, as they are not medical doctors.

So what were you on probation for?

This^ is utter BS.

I don't know what world/country you are from, but in Canada (and I suspect in most, if not all, countries) the study of psychology at the university level covers much more than just Freudian theory. You'd be hard pressed to find a "pure" Freudian psych professor...or, for that matter, a hardcore Freudian psychiatrist or psychologist/counsellor. Freud just ain't that popular anymore dude.

Agreed. Most psychologists and psychiatrists are eclectic.

 

[mdmantpa]

^CH's posts seem to be spot on in this thread....

I believe in both psychiatry and psychology, which are two WAY different studies btw.

I am currently in the process of obtaining a Bachelor's in Psychology and I can attest that the upper division courses are much more in depth and rigorous than the lower level courses. The study of the mind is very difficult and complex.

But as for this thread goes it is pretty basic we have psychologists who basically study how things work and offer suggestions for improvement while psychiatrists study the medical model of the mind with a focus on brain functions. They then suggest medicine or other therapeutic tools in order to improve functioning.

Never have I been forced to comply by either profession.....and that talk of they are a part of the drug war is utter bullshit. I know plenty of psychiatrists and psychologists who think legalization/regulation is long over due.

just my two cents though...

 

[Sweet P]

(they hand out ritalin to kids like it was candy)

I wish! I've seen multiple psychiatrists to try to get a prescription for methylphenidate or dextroamphetamine off-label to help with my meth withdrawals (which has been done before in other cases). And not one of them gave me the prescription.

 

[burn out]

Yes, it's a theory, but it seems reasonable to me. Here's what Wikipedia had to say...

"it seems reasonable to me" is a far cry from your prior claim that it was common knowledge that depression is often caused by a chemical imbalance. there's no real scientific evidence supporting this idea.

This speaks volumes. Neither psychology nor psychiatry create and research theories so that drug companies can get rich. Get real.

drug companies actively popularize theories of disease in order to increase sales of their products. why wouldn't they?

 

[Sweet P]

"it seems reasonable to me" is a far cry from your prior claim that it was common knowledge that depression is often caused by a chemical imbalance. there's no real scientific evidence supporting this idea.

Ok, so my original wording wasn't right. I accept that, so let's stop being pedantic. There's no real scientific evidence to support any theory of the mind, or states of mind (not just mental disorders). We've just gotta go with what seems the most reasonable, and the quote I posted from Wikipedia seemed pretty reasonable to me.

drug companies actively popularize theories of disease in order to increase sales of their products. why wouldn't they?

Drug companies aren't the same as other manufacturing companies. The sales of drugs is totally different to, say, the sales of electronics. Drug companies are under strict regulations, and their products often can't be sold without a doctor's prescription. And in my country, doctors and psychiatrists don't get paid by drug companies for anything, so there is no bias there.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

"it seems reasonable to me" is a far cry from your prior claim that it was common knowledge that depression is often caused by a chemical imbalance. there's no real scientific evidence supporting this idea.

drug companies actively popularize theories of disease in order to increase sales of their products. why wouldn't they?

Depression can be linked to a neurochemical imbalance. There's a lot of cases that support this. Lots of people have a natural lack of endorphins, which is not fixed by SSRI's or other typical antidepressants, especially ones with reuptake inhibiton as a mode of action.

Many people self medicate with opiates like heroin for mental problems like depression and anxiety, an endogenous neurochemical imbalance is the best theory we have to explain why some people become physically and psychologically addicted to meth, heroin, crack, cocaine, mephedrone, and so on, and why other people don't.

Just because depression can be linked to a chemical imbalance, doesn't mean that it's a bad theory just because the drugs we've produced that work on that theory don't work. Selective serotonin/norepinephrine/dopamine reuptake inhibitors are not very efficient for many people.

This just means that serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine are not the only neurotransmitters that can cause depression, or it might indicate that reuptake inhibition is not the answer to the problem.

 

[burn out]

Depression can be linked to a neurochemical imbalance. There's a lot of cases that support this. Lots of people have a natural lack of endorphins, which is not fixed by SSRI's or other typical antidepressants, especially ones with reuptake inhibiton as a mode of action.

Many people self medicate with opiates like heroin for mental problems like depression and anxiety, an endogenous neurochemical imbalance is the best theory we have to explain why some people become physically and psychologically addicted to meth, heroin, crack, cocaine, mephedrone, and so on, and why other people don't. [/quote]

a lot of factors contribute to who becomes dependent and who doesn't. chemical imbalance is not the best explanation in my opinion.

Just because depression can be linked to a chemical imbalance, doesn't mean that it's a bad theory just because the drugs we've produced that work on that theory don't work. Selective serotonin/norepinephrine/dopamine reuptake inhibitors are not very efficient for many people.

This just means that serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine are not the only neurotransmitters that can cause depression, or it might indicate that reuptake inhibition is not the answer to the problem.

all i said was, that there's no proof that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance. i didn't say it was a good or a bad theory.

lol i accidentally used your font.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

a lot of factors contribute to who becomes dependent and who doesn't. chemical imbalance is not the best explanation in my opinion.

all i said was, that there's no proof that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance. i didn't say it was a good or a bad theory.

lol i accidentally used your font.

You're right, there are lots of factors. However there are lots of things leading us to believe that life long chemical differences are in addicts, like the fact that alcoholism is passed on through families through genes. There's plenty of children who are (or grew up to be) dependent on the same drugs their mother was when she was pregnant with them.

Just like with a drug addiction, most mental disorders have lots of contributing factors.

 

[Sweet P]

a lot of factors contribute to who becomes dependent and who doesn't. chemical imbalance is not the best explanation in my opinion.

Then what is?

Returning to mental disorders, there's a hypothesis that links schizophrenia (and psychosis in general) to overactive dopamine activity. This theory is strengthened by the way anti-psychotics (which are primarily dopamine antagonists) can treat the symptoms of this disorder, and also why large doses of amphetamines or cocaine (which are dopamine releasers) can result in psychotic episodes.

 

[burn out]

Ok, so my original wording wasn't right. I accept that, so let's stop being pedantic. There's no real scientific evidence to support any theory of the mind, or states of mind (not just mental disorders). We've just gotta go with what seems the most reasonable, and the quote I posted from Wikipedia seemed pretty reasonable to me.

i had to look up the word pedantic and dictionary.com defined it as "overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching". i don't consider this a minute detail. let's re-examine the original exchange that ignited this debate:

Originally Posted by Bavanai
Even DEPRESSION has become a psychiatric diagnosis. It's not a natural state of mind anymore. It's a chemical imbalance in the brain. Well, ok, you know how it works, it creates a chemical balance in the brain - but knowing how it works automatically makes it a disorder? NO! It's a simple symptom that your life isn't going as it should or as you want it to. It's your brain telling you to fix your problems. Suppressing this symptom with antidepressants will only degrade your overall quality of life in the long run.

I assume you're referring to Major Depressive Disorder in the DSM-IV, because there is no disorder listed in that book as "depression." Major Depressive Disorder isn't a natural state of mind and never was. It's a terrible debilitating illness, often caused by a chemical imbalance that can't be treated (as in my case) without medication. To say that it's simply the result of my life not going as I want it to is insulting. And most modern anti-depressants do not degrade your overall quality of life in the long run... there is no evidence to prove that.

there is just as much scientific evidence supporting his view as your own. you don't have to subscribe to it, but you could try to recognize it as a valid opinion rather than feel insulted by it.

Drug companies aren't the same as other manufacturing companies. The sales of drugs is totally different to, say, the sales of electronics. Drug companies are under strict regulations, and their products often can't be sold without a doctor's prescription. And in my country, doctors and psychiatrists don't get paid by drug companies for anything, so there is no bias there.

in my opinion, you give the drug companies (and those who are supposed to watch over them) too much credit. have a read of this article that was published last month:

Mike Adams
Natural News
Thursday, February 18th, 2010

It’s being called the largest research fraud in medical history. Dr. Scott Reuben, a former member of Pfizer’s speakers’ bureau, has agreed to plead guilty to faking dozens of research studies that were published in medical journals.

Now being reported across the mainstream media is the fact that Dr. Reuben accepted a $75,000 grant from Pfizer to study Celebrex in 2005. His research, which was published in a medical journal, has since been quoted by hundreds of other doctors and researchers as “proof” that Celebrex helped reduce pain during post-surgical recovery. There’s only one problem with all this: No patients were ever enrolled in the study!

Dr. Scott Reuben, it turns out, faked the entire study and got it published anyway.

It wasn’t the first study faked by Dr. Reuben: He also faked study data on Bextra and Vioxx drugs, reports the Wall Street Journal.

As a result of Dr. Reuben’s faked studies, the peer-reviewed medical journal Anesthesia & Analgesia was forced to retract 10 “scientific” papers authored by Reuben. The Day of London reports that 21 articles written by Dr. Reuben that appear in medical journals have apparently been fabricated, too, and must be retracted.

After being caught fabricating research for Big Pharma, Dr. Reuben has reportedly signed a plea agreement that will require him to return $420,000 that he received from drug companies. He also faces up to a 10-year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine.

He was also fired from his job at the Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. after an internal audit there found that Dr. Reuben had been faking research data for 13 years. (http://www.theday.com/article/20100…)
Business as usual in Big Pharma

What’s notable about this story is not the fact that a medical researcher faked clinical trials for the pharmaceutical industry. It’s not the fact that so-called “scientific” medical journals published his fabricated studies. It’s not even the fact that the drug companies paid this quack close to half a million dollars while he kept on pumping out fabricated research.

The real story here is that this is business as usual in the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Reuben’s actions really aren’t that extraordinary. Drug companies bribe researchers and doctors as a routine matter. Medical journals routinely publish false, fraudulent studies. FDA panel members regularly rely on falsified research in making their drug approval decisions, and the mainstream media regularly quotes falsified research in reporting the news.

Fraudulent research, in other words, is widespread in modern medicine. The pharmaceutical industry couldn’t operate without it, actually. It is falsified research that gives the industry its best marketing claims and strongest FDA approvals. Quacks like Dr Scott Reuben are an important part of the pharmaceutical profit machine because without falsified research, bribery and corruption, the industry would have very little research at all.

Pay special attention to the fact that the Anesthesia & Analgesia medical journal gladly published Dr. Reuben’s faked studies even though this journal claims to be a “scientific” medical journal based on peer review. Funny, isn’t it, how such a scientific medical journal gladly publishes fraudulent research with data that was simply invented by the study author. Perhaps these medical journals should be moved out of the non-fiction section of university libraries and placed under science fiction.

Remember, too, that all the proponents of pharmaceuticals, vaccines and mammograms ignorantly claim that their conventional medicine is all based on “good science.” It’s all scientific and trustworthy, they claim, while accusing alternative medicine of being “woo woo” wishful thinking and non-scientific hype. Perhaps they should have a quick look in the mirror and realize it is their own system of quack medicine that’s based largely on fraudulent research, bribery and corruption.

You just have to laugh, actually, when you hear pushers of vaccines and pharmaceuticals claim their medicine is “scientific” while natural medicine is “unproven.” Sure it’s scientific — about as scientific as the storyline in a Scooby Doo cartoon, or as credible as the medical license of a six-year-old kid who just received a “let’s play doctor” gift set for Christmas. Many pharmaceutical researchers would have better careers as writers of fiction novels rather than scientific papers.

For all those people who ignorantly claim that modern pharmaceutical science is based on “scientific evidence,” just give them these three words: Doctor Scott Reuben.
Drug companies support fraudulent research

Don’t forget that the drug companies openly supported Dr. Scott Reuben’s research. They paid him, in fact, to keep on fabricating studies.

The drug companies claim to be innocent in all this, but behind the scenes they had to have known what was going on. Dr. Reuben’s research was just too consistently favorable to drug company interests to be scientifically legitimate. If a drug company wanted to “prove” that their drug was good for some new application, all they had to do was ask Dr. Reuben to come up with the research (wink wink). “Here’s another fifty thousand dollars to study whether our drug is good for post-surgical pain (wink).”

And before long, Dr. Reuben would magically materialize a brand new study that just happened to “prove” exactly what the sponsoring drug company wanted to prove. Advocates of western medicine claim they don’t believe in magic, but when it comes to clinical trials, they actually do: All the results they wish to see just magically appear as long as the right researcher gets paid to materialize the results out of thin air, much like waving a magician’s wand and chanting, “Abra cadabra… let there be RESEARCH DATA!”

Shazam! The research data materializes just like that. It all gets written up into a “scientific” paper that also magically gets published in medical journals that fail to ask a single question that might exposed the research fraud.

I guess these people believe in magic after all, huh? Where science is lacking, a little “research magic” conveniently fills the void.

The whole system makes a mockery of real science. It is a system operated by criminals who fabricate whatever “scientific evidence” they need in order to get published in medical journals and win FDA approval for drugs that they fully realize are killing people.
What is “Evidence-Based Medicine?”

The fact that a researcher like Dr. Reuben could so successfully fabricate fraudulent study data, then get it published in peer-reviewed science journals, and get away with it for 13 years sheds all kinds of new light on what’s really behind “evidence-based medicine.”

The recipe for evidence-based medicine is quite simple: Fabricate the evidence! Get it published in any mainstream medical journal. Then you can quote the fabricated evidence as “fact!”

When pushers of pharmaceuticals and vaccines resort to quoting “evidence-based medicine” as their defense, keep in mind that much of their so-called evidence has been entirely fabricated. When they claim their branch of toxic chemical medicine is based on “real science,” what they really mean is that it’s based on fraudulent science but they’ve all secretly agreed to call it “real science.” When they claim to have “scientific facts” supporting their position, what they really mean is that those “facts” were fabricated by criminal researchers being paid bribes by the drug companies.

“Evidence-based medicine,” it turns out, hardly exists anymore. And even if it does, how do you know which studies are real vs. which ones were fabricated? If a trusted, well-paid researcher can get his falsified papers published for 13 years in top-notch science journals — without getting caught by his peers — then what does that say about the credibility of the entire peer-review science paper publishing process?

Here’s what is says: “Scientific medicine” is a total fraud.

And this fraud isn’t limited to Dr Scott Reuben, either. Remember: he engaged in routine research fraud for 13 years before being caught. There are probably thousands of other scientists engaged in similar research fraud right now who haven’t yet been caught in the act. Their fraudulent research papers have no doubt already been published in “scientific” medical journals. They’ve been quoted in the popular press. They’ve been relied on by FDA decision makers to approve drugs as “safe and effective” for widespread use.

And yet underneath all this, there’s nothing more than fraud and quackery. Sure, there may be some legitimate studies mixed in with all the fraud, but how can we tell the difference?

How are we to trust this system that claims to have a monopoly on scientific truth but in reality is a front for outright scientific fraud?
Keep up the great work, Dr Reuben

Thank you, Dr Scott Reuben, for showing us the truth about the pharmaceutical industry, the research quackery, the laughable “scientific” journals and the bribery and corruption that characterizes the pharmaceutical industry today. You have done more to shed light on the true nature of the drug industry than a thousand articles on NaturalNews.com ever could.

Keep up the good work. After paying your fine and serving a little jail time, I’m sure your services will be in high demand at all the top drug companies that need yet more “scientific” studies to be fabricated and submitted to the medical journals.

You may be a dishonest, disgusting human being to most of the world, but you’re a huge asset to the pharmaceutical industry and they need you back! There are more studies that need to be fabricated soon; more false papers that need to be published and more dangerous drugs that need to receive FDA approval. Hurry!

Because if there’s one place that extreme dishonesty is richly rewarded, it’s in the pharmaceutical industry, where poisons are approved as medicines and fiction is published as the truth.

http://www.infowars.com/big-pharma-...ozens-of-research-studies-for-pfizer-merck-2/

 

[burn out]

You're right, there are lots of factors. However there are lots of things leading us to believe that life long chemical differences are in addicts, like the fact that alcoholism is passed on through families through genes. There's plenty of children who are (or grew up to be) dependent on the same drugs their mother was when she was pregnant with them.

Just like with a drug addiction, most mental disorders have lots of contributing factors.

i'm not saying there aren't genetic differences that predispose some individuals more toward addiction than others. i'm saying that in my opinion, it is going too far to say that because someone became addicted to a drug, they must have been suffering from an ill-defined "chemical imbalance" from birth.

 

[Sweet P]

i had to look up the word pedantic and dictionary.com defined it as "overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching". i don't consider this a minute detail. let's re-examine the original exchange that ignited this debate:

I've already admitted that I misworded the post that you're continuing to target. Yes, I should have said "one theory behind mental illness is a chemical inbalance in the brain, which in many cases can be treated with medication." Let's move on, shall we? Because now both of us are getting pedantic.

And I can't read the essay you've posted (very poor concentration due to meth PAWS), so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Mariposa]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There are adept and inept practitioners in all fields, psychiatry being no exception. That is why if one does not have a psychiatrist with whom one does not have rapport, one cannot be effectively understood. It is more of a reciprocal relationship requiring receptiveness to advice, as any of us who have benefited from psychiatric treatment in any substantial capacity would advise. It's obvious who those are as far as the participants in this thread are concerned. Let's all keep getting better - haters gonna hate, etc.

Infowars is not a respected source. No doubt some psychs are in bed with Big Pharma, but mine surely is not. He and I have talked in detail about patents on drugs, which ones could work and which ones have not, and that silly little AA in psychology taught me to think critically and how to evaluate such important matters - not if. Perhaps it wasn't a total wank after all. Of course, no degree is required to decide with a reputable medical professional a course of treatment that benefits the patient. All that is required is the desire to better one's mental health, and that is not something taught in traditional academic settings as it's not necessary. If you want to get better, you will. If you remain resistant to treatment (note: not "treatment resistant" in the psych sense) and distrust an entire profession based on a bad experience, you probably will not get better. The choice is yours and yours alone. No conspiratorial thought or hatred toward an entire profession required. It is a matter of common sense.

 

[brian-amp]

Lolwut?

Freudian psychoanalysis isn't really used by anybody anymore. You can't really prove or disprove Freud, which is why he's not really held to be very scientific by the psychological/psychiatric community. Cognitive-behavioral therapy is usually what's used now. Oh and its spelled "fraud" if you're going to try and pun off his name.

(If you would like to disagree - please do so, while remaining polite. Name calling and being rude is not going to help others see your side of a situation. )

 

[burn out]

Infowars is not a respected source.

not a respected source? how about scientific american?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-medical-madoff-anesthestesiologist-faked-data

 

[Cane2theLeft]

^What does an anesthesiologist faking medical literature have to do with the topic at hand?

As mariposa articulated, some practitioners in any field are adept and some are inept... some are altruistic and some are greedy and selfish. You can't hold up one example as representative of an entire group.