FYM This...!

[solemole]

Originally Posted by diemen

Look, if you are honestly starting a thread in FYM with the expectation that only a narrow vein of topic is to be allowed, and dissent is unwelcome, then you're in the wrong place.

People have stories. Personal, tragic stories; some shared in this thread. They all seem to suggest that there was something mental to begin with.

Okay okay. Nothing new I haven't heard before. No offense, people. Same old same old. Good for you they're working. Tough it's not. Everyone shares similar stories.

I started this thread to suggest there are possibly other causes to mental illness.

Besides medication, a mild traumatic brain injury to a toddler (running into something, bump on the head) can significantly change the child's behavior and make them aggressive. That seemingly small incident can have an effect for years. (Daniel Amen, MD "Change Your Brain, Change Your Life")

I can point out other cases in "history".

In the late 19th century, French physician Benedikt Morel discovered an increasing number of adolescents and young adults were exhibiting what he called "precocious dementia", and it spread across Europe. Asylums were filled with these young adults and kids. In 1920s, Carl Jung gave it a new name "schizophrenia." Then, ahem, Dr. Healy received data figures from 19th century North Wales that suggested lead poisoning may be one of the two leading causes, the other being childbirth methods by male obgyns with anesthesia and forceps. (Here's a freebie link: The Madness of Young People | Mad In America

I can bring up the story of German psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin who in the late 1800s researched the outcomes of patients at an aslyum in Estonia. He observed and identified patients who suffered what he called "dementia praecox", also came to be known as "schizophrenia", basically more or less similar to the "precocious dementia" mentioned in the previous paragraph. But in a 1990 article British historian Mary Boyle "convincingly argued" in her article "Is Schizophrenia What It Was? A Re-analysis of Kraepelin's and Bleuler's Population" that many of Kraepelin's "dementia praecox" patients were undoubtedly suffering from a viral disease, encephalitis lethargica, which in the late 1800s had yet to be identified. (I'm partially plagiarizing verbatim Whitaker right now without quotes. It's on page 90-91. Sorry.) Basically. the encephalitis lethargica patients got lumped with the schizophrenics, and once they were separated from that group, the patient group that remained was no longer "dementia praecox group."
....
Basically: "The referents of schizophrenia gradually changed until the diagnosis came to be applied to a population who bore only a slight, and possibly superficial, resemblance to Kraeplin's." says Boyle.

In other words, what was a whole other disease got whittled down to Kraeplin's narrow definition of what he called "dementia praecox"/schizophrenia.

===

I can also bring up Whitaker's story (I'm paraphrasing to the best of my ability, which probably sucks) that around 1970s, there was a politics going around in psychology (in particular, psychoanalysis) and psychiatry. Psychoanalysis was on the wane, and psychiatry has rising. But psychiatry did not earn the same respect as the mainstream medical field. So psychiatry had to win approval for being legitimately biomedical. While DSM-II focused on "neurosis", DSM-III was arbitrary compiled to serve as "a defense of the medical model as applied to psychiatric problems." (quote from Colubmia U Robert Spitzer who spearheaded the project) DSM-III became their bible and key to legitimacy.
...
"But as critics at the time noted, it was difficult to understand why this manual should be regarded as a great "scientific" achievement. No scientific discoveries had led to this reconfiguring of psychiatric diagnoses. The biology of mental disorders remained unknown, and the authors of DSM-III even confessed that this was so.

APA President Theodore Blau wrote that DSM more of a "political position paper for the APA than a scientifically-based classification system."(Whitaker 269-270)

....

I can bring pull up all these documentations (though by now, my cynism tells me no one will bother reading citations).

And after all these citing documentation I've given in these posts, what do I get? ... Your/their disagreement. Not mine.

I'm not disregarding people's protest about their experiences. All I'm saying is that there is possibly a different angle to mental illness no one has really thought to examine or have known about.

[Steved1998]

?

[BoMac]

Not sure what's puzzling you, Steve, it's all there!

[Steved1998]

Originally Posted by solemole

You're right, I sucked up the air when I started this thread. (Not being sarcastic.)

This thread is for those with disappointment with psychiatric medication.

I'm already sick of people just coming in to chastise repetitively the same thing. But it's their right to an opinion.

Sure, call me irresponsible for saying/warning to stay away from psychiatric medications. Make that a litmus test for crazy people, and I have been outed here as crazy.

People understandably want to commiserate on experiences with meds and family and take a more grateful stance, go start another thread.

Since I'm the only one who's upset with the issue and brought it up, go lock this thread.

You start a thread on a controversial subject and don't like the responses. Guess what: that's the Internet. To make matters worse, you don't seem open to different view points and act like everyone else isn't as enlightened as you.

[Steved1998]

Originally Posted by BoMac

Not sure what's puzzling you, Steve, it's all there!

I must be living in the dark ages. Oh the tyranny of psychiatry!

[Galeongirl]

Originally Posted by solemole

Ok, I've channelled my unconscious, and I can finally articulate why I said it.

Trauma

Kids get sexually abused by their relatives or close family friends, and parents won't believe it.

Kids get emotionally bullied/ostracized, nobody steps up, school authorities won't deal with it, parents won't believe it.

Kids facing some kind of trauma that is never acknowledged by their parents. Their parents don't take the kids' issues seriously. Bam! Kids grow up acting out and f'd up, or they end up through the mental health system and doped up.

Parents who don't deal with/take kids' issues seriously.

Does that satisfy you peeps? Serious issue or nonsense?

Eh, but wouldn't sending these kids to a psychiatrist actually help them?

I don't get your point, really. In all these cases, talking about it with a psych would help. Even if their parents love them and care for them, you can't expect your child to handle this on their own. And parents can only do so much.

If the parents don't deal with shit seriously, they won't send them to a psych either way, so I once again don't get your point.

And most kids facing trauma don't end up doped up, actually. Most traumas are solved by therapy, rather than medicine.

[MrsSpringsteen]

OMG, Dawson

you don't seem open to different view points and act like everyone else isn't as enlightened as you.

Sorry to bring it up again but I think that's accurate, and it is Cruise like. Sorry. Don't mean to be glib but it is.

[solemole]

Originally Posted by Steved1998

You start a thread on a controversial subject and don't like the responses. Guess what: that's the Internet. To make matters worse, you don't seem open to different view points and act like everyone else isn't as enlightened as you.

I don't think I've ever complained or felt upset about starting this thread.

Brilliant work, Sideshow Steve, Brilliant!

[solemole]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

Eh, but wouldn't sending these kids to a psychiatrist actually help them?

I don't get your point, really. In all these cases, talking about it with a psych would help. Even if their parents love them and care for them, you can't expect your child to handle this on their own. And parents can only do so much.

If the parents don't deal with shit seriously, they won't send them to a psych either way, so I once again don't get your point.

And most kids facing trauma don't end up doped up, actually. Most traumas are solved by therapy, rather than medicine.

I've met quite a few people in college who claimed they've been sexually abused as a child and didn't put the two and two together until years later. Then their parents didn't believe them by then, and the wild teen life--ravin' drugs promiscuity... became clear to them.

Some parents don't have the patience to put up with their kids drama. I've met some of these kids in group therapy in high school. Normal kids who were sent to group therapy because the parents somehow thought they were up to no good and the parents didn't know how to deal with their kids. Their kids ended up on Prozac for no reason.

Movie reference: Ever seen Charlie Bartlett.. don't know if it has basis in reality, but the movie's about a single mom who has her teenage son to see a shrink so that the doc can raise a perfect child without problems. (Dad was in jail for embezzlement).

[solemole]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

OMG, Dawson



Sorry to bring it up again but I think that's accurate, and it is Cruise like. Sorry. Don't mean to be glib but it is.

Cruise like, schmooze like.

I can say adding the fighting words up... more people got thinking that I'm in protest against them than vice versa, like I'm all upset people aren't believing me.

I'm not upset. I'm just annoyed people parroting like a parody of an SNL parody.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by solemole

I don't think I've ever complained or felt upset about starting this thread.

No, but you've certainly complained that everyone isn't responding how you would like them to. And asked twice for the thread to be closed. I was about to oblige your most recent request, but you seem to have changed your mind.

[Steved1998]

Originally Posted by solemole

I don't think I've ever complained or felt upset about starting this thread.

Brilliant work, Sideshow Steve, Brilliant!

You've requested it be locked. Twice.

You are dead wrong on this issue. Not only are you wrong, but your ideas are as dangerous as the anti vaccination kooks.

Granted, some people are over medicated, but that does not negate the good it does for millions of people. You think by just citing a few studies that it makes you an expert. There are side effects- but that is up for the doctor, patient, and parents to decide whether the negatives out weigh the positives- not an "internet doctor" such as yourself.

What you're doing is spouting inane nonsense rather then having a rational discussion and you come off as extremely arrogant. Based on your reactions to people in this thread, you sound like you need to take some lexipro and chill the hell out.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by solemole

I've met quite a few people in college who claimed they've been sexually abused as a child and didn't put the two and two together until years later. Then their parents didn't believe them by then, and the wild teen life--ravin' drugs promiscuity... became clear to them.

Some parents don't have the patience to put up with their kids drama. I've met some of these kids in group therapy in high school. Normal kids who were sent to group therapy because the parents somehow thought they were up to no good and the parents didn't know how to deal with their kids. Their kids ended up on Prozac for no reason.

Again, no one is denying that there are instances of bad parenting that may lead to unnecessary medication. Again, you're ignoring the involved, nurturing parents who find that therapy and/or meds are necessary. Are you saying that any parent who sends their child to a psychiatrist is automatically a bad parent who just isn't involved enough with their kid?

[solemole]

Test Time!
or
Subjective Test Time

FINALS QUIZ: How Well Do You Trust Authority? -OR- Does This Turn Your World Upside Down?

1.) On the record, neuroscientist Steve Hyman, former NIMH Director under Clinton and later former Harvard Provost, confirms that it is medication that causes chemical imbalance.*

Given Dr. Hyman's authority, do you [a] believe his statement or [b] don't believe his statement?

2.) APA creators admit there is no scientific basis for the DSM-III, nor is there any biological basis known for their diagnosis of mental disorders.

Given the admission, do you [a] believe their statement or [b] don't believe their statement?

3.) At the advent of DSM-III, APA President Theodore Blau, on the record, stated that the DSM-III is more a "political position paper for the APA than a scientifically-based classification system."

Given his admission, do you [a] believe his statement or [b] don't believe his statement?

If you have chosen "a" for all three questions, congrats- you trust authority.

If you have chose "b" for all three questions, congrats- is your world upside down?

If you have mixed answers, congrats- you're a rebel thinker!

*I have mentioned this a couple times, if you weren't paying attention in the thread.

Common - The Questions - YouTube

Originally Posted by Robert Whitaker (Epilogue)

This book tells a history of science that leads readers to a socially awkward place. Our society believes that psychiatric medications have led to a "revolutionary" advance in the treatment of mental disorders, and yet the pages tell of a drug-induced epidemic of disabling mental illness. Society sees a beautiful woman, and this book directs the reader's gaze to the old woman. It's never easy to hold a belief that is out of sync with what the rest of society believes, and in this instance, it's particularly difficult because the story of progress is told by figures of scientific authority--the APA, the NIMH, and psychiatrists at prestigious universities such as Harvard Medical School. Disagree with the common wisdom on this topic, and it seems that you must be a card-carrying member of the flat-Earth society.

[solemole]

ok. shut it.

let it be a museum piece for those to gawk.

[Danny Boy]

I just want to say that I used to work with a very good child psychiatrist who more often than not recommended parenting classes or mental health counseling instead of medication.

He was on salary, so he got paid the same whether he prescribed medication or not, and whether he saw a patient once a week or once a year.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by solemole

Cruise like, schmooze like.

I can say adding the fighting words up... more people got thinking that I'm in protest against them than vice versa, like I'm all upset people aren't believing me.

I'm not upset. I'm just annoyed people parroting like a parody of an SNL parody.

I'm not "parroting" anything, I can think for myself thanks. Just trying to lighten the mood a bit. You see it all as "fighting words", I just see it as people have different viewpoints and experiences. Someone like Cruise, well he's dogmatic and he sure is parroting. He dares to put someone down for taking meds for post partum depression when he doesn't know one damn thing about that other than what his religion says- because he can't get pregnant.


Look, I've seen and experienced people in my life and how the medical profession just put them on meds and they became addicted and had all kinds of problems and it didn't help them one bit. But I've also seen and heard about people being helped tremendously. So I think I have a balanced view based upon that, and based upon my limited knowledge.

But the way I see it you're coming across as if you have a one sided view, whether that's your intention or not.

[Pearl]

I think this thread should be closed, with or without solemole's request. It's going no where.

[PhilsFan]

Well.

[trojanchick99]

Originally Posted by solemole

Test Time!
or
Subjective Test Time

FINALS QUIZ: How Well Do You Trust Authority? -OR- Does This Turn Your World Upside Down?

1.) On the record, neuroscientist Steve Hyman, former NIMH Director under Clinton and later former Harvard Provost, confirms that it is medication that causes chemical imbalance.*

Given Dr. Hyman's authority, do you [a] believe his statement or [b] don't believe his statement?

2.) APA creators admit there is no scientific basis for the DSM-III, nor is there any biological basis known for their diagnosis of mental disorders.

Given the admission, do you [a] believe their statement or [b] don't believe their statement?

3.) At the advent of DSM-III, APA President Theodore Blau, on the record, stated that the DSM-III is more a "political position paper for the APA than a scientifically-based classification system."

Given his admission, do you [a] believe his statement or [b] don't believe his statement?

If you have chosen "a" for all three questions, congrats- you trust authority.

If you have chose "b" for all three questions, congrats- is your world upside down?

If you have mixed answers, congrats- you're a rebel thinker!

*I have mentioned this a couple times, if you weren't paying attention in the thread.

Common - The Questions - YouTube

And I'm sure I could pull up numerous scientific studies that show the opposite of what Dr. Hyman found. Trust me, medication didn't cause my friend to have a psychotic break. It did however allow him to return to college and graduate magna cum laude.

There are obvious differences in the brain function between those with schizophrenia and those without. Knowing how the brain works, that's a chemical imbalance.