NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/reports/FinalReport/FullReport-05.htm


Bush wants to load your kids up on Prozac and Ritalin, and he has the gall to call it "freedom"

Welcome to a Brave New World where the (unelected) cokehead president is forcing almost as much dope down our children's throats as his own.

Not only that, but read the freedom commission's opening statement to findout what they powers-at-will really think about you: " For consumers of all ages, early detection, assessment, and linkage with treatment and supports can prevent mental health problems from compounding and poor life outcomes from accumulating."

You are not an american, a citizen, or even a person; you are nothing more that a credit-card slave, a mouth-to-(over)feed and if you don't (perpetually)pull-your-own-weight... if you don't spend yourself into debt like a good little consumer then they'll just have to dope you up until "shop 'till you drop" is your personal creed and your unwavering motto is "to spend is better than to mend."

*It's time for recess children, please roll up your sleeves*

http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/screen_population.htm

Bush's dope idea is based on one he forced on the children of Texas -- and guess what! All of the companies that started the project in Texas (and would have the most to gain from national implementation) donated substantially to the Bush candidacy.

Poor cokehead Bush, can't he remember those sage-like words of Nancy Reagan? Or does, "just say 'no'" only apply to plants?

*It's time for recess children, please roll up your sleeves*

:D LMAO

But seriously, I heard an interesting thing said about the way we treat kids with ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder), I think it was referring to one of Francis Fukuyama's books (which I still haven't gotten round to reading). Children aren't "designed" to sit in a classroom all day, listen to the teacher and work quietly. Those who can't do this are the normal ones and the rest of us are, to some extent, abnormal, and yet we say that the normal ones have a mental disorder (ADD) and dose them up on a mixture of class A drugs.

:D LMAO

am I laughing... is this all a dream... is time slowing down... am i... is this real or another one of my drug induced illusions... i've been doped up so long now... i can't recall... why am i asking so many questions... it must be time for another injection...

But seriously, I heard an interesting thing said about the way we treat kids with ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder), I think it was referring to one of Francis Fukuyama's books (which I still haven't gotten round to reading). Children aren't "designed" to sit in a classroom all day, listen to the teacher and work quietly. Those who can't do this are the normal ones and the rest of us are, to some extent, abnormal, and yet we say that the normal ones have a mental disorder (ADD) and dose them up on a mixture of class A drugs.

The sad fact is that there is no actual definition of the imaginary condition know as AD(H)D... there is no objective test that can measure it or detect it -- your diagnosis is solely based on the whim of a psycho -analyist (whose job it is to sell drugs)

Anyone care to guess under which administration schools gained the "Right" to have children tested for AD(H)D and to administer the medications? Oh where have you gone Billy Boy, Billy Boy?

Anyone care to guess under which administration schools gained the "Right" to have children tested for AD(H)D and to administer the medications? Oh where have you gone Billy Boy, Billy Boy?

all I want is just your children

Incrementalism: if you put a frog in a pot of hot water, he will jump out; if you put the same frog in a pot of cool water, you can gradually raise the temperature until he is boiled.

here's your guide to the world of today: http://www.online-literature.com/aldous_huxley/brave_new_world/

That is one of the most frightening things I have read in a while. No one knows the long term effects of the psychiatric drugs which are being shoved down patients throats by doctors today, especially the effects on children. Many studies have shown that most of the SSRI's handed out to depressed children actually worsen their conditions. Just because a doctor hands out a drug does not mean it is safe. Most psychiatric medicines are more physically addictive and more dangerous than several of the drugs which are Schedule I.

But I suppose as long as the populace is full of drug-numbed zombies (but not happy ones, can't have that) who don't mind it they are being anally raped, metaphorically speaking, the government is happy.

Imagine if you were told ten years ago that the government would send special doctors into the schools to prescribe mind altering drugs with many known dangerous side-effects to children that suffer from undefinable mental-illnesses, based solely on subjective analysis.

Now imagine that the person thying to sell you on this idea started his pitch with, "mental health is important to all consumers."


FYI thought-crime is the real mental health issue here.

obey, consume, submit

I don't want to sail in this ship of fools. :(

As a person who has ADHD, I already know that Ritalin is over-prescribed. So I'm all for Bush putting a subsidy on the overprescription of the drug. Why not? He's fucked up the country already, so what's a little Ritalin gonna do?

When I was in elementary school, specifically the earlier levels (second grade or so), I would often find myself more entertained by my pencil-cap eraser than by the story my teacher was reading about a donkey. I remember that my teacher spoke with my parents and urged them to put me on medicine to treat my "ADD." Looking back, I am so very thankful that my parents had enough of a clear head to not put me on that junk.

Now, as I go off to college, I am a progressive-thinking artist, with concerns in the political, social, and cultural arenas. My artwork has been displayed in local art shows, and one of my pieces has won an award. My mind is constantly overflowing with imaginitive and amazing ideas and thoughts, and I constantly yearn to convey them to paper or canvas.

So, because I thought the plot progression in Donkey's Day at School was weak and instead found a thousand and one uses for pencil-cap erasers, I almost became a pill-popping zombie. Thank you, corporate-driven, consumer-based, class-divided and closed-minded capitalist America!

I heard about this awhile back, I'm disgusted further with bush he's better than kerry and he is overall kerry or not an ok guy but this is wrong right here as are many things I disagree with him on including this. :(

I haven't actually substantiated it as of yet, but i've read a few places that there may be stock incentive for the proponents in the admin here ...
company and subsids of Pharmacia
Probably worth a look, since it's got Dubya's name on it. I'm not fully endorsing it since damned near everything is conspiracy and agenda tinted of late.
But, that whole medicare fiasco in the senate, w/the bribe and the extortion of that senator's son's future - brings to mind the worth of investigation.
Anyone know anything about it, links maybe?

So, because I thought the plot progression in Donkey's Day at School was weak and instead found a thousand and one uses for pencil-cap erasers, I almost became a pill-popping zombie. Thank you, corporate-driven, consumer-based, class-divided and closed-minded capitalist America!

This reminds me of the Bush-in-all-black-school-9/11 video -- have you seen it?

After you get past the initial shock of seeing Bush being informed of the attack on both towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon by 'hijacked' planes used as missiles, supposedly summed-up in a three second wisper, and after the secondary outrage by his response (sitting with a dumb look on his face for about ten minutes) do yourself a favor and watch the video again -- with sound.

You'll notice that the teacher isn't really 'reading' the story of My Pet Goat to the children, but rather she is drumming (literally) at a monotonous-unreleanting beat to which each syllable is individually barked-out. The image is reminescent of slave-powered long-boats: the ones where men are chained to thier post and forced to paddle in time with the beating of a drum.

If public education is nothing more than strapping children to thier desks, beating a drum and teaching them to speak like robots, then is there really anything wonder that so many kids are considered "unattentive," "rambunctious" or "uncooperative" -- coincidentally, that is the same criteria for the imaginary condition known as AD(H)D.

In reality, anyone who can sit through a reading of My Pet Goat (or Donkey's Day at School for that matter) has already sucumb to the bleak existance of submissive mediocrity: that's why they have to dope the rest of us up, it's the safety-net designed to catch the remaining individuals who've managed to stay sane despite their better attempts at molding us into superficial 'proactive' debt-driven 'group-thinking' pill-popping 'double-speaking' mindless consumers.

The hero of that film-o-many-horrors is the lone little black girl who breaks with the heard and starts wispering into her friend's ear. She is the only hope left for her generation. She may very well be the last rebel.

This reminds me of the Bush-in-all-black-school-9/11 video -- have you seen it?



I most certainly have seen that. You bring up an excellent point. I hadn't really thought of it that way, but now that you mention it, I have to agree.

We must embrace diversity, not destroy it.

We must embrace diversity, not destroy it.

It is curious that he would pose at an all-black school for his alibi (perhaps he's reminescent of segregation)

On a side note, which is easier to say in two seconds: "Sir, three hijacked planes have smashed into both towers of the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon -- we're not sure how many more there are, but we do know that atleast one plane is off-course and headed towards the Capital Building!" or "Mission acomplished, sir!"

As a person who has ADHD [snip]

I've often wondered what it is like to have an imaginary -- what do you call it -- ("affliction" or is it a "condition")


I've often wondered what the psychological effects of being told "you're abnormal" by a menopausal-widowed school-teacher, then having that opinion seconded by a strictly-commission-salesman with a degree in fake medicine and after all of the 'experts' have berated you, your own neglectful parents turn against you and side with them.

"There's something wrong with your brain -- you're not like the other kids -- don't worry, the drugs will fix you"

It sounds like the kind of experience that could cause an inferiority complex, manic depression and even suicidal thoughts.

"There's something wrong with your brain -- you're not like the other kids -- don't worry, the drugs will fix you"

The teacher at school, the special doctor, your own parents -- they all think you're worthless and defective. The drugs take that feeling of pain away... they make them proud of you: the teacher complements you for "behaving," the doctor says you don't need any more "tests," and your parents are proud of your "overall improvement." The drugs will fix you, and everyone will love you for it.

"There's something wrong with your brain -- you're not like the other kids -- don't worry, the drugs will fix you"


As a person who has ADHD [snip]
It's easy to see why someone would want to hold onto that thought...


"There's something wrong with your brain -- you're not like the other kids -- don't worry, the drugs will fix you"

ADD... one of the most misdiagnosed disorders. Both ways. Frankly, the idea of trying to drug up kids to keep them well behaved in the classroom is abhorrent to me, and I'd think I have some familiarity with the matter.

Even with a secure, appropriately arrived at, and unbiased diagnosis of ADD... drugs are not the final answer.

Seems the Bush gang holds the US population for mental patients, armed and dangerous...mmmmmm

Seems the world elite are reserving tickets on the upper level class decks where living is easy. Surely selling insanities in the name of love, freedom.

At what point you say no? take up arms to defend your right of freedom of choice to live as you see fit? Maybe go somewhere else to beat the dirty deal?

We'll see I gues.

Everybody knows this is knowhere going shipwreck

Even with a secure, appropriately arrived at, and unbiased diagnosis of ADD... drugs are not the final answer.


Ah! But don't you see? Drugs are the final answer (or final solution)

Q: Why does the global elite want to load us up on mind altering drugs to dumb us down an make us submissive?

A: Simple: you can't revolt when you're catatonic.

This isn't a conspiracy theory folks -- this is the governments plan to force parents to place their children on opiates. Anyone who refuses will be arrested for child abuse.

Q: Why does the global elite want to load us up on mind altering drugs to dumb us down an make us submissive?

A: Simple: you can't revolt when you're catatonic.


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5817378&section=news


Which is exactly why Bush's people are recomending Prozac for the laid-off workers they've created.

http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/reports/FinalReport/FullReport-05.htm


Bush wants to load your kids up on Prozac and Ritalin, and he has the gall to call it "freedom"

Welcome to a Brave New World where the (unelected) cokehead president is forcing almost as much dope down our children's throats as his own.

Not only that, but read the freedom commission's opening statement to findout what they powers-at-will really think about you: " For consumers of all ages, early detection, assessment, and linkage with treatment and supports can prevent mental health problems from compounding and poor life outcomes from accumulating."

You are not an american, a citizen, or even a person; you are nothing more that a credit-card slave, a mouth-to-(over)feed and if you don't (perpetually)pull-your-own-weight... if you don't spend yourself into debt like a good little consumer then they'll just have to dope you up until "shop 'till you drop" is your personal creed and your unwavering motto is "to spend is better than to mend."

*It's time for recess children, please roll up your sleeves*

Now I find Bush even more odious and nauseating.

Now I find Bush even more odious and nauseating.
A CIA agent wrote a book and said that Bush will set off a suitcase nuke in NYC this fall if he thinks hes gonna lose the election-he saw how well terrorism worked for him on 911

A CIA agent wrote a book and said that Bush will set off a suitcase nuke in NYC this fall if he thinks hes gonna lose the election-he saw how well terrorism worked for him on 911

I wouldn't be surprised.

I wouldn't be surprised.
Bush chants to a Giant Owil at Bohemian Grove and has now gotten to the level of HUMAN SACRIFICE

A CIA agent wrote a book and said that Bush will set off a suitcase nuke in NYC this fall if he thinks hes gonna lose the election-he saw how well terrorism worked for him on 911

Got a source? What's the book called?

Bush chants to a Giant Owil at Bohemian Grove and has now gotten to the level of HUMAN SACRIFICE

I'd be surprised...and mildly amused.

I wouldn't be surprised.

Okay, on second thought I don't think he'd do anything that drastic, but it wouldn't surprise me if he used some sort of dirty tactic to try to win.

A CIA agent wrote a book and said that Bush will set off a suitcase nuke in NYC this fall if he thinks hes gonna lose the election-he saw how well terrorism worked for him on 911That theory has one major flaw. They are not going to do NYC.

Got a source? What's the book called?
Imperial Hubris

That theory has one major flaw. They are not going to do NYC.
you dont think that he'd stoop so low as to nuke Disneyland do you?

The sad fact is that there is no actual definition of the imaginary condition know as AD(H)D... there is no objective test that can measure it or detect it -- your diagnosis is solely based on the whim of a psycho -analyist (whose job it is to sell drugs)

AD(H)D may be overblown, but I think Bottle will disagree with you about the condition being imaginary (as I recall, her younger brother is a severe case), and I will disagree with you about the job of those in the field of psychiatry (the only ones who can prescribe the drugs). A psychiatrist is a doctor, and doctors are bound by oath to help people, not drug companies. Granted, there are some greedy sh-ts out there, but that's true in any field. Most want medications used responsibly and properly so that the patient benefits, finding drug reps to be pushy and something of an irritation.

EDIT1: Incidentally, imaginary and undefined? From the DSMIV, the standard text used to diagnose mental disorders in America:

Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Diagnostic Criteria
A)Either (1) or (2):

1)six (or more) of the following symptoms of inattention have persisted for at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level:

a)often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities
b)often has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities
c)often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly
d)often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace (not due to oppositional behavior or failure to understand instructions)
e)often has difficulty organizing tasks and activities
f)often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks that require sustained mental effort (such as schoolwork or homework)
often loses things necessary for tasks or activities (e.g., toys, school assignments, pencils, books, or tools)
g)is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli
h)is often forgetful in daily activities



2)six (or more) of the following symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity have persisted for at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level:

Hyperactivity

a)often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat
b)often leaves seat in classroom or in other situations in which remaining seated is expected
c)often runs about or climbs excessively in situations in which it is inappropriate (in adolescents or adults, may be limited to subjective feelings of restlessness)
d)often has difficulty playing or engaging in leisure activities quietly
e)is often "on the go" or often acts as if "driven by a motor"
f)often talks excessively

Impulsivity

g)often blurts out answers before questions have been completed
h)often has difficulty awaiting turn
i)often interrupts or intrudes on others (e.g., butts into conversations or games)


B)Some hyperactive-impulsive or inattentive symptoms that caused impairment were present before age 7 years.


C)Some impairment from the symptoms is present in two or more settings (e.g., at school [or work] and at home).


D)There must be clear evidence of clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning.


E)The symptoms do not occur exclusively during the course of a Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Schizophrenia , or other Psychotic Disorder and are not better accounted for by another mental disorder (e.g., Mood Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Dissociative Disorder, or a Personality Disorder).


But, upon reading the rest of the thread, I see that you've already ironically berated someone with the disorder. Maybe I'll check back later - for now, I'm too utterly disgusted.

*Walks out of thread*

EDIT1: Incidentally, imaginary and undefined? From the DSMIV, the standard text used to diagnose mental disorders in America:

spare me your dribble...

http://www.mentalhealth.com/mag1/p5m-add2.html

The widespread appellation of ADHD in North America to difficult children means that most classrooms, and many families, have children who are so classified. Although ADHD is officially a term for a category of mental disorder, the report said, "it has become so widely used ... that it has a prominent place in the contemporary culture."

Yet in Britain, there is a stark difference, according to the report: "The idea that children who don't attend or don't sit still in school have a mental disorder is not entertained by most British clinicians."

spare me your dribble...

http://www.mentalhealth.com/mag1/p5m-add2.html

The widespread appellation of ADHD in North America to difficult children means that most classrooms, and many families, have children who are so classified. Although ADHD is officially a term for a category of mental disorder, the report said, "it has become so widely used ... that it has a prominent place in the contemporary culture."

Yet in Britain, there is a stark difference, according to the report: "The idea that children who don't attend or don't sit still in school have a mental disorder is not entertained by most British clinicians."
the british apparently havea clue, its probably because the medical industry there is controlled

here they will do anything to get paid more money
doctor: "your kid cant sit still in school? yeah he has adhd, heres a prescription for a 75$ a month medicine"

"Gee, your kid is acting like a kid? He has ADHD, let's dope him into a zombie and plant him in front of a blackboard." is more like it.

spare me your dribble...

http://www.mentalhealth.com/mag1/p5m-add2.html

The widespread appellation of ADHD in North America to difficult children means that most classrooms, and many families, have children who are so classified. Although ADHD is officially a term for a category of mental disorder, the report said, "it has become so widely used ... that it has a prominent place in the contemporary culture."

Yet in Britain, there is a stark difference, according to the report: "The idea that children who don't attend or don't sit still in school have a mental disorder is not entertained by most British clinicians."

Pull your head out of your conspiracy-theory-propagating ass and look back to where I said that I acknowledge that the condition has been over-diagnosed in the past. Mental health is still a very young science compared to other fields of medicine, and definitions of conditions involved are constantly being refined. Hell, there used to be many more people diagnosed as schizophrenic (indeed, after one revision of the DSM, diagnoses of this disorder dropped dramatically), are you going to argue next that those people are just imagining their illness? Schizophrenia, too, is acknowledged to be more than one disorder that we do not fully understand, but for the time being, it's treated as one until we know more and can treat it more effectively. That's the scientific method, and that's how medicine has always progressed - ADHD would not be the first disorder, psychiatric or otherwise, to be vaguely defined and overly diagnosed when first recognized in the medical community. Of course Europeans ought to be wary of overdiagnosis - one would hope they would learn from our mistakes. The article admits that they do have an equivalent diagnosis, so your article does not support a position that the entire idea is bunk.

It's very common that when a new condition is added to the DSM, it will be overdiagnosed as they refine theories surrounding it. ADHD is a notorious case, because so many people have children that they want to control - hence, more children are brought, and more misdiagnosed, especially when schools and the government get involved. How do you explain the people who carry the disorder into adulthood, oh wise one? Your naysaying only seems to narrowly consider children, yet your hypothesis that it's all merely childhood behaviors misdiagnosed by greedy, hand-wringing doctors falls apart when the patients are no longer children. Oh, htat's right, they're only imagining it. And you would know, right?

I had some respect for you, Texastambul, finding your often wild theories to be at least something to consider. Perhaps I was wrong then, since you're making it pretty clear how much you actually respect debate and thought on the issues you bring. What, my post was "dribble" because it throoughly debunked your claim that ADHD had no official definition? Congrats, you win the Red Arrow/Panhandlia award. Why don't you try addressing my points rather than treating me as some n00b? Or, is it only proper to demand that others consider your arguments?

Pull your head out of your conspiracy- theory -propagating ass and look back to where I said that I acknowledge that the condition has been over-diagnosed in the past.

1) In the past!? The current project on the books states it as an underdiagnosed condition! Do you think they're going to stop "over-diagnosing" it when they consider it under-diagnosed!?

2) It's not a theory my good man, if you would bother to follow the link: http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/reports/FinalReport/FullReport-05.htm You would discover that the president want's to turn schools into child drug markets --
"While schools are primarily concerned with education, mental health is essential to learning as well as to social and emotional development. Because of this important interplay between emotional health and school success, schools must be partners in the mental health care of our children." -- this is admitted by the government WAKE-UP!

Mental health is still a very young science compared to other fields of medicine, and definitions of conditions involved are constantly being refined.

Right, so basically -- the government is offering our school children up as guiena-pigs to a "very young science" which also happens to involve a highly lucritive business (pharmacuticals), the biggest benefactor of which just happens to be a major Bush contrubuter (Ely Lillie)

That's the scientific method, and that's how medicine has always progressed - ADHD would not be the first disorder, psychiatric or otherwise, to be vaguely defined and overly diagnosed when first recognized in the medical community.

You're right! In the 50's there was a mental disorder called "homosexuality." If you were "homosexual" then you would end up in an insane asylum and undergo "treatment" in the form of shock-theorpy.

It's very common that when a new condition is added to the DSM, it will be overdiagnosed as they refine theories surrounding it. ADHD is a notorious case, because so many people have children that they want to control - hence, more children are brought, and more misdiagnosed, especially when schools and the government get involved.
Couldn't agree more!

How do you explain the people who carry the disorder into adulthood, oh wise one? Your naysaying only seems to narrowly consider children, yet your hypothesis that it's all merely childhood behaviors misdiagnosed by greedy, hand-wringing doctors falls apart when the patients are no longer children. Oh, htat's right, they're only imagining it. And you would know, right?

Well, first there is a thing called chemical-dependency: when someone is forced to consume mind-altering drugs for an extended expanse of time (months to years) it permenently changes the chemistry in the brain - this renders addiction. Have you ever seen a drug-addict when they haven't had their "fix" ?? It isn't a pretty site -- it kindda reminds me of AD(H)D...

What, my post was "dribble" because it throoughly debunked your claim that ADHD had no official definition?

The "official" definition you posted was a multiple-choice question -- the answers to which could widely differ and still bring out the same diagnosis, therefore there is still no difinitive answer to the question of what AD(H)D actually is. There are many things that could be considered AD(H)D but nothing clear.

When the criteria for a disease is "Any six of these ten symptoms combined with atleast one of these five behaviors and no more than three of these eight conditions" then you know it's a fraud.

Congrats, you win the Red Arrow/Panhandlia award. Why don't you try addressing my points rather than treating me as some n00b? Or, is it only proper to demand that others consider your arguments?

Don't cry for me, I'm not missing any sleep... for you.

1) In the past!? The current project on the books states it as an underdiagnosed condition! Do you think they're going to stop "over-diagnosing" it when they consider it under-diagnosed!?{/quote]

What "project" on what "books?"

[QUOTE=Texastambul]2) It's not a theory my good man, if you would bother to follow the link: http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/reports/FinalReport/FullReport-05.htm You would discover that the president want's to turn schools into child drug markets --
"While schools are primarily concerned with education, mental health is essential to learning as well as to social and emotional development. Because of this important interplay between emotional health and school success, schools must be partners in the mental health care of our children." -- this is admitted by the government WAKE-UP!

I read your link, and it's not impressive. The government considers many proposals in a year. I'm not going to lose sleep over one of the many bad ideas they consider.

Ooh, the drug compmanies are targetting children - is this supposed to surprise me?

Right, so basically -- the government is offering our school children up as guiena-pigs to a "very young science" which also happens to involve a highly lucritive business (pharmacuticals), the biggest benefactor of which just happens to be a major Bush contrubuter (Ely Lillie)

Yup, that's what they're doing. Again, are you expecting some kind of reaction here? Gee the government butting in where it shouldn't...what a shocker.

You're right! In the 50's there was a mental disorder called "homosexuality." If you were "homosexual" then you would end up in an insane asylum and undergo "treatment" in the form of shock-theorpy.

Of course I'm right - you're the layman here. That "disorder" was declassified in the '70's, none of this is news.

Well, first there is a thing called chemical-dependency: when someone is forced to consume mind-altering drugs for an extended expanse of time (months to years) it permenently changes the chemistry in the brain - this renders addiction. Have you ever seen a drug-addict when they haven't had their "fix" ?? It isn't a pretty site -- it kindda reminds me of AD(H)D...

Yeah, it would remind me of it, too, if I had no idea what I was talking about. The difference between withdrawal symptoms from a stimulant and the symptoms of ADHD are quite different, unless, of course, you only want to consider the distracted nature of the subject. Out of the many symptoms of withdrawal (particularly that of Ritalin), it's funny that you think you can just pick and choose for your argument.

Ritalin Withdrawal symptoms include but are not limited to:
agitation, insomnia
abdominal cramps
nausea
severe emotional depression
exhaustion
anxiety

http://www.addictionwithdrawal.com/ritalin.htm

The "official" definition you posted was a multiple-choice question -- the answers to which could widely differ and still bring out the same diagnosis, therefore there is still no difinitive answer to the question of what AD(H)D actually is. There are many things that could be considered AD(H)D but nothing clear.

When the criteria for a disease is "Any six of these ten symptoms combined with atleast one of these five behaviors and no more than three of these eight conditions" then you know it's a fraud.

Just like schizophrenia, depression, bipolarity, and any of the other hundreds of disorders diagnosed the exact same way in both the DSM and its European counterpart. You really have no idea how this system works, do you? Do you think that biological disorders have a rigid criteria and that diagnoses are not made on the subjective decision of the doctors?

Have you ever heard of the term, "second opinion?"

Don't cry for me, I'm not missing any sleep... for you.

Again, I love how, in not supporting this opinion of yours, I go from being a poster months your senior here to being some no account n00b. Just keep up the -sshole routine, I'll still be around when you decide to take your foot out of your mouth. ;)

Ooh, the drug compmanies are targetting children - is this supposed to surprise me?

--

Yup, that's what they're doing. Again, are you expecting some kind of reaction here? Gee the government butting in where it shouldn't...what a shocker.

--

Of course I'm right - you're the layman here. That "disorder" was declassified in the '70's, none of this is news. *


*I suppose you believe that modern psy-docs could never make that same kind of mistake?

You acknowledge that the Government is overstepping its power by allowing the Drug Companies to target children in schools. You even believe the AD(H)D is already overdiagnosed.

But, when it comes to the root of the matter, you fall hook-line and sinker for the Government's and the Drug Companies claims about the usefullness of strong mind altering drugs on small children.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems that you are contradicting yourself.

*I suppose you believe that modern psy-docs could never make that same kind of mistake?

Not likely - peer review and specificity in the field have come a long way in the short time that mental health has existed in a legitimate form. Certainly mistakes can still be made (ceasing to believe so would run contrary to the scientific method), however I don't think that is the case here.

*You acknowledge that the Government is overstepping its power by allowing the Drug Companies to target children in schools. You even believe the AD(H)D is already overdiagnosed.

But, when it comes to the root of the matter, you fall hook-line and sinker for the Government's and the Drug Companies claims about the usefullness of strong mind altering drugs on small children.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems that you are contradicting yourself.

Not at all, simply inferring things which I never said. You seem to be taking an all-or-nothing position here. You seem to think the only possible positions here are with the government and drug companies, or against it (in which case, you have to believe that ADHD is entirely fabricated). I take neither position. I think the proposal that you've mentioned is foolish, as psychological medicine should be applied on an individual level, as needed. A blanket program, especially involving pharmeceuticals, is a mistake.

However, there are people out there with this disorder, people with cases severe enough that one cannot say that it is merely a psychosomatic reaction to a diagnosis or that it's just the repression of an otherwise free mind. Some people do know that they have a problem, seek help for this disorder, and are glad to benefit from it. Since this is a disorder with an onset occuring in childhood, you are going to end up medicating children. Should you be mass-medicating them? Of course not. Drug companies are certainly trying to push an agenda, and I trust neither them nor the government which they may be using to do so, but to go so far as to claim the entire disorder fabricated and that countless patients are imagining their symptoms seems to be quite extremist. When working with scientific theories, a theroy is not entirely scrapped if certain components are found to be erroneous, and they often are born vague. That is why we have peer review and the scientific method at work in ongoing research.

It's not a simple matter of "with this proposal or against it and all that surround it." I support medicating those who can benefit from it, those being the ones who need it to correct certain imbalances. The conflict of interest in mixing medication with child-rearing is certainly an obstacle to that, but why should should children be forced to suffer from either over- or under- medication when a little common sense can prevent both? There is a disorder here - people can and do attest to that (and should not be told in a condescending fashion that they merely imagine it). Proper treatment is the tricky part, and a government program certainly seems to be the wrong approach to it. This does not mean that the drugs are altogether useless.

http://www.drday.com/attentiondeficit.htm

by Lorraine Day, M.D

A child is given the diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), also called Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) when he is considered overactive, cannot pay attention and cannot sit still, ALL VERY subjective symptoms. ADD is diagnosed four times more frequently in boys because boys mature more slowly than girls and because boys are put in classes at school with girls of the same age, so the boys, being less mature, appear to be hyperactive. Irritability anger and mental confusion may also be present so these children are then labeled as having a "Learning Disability." However, these symptoms are virtually identical to the symptoms of hypoglycemia, low blood sugar which is caused by the up and down swings of insulin resulting from eating too much refined sugar.

Attention Deficit Disorder and Ritalin have become almost synonymous. Up to 90% of children who are first diagnosed with ADD receive a prescription for Ritalin. At least a dozen other drugs are prescribed for these symptoms as well. There has been a 500% increase in the use of Ritalin alone since 1991. Short- term use of these medications is associated with a 70 to 80% improvement in symptoms. So naturally, it appears that the drugs have solved the problem. However, these studies don't show the entire picture. Very few long-term studies have been done evaluating the success of amphetamine-type medication such as Ritalin, for ADD symptoms, and the few studies that do exist do not present a very encouraging picture. For years, it was thought that children outgrew symptoms of ADD so they were treated with drugs, until they "outgrew" the condition.

However, This has been found NOT to be the case. Children do NOT outgrow ADD symptoms. In 1990, an eight-year prospective study of hyperactive children was instituted. More than 80% of the children studied had been treated with medications. Sixty- three percent of the group had received the benefit of psychological services and 35% had special educational accommodations.

At the end of the eight years, 80% continued to have the ADD symptoms, while 60% had advanced to Opposition Defiant Disorder (ODD) and Conduct Disorder (CD) diagnoses. (Barkley R., Fischer M, et al:The adolescent outcome of hyperactive children diagnosed by research criteria: J Am Acad Child Adoles Psychiatry 29 (4):546-556 July 1990.) These two diagnoses are considered to be much worse than the ADD diagnosis. A literature review dating back to 1971 showed little to be encouraged about. Children with ADD were more likely to fail subjects in school and dropped out of school more frequently. Fewer attended college. And there were NO statistical differences between the long-term results of children treated with medications and those who did not use medications. These studies indicate that there is little evidence of long-term success with the use of medications for hyperactivity.

The adverse reactions (side effects) for Ritalin include nervousness, insomnia, joint pains, fever, anorexia, nausea, dizziness, palpitations, headache, dyskinesia, drowsiness, increased blood pressure and pulse, rapid heart rate, angina, cardiac arrhythmias, abdominal pain, actual psychosis. And there is a major warning in the Physician's Desk Reference regarding drug dependency.

The Physicians Desk Reference of Drug Side Effects notes that, regarding the pharmacology of Ritalin: "The mode of action in man is not completely understood." And this is what you're giving your child! The pharmaceutical manufacturers admit that they don't even know how it works. They're just experimenting -- on your child!

Ritalin has effects similar to other stimulants including amphetamine, methamphetamine and cocaine. There are 6 million prescriptions for Ritalin filled annually. The U.S. pharmacists distribute five times more Ritalin than the rest of the world combined. No other nation prescribes stimulants for its children in such volume. In fact, the United Nations International Narcotics Control Board has on two recent occasions written to U.S. officials expressing concern about the sixfold increase in Ritalin usage since 1990.


Dr. Day is an internationally acclaimed orthopedic trauma surgeon and best selling author was for 15 years on the faculty of the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine as Associate Professor and Vice Chairman of the Department of Orthopedics. She was also Chief of Orthopedic Surgery at San Francisco General Hospital and is recognized world-wide as an AIDS expert.

More news on the Government's plan to dope you up, this time they're going to target pregnant women:

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive32.htm

July 28, 2004

Posted 12:56 AM Eastern

This past spring, the Illinois General Assembly passed a new bill requiring compulsory mental health screening for children and pregnant women; it was signed into law by Governor Blagojevich. This program will require all pregnant women and children through the age of 18 be tested for mental health needs.



So, what does all of this mean? There once was a thing called "doctor-patient confidentiality," now the state is using the faux-casue of "mental health" to spy on the minds of citizens!

Watch out pregnant mothers, babies and school children -- thoughtcrime will not be tolerated!

I read your link, and it's not impressive. The government considers many proposals in a year. I'm not going to lose sleep over one of the many bad ideas they consider.


I'm not asking anyone to lose sleep... I am asking everyone to FIGHT this legislation to its death -- write letters to your congressmen, the editors of newspapers ect...

I'm just not sure such legislation will ever see the light of day...I admit I certainly don't like the sound of it, but this just sounds like a lot of Band-Aid attempts to fix what's wrong with our schools (or society, wherever you happen to think the real blame lies).

As for Dr. Day, I think it's pretty evident that orthopedic surgery isn't psychology or psychiatry. I think Dr. Day is a little out of her league here. Reading the article, it's very, very clear that she's got an ax to grind, and other issues behind the scenes whispering to her. For example, let's look at her advice for dealing with and treating ADHD from that page:

The following steps are ways to help prevent ADD and ADHD and to reverse the factors that cause them:

1) Change the child's diet to all natural whole foods. This means fruit, grains and vegetables full of natural vitamins, minerals and enzymes.

2) Eliminate dairy products and other animal products because these contain hormones, pesticides, antibiotics and the diseasesof the animal itself.

3) Eliminate caffeine, sugar and other sweets, processed food, MSG, aspartame (Nutrasweet) and other sugar substitutes and any foods that contain preservatives, food dyes or other chemicals.

4) Eliminate eating at fast food restaurants as most of these apparently use MSG and preservatives, plus the food in many restaurants often contains less nutrition, but many harmful chemicals.

5) Encourage the child to eat a lot of raw fruit and vegetables because they are full of health-producing enzymes, vitamins and minerals.

6. Drink water, and fresh home-made vegetable and home-made fruit juice. Eliminate soda pop, caffeinated beverages or milk from cows or any other animal. Rice Drean (rice milk) from your health food store is a reasonable substitute.

7. No white bread. Only whole grain bread, either home baked or from a health food store.

8. No white rice. Only whole grain brown rice and other whole grains.

9. No peanut butter: It contains aflatoxin, a fungus that causes cancer. Instead use Almond butter (It spreads like peanut butter and tastes just as good) from your health food store or other store. Also you can make home-made cashew nut butter.

10. Get proper rest. Children need a lot of rest and should go to be early.

11. Get proper exercise daily, outdoors in the fresh air and sunshine.

12. Eliminate TV watching. It is reported that children watch an average of 43 hours of TV per week, that's longer than the average adult work week. While watching, they rapidly become almost hypnotized. It has been shown scientifically that within minutes of beginning to watch TV, the brain changes from the alert brain waves (beta waves) to the hypnotic waves (alpha waves) where the judgment center of the brain is bypassed. So the violence and decadence that the child sees, bypasses the judgment center in the brain and is implanted in the child's brain without any ability on the child's part to decide whether what they are seeing is right or wrong. The violence and decadence are accepted by the brain without any moral judgment being applied to it. It then becomes part of the child's permanent subconscious. What goes into a child's mind is just as important as what goes into his or her mouth!

13. Trust in God and teach your child to trust in God. Study the Bible and pray with your child every day. Read Bible stories to your child. Children (and adults) become like those they admire. If they learn about Jesus, they will admire Him and want to be like Him. This has the most calming influence of all.

Some of this is good advice - children, especially those in America, ought to eat healthier and watch less TV. But really, look at some of these things. Her advocacy of health food is so thorough and extensive it'd make a hippy cringe, and any good doctor would actually provide reasons why one ought to be using these things, not just mentioning them. Avoid peanut butter because it causes cancer...I thought we were talking about ADHD here? From the standpoint of professional writing in medicine, this is not a good article, and I really doubt this woman's credibility. Looking at #13 really caps it off for me. Sorry, this woman ought to stick to orthopedics. Her ideas and intent may be good, but this is definitely not professional advice. This seems more like a surgeon turned new-agey author, judging by the list of books and tapes she's selling at the bottom of the page.

So, to reiterate: government mandated medical/psychological screenings = bad. This does not mean that the whole field of psychiatry is corrupt, nor that ADHD does not exist, merely that we've got politicians and lobbyists outlining medical policies. There is the problem, and there's what needs to stop. Unfortunately, people seem to have an implicit trust of government these days like never before. When the government starts telling you that everyone MUST get X procedure done, something is very wrong.

I'm just not sure such legislation will ever see the light of day...I admit I certainly don't like the sound of it, but this just sounds like a lot of Band-Aid attempts to fix what's wrong with our schools (or society, wherever you happen to think the real blame lies).

I hope not... but Bush has been pushing it so stongly that I'm willing to wager that he'll make a very BIG deal about it at the Republican National Convention.

So, to reiterate: government mandated medical/psychological screenings = bad. This does not mean that the whole field of psychiatry is corrupt, nor that ADHD does not exist, merely that we've got politicians and lobbyists outlining medical policies. There is the problem, and there's what needs to stop. Unfortunately, people seem to have an implicit trust of government these days like never before. When the government starts telling you that everyone MUST get X procedure done, something is very wrong.

First of all, yes, we do seem to agree that it is dangerous to allow big government to get in bed with the Pharmacutical Companies and rape the nation-- Kudos for that.


Now, back to AD(H)D in general: If I have a twitch in my arm and then cut my arm off, would you say that I have "cured" my twitch? It would be more correct to say that the twitch is no longer a problem because I no longer have an arm. This is how I view the use of highly addictive stimulants (eg. Aderal and Ritlin) to "cure" the AD(H)D. While these powerful mind-altering drugs do remove the symptoms of AD(H)D can it really be said that they have "cured" the mind? I think that the drugs merely suppressed the symptoms through chemical lobotomy, which is a bit like amputating an arm to remove a twitch.

I hope not... but Bush has been pushing it so stongly that I'm willing to wager that he'll make a very BIG deal about it at the Republican National Convention.

Just goes to show how far the nation has swung from sanity. We now have Republicans pushing the government into our lives. At his rally in Springfield right after Kerry DNC speech, Bush criticized Kerry for wanting to make government bigger, yet how much would it cost to implement programs such as this? Is it just a given these days that people are such blind followers that they have no concept of what Conservativism is anymore? If such a proposal sits well with people (and it ought to alarm many people on both sides of the aisle to some degree for many reasons), I'd be shocked. I swear, America is getting dumber by the year, though. I'll stop ranting now, since it's gotten too broad in subject. Let's just say that my crisis of faith in this country has grown to epic proportations.

Just goes to show how far the nation has swung from sanity. We now have Republicans pushing the government into our lives. At his rally in Springfield right after Kerry DNC speech, Bush criticized Kerry for wanting to make government bigger, yet how much would it cost to implement programs such as this? Is it just a given these days that people are such blind followers that they have no concept of what Conservativism is anymore? If such a proposal sits well with people (and it ought to alarm many people on both sides of the aisle to some degree for many reasons), I'd be shocked. I swear, America is getting dumber by the year, though. I'll stop ranting now, since it's gotten too broad in subject. Let's just say that my crisis of faith in this country has grown to epic proportations.

wow... I'm starting to feel less alone in this rapidly ending world...

First of all, yes, we do seem to agree that it is dangerous to allow big government to get in bed with the Pharmacutical Companies and rape the nation-- Kudos for that.


Now, back to AD(H)D in general: If I have a twitch in my arm and then cut my arm off, would you say that I have "cured" my twitch? It would be more correct to say that the twitch is no longer a problem because I no longer have an arm. This is how I view the use of highly addictive stimulants (eg. Aderal and Ritlin) to "cure" the AD(H)D. While these powerful mind-altering drugs do remove the symptoms of AD(H)D can it really be said that they have "cured" the mind? I think that the drugs merely suppressed the symptoms through chemical lobotomy, which is a bit like amputating an arm to remove a twitch.

Again, you're using pretty exaggerated examples. No one is getting a chemical lobotomy. You can make a case that peoples' mental functioning is being altered to their detriment, but people are not walking around as drooling zombies (are you actually trying to tell me that all those on Ritalin look like Jack Nicholson at the end of "One Flew over the Cookoo's Nest?"). If a person is too sedated by their medication, any good psychiatrist would immediately try to adjust the dose. These are not medications with an all-or-nothing dosage. It is not "either don't treat it or get chemically lobotomized!"

What you are decrying as abominable in treating ADHD is exactly how all mental disorders are treated by psychiatric medicine. A medication is applied to modify brain functions, and tweaked until the desired result is obtained. The patient is then expected to adhere to the medication, usually for life. There is no cure for such disorders, and no one claims that there is. You're exactly right in the part I put in bold above, and no one alledges that psychiatrists "cure" anything. It's all about treating the patient so they can function normally, via suppression of symptoms through compliance with a prescription.

Don't like it? Sorry, that's the only solution that modern medicine has, and it's comon knowledge to medical practitioners. ADHD diagnoses may be horribly muddled by the timing of the onset of the disorder (one reason I, myself, never want to treat children - too much development and change), but that not mean it does not exist for some people. The severity of the problem is greater than some twitch, and the treatment less extreme or permanent than amputation. Were someone suggesting surgery for ADHD, you may have a point. This is not the case. Medication does not disable the brain, it modifies it when on the medication - symptoms cease because adherence to the medication alters the brain's functioning in areas from where the symptoms arise.

1) The whole thing reminds me of how psychiatrist once prescribed cocaine to treat alcholism.

2) I believe that the adverse affects of these mindaltering stimulants can be worse than any alleged brain disorder. When one considers the proven side-effects of these drugs, it is clear that they are not a healthy answer.

3) Why are the symptoms of AD(H)D automatically considered undesirable? I would probably fit the clinical definition of ADD but I see it as a blessing. For one thing, my mind is constantly juggling new ideas with concepts and half-thoughts that I've been able to hold onto for years -- thus, my mind is an ever expanding outburst of creativity coupled with the ability to obsessively think about things for extended periods of time! The result has been the creation of some brilliant writings, paintings, and music. Should I trade that part of my personality for a drug that might make my math scores higher? Fuck that, I won't do it!

1) The whole thing reminds me of how psychiatrist once prescribed cocaine to treat alcholism.

Howso? It's ludicrous to claim that the two stimulants are of equal danger, let me establish that right now. Its nothing short of the rationale the government uses with its "War on Drugs" propaganda. All stimulants are not the same. There are shorter onsets and longer onsets and offsets (longer onset/offset periods, found in drugs such as Ritalin, leads to less addictiveness). Not only are all stimulants equal in general effect, but the effect also varies from person to person. Persons with ADHD, for example, need much more of the drug to get the speedy euphoric effects that people without the disorder need. Say, 2 to 3 times more - which is quite a bit more, and I'm making a conservative estimate. One can abuse stimulants to get effects similar to cocaine, but the key word there is abuse. That does not come from standard treatment.

Furthermore, this is 100 years later, and we have drug regulations now. After cocaine was purified in 1860, it became one of the wonderdrugs that were so common back then in patent medicines - perscribed by people like Freud, but also medical doctors (who still use it occasionally today for anesthesia) and people with far fewer qualifications. Situations are quite different today, in that new drugs have to go through 17 years of testing just to get the patent. Freud didn't even know of the addictive properties until he, himself, was hooked - quite a difference from 17 years of testing for governmental approval.

Modern psychoreactive drugs are also not just being handed out like snake-oil (or put into soft-drinks, like cocaine). They have been tested and approved to have at least some efficacy in treating the disorders for which they are prescribed in the vast majority of the poluation, and new drugs, such as Adderral, show even more promise. Psychiatry may still be learning, but it's not taking anything near the stabs-in-the-dark it was a century ago.

2) I believe that the adverse affects of these mindaltering stimulants can be worse than any alleged brain disorder. When one considers the proven side-effects of these drugs, it is clear that they are not a healthy answer.

You believe? You mean, you - as a layman who does not have ADHD? Not to insult your opinion, but what, exactly, would you say makes your belief in any way informed? Please stop and think about this.

As for the proven side effects, you do know that not everyone gets the side effects, and most people will only get one or two, don't you (and those who do can taper doses up, down, or switch medds entirely)? Again, drugs affect every person differently, they are not an on/off switch as drug companies would have you believe. Just because some people are not getting the desired effect form the meds does not mean that someone else (or even most other people taking it) is not.

3) Why are the symptoms of AD(H)D automatically considered undesirable? I would probably fit the clinical definition of ADD but I see it as a blessing. For one thing, my mind is constantly juggling new ideas with concepts and half-thoughts that I've been able to hold onto for years -- thus, my mind is an ever expanding outburst of creativity coupled with the ability to obsessively think about things for extended periods of time! The result has been the creation of some brilliant writings, paintings, and music. Should I trade that part of my personality for a drug that might make my math scores higher? Fuck that, I won't do it!

You seem to be thinking more of the symptoms of mania, which can be quite favorable at times (leading to the major problem of patient non-adherence with their medication in that disorder). People are not treated simply because they have been labeled with a disorder, regardless of its manifestation. People are treated because they are displaying difficulty functioning in everyday life and it is linked to a disorder. Let me address the ADHD symptoms again, one by one, explaining why they are detrimental:

Inattention:
Often does not give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities.
Often has trouble keeping attention on tasks or play activities.
Often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly.
Often does not follow instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace (not due to oppositional behavior or failure to understand instructions).
Often has trouble organizing activities.
Often avoids, dislikes, or doesn't want to do things that take a lot of mental effort for a long period of time (such as schoolwork or homework).
Often loses things needed for tasks and activities (e.g. toys, school assignments, pencils, books, or tools).
Is often easily distracted.
Is often forgetful in daily activities.

These things would pretty obviously lead one to not achieve very good results in vital areas of life (ie school or work). There's nothing about runaway ideas here or floods of creativity being the problem, or and especially not obsessive thought - on the contrary, it's that the person has too short an attention span to make meaningful progress in daily tasks. Thusly, we call this the element of occupational dysfunction (or academic, dealing with the age groups we do here).

Hyperactivity

Often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat.
Often gets up from seat when remaining in seat is expected.
Often runs about or climbs when and where it is not appropriate (adolescents or adults may feel very restless).
Often has trouble playing or enjoying leisure activities quietly.
Is often "on the go" or often acts as if "driven by a motor".
Often talks excessively.

Impulsivity

Often blurts out answers before questions have been finished.
Often has trouble waiting one's turn.
Often interrupts or intrudes on others (e.g., butts into conversations or games).

These'd be uncomfortable for most people, and make things socially difficult. For that reason, like the one above, a person with the disorder may want to be treated. Hence, we call these the social dysfunctional aspect of the disorder.

Combined with the occupational disfunction above, life can get pretty tough.

You seem to be mixing the symptoms of a number of disorders, and selectively choosing the favorable ones in order to make a case against treating this particular disorder. If you want to claim that no one should be treated with mind-altering substances, that's fine, but you then ought to maybe factor in the negative symptoms for which they are actually prescribed.

Not everyone who has the disorder needs treatment - psychiatric disorders also affect people differently, to varying degrees and with various symptoms (hence the "vague" categories you alledge). Not everyone with the disorder wants treatment, and here agian, we get into the muddy issue of how to treat a group who often manifest their symptoms before they can give consent. Kids can, however, say they don't want to be treated. They can also say they don't want to be evaluated in the first place, and this is why the legislation you mention is troubling. I mentioned this conversation to my boss last night (a prominent psychiatrist), and she also does not like the idea of mandatory government testing. I can't imagine too many psychiatrists who would, frankly. Such legislation would step on a lot of toes and be quite ethically questionable.

You believe? You mean, you - as a layman who does not have ADHD? Not to insult your opinion, but what, exactly, would you say makes your belief in any way informed?

There is a very fair piece from the Boston Globe archived here:
http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/1stQtr_2001/051500Doctor.html

It seems to me -- I mean, me - as an adult prescribed with a non-existant illness -- that a link between SSRIs and suicide is enough of a reason to stay the hell away from them.

While manufacturers have been successful so far in deflecting criticism,
opponents say the tide may be turning, due to lawsuits, media reports,
books, and statements from prominent scientists such as Cole.

The Globe reported a week ago that Eli Lilly and Co., the maker of Prozac,
was aware more than a decade ago that suicidal thoughts occurred in as many
as 1 percent of patients who were given the drug in early trials.
Furthermore, the patent for a new form of Prozac, invented by physicians at
McLean Hospital in Belmont and scientists at Marlborough-based Sepracor
Inc., specifically mentions suicide as a possible side effect of the
original Prozac. Lily has embraced the new Prozac and plans to market it
within two years.

"I have seen patients and reviewed cases where an SSRI unmistakably
precipitated a driven preoccupation with suicide," said Cole, 74.

Such responses are unusual, Cole said, but they should be taken more
seriously by manufacturers and federal regulators. "It's a relatively
small problem, but it exists," he said in an interview.

The problem, critics say, is that infrequent adverse effects are magnified
when millions of people take a drug every day. "I sense the scientific
community is beginning to understand they made a mistake in concluding that
they could rule out suicide as an adverse effect" from SSRI drugs, said
Thomas J. Moore, a drug industry critic at George Washington University in
Washington, D.C.

Nobody knows how many suicides have occurred among the millions of people
who have taken SSRI antidepressants. Richard Ewing, a lawyer in a firm
representing the Miller family, said the FDA had recorded about 2,000
suicides between 1988 and 1997 that may have been related to the drugs, but
says the agency acknowledges that this is a small fraction of the probable
cases.

Healy, the British researcher, has estimated that as many as 50,000
suicides worldwide may be related to the drugs' use.

Cole cited two studies by Texas researchers in 1993 and 1995 suggesting
that about 1 in 200 patients reported having new suicidal thoughts while on
Prozac, while none did while taking an older non-SSRI drug.

Modern psychoreactive drugs are also not just being handed out like snake-oil (or put into soft-drinks, like cocaine). They have been tested and approved to have at least some efficacy in treating the disorders for which they are prescribed in the vast majority of the poluation, and new drugs, such as Adderral, show even more promise. Psychiatry may still be learning, but it's not taking anything near the stabs-in-the-dark it was a century ago.

The facts seem to disagree with your rhetoric: http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/1stQtr_2001/051500Doctor.html

The wholesale cost of SSRI prescriptions last year was $7 billion, a 15
percent jump from 1998, according to IMS Health, a Pennsylvania research
firm.

Moreover, US physicians are prescribing Prozac, Zoloft, and a related drug
called Paxil for ever-younger patients and for a broadening list of
disorders.

A University of Michigan researcher reported Friday in Boston that nearly 2
percent of North Carolina children ages 6 to 14 received SSRI drugs in
1998. A growing number of physicians are giving children prescriptions for
SSRIs along with stimulants such as Ritalin, the researcher said, despite
the absence of any studies supporting such use.

Dr. Jerry Rushton and his colleagues found that Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil
are being used widely by children not only for depression, but for school
phobia, anxiety disorders, bed-wetting, eating disorders, and attention
deficit-hyperactivity disorder. Their study was presented at the annual
meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pediatric Academic
Societies.

There is a very fair piece from the Boston Globe archived here:
http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/1stQtr_2001/051500Doctor.html

It seems to me -- I mean, me - as an adult prescribed with a non-existant illness -- that a link between SSRIs and suicide is enough of a reason to stay the hell away from them.

Actually, one would be diagnosed with a non-existant illness, not "prescribed" with one. At any rate...A link? At <1%?! HAHAHAHAHA! Or, perhaps you ought to do the math for me and tell me what 50,000 out of 84 million equals (then divide that by how many years they've had to rack up that body count). No, wait, the humor from that might just kill me.

Now you're off about Prozac...are you inferring now that Depression doesn't exist? Really, you're starting to sound like those religious parents who tell their kids that only prayer will heal their cancer because they are so uninformed about medical science. Has it occured to you that if you must go off on a tangent to prove a point that the point may not be very solid?

This link doesn't do a thing to refute anything that I've said about psychiatric medicine in general, either. Ooh, so they've found a drug may have a more dire side effect than they originally thought (or originally advertised). My, that's never happened in medicine before. Heavens no. Didn't I already mention that the drug companies are shifty? Oh yeah, I did, pages ago...this is getting tedious.

I love the extreme correlations, too. By your logic, the Pinto was a deathtrap car, so that's enough of "a reason to stay the hell away from" cars, now isn't it?

As for the facts disagreeing with my "rhetoric" (I love how you keep trying to belittle my arguments whenever you're not changing the subject - what tired, pathetic tactics), again, nothing refuted. Rather, all I'm seeing is more of your distorted arguments and overexaggerations. Really, perhaps you ought to pick up a book or something before you argue these things, because you're making an utter fool of yourself. With this last one, you're still impotently trying to make the case that...I'm not even sure what you're trying to make a case for anymore, since now we seem to be talking about Prozac and Ritalin. The article says they are overprescribed and that the Prozac issue ought to be taken more seriously, nothing more. Sorry, we already agreed on that, and you've not made any progress since. Those "facts" don't even support whatever point you're trying to make. When was the last time you had a point in this argument, rather than mere insinuations and alarmist rantings?

Perhaps you ought to scramble for another link with which to cover your naked lack of credibility.

Then answer me this:

As a child I behaved good, I got the best grades, I sat quiet in class.

Now as a teenager I am more hyper, my grades are dropping, and I really can't keep my mouth shut.

Is this my brain telling me that I should've been hyper, if so this will help you anti-druggist peoples, if not, this will help you pro-druggist peoples, plus I'm just confused >.>

Modern psychoreactive drugs are also not just being handed out like snake-oil (or put into soft-drinks, like cocaine). They have been tested and approved to have at least some efficacy in treating the disorders for which they are prescribed in the vast majority of the poluation, and new drugs, such as Adderral, show even more promise. Psychiatry may still be learning, but it's not taking anything near the stabs-in-the-dark it was a century ago.


Yeah. It's not in softdrinks. In Great Britain, at least, prozac has made its way into the water supply.

So, what exactly are these "tests" which you speak of?

This article there are no 'chemical imbalances' (http://www.academyanalyticarts.org/fores.html)
refers more to depression than ADHD, but it makes damn good points.

The hypothetical disturbances of neurochemical function that are said to underlie "mental illness" are just that: hypothetical. No experiment has ever show that anyone has an "imbalance" of any neurotransmitters or any other brain chemicls. Nor could any conceivable experiment demonstrate the existence of a "chemical imbalance," simply because no one, least of all the biopsychiatrists, has the slightest idea what a proper and healthy chemical "balance" would look like. This is an extremely important to keep in mind. The hypothetical neuropathology lies at so fine a level – the molecular level – that, even if it did exist, its status as "pathology" would be profoundly unclear. Far more questions would be raised by such results than would be settled. Rather than bringing one more difficult problem under medical control, it would instead occasion a reflective and critical analysis of what we mean by the word "pathology" in the first place. Every mode of thinking, feeling and perceiving has an associated neurochemistry.

...But of course the most compelling reasons to reject the biopsychiatric view lie on a deeper level, and have nothing to do with biopsychiatry's repeated insistence on grounding itself in non-existent empirical data. Considered qua science, biopsychiatry is simply an atrocity, a blight upon science after the fashion of astrology, Creation science, orgone theory, phrenology, and so forth. At every point from hypothesizing to theory-building, it can be counted upon to find the most stunningly fallacious line of thinking, and take it. But that is unimportant, because the views and beliefs of biopsychiatry have nothing to do with the answers to scientific questions in any case: the hunt for biological "causes" of "mental illness" is an entirely fallacious enterprise in the first place; the non-existence of data to support its assertions is quite beside the point. First of all, to say that ‘this type of consciousness is good, and that type is bad,’ is a to make a political and moral, but certainly not a medical or biological, judgment.

...The latest edition of one pharmacology text has this to say about the status of depression as a disease: "Despite extensive efforts, attempts to document the metabolic changes in human subjects predicted by these [biological] hypotheses have not, on balance, provided consistent or compelling corroboration." This is a long-winded way of admitting that not even a scrap of evidence supports the idea that depression results from a "chemical imbalance." Yet patients are told every day – by their doctors, by the media, and by drug company advertising – that it is a proven scientific fact that depression has a known biochemical origin. It follows directly that millions of Americans are being lied to by their doctors; and people surely can't give informed consent for drug treatment when what they're being "informed" by is a fraud. These facts should have enormous social consequences, yet, for reasons that are unclear, they have no social or legal effects at all. To sum up: there is no evidence whatsoever to support the view that "mental illness" is biochemical in origin; in other words, things like "Unipolar Disorder" and "Attention Deficit Disorder" simply do not exist. Even if there were such evidence of the existence of these things, how could one fail to notice that doctors do not test for anything at all in making the diagnosis of "clinical depression" or any other "mental illness?" The principal difference between medical and psychiatric diseases is this: medical diseases are discovered, generally through scientific research. But psychiatric "diseases" are invented – that is, they are fabricated out of thin air by committees.

In spite of the long post that is just a short bit. The article is a really good read.

there is no objective test that can measure it or detect it -- your diagnosis is solely based on the whim of a psycho -analyist (whose job it is to sell drugs)


Now I agree with whats said there. Just as I agree about FOX's president non-elect merely wanting to drug the populas of the US of Class A into submision. However psychoanalyisis is the talking cure, traditionally psychoanalyists don't percribe drugs. You've got the wrong type of shrink.
[edit]
"your diagnosis is solely based on the whim of a educational theropist (whose job it is to treat kids - but is too lazy to do it so will just ram drugs down your kids throat)" - would be more acurate although yea it lacks the same impact.


PS: This is my first post on the new forums! WOOT ME!

Now I agree with whats said there. Just as I agree about FOX's president non-elect merely wanting to drug the populas of the US of Class A into submision.

But the truly insidious thing is that psychiatry is the only field of medicine where patients can be treated like criminals. If it is decided that someone is not "complying" with their "treatment plan" they can be "hospitalized" and forced treatment for their own good. And this is fucking legal.

No other branch of medicine can force treatment on patients "for their own good" no matter how sick and how much that patient's behavior is endangering their own health.

Then answer me this:

As a child I behaved good, I got the best grades, I sat quiet in class.

Now as a teenager I am more hyper, my grades are dropping, and I really can't keep my mouth shut.

Is this my brain telling me that I should've been hyper, if so this will help you anti-druggist peoples, if not, this will help you pro-druggist peoples, plus I'm just confused >.>

Probably just changes in hormones...I got a lot less studious in my teens, too. I kept falling asleep while reading, and I still do now and then. Puberty alters regions of the brain (and body chemistry in general), so that's one possible explanation.

Damn hormones >.<

But the truly insidious thing is that psychiatry is the only field of medicine where patients can be treated like criminals. If it is decided that someone is not "complying" with their "treatment plan" they can be "hospitalized" and forced treatment for their own good. And this is fucking legal.

No other branch of medicine can force treatment on patients "for their own good" no matter how sick and how much that patient's behavior is endangering their own health.

They're also the only branch allowed to disregard the whole principal of "doctor-patient confidentiality."

If we allow Bush to push his "New Freedom" program (apparently liberty is out and being forced to take SSRIs is in) then the Federal government will have the authority to lock-up anyone who refused to get doped-up.

This is right out of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

*oh, and great article*

The forum just ate my response to the article, so I'll set it aside and answer it later.

But the truly insidious thing is that psychiatry is the only field of medicine where patients can be treated like criminals. If it is decided that someone is not "complying" with their "treatment plan" they can be "hospitalized" and forced treatment for their own good. And this is fucking legal.

No other branch of medicine can force treatment on patients "for their own good" no matter how sick and how much that patient's behavior is endangering their own health.

*Shakes head* You really have no idea what you're on about, do you?

Sorry, that's simply not true. Go ahead, cite me a credible source that says that someone will come and get a psychiatrist's patient if they deviate from their treatment. If a person deviates from their treatment, the psychiatrist will most likely say, "Why did you come to me for this medication if you're not going to take it? Would you like to try a different medication?" and that'd be about the end of it. People can be forcibly hospitalized if it's determined that they are a danger to themselves or others, as testified to by three close acquaintences (as I recall). A parent of a minor can also do so, as seen here (http://www.pinofpa.org/resources/fact-12.html). A conservator, or an acquaintence to whom the responsiblity to consent for an extremely ill person is given, can also consent for a person - but in that case responsiblity has been transferred, not overridden. Often, this is a spouse or family member. As you can see by the link, even a parent can't just commit their child by word alone. People on suicide watch are another example - pretty much the same thing.

So yeah, not much more to say than, "bullshit." People haven't been locked away against their will for decades. That's why the homeless insane wander the streets - no law keeps them in asylums anymore, and so as long as they aren't dangerous to anyone, they just roam wherever they like. It's sad, really, but ethically, there's nothing to be done about it but to offer the services and hope they accept. Our schizophrenic patients are known to just pickup and move across the country - we just wait for them to come back and hope they're well when we see them again.

Try telling a guy who hears voices telling him to kill people or says that he built flying saucers with the doctor 1,000 years ago to fight the 4 Queens that they're just imagining it. Yeah, I'm sure they'll straighten right up, stop talking to the TV, and go out and d pick up where they left off... :rolleyes:

They're also the only branch allowed to disregard the whole principal of "doctor-patient confidentiality."

If we allow Bush to push his "New Freedom" program (apparently liberty is out and being forced to take SSRIs is in) then the Federal government will have the authority to lock-up anyone who refused to get doped-up.

This is right out of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

*oh, and great article*

Once again, completely wrong. No personally identifiable information can be disclosed, period. That's the first thing we learned both in our Clinical Psych classes (academia) and when I signed on as a lowly volunteer where I work now (the real world). We're all tightly bound by HIPAA (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/), from the Chief Psychiatrist down to the volunteers.

Damn hormones >.<

Heh, you just got more hyper, some people change gender. Now that's gotta be troublesome.

Yeah. It's not in softdrinks. In Great Britain, at least, prozac has made its way into the water supply.

So, what exactly are these "tests" which you speak of?

This article there are no 'chemical imbalances' (http://www.academyanalyticarts.org/fores.html)
refers more to depression than ADHD, but it makes damn good points.

The hypothetical disturbances of neurochemical function that are said to underlie "mental illness" are just that: hypothetical. No experiment has ever show that anyone has an "imbalance" of any neurotransmitters or any other brain chemicls. Nor could any conceivable experiment demonstrate the existence of a "chemical imbalance," simply because no one, least of all the biopsychiatrists, has the slightest idea what a proper and healthy chemical "balance" would look like. This is an extremely important to keep in mind. The hypothetical neuropathology lies at so fine a level – the molecular level – that, even if it did exist, its status as "pathology" would be profoundly unclear. Far more questions would be raised by such results than would be settled. Rather than bringing one more difficult problem under medical control, it would instead occasion a reflective and critical analysis of what we mean by the word "pathology" in the first place. Every mode of thinking, feeling and perceiving has an associated neurochemistry.

...But of course the most compelling reasons to reject the biopsychiatric view lie on a deeper level, and have nothing to do with biopsychiatry's repeated insistence on grounding itself in non-existent empirical data. Considered qua science, biopsychiatry is simply an atrocity, a blight upon science after the fashion of astrology, Creation science, orgone theory, phrenology, and so forth. At every point from hypothesizing to theory-building, it can be counted upon to find the most stunningly fallacious line of thinking, and take it. But that is unimportant, because the views and beliefs of biopsychiatry have nothing to do with the answers to scientific questions in any case: the hunt for biological "causes" of "mental illness" is an entirely fallacious enterprise in the first place; the non-existence of data to support its assertions is quite beside the point. First of all, to say that ‘this type of consciousness is good, and that type is bad,’ is a to make a political and moral, but certainly not a medical or biological, judgment.

...The latest edition of one pharmacology text has this to say about the status of depression as a disease: "Despite extensive efforts, attempts to document the metabolic changes in human subjects predicted by these [biological] hypotheses have not, on balance, provided consistent or compelling corroboration." This is a long-winded way of admitting that not even a scrap of evidence supports the idea that depression results from a "chemical imbalance." Yet patients are told every day – by their doctors, by the media, and by drug company advertising – that it is a proven scientific fact that depression has a known biochemical origin. It follows directly that millions of Americans are being lied to by their doctors; and people surely can't give informed consent for drug treatment when what they're being "informed" by is a fraud. These facts should have enormous social consequences, yet, for reasons that are unclear, they have no social or legal effects at all. To sum up: there is no evidence whatsoever to support the view that "mental illness" is biochemical in origin; in other words, things like "Unipolar Disorder" and "Attention Deficit Disorder" simply do not exist. Even if there were such evidence of the existence of these things, how could one fail to notice that doctors do not test for anything at all in making the diagnosis of "clinical depression" or any other "mental illness?" The principal difference between medical and psychiatric diseases is this: medical diseases are discovered, generally through scientific research. But psychiatric "diseases" are invented – that is, they are fabricated out of thin air by committees.

In spite of the long post that is just a short bit. The article is a really good read.

OK, trying this again...less patience, less quality, so here's a shorter version:

1) Prozac in water: Yeah, that seems to have taken everyone by surprise. Have you ever heard of anyone testing for levels of drugs in water supplies due to improper sewage filtration? I imagine that we will now. Such new findings lead to big grants and big funding, especially when potential liability is involved. So, there's lots of money to pay the people who want to get to teh bottom of it and, hopefully, find a solution.

2) I assume your question on "tests" leads into the article, so I'll address that all here. First off, let's hit credibility here - the author has no credentials that I can see, and the site seems to be the only location for this "Institute." The article itself lacks any kind of structure standard in scientific writing, and indeed, meanders this way and that making any particular thesis statement. Of course, it leads up to plenty of grand conclusions based on a pretty weak understanding of research and medical science (as a whole, not just psychiatry), much like some arguments I've seen here.

The statement that there is no empirical data is false, as is the idea that the guy has any idea what empirical data is. Empirical data is not like a pregnancy test. It's a series of observations collected from a reasonably sized sample and over a reasonable period of time (in both cases, the more the better). Those observations may be biofeedback readouts, data from patient surveys assessing their symptoms/treatment (what was that about rejecting the subjective?), or results of blood testing. Once all that's compiled, statisticians are given the data to interpret via formulas. A finding is something with a <.05%, often <.001%, chance of not being accurate based on the results. Results are then published and peer reviewed - if they can't be duplicated, they're considered dubious.

The guy seems to think that the only way that psychiatry is "right" is if the DSMIV has an exact blueprint of the brain. Untrue, because while we may not know exactly how the brain works, we know what can be applied to it to suppress undesireable symptoms. The idea that "chemical imbalances" are based in some kind of quantifiable chemical standardized for everyone is something I would expect a middle-schooler to say when first presented with the idea. It's the idea that a person has too much of one neurotransmitter or another for their brain to function in a way seen in most people, and it's regarded as a delicate balance unique to the patient.

HIs quote from the psychiatric journal is just laughable - if I ripped a statement from its context, I could present daming evidence that a lot of things are true. Note that the article he cites could have been about digestive slowing during a major depressive episode, yet he tells us that it means that psychiatrists have no evidence of what they're doing - how convenient, I suppose we're just supposed to trust him.

He doesn't seem to have any idea what a medical test is, either. Same idea Texas was tossing around earlier - that somehow, medical tests are entirely without the opinion of a doctor. Tell me, who reads the X-rays? The MRIs or CAT scans? Hmm...let's think about that one. Anyway, then there's the crap at the end about psych disorders being differently discovered than medical disorders, also bogus. Both start with theories posited in journals, which are debated until a consensus is reached, be it by the AMA or APA. And, once again, try telling the guy who has delusions that everyone is George Clinton that he's just imagining it. ;)

It's a good read, if you can stand the structure and enjoy reading claims which can be debunked every other sentence...I find it quite painful, but then, I'm used to my professional articles with about 50 sources cited to prove the points. Sorry, I'm definitely unimpressed. I think that any guy on the street who's skimmed an "Intro to Psychiatry" textbook could have written it.

Once again, completely wrong. No personally identifiable information can be disclosed, period. That's the first thing we learned both in our Clinical Psych classes (academia) and when I signed on as a lowly volunteer where I work now (the real world). We're all tightly bound by HIPAA (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/), from the Chief Psychiatrist down to the volunteers.

Well, I've been living in the real world all of my life. This is how things work here: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter7/sec3.html#exceptions

Disclosure to Protect Third Parties
In 1976, the California Supreme Court ruled that a mental health professional has an obligation to take steps to protect identified third parties whom the professional reasonably believes might be endangered by a client (Tarasoff v. Regents, 1976). This decision was criticized by a number of groups, including the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, on the grounds that it required mental health professionals to perform a task for which they were ill-suited (that is, assess future risk) and that it would compromise confidentiality. Since the court’s decision, many states, either through statute or judicial decision, have addressed this topic.

The majority of states that have done so through statute provide that a mental health professional who concludes that his or her client represents an imminent danger to an identified third party may take steps, including notifying the individual or law enforcement officials, to protect the third party without becoming liable for a breach of confidentiality. These states also typically provide that the clinician will not be liable if he or she decides not to act—rather, the statutes give the clinician discretion in deciding how to proceed.

Disclosure to Payers
Many states have provisions in their mental health confidentiality laws that permit disclosure of otherwise confidential information as necessary to obtain reimbursement or other financial assistance for the person in treatment.

It seems the first thing you learned was a lie...

He doesn't seem to have any idea what a medical test is, either. Same idea Texas was tossing around earlier - that somehow, medical tests are entirely without the opinion of a doctor. Tell me, who reads the X-rays? The MRIs or CAT scans? Hmm...let's think about that one.

Uh, real doctors.

Also, it's pretty clear from an X-ray that someone has a broken bone -- you can't really compare that to an AD(H)D test.



Anyway, then there's the crap at the end about psych disorders being differently discovered than medical disorders, also bogus. Both start with theories posited in journals, which are debated until a consensus is reached, be it by the AMA or APA.

Yes, but since psychiatry is a farce, it doesn't really matter what consensus they come to... it's still a farce. A lie repeated enough times -- it's still a lie!



And, once again, try telling the guy who has delusions that everyone is George Clinton that he's just imagining it. ;)

Yeah, I don't understand your point -- why wouldn't you tell him that he's just imagining it, as opposed to telling him that everyone is George Clinton



It's a good read, if you can stand the structure and enjoy reading claims which can be debunked every other sentence...I find it quite painful, but then, I'm used to my professional articles with about 50 sources cited to prove the points.

I didn't realize that you were a professional author... please, "enlighten" me.

Well, I've been living in the real world all of my life. This is how things work here: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter7/sec3.html#exceptions

Disclosure to Protect Third Parties
In 1976, the California Supreme Court ruled that a mental health professional has an obligation to take steps to protect identified third parties whom the professional reasonably believes might be endangered by a client (Tarasoff v. Regents, 1976). This decision was criticized by a number of groups, including the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, on the grounds that it required mental health professionals to perform a task for which they were ill-suited (that is, assess future risk) and that it would compromise confidentiality. Since the court’s decision, many states, either through statute or judicial decision, have addressed this topic.

The majority of states that have done so through statute provide that a mental health professional who concludes that his or her client represents an imminent danger to an identified third party may take steps, including notifying the individual or law enforcement officials, to protect the third party without becoming liable for a breach of confidentiality. These states also typically provide that the clinician will not be liable if he or she decides not to act—rather, the statutes give the clinician discretion in deciding how to proceed.

Disclosure to Payers
Many states have provisions in their mental health confidentiality laws that permit disclosure of otherwise confidential information as necessary to obtain reimbursement or other financial assistance for the person in treatment.

It seems the first thing you learned was a lie...

Oh, Texas, still trying your hardest, aren't you? Keep it up!

There are certain parties to whom personal information may (and sometimes must) be released, yes. Most of these occur in the legal field. If a patient gives reason to believe that he may be a danger to someone in particular, then that information must be disclosed for the other party's protection. Payers, too, get information about who they're providing care for, just like in all medical fields. HIPAA states that we do not disclose information on a whim, only certain parties have any legal right to it besides the patient, and even the part of the paragraph you cited about payers that you conveniently omitted says that it's limited information. So no, psychiatrists are neither the only doctors who are obliged to break confidentialiy, nor are they allowed to do it to whatever level they like. Once again, we see context not the friend of your side of the argument.

But hey, keep picking nits and just maybe you'll hit on a valid point. Never give up hope!

Uh, real doctors. Also, it's pretty clear from an X-ray that someone has a broken bone -- you can't really compare that to an AD(H)D test.

Let's see, a psychiatrist has to go through general medical school, then specialize in his field (psychiatry), which makes him...wait for it...a real doctor (who then specialized)! Hey, what do you know? Very little, obviously, because also you seem to think that X-rays only show broken bones, when they also show splintering, dislocation, or any number of unpleasant damages to bone and tissue which a doctor must diagnose correctly to treat. Thusly, an X-ray is read and a subjective decision made or treatment by the doctor. Fancy that...what were you saying again?

Oh yes, comparison to ADHD analysis. ADHD's symptoms are behavioral, so to test for it, a session is held, behavior is analyzed, and a diagnosis made. Pretty simple, really. The psychiatrist may also talk to teachers, acquaintances (certainly parents), etc. to see if his assessment matches what they've observed, and of course the child's assessment is also figured in. So, yet again, we have a subjective opinion (with a system of observation and corroboratoin) behind the diagnosis.

Observation...patient input...hmm, nope, no connection at all. :lol:

Yes, but since psychiatry is a farce, it doesn't really matter what consensus they come to... it's still a farce. A lie repeated enough times -- it's still a lie!

I note first that the basis of your "point" here is your silly little conspiracy theory, supported thus far only by an unaccredited hippy. Heh...

Yes, and that's why there's intense debate by hundreds, if not thousands, of people in journals open for public reading. That's why the results are replicated in hundreds of studies for every theory and subject out there that's widely accepted. Yup, all one big giant hoax, once you disregard all the procedure, data, methods and findings open for public review...totally fake!

Yeah, I don't understand your point -- why wouldn't you tell him that he's just imagining it, as opposed to telling him that everyone is George Clinton

Let's see, from you usually hostile sarcasm I can't really tell what you're trying to infer. I you're trying to infer that psychiatrists just confirm patients' delusions, then I'd say you've jammed your head to new depths into your posterior. If you're trying to say that it's intuitively obvious that he's just imagining that he really believes this and asking what's wrong with that, then I'd ask you how easy it would be for such a person to function in the world (then, let's compare it to rates of homelessness in Schizophrenic patients). Finally, if you're trying to say that it should just be pointed out that everyone is not George Clinton, that would be like telling you that up is down. Sorry, wouldn't compute. I think any mental health professional would laugh you off the block for such a ridiculous suggestion.

So, which were you trying to say?

I didn't realize that you were a professional author... please, "enlighten" me.

Now even your sarcasm's getting incoherent...enlighten you about what? I just told you why the article sucked.

As for your mistake, I meant the phrase as one would say "I like my steaks raw" (Oh, I didn't realize you were a chef...). Is this all you've got left? One line snide comments all you can muster? How disappointing. Would you like some help? Perhaps if you steer the thread, I can get behind it and push, since I'm the only one who seems to have any momentum left here.

Oh, wait, that's what we've been doing...

OK, trying this again...less patience, less quality, so here's a shorter version:
The statement that there is no empirical data is false, as is the idea that the guy has any idea what empirical data is. Empirical data is not like a pregnancy test. It's a series of observations collected from a reasonably sized sample and over a reasonable period of time (in both cases, the more the better). Those observations may be biofeedback readouts, data from patient surveys assessing their symptoms/treatment (what was that about rejecting the subjective?), or results of blood testing. Once all that's compiled, statisticians are given the data to interpret via formulas. A finding is something with a <.05%, often <.001%, chance of not being accurate based on the results. Results are then published and peer reviewed - if they can't be duplicated, they're considered dubious.

Have you ever bothered reading the indepth prescribing info on most psych meds. They start by throwing out numbers in the thousands of people who have had "at least one dose." By the time they get to effects and side effects, the numbers that they are basing this info on is usually in the hundreds. Lots of data being thrown out there.

Most of the "peer" review is done by other people attempting to find new drugs which can do the same things. So much impartiality there.

Also, before the psychiatrists start handing out these meds, NO TESTS are conducted. Certainly no physical tests. Not even psychological evaluation tests. 15-30 minute interviews, and poof, they KNOW what is wrong. Considering the numerous dangerous side effects of the meds (anti-psychotics are starting to be handed out as 'sleep aids') that is just bad medicine. What other branch of medicine can had out such potentially dangerous meds without any real testing. If testing can be conducted with any measure of validity why the fuck isn't it being done? Could it be that any possible tests are so inconclusive as to offer no real evidence at all?

Talk therapies have proven much more effective than medicines. Most psychiatric "disorders" or things that patients have problems with result from undue amounts of trauma and stress. Learning to effectively deal with these stresses and emotions on a day to day basis "cures" the problem more effectively than meds. Does this mean that learning to deal with problems changes "chemical balance" of the brain?


The guy seems to think that the only way that psychiatry is "right" is if the DSMIV has an exact blueprint of the brain. Untrue, because while we may not know exactly how the brain works, we know what can be applied to it to suppress undesireable symptoms. The idea that "chemical imbalances" are based in some kind of quantifiable chemical standardized for everyone is something I would expect a middle-schooler to say when first presented with the idea. It's the idea that a person has too much of one neurotransmitter or another for their brain to function in a way seen in most people, and it's regarded as a delicate balance unique to the patient.


Why? Other (read "real") medical conditions are based on quantifiable evidence that is fairly well standarized for everyone.

First of all, he questions who has the right to decide what is "undesirable." If an individual feels that he or she is having mental/emotional problems and this is interfering with quality of life, that is a patient decision. But for the Government or other organization to classify certain modes of thought as "undesirable" is tyranny - attempted thought control.

Second of all, the DSMIV does not list syptoms as being lack of/too much of X nuerotransmitter. If it were "proven" that chemical balances indeed related to these disorders, it would make sense that these things would be listed as a symptom. But in spite of the prevalance of attempting to "medically" treat these disorders, there is not yet enough proof for the mental health professions to definitely publish in their definitive guide that these conditions are anything other than psychological in origin.

The forum just ate my response to the article, so I'll set it aside and answer it later.



*Shakes head* You really have no idea what you're on about, do you?

Sorry, that's simply not true. Go ahead, cite me a credible source that says that someone will come and get a psychiatrist's patient if they deviate from their treatment. If a person deviates from their treatment, the psychiatrist will most likely say, "Why did you come to me for this medication if you're not going to take it? Would you like to try a different medication?" and that'd be about the end of it. People can be forcibly hospitalized if it's determined that they are a danger to themselves or others, as testified to by three close acquaintences (as I recall). A parent of a minor can also do so, as seen here (http://www.pinofpa.org/resources/fact-12.html). A conservator, or an acquaintence to whom the responsiblity to consent for an extremely ill person is given, can also consent for a person - but in that case responsiblity has been transferred, not overridden. Often, this is a spouse or family member. As you can see by the link, even a parent can't just commit their child by word alone. People on suicide watch are another example - pretty much the same thing.

Wrong. A psychiatrist can choose to commit a patient that he or she is seeing at anytime based on nothing but their own judgement. There are no defined criteria what "harm to self or others" means. A person can be locked away for up to three days before the case gets reviewed - by another psychiatrist, often a colleague of the first.

I know people who have been sent to the hospital for refusing to take whatever meds the psychiatrist prescibed them. See, the psychiatrist considered that as the person doing "possible harm" to themselves.

Even so, let me contrast the "harm to self" thing with other fields of medicine. Let's say a 65 year old woman who has suffered from a stroke, has congestive heart failure (and in the past has had at least two heart attacks), and is a diabetic goes to her doctor and her blood sugar count is over 300, because she, by her own admission, has been eating candy and icecream like it is going out of style. Furthermore, she has fluid build up such that it has gotten into her lungs, because she has been fogetting to take her laysics. If she continues in this immediate behavior chances of her dying in the very near future are damned good. Her doctor can suggest that she go in the hospital while these problems of her own making - the sugar level and fluid build up - are brought under control. But there is no provision in law by which he can force her to go to the hospital for a MEDICAL problem although it is her own actions which are severly endangering her health. (and in case you are wondering, this is not a hypothetical scenario.)

Other than psychiatric patients, people have the right to refuse care even if the refusal of care would actually endanger their lives.


So yeah, not much more to say than, "bullshit." People haven't been locked away against their will for decades.

Now that is complete and total bullshit. By my recollection Feb 2004 was only a few months ago. I was locked away without giving consent for ten days. I had a cut that got infected on Saturday of a three day weekend. No clinics in my area, no doctors open for three days to even try to get an appointment so I went to the emergency room. When they asked me what I had done to take care of it, I stupidly admitted to having been too depressed to worry about what seemed like a minor cut at the time. They asked if I was seeing any doctors or therapists. Yes. BAM... commitment. Was I trying to hurt myself or did I have any intention to hurt myself? Hell no or I would have continued to let the damn thing go septic without seeking treatment. About 2/3 of the other patients were in their against there will also.

But if you want a link:

Each year, approximately one and a half million people are taken to psychiatric institutions against their will. That averages out to one person every 75 seconds. Often, there is no reasonable justification for committing a person. According to Bruce Wiseman, psychiatrists commonly make off-the-cuff diagnoses, having no real basis in medical fact, that result in people getting thrown into psychiatric facilities. (http://www.tdip.com/issue/162/162psych.htm)

Scroll down. You will see "Involuntary Commitment" in bold letters.

Here's another link, admittedly describing some of the more sensational cases of involuntary commitment (which according to you doesn't exist)
http://cchr.org/government/eng/page21.htm (http://cchr.org/government/eng/page21.htm)

That's why the homeless insane wander the streets - no law keeps them in asylums anymore, and so as long as they aren't dangerous to anyone, they just roam wherever they like. It's sad, really, but ethically, there's nothing to be done about it but to offer the services and hope they accept. Our schizophrenic patients are known to just pickup and move across the country - we just wait for them to come back and hope they're well when we see them again.

I said a person's psychiatrist could commit people at will. The homeless (or wandering schizophrenics) usually don't come into contact with the medical profession. If by chance they do, and a doctor calls a staff psychiatrists who wishes to have them committed, then it happens. Funny thing that I have noticed, people with insurance tend to be held longer before they are released.

Once again, completely wrong. No personally identifiable information can be disclosed, period. That's the first thing we learned both in our Clinical Psych classes (academia) and when I signed on as a lowly volunteer where I work now (the real world). We're all tightly bound by HIPAA (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/), from the Chief Psychiatrist down to the volunteers.

Riiiight.... consent.

You of course mean the consent form that a person is obligated to sign before a doctor can legally treat you that says your medical records can and will be disclosed to others - insurance companies, research companies, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, etc. without any further notification or consent.

Or was your HIPPA training received prior to 2003 and the PATRIOT ACT?

If you guys over the pond want to know how to deal with ADD watch South park. They've got th right idea!

Have you ever bothered reading the indepth prescribing info on most psych meds. They start by throwing out numbers in the thousands of people who have had "at least one dose." By the time they get to effects and side effects, the numbers that they are basing this info on is usually in the hundreds. Lots of data being thrown out there.

Too bad there isn't more being thrown out here. Cite something or shut up already. After five pages, I grow quite weary of your vague, alarmist examples, and I certainly don't trust your word on the matter.

Most of the "peer" review is done by other people attempting to find new drugs which can do the same things. So much impartiality there.

And, let's see, you seem to have forgotten doctors, people with opposing theories, nurses, rival drug companies, various people in academia, watchdog groups, and anyone who cares to pick one up in a library. But, I'm sure you didn't omit those simply because either it didn't fit your point or you're too ignorant to really think about these things. Certainly not.

Also, before the psychiatrists start handing out these meds, NO TESTS are conducted. Certainly no physical tests. Not even psychological evaluation tests. 15-30 minute interviews, and poof, they KNOW what is wrong. Considering the numerous dangerous side effects of the meds (anti-psychotics are starting to be handed out as 'sleep aids') that is just bad medicine. What other branch of medicine can had out such potentially dangerous meds without any real testing. If testing can be conducted with any measure of validity why the fuck isn't it being done? Could it be that any possible tests are so inconclusive as to offer no real evidence at all?

The discussion on testing previously referred to the testing of drugs for approval by the FDA, so if you're trying to counter that point, try again, sport.

Right, no tests...the doctor absolutely doesn't use his many years of medical training to analyze you. No doctor would claim to know what is wrong in 15 minutes time, if any actually took that short of time. They choose a course of action after analyzing the patient, try it, and if it doesn't work, they try another. Duh, what's that? Oh yeah, that's testing, and that's all the tsting we have right now. Yet, doctors in other fields of medicine don't reject psychiatry...hmm...maybe they, having education in the field, know something you don't?

Anti-psychotics handed out as sleep aids? Again, cite something or shut up. A lot of drugs are potentially dangerous, and yeah, they're handed out much like that. Let's see, pain killers come to mind, and those can be gotten on verbal complaint alone, and are FAR more dangerous than psychiatric medications.

Finally, as I stated before, there are no physical tests. And there don't need to be.

Talk therapies have proven much more effective than medicines. Most psychiatric "disorders" or things that patients have problems with result from undue amounts of trauma and stress. Learning to effectively deal with these stresses and emotions on a day to day basis "cures" the problem more effectively than meds. Does this mean that learning to deal with problems changes "chemical balance" of the brain?

No, it means you learn to work around them, and that's all well and good for people who have them to minor levels. You wanna cite a source that says that major psychiatric disorders come from stress? Pretty laughable, considering that while many of such disorders are exacerbated and/or trigger by stress, most people are not known to go into, for example, profound fits of psychosis or depression from stress. Let's see, if it doesn't happen to most people that way, why would it happen to just the people with these "imaginary" disorders? Could it be because, oh, I don't know, they have a psychiatric disorder?

Why? Other (read "real") medical conditions are based on quantifiable evidence that is fairly well standarized for everyone.

Oh, so everyone is treated with the same dosage of medications for those disorders?

Here's a bit of information that ought to be pretty apparent without me saying it - the brain is the most complicated part of the body, and has been studied for the shortest time. Do I have to spell it out for you why treatment of it is so touch-and-go? Let's take the first 100 years of, say, cardiology or endocrinology and see how accurate doctors were then. Of course, if certain layman idiots had their way, psychiatric medicine would be discontinued and we'd never learn anything more. Fortunately, such people are confined to internet forums and street corners.

First of all, he questions who has the right to decide what is "undesirable." If an individual feels that he or she is having mental/emotional problems and this is interfering with quality of life, that is a patient decision. But for the Government or other organization to classify certain modes of thought as "undesirable" is tyranny - attempted thought control.

And the patient decides to go to the psychiatrist, and controls his own treatment unless he demonstrates that he is a danger to himself or others. And, if you'd bothered to read, you'd know that I've already stated my opposition to government psychiatric testing at least twice.

Second of all, the DSMIV does not list syptoms as being lack of/too much of X nuerotransmitter. If it were "proven" that chemical balances indeed related to these disorders, it would make sense that these things would be listed as a symptom. But in spite of the prevalance of attempting to "medically" treat these disorders, there is not yet enough proof for the mental health professions to definitely publish in their definitive guide that these conditions are anything other than psychological in origin.

Cite for me where I said that the DSMIV says any such thing. Also, cite where I said that it was a "proven" theory. No one who has any knowledge of science cites anything as being proven, because nothing is proven. Chemical imbalances is one of the, if not the, top theories, and if you don't like it, cite something to disprove it. Otherwise, your fumbling with scientific principles just ain't cutting it.

And, once again, hundreds of thousands of studies (perhaps millions) cite the alteration of brain chemicals through one means of another correlating with a predictable change in behavior. This is the proof, and this is what medical doctors and other professionals who know what they're talking about know that you and the new-age guru do not.

Wrong. A psychiatrist can choose to commit a patient that he or she is seeing at anytime based on nothing but their own judgement. There are no defined criteria what "harm to self or others" means. A person can be locked away for up to three days before the case gets reviewed - by another psychiatrist, often a colleague of the first.

No, not wrong. A psychiatrist cannot commit a patient indefinitely on just his whim. This was your claim, you admit otherwise (though you weighted it heavily with sinister innuendo), so you are wrong. The three days do not make your point, as I already acknowledged such things as suicide watches.

II know people who have been sent to the hospital for refusing to take whatever meds the psychiatrist prescibed them. See, the psychiatrist considered that as the person doing "possible harm" to themselves.

Yes, those insidious psychiatrists are just looking for excuses to lock people up and make more paperwork for themselves.

My, what vague examples. I've never accepted people's claim of "Well, I know this guy that..." in any other debate, I'm certainly not going to accept it here. Gee, the summary of real world events by a guy who pretty clearly doesn't like psychiatry, with no factual basis to his example to examine...how could I not trust that?

Even so, let me contrast the "harm to self" thing with other fields of medicine. Let's say a 65 year old woman who has suffered from a stroke, has congestive heart failure (and in the past has had at least two heart attacks), and is a diabetic goes to her doctor and her blood sugar count is over 300, because she, by her own admission, has been eating candy and icecream like it is going out of style. Furthermore, she has fluid build up such that it has gotten into her lungs, because she has been fogetting to take her laysics. If she continues in this immediate behavior chances of her dying in the very near future are damned good. Her doctor can suggest that she go in the hospital while these problems of her own making - the sugar level and fluid build up - are brought under control. But there is no provision in law by which he can force her to go to the hospital for a MEDICAL problem although it is her own actions which are severly endangering her health. (and in case you are wondering, this is not a hypothetical scenario.) Other than psychiatric patients, people have the right to refuse care even if the refusal of care would actually endanger their lives.

Yes, and none of those disorders compromise those patients' judgement, which is the basis of laws allowing the psychiatrist to make such a decision for his patient. Psychiatrists, like all doctors, are sword to do no harm, and not making such a decision when they believe their patients' reasoning compromised would be potentially doing harm. Next.

Now that is complete and total bullshit. By my recollection Feb 2004 was only a few months ago. I was locked away without giving consent for ten days.

No, it's not complete and total bullshit. It's an accurate response to vague allegations made by lawperson alarmists. You were vague, so my response was then vague. I'm not going to go into technicalities when most of your arguments lack the basics, or I'd be here all night. You refer to being committed as if it were the old-style of life in an asylum, and I'll address it as such.

But, let's address this example.

I had a cut that got infected on Saturday of a three day weekend. No clinics in my area, no doctors open for three days to even try to get an appointment so I went to the emergency room. When they asked me what I had done to take care of it, I stupidly admitted to having been too depressed to worry about what seemed like a minor cut at the time. They asked if I was seeing any doctors or therapists. Yes. BAM... commitment. Was I trying to hurt myself or did I have any intention to hurt myself? Hell no or I would have continued to let the damn thing go septic without seeking treatment. About 2/3 of the other patients were in their against there will also.

Too vague. Sorry, but there are a lot of variables that you're leaving out. How big a cut and how badly infected, for example, would make quite a difference. Judging by the fact that you went to the ER, it must have been a bit severe. Then, you tell them that you were too depressed to take care of it. Sounds like a case of a person who cannot properly care of themselves...and seeing a therapist, at that. Now, since they were ER personnel having to make a snap judgement on a guy they didn't know, can you blame them? You'd have been better off telling them that you were too damn lazy to deal with it, because I can't really imagine a light depression in which I wouldn't properly dress a wound. But, I really can't say any more, since you don't say who committed you, or even if they ASKED you if you were considering hurting yourself (although, you did have a cut that you didn't seem to care too terrribly much about...).

But if you want a link:

Each year, approximately one and a half million people are taken to psychiatric institutions against their will. That averages out to one person every 75 seconds. Often, there is no reasonable justification for committing a person. According to Bruce Wiseman, psychiatrists commonly make off-the-cuff diagnoses, having no real basis in medical fact, that result in people getting thrown into psychiatric facilities. (http://www.tdip.com/issue/162/162psych.htm)

Well, the link goes nowhere, so I can only say that this vague idea of locking people up is really no different than police incarceration, in that we're not talking baout indefinite detention, but detention for a very limited period of time. Futhermore, I don't doubt that many don't want to be there. One of my friends was committed last spring. She was a mess and had tried to kill herself the year before. That day she was screaming in the street about some minor thing in a fit of drunkenness. Later she ran into the authorities and was committed. She didn't want to be there, but one certainly can't say that there was no justification. As for psychiatrists and "off-the-cuff" decisionmaking, I merely deduce that this article follows the same logic that you and Texas have been, and dismiss it accordingly.


As far as the other links, I already stated that yes, people can be temporarily held against their will. They certainly are extremist, and all repersent cases of people not doing their jobs properly, neither of which makes a case of psychiatry being...whatever it is you're trying to claim that it is (it certainly does nothing for the idea that psyhiatric illness is imaginary). I claimed that permanent incarceration does not exist without cause, and I was right.

EDIT: Following the link back, I see that I was right...it's a CCHR page, which is a branch of Scientology dedicated to attacking psychiatry. Let's just say that the alternative they propose to psychiatric treatment is less than respected in the medical community, unlike psychiatry.

You can read about them in the following links:
http://www.lisamcpherson.org/cchr.htm (though biased, gives a detailed summary)
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p961110.html (an interesting article, and now I know who Bruce Wiseman is...I guess the first citation has just as little credibility)
It seems that psychiatrists don't care about such objections to their work as you and the scientologists make, nor does the rest of the medical community. Hmm...but then, I speculated about that in the last post.

I said a person's psychiatrist could commit people at will. The homeless (or wandering schizophrenics) usually don't come into contact with the medical profession. If by chance they do, and a doctor calls a staff psychiatrists who wishes to have them committed, then it happens. Funny thing that I have noticed, people with insurance tend to be held longer before they are released.

Actually, it follows that they were dangerous, they would come into contact with medical professionals, as police would facilitate such contact. As I was saying, all that is done is detain them and medicate them, then release them once it is reasonable to assume that they are no longer a threat. Once again, I love the imagery you conjure...you have one hand wringing, sinister psychiatrist who is just dying to commit someone, and he pulls out his little black book which has numbers of other similarly sinister figures. He calls them all up, and they sit around a dimly lit conference table, snickering and all rubbing their hands together about how they get to commit someone...

Do inferences such as this sound stupid to anyone else, or am I the ultmiate fool in continuing to address people who propose such things? As for the observations of who is held longer, I suppose you certainly must work in such a place and have observed a number of such cases which gives you the experience to make such a generalization? I, myself, work in a VA hospital (i.e. patients don't pay for their care), so I would love to be "enlightened," to use Texas's words...

Riiiight.... consent.

You of course mean the consent form that a person is obligated to sign before a doctor can legally treat you that says your medical records can and will be disclosed to others - insurance companies, research companies, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, etc. without any further notification or consent.

Or was your HIPPA training received prior to 2003 and the PATRIOT ACT?

Actually, it's HIPAA, and why don't you cite for me what in the Patriot Act changed anything about HIPAA? While you're at it, cite passages from such a form as you describe. I'm not going to accept your the assertions of one who has proposed such vague arguments as you have that such passages exist in a form which would alarm me. But, who knows, unless you actually CITE SOMETHING?

BOTTOM LINE: Psychiatry is a field that, like other medical fields, is based in specific language and terminology. Use it, or find you ability to communicate about the subject to be somewhat inadequate. An argument in mental health cites references and very, very specifically what is being proposed. I've seen very little of that here, and grow pretty weary of it after 5 pages.

Too bad there isn't more being thrown out here. Cite something or shut up already. After five pages, I grow quite weary of your vague, alarmist examples, and I certainly don't trust your word on the matter.

So read the prescribing information for yourself.



And, let's see, you seem to have forgotten doctors, people with opposing theories, nurses, rival drug companies, various people in academia, watchdog groups, and anyone who cares to pick one up in a library. But, I'm sure you didn't omit those simply because either it didn't fit your point or you're too ignorant to really think about these things. Certainly not.

I've provided links to watchgroups, but as you don't agree with what they have to say you dismiss it out of hand.


Right, no tests...the doctor absolutely doesn't use his many years of medical training to analyze you. No doctor would claim to know what is wrong in 15 minutes time, if any actually took that short of time. They choose a course of action after analyzing the patient, try it, and if it doesn't work, they try another. Duh, what's that? Oh yeah, that's testing, and that's all the tsting we have right now. Yet, doctors in other fields of medicine don't reject psychiatry...hmm...maybe they, having education in the field, know something you don't?

The amount of psychology a med student has to know to specialize in psychiatry is ridiculously small considering the fact that most of the patients they treat have pyschological issues.

If no doctor would claim to know what is wrong after 15 minutes, why do they write out the prescriptions after a fifteen minute session? And then if a patient doesn't respond to, oh say, on SSRI they try another. Still not response... then another, etc. Seems like eventually they would catch on that seratonin levels may not be the culprit.

Anti-psychotics handed out as sleep aids? Again, cite something or shut up. A lot of drugs are potentially dangerous, and yeah, they're handed out much like that. Let's see, pain killers come to mind, and those can be gotten on verbal complaint alone, and are FAR more dangerous than psychiatric medications.

An article that describes just how little research goes into getting anti-psychotics approved for off-lable use:


http://www.general-hospital-psychiatry.com/content/3/1/4 (http://www.general-hospital-psychiatry.com/content/3/1/4)

Although the recommendation to use atypical antipsychotics in a variety of off-label situations is widespread in the literature, the current review proved that data are few and can not really support an evidence based recommendation. In fact, it is impressive that the number of papers without experimental data are four times more in comparison to the experimental ones, and forty times those with controlled double-blind methodology.

News article that specifically mentions use of antipsychotics for insomina:

Doctors are giving their patients epilepsy drugs for depression and hot flashes and to help them lose weight. They use antidepressants to treat premature ejaculation and pain, and powerful antipsychotics for insomnia and attention deficit disorder. (http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2003/11/02/build/nation/30-offlabel.inc)

Taken from an article urging dermatologists to start prescribing anti-psychotics:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PDG/is_2_3/ai_115505667/pg_1 (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PDG/is_2_3/ai_115505667/pg_1)

Chlorpromazine (Thorazine) can also be labeled for nausea and emesis treatment, as well as for the treatment of other non-psychotic problems such as restlessness, apprehension prior to surgery, acute intermittent porphyria, and intractable hiccups, to name a few.

...he literature shows that prescription of anti-psychotics for non-psychotic indications is internationally prevalent. A recent survey of the VA Connecticut Health Care System showed that over a four month period, 42.8% of prescribed atypical anti-psychotics were given for off-label indications. Patients prescribed off-label anti-psychotics were mostly being treated for non-psychotic conditions such as major affective disorder, post-traumatic stress syndrome. Alzheimer's dementia, and dysthymia (10). Another survey, conducted at an Austrian pharmacy, examined the indications for anti-psychotics prescribed to patients at a particular pharmacy, 66.5% of the patients reported that they were taking anti-psychotics for off-label indications. Patients most commonly reported taking anti-psychotics for either their tranquilizing or anxiolytic effects

Here's a link with a table that even suggest that seroquel can be used for "sleep and agitation"


http://www.psycheducation.org/depression/meds/moodstabilizers.htm (http://www.psycheducation.org/depression/meds/moodstabilizers.htm)


Finally, as I stated before, there are no physical tests. And there don't need to be.

And I state, considering the dangers a lot of these meds posts, and how the science of brain chemistry is in its infancy, and no one really KNOWS what effects a certain psychotropic drug will have on an individual there should be some minimum level of testing.



No, it means you learn to work around them, and that's all well and good for people who have them to minor levels. You wanna cite a source that says that major psychiatric disorders come from stress? Pretty laughable, considering that while many of such disorders are exacerbated and/or trigger by stress, most people are not known to go into, for example, profound fits of psychosis or depression from stress. Let's see, if it doesn't happen to most people that way, why would it happen to just the people with these "imaginary" disorders? Could it be because, oh, I don't know, they have a psychiatric disorder?

Depends on if by "stress" you mean day to day stuff or major stressors.
Ever hear of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? Depression, depersonalization,
feeling as if the traumatic event were recurring (includes a sense of reliving the experience, illusions, hallucinations, and dissociative flashback episodes)

Considering the estimates on the number of children who are abused and the effects that the abuse can have it is ludicrous to discount stress and trauma as a major reason that many people need psychiatric help.


http://www.medicineau.net.au/clinical/psychiatry/SexualAbuse.html (http://www.medicineau.net.au/clinical/psychiatry/SexualAbuse.html)


Statistics suggest that one in four girls and one in eleven boys are sexually assaulted by the age of 18. Childhood sexual abuse may have a detrimental effect on the child's emotional development. Abuse by a family member is a betrayal of trust and a violation of boundaries, which compromises the child's safe environment.

Sexual abuse does not inevitably lead to psychological and emotional problems and people who have been abused can develop the resources and strength to overcome their difficulties. Many are able to lead happy and fulfilled lives. For others the abuse has a profound effect and may lead to problems for the rest of their lives.

...Studies suggest that the ongoing problem areas include:

* emotional and psychological problems
* sexual maladjustment
* problems with interpersonal relationships
* social functioning


http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/37/14/8 (http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/37/14/8)

Research on women seen in outpatient mental health settings found that about 44 percent were physically abused as adults, and about 34 percent were sexually abused as adults, said Carole Warshaw, M.D., a member of APA’s Committee on Family Violence and Sexual Abuse, at APA’s 2002 annual meeting in May in Philadelphia.

In addition, she noted, research shows that 43 percent of women seen in outpatient mental health settings were sexually abused as children, and 35 percent were otherwise physically abused.

The psychiatric impact of domestic violence is great. Women with a history of childhood abuse are more likely to be abused as adults than women without that history, said Warshaw. "Rates of posttraumatic stress disorder are also higher in adults with childhood abuse than without childhood abuse," said Warshaw.




Here's a bit of information that ought to be pretty apparent without me saying it - the brain is the most complicated part of the body, and has been studied for the shortest time. Do I have to spell it out for you why treatment of it is so touch-and-go? Let's take the first 100 years of, say, cardiology or endocrinology and see how accurate doctors were then. Of course, if certain layman idiots had their way, psychiatric medicine would be discontinued and we'd never learn anything more. Fortunately, such people are confined to internet forums and street corners.

I never said research should be discontinued. But the widespread application with so little knowledge is reprehensible, as is the marketing which touts the uses of these medicines as "proven."

Also the attempt to replace psychology with a quick cure in a pill form (especially when this science is in its infacy) is wrong. There is huge pressure for a quick and easy fix from insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies which profit.



And the patient decides to go to the psychiatrist, and controls his own treatment unless he demonstrates that he is a danger to himself or others. And, if you'd bothered to read, you'd know that I've already stated my opposition to government psychiatric testing at least twice.

At least we agree the government shouldn't mandate psychiatric testing. Many therapists will refuse to see a patient who is not on medicine. Sure you can look for others, but certain health plans will only approve a handfull of therapists. Yes, I know this is a insurance company issue more than a psychiatric one. Still, if a patient wants help that they know stems from an abuse issue, and said patient is not psychotic or suicidal, why should they have to take potentially harmful medicine for what is an emotional and not a physical issue?


Cite for me where I said that the DSMIV says any such thing. Also, cite where I said that it was a "proven" theory. No one who has any knowledge of science cites anything as being proven, because nothing is proven. Chemical imbalances is one of the, if not the, top theories, and if you don't like it, cite something to disprove it. Otherwise, your fumbling with scientific principles just ain't cutting it.

Chemical imbalance is only one theory. Just because it happens to be en vogue right now does not make it necesarilly correct. Considering the prevalence of abuse, crime and other highly traumatic situations, it would stand to reason that many with emotional and psychiatric problems aren't suffering a "chemical imbalance" but are dealing with issues thrown at them by the outside world.

And, once again, hundreds of thousands of studies (perhaps millions) cite the alteration of brain chemicals through one means of another correlating with a predictable change in behavior. This is the proof, and this is what medical doctors and other professionals who know what they're talking about know that you and the new-age guru do not.

Yes, certain chemicals change thought patterns in a particular manner. Alchol, opiates, stimulate, caffeine. Doesn't mean they should be used for therapy. Many of the drugs being handed out by psychiatrists - while they may not be as dangerous or cause problems with psychological addiction, do not have as predicatable results. Some of the results can be dangerous.
In essence, the patients are being treated like guinea pigs in a new science. Even still, is druging someone to alter their thought patterns with chemicals with dangerous side effects really the best thing to do? To me it sounds like masking a problem - not much different than drowning one's problems in a bottle. I'll grant that certain conditions like schizophrenia may be organic and need drug treatment. But to drug someone who can trace their emotional difficulties back to a trauma causing event in lieu of helping them learn to cope is not the answer.

No, not wrong. A psychiatrist cannot commit a patient indefinitely on just his whim. This was your claim, you admit otherwise (though you weighted it heavily with sinister innuendo), so you are wrong. The three days do not make your point, as I already acknowledged such things as suicide watches.

Not everyone admitted is on suicide watch. Or homicide watch. The standards of immediate threat to self or others may be the theoretical grounds but in actual practice this leaves much leeway for judgement and misjudgement.



Yes, those insidious psychiatrists are just looking for excuses to lock people up and make more paperwork for themselves.

Gee, who gets to decide who gets locked up? The very doctors and hospitals who make profit from locking people up.


Yes, and none of those disorders compromise those patients' judgement, which is the basis of laws allowing the psychiatrist to make such a decision for his patient. Psychiatrists, like all doctors, are sword to do no harm, and not making such a decision when they believe their patients' reasoning compromised would be potentially doing harm. Next.

Many physical illnesses can cause impaired judgement. Dehydration can cause impaired judgement. High fevers can cause impaired judgement. Yet no one can force a pneumonia patient to recieve treatment if a fever is impairing his judgement. Why are psychiatrists the only doctors allowed to make decisions on who's judgement is impaired?


No, it's not complete and total bullshit. It's an accurate response to vague allegations made by lawperson alarmists. You were vague, so my response was then vague. I'm not going to go into technicalities when most of your arguments lack the basics, or I'd be here all night. You refer to being committed as if it were the old-style of life in an asylum, and I'll address it as such.

I'll admit I'm bitter. In the first place the commitment wasn't necessary. In the second place, it made matters worse. You can say this is subjective but here is a link (even a pro-psychiatric /us government) that admits that in cases like mine, involuntary commitment can be problematic.


http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/publications/allpubs/involuntarytreatment/page2.asp (http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/publications/allpubs/involuntarytreatment/page2.asp)

There is a growing awareness that involuntary commitment, seclusion, and restraints can trigger re-traumatization of individuals who have been physically or sexually abused or traumatized in other ways.

Third it cost me my job. A good one that I'd had for nine years. Recent forced hospitilization for an emotional disturbance = automatic denial of upgrade of security clearance necessary to maintain Fed. Civil Service paper pushing job.

It may not be "life in an assylum" but it certainly ruined my life for the next few years.


Sorry, but there are a lot of variables that you're leaving out. How big a cut and how badly infected, for example, would make quite a difference. Judging by the fact that you went to the ER, it must have been a bit severe. Then, you tell them that you were too depressed to take care of it. Sounds like a case of a person who cannot properly care of themselves...and seeing a therapist, at that. Now, since they were ER personnel having to make a snap judgement on a guy they didn't know, can you blame them? You'd have been better off telling them that you were too damn lazy to deal with it, because I can't really imagine a light depression in which I wouldn't properly dress a wound. But, I really can't say any more, since you don't say who committed you, or even if they ASKED you if you were considering hurting yourself (although, you did have a cut that you didn't seem to care too terrribly much about...).

Small cut. Bleed for less than five minutes. Unfortunately I was cutting meat at the time. I rinsed it initially. Maybe at the time I wasn't thinking clearly enough to douse it with loads of hydrogen peroxide and antibiotic creams, but it was a small cut. It also happened the day after I testified against someone who had assaulted me. Yeah, I had other things on my mind than a small cut I had washed. As for seeing a therapist, if you can survive a random stranger beating you (facial bruising lasting six weeks, doctors telling you there was a risk of loosing eyesight in one eye) and worse without needing help then fucking good for you. I went to the emergency room because it was swollen and painful and I had developed a slight fever. See my judgement told me that with a fever involved waiting three days to go to a regular doctor would be dangerous. Does that sound impaired? Yes, they asked me if I planned on hurting myself. The answer was no. If had planned on hurting myself why the hell would I be seeking treatment for an infection? So in short, no I wasn't at my best, but I was far from being a "danger to myself." As far as who committed me it was a staff psychiatrist who didn't even talk to me personally. If I hadn't mentioned the word depressed and been asked about if I was seeing someone and why (which, yes, made me start crying a lot, but then again, that is why I was seeing the therapist, so that I could learn to deal with having been fucking attacked) I probably would have gotten a lecture about meat containing lots of microbes.
And at no time was I put in the area where they kept the people who were on suicide watch.


Well, the link goes nowhere, so I can only say that this vague idea of locking people up is really no different than police incarceration, in that we're not talking baout indefinite detention, but detention for a very limited period of time. Futhermore, I don't doubt that many don't want to be there. One of my friends was committed last spring. She was a mess and had tried to kill herself the year before. That day she was screaming in the street about some minor thing in a fit of drunkenness. Later she ran into the authorities and was committed. She didn't want to be there, but one certainly can't say that there was no justification. As for psychiatrists and "off-the-cuff" decisionmaking, I merely deduce that this article follows the same logic that you and Texas have been, and dismiss it accordingly.

Okay, so while she was suicidal I could understand commitment. However, this incident you describe happened a year later. How was her condition then? I went to uni in New Orleans. I can assure you that many people get drunk and have fits about minor things in the streets on a frequent basis. The vast majority, even those who run into the authorities, don't get sent to mental hospitals for it. If they get sent anywhere, it is to jail for 1-5 days (usually the are warned to calm down and go home first). Unless there is more to the story, it sounds as if she were hospitalized because of something that had happened a year prior. At the time of the incident, you described no justification for commitment. Drunk and disorderly? Sounds like more proof of people being locked away for reasons that society doesn't approve of certain behaviors than for reasons of "danger of causing harm to self or others."


As far as the other links, I already stated that yes, people can be temporarily held against their will. They certainly are extremist, and all repersent cases of people not doing their jobs properly, neither of which makes a case of psychiatry being...whatever it is you're trying to claim that it is (it certainly does nothing for the idea that psyhiatric illness is imaginary). I claimed that permanent incarceration does not exist without cause, and I was right.

My main contention is the criteria used to determine "illness." I have a friend who by psychiatric definitions would be considered a mild schizophrenic. He can hold a job. He has never presented a danger to himself or others. Is he "ill" because he has a few ideas and beliefs about himself that most of society considers really weird? Because in essence, his ideas are no weirder or less grounded in physical reality than the beliefs that are held by Christians (or other strict theists). Should he be medicated just because he is weird?

In my case, why should doctors want to medicate me at all? My "illness" if you want to call it that is not organic. It is very clearly a case of trouble dealing with a very traumatic incident. That doesn't stop them from saying I "need" them. Did I develop some disease that makes it necessary for me to be kept doped up (yeah, I tried them at varying doses for several months before and after the hospital, all make me incredibly sleepy, make it difficult to concentrate or read) because I was attacked?


It seems that psychiatrists don't care about such objections to their work as you and the scientologists make, nor does the rest of the medical community. Hmm...but then, I speculated about that in the last post.

Not all psychiatrists are pro-medicine or believe that mental illness is biological.


http://www.breggin.com/brain-disablingch1.html (http://www.breggin.com/brain-disablingch1.html)

III. Biopsychiatric treatments have their “therapeutic” effect by impairing higher human functions, including emotional responsiveness, social sensitivity, self-awareness or self-insight, autonomy, and self-determination. More drastic effects include apathy, euphoria1, and lobotomy-like indifference.

Higher mental, psychological, and spiritual functioning are impaired by biopsychiatric interventions as a result of generalized brain dysfunction, as well as specific effects on the frontal lobes, limbic system, and other structures. Sometimes there is a lobotomy-like indifference to self and to others – a syndrome that I have called deactivation (see chapters 2 and 4 of this volume).
Biopsychiatric treatments are deemed effective when the physician and/or the patient prefer a state of diminished brain function with its narrowed range of mental capacity or emotional expression. If the drugged individual reports feeling more effective and powerful, it is most likely based on an unrealistic appraisal, impaired judgment, or euphoria. When patients on “maintenance doses” do not experience noticeable effects, either the dose is too low to have a clinical effect or the patient is unable to perceive the drug’s impact.


IV. Each biopsychiatric treatment produces its essential or primary brain-disabling effect on all people, including normal volunteers and patients with varied psychiatric diagnoses.

Despite the deeply held convictions of drug proponents, there are no specific psychoactive drug treatments for specific mental disorders.
There is, of course, a certain amount of biological and psychological variation in the way people respond to drugs, shock treatment, or even lobotomy or an accidental head injury. However, as a general principle, biopsychiatric interventions have a nonspecific impact that does not depend on the person’s mental state or condition. For example, it will be shown that neuroleptics and lithium affect animals and normal volunteers in much the same way as they affect patients.


V. Patients respond to brain-disabling treatments with their own psychological reactions, such as apathy, euphoria, compliance or resentment.

There is some variation in the way individuals respond to drugs. For example, the same antidepressant will make one person sleepy and another energized. Ritalin quiets many children but agitates others.
It can be very difficult to separate out drug-induced form psychologically induced responses. For example, nearly all of the antidepressants can cause euphoria and mania2. At the same time, some of the people who receive these drugs have their own tendency to develop these mental states. Similarly, a variety of drugs are capable of generating agitation and hostility in patients, yet people can develop these responses without medication. The docility and compliance seen following the administration of neuroleptics can be caused by the drug-induced deactivation syndrome, but can also result from the patient’s realization that further resistance is futile or dangerous.
Later in this chapter, I will introduce the concept of iatrogenic helplessness and denial which addresses the combined neurological and psychological impact of biopsychiatric treatment. In chapter 11, I will discuss some of the criteria for determining that a drug can itself cause abnormal mental and emotional responses, including destructive behavior.

VI. The mental and emotional suffering routinely treated with biopsychiatric interventions have no known genetic and biological cause.

Despite more than two hundred years of intensive research, no commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorders have been proven to be either genetic or biological in origin, including schizophrenia, major depression, manic-depressive disorder, the various anxiety disorders, and childhood disorders such as attention-deficit hyperactivity.
At present, there are no know biochemical imbalances in the brain of typical psychiatric patients – until they are given psychiatric drugs. It is speculative an even naïve to assert that antidepressants such as Prozac correct underactive serotonergic neurotransmission (a serotonin biochemical imbalance), or that neuroleptics such as Haldol correct overactive dopaminergic neurotransmission (a dopamine imbalance). The failure to demonstrate the existence of any brain abnormality in psychiatric patients, despite decades of intensive effort, suggests that these defects do not exist.

In fact check out more of the information at
www.breggin.com (http://www.breggin.com)

his credentials: Peter R. Breggin, M.D. began in the full time private practice of psychiatry in 1968. Dr. Breggin has been informing the professions, media and the public about the potential dangers of drugs, electroshock, psychosurgery, involuntary treatment, and the biological theories of psychiatry for over three decades. Since 1964 Dr. Breggin has been publishing peer-reviewed articles and medical books in his subspecialty of clinical psychopharmacology. He is the author of dozens of scientific articles and nineteen professional books, many dealing with psychiatric medication, the FDA and drug approval process, the evaluation of clinical trials, and standards of care in psychiatry and related fields.

Make sure to check out the pdf file that details how bad the research use to gain FDA approval based on documentation that the the companies hid earlier but were forced to reveal during lawsuits.


Actually, it follows that they were dangerous, they would come into contact with medical professionals, as police would facilitate such contact. As I was saying, all that is done is detain them and medicate them, then release them once it is reasonable to assume that they are no longer a threat.

Most homeless who come into medical contact do so by going to a free charity type hospital. If the police are involved with the homeless (including schizophrenics) it is usually because someone called because they were making a "disturbance" by talking loudly to themselves. Or perhaps the police pick them up for falling asleep on a park bench and then bring them to the hospital instead of jail because the were "talking crazy" or something. Your idea that everyone who ends up in a mental institution is "dangerous" somehow is incredibly niave.


Once again, I love the imagery you conjure...you have one hand wringing, sinister psychiatrist who is just dying to commit someone, and he pulls out his little black book which has numbers of other similarly sinister figures. He calls them all up, and they sit around a dimly lit conference table, snickering and all rubbing their hands together about how they get to commit someone...

Do inferences such as this sound stupid to anyone else, or am I the ultmiate fool in continuing to address people who propose such things? As for the observations of who is held longer, I suppose you certainly must work in such a place and have observed a number of such cases which gives you the experience to make such a generalization? I, myself, work in a VA hospital (i.e. patients don't pay for their care), so I would love to be "enlightened," to use Texas's words...

Even if the patients themselves aren't paying for their own care, the hospital would recieve funding cuts or be shut down if it did not have enough patients, yes? Certain departments could be cut if there was not demonstrable need for their size.

Still the "sinister" psychiatrist is YOUR imagination at work.

But once someone has a psychiatric record, they are held to different, less strict criteria which gets them locked up in a psychiatric hospital much faster. Get a minor wound and forget to look after it - without a psychiatric record you were "distracted" or "careless" while with one you were "too incompetent to look after yourself." Get drunk and disorderly - without a record you were just drunk and disorderly, with one you were "acting crazy and need to be institutionalized for a few days."

This could be because of greed. Some documented abuses have occured.

Often though, I believe it could be due to the stigma of having a psychiatric record and the misconceptions it causes, misconceptions to whch the doctors themselves are not immune, thus the doctors themselves overlook normal ranges of human behavior and assume any less than perfectly acceptable behavior must be due to the illness.

Anyway, here is the link that didn't work the other day

http://www.tldp.com/issue/162/162psych.htm (http://www.tldp.com/issue/162/162psych.htm)

Finally found it again. In additon to detailing insurance scam, etc as reasons people get locked away it also has some evidence about numerical tampering with data in the testing of drugs. You asked for this earlier. It also explains in detail some of the dangers of drug "therapy."

Anyway, here are some quotes:

This one backs up my own claim. Really, read the full brochures that go out to doctors. They start by saying that thousands participated in the trials, but when they get to the side effect parts, the numbers tested are in the low hundreds.

Eli Lilly, the manufacturer, claims that thousands of people received Prozac in controlled clinical trials during its testing phase. In actuality, the numbers were far lower, since those who failed to complete the studies due to negative side effects were never accounted for. FDA material, derived via the Freedom of Information Act, shows that up to 50% of the test patients dropped out of the studies because of serious side effects. In his book,28 Dr. Breggin reports that, in the final analysis, only 286 people were used as a basis for Prozac's approval. Significantly, Lilly has never challenged this information. They've had me under oath in court, Breggin says, and they haven't contested a single word that I've written in the book

Depression is an aftereffect of overstimulation. While researching FDA materials on Prozac, Breggin discovered that Lilly knew Prozac caused depression and that, in fact, the company initially reported it:

Lilly admitted on paper, in its final statement about the drug's side effects, that it commonly caused patients to get depressed. Then it got scratched out at the FDA, along with a whole bunch of other things. It went from being common,' and being scratched out, to not even appearing under uncommon.' It just disappeared from the label.

In other words, the manufacturer admitted that Prozac causes the very thing it is supposed to cure. Ultimately, this places patients in jeopardy. Breggin explains:

[People] start taking the drug, and in the beginning they feel better. Maybe, after all, because it's just good to get a drug. They feel like, wow, I'm doing something for myself. Or maybe the drug gives them a burst of energy. Stimulants will do that. They will make people feel energized. Then they get more depressed. They get suicidal feelings. They don't know the drug hasn't been tested on suicidal patients. They don't know that Eli Lilly once listed depression as an effect of the drug. And so they end up thinking they need more Prozac, and their doctor agrees. When that fails to work, they end up eventually getting shock treatment, never knowing that if they hadn't been started on Prozac they might never have gotten so severely depressed

You yourself have stated that you don't believe in blanket drug therapy. Yet that is the direction that modern psychiatry tends to be headed. Sure if someone is highly suicidal I can see drugs being used as a temporary measure. But drug therapy is not the answer. Especially when it is being favored at the expense of things like psychoanalysis, Cognitave Behavioral Therapy, etc. which can teach people how to deal with emotional issues without the application of an outside agency like a drug. Yes drugs can modify behavior, but they don't fix the underlying causes. Research and lawsuits in which drug companies admit their faulty testing tactics are showing more and more that these drugs may exacerbate the symptoms they are designed to mask. Add onto this that a huge number of mental illnesses are emotional and not organic in nature and this only amplifies the problem. The longer a thinking pattern which allows for emotional problems to develop remains unchecked, the harder it is to undo. Psychiatric drugs do not cure psychiatric illnesses the way antibiotics cure infections. Yet the things treatments that can actually work to cure these things for a great number of psychiatric patients are getting shoved aside. Therapy has taken a distant backseat. It makes no sense.

http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/reports/FinalReport/FullReport-05.htm


Bush wants to load your kids up on Prozac and Ritalin, and he has the gall to call it "freedom"

Welcome to a Brave New World where the (unelected) cokehead president is forcing almost as much dope down our children's throats as his own.

Not only that, but read the freedom commission's opening statement to findout what they powers-at-will really think about you: " For consumers of all ages, early detection, assessment, and linkage with treatment and supports can prevent mental health problems from compounding and poor life outcomes from accumulating."

You are not an american, a citizen, or even a person; you are nothing more that a credit-card slave, a mouth-to-(over)feed and if you don't (perpetually)pull-your-own-weight... if you don't spend yourself into debt like a good little consumer then they'll just have to dope you up until "shop 'till you drop" is your personal creed and your unwavering motto is "to spend is better than to mend."

*It's time for recess children, please roll up your sleeves*
What a load of shit. I'm on Paxil right now. My spending habits have barely changed. I save, save, save, and put any of my extra income into the bank. To suggest somehow that these medications are turning me into some shop til you drop yuppie is completely insulting to those on these medications.

But seriously, I heard an interesting thing said about the way we treat kids with ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder), I think it was referring to one of Francis Fukuyama's books (which I still haven't gotten round to reading). Children aren't "designed" to sit in a classroom all day, listen to the teacher and work quietly. Those who can't do this are the normal ones and the rest of us are, to some extent, abnormal, and yet we say that the normal ones have a mental disorder (ADD) and dose them up on a mixture of class A drugs.

A belated response... I don't think it's "abnormal" to want to learn. Learning is human, its what we do, especially while children. I refuse to accept that what I did in school, like sit in class and learn, was abnormal and people who literally couldn't sit still because of the caffeine and short attention spans caused by pop culture were the "normal" ones. It's just the latter want to do their learning elsewhere, like in front of MTV.

A belated response... I don't think it's "abnormal" to want to learn. Learning is human, its what we do, especially while children. I refuse to accept that what I did in school, like sit in class and learn, was abnormal and people who literally couldn't sit still because of the caffeine and short attention spans caused by pop culture were the "normal" ones. It's just the latter want to do their learning elsewhere, like in front of MTV.

Learning is normal, but kids still don't want to sit for 40 hours a week doing work every day for 12 years, plus 4+ of college which is now almost obligatory. That's where the loss of attention comes in.

A belated response... I don't think it's "abnormal" to want to learn. Learning is human, its what we do, especially while children. I refuse to accept that what I did in school, like sit in class and learn, was abnormal and people who literally couldn't sit still because of the caffeine and short attention spans caused by pop culture were the "normal" ones. It's just the latter want to do their learning elsewhere, like in front of MTV.

Wanting to learn is normal. However different children respond to different methods of teaching. Some children do better in highly structured classes. Others do better in Montessori type schools. Also the increase in classroom size and shortage of quality teachers has had the effect of create more classes where the teachers drone out a boring lecture rather than engage the children in interactive learning activities.

I am however not discounting too much caffeine and short attention spans caused by pop culture. But often these things are learned types of behavior and discipline problems - not "brain abnormalities."

What a load of shit. I'm on Paxil right now. My spending habits have barely changed. I save, save, save, and put any of my extra income into the bank. To suggest somehow that these medications are turning me into some shop til you drop yuppie is completely insulting to those on these medications.

If you want to see insulting, read up to the post on the second or third page, where Texastabul patronizingly asks someone, who posts on the thread saying that ADHD meds works for him, what it's like to have an imaginary disorder. Texas didn't create this thread for debate, as is evidenced by his rude behavior to anyone who has the knowledge or experience to refute his exaggerated claims. Funny how he's so critical of subjective decisions, yet he quickly decided that people such as myself who know something about psychiatric medicine are greedy bastards only in it for the money and people like you and the other guy are just brainwashed idiots after our first posts.

V&K, I'll get to your post in a bit, since you seem to be one who actually does want to debate the matter.

If you want to see insulting, read up to the post on the second or third page, where Texastabul patronizingly asks someone, who posts on the thread saying that ADHD meds works for him, what it's like to have an imaginary disorder. Texas didn't create this thread for debate, as is evidenced by his rude behavior to anyone who has the knowledge or experience to refute his exaggerated claims. Funny how he's so critical of subjective decisions, yet he quickly decided that people such as myself who know something about psychiatric medicine are greedy bastards only in it for the money and people like you and the other guy are just brainwashed idiots after our first posts.

V&K, I'll get to your post in a bit, since you seem to be one who actually does want to debate the matter.
Yeah, I'm a little naive when it comes to these conspiracy nutjobs. And ADHD is an imaginary disorder? Yeah, and I guess multiple personality disorder is just an overabundance of creativity.

Wanting to learn is normal. However different children respond to different methods of teaching. Some children do better in highly structured classes. Others do better in Montessori type schools. Also the increase in classroom size and shortage of quality teachers has had the effect of create more classes where the teachers drone out a boring lecture rather than engage the children in interactive learning activities.

I am however not discounting too much caffeine and short attention spans caused by pop culture. But often these things are learned types of behavior and discipline problems - not "brain abnormalities."

This is a good point. Different brains have different intricacies indeed making different methods better for different people. I also agree that the stardard method for teaching is just wrong for some children, and trying to cram them into it is like trying to teach a pig to sing. However, I really can't criticize too much, because there are few options available while keeping education affordable. No, the increasing size of classes and shortage of teachers isn't helping, and I can't imagine that situation will get better any time soon.

Too much caffeine - indeed, there's a problem. The grade school I went to didn't have publicly accessible vending machines, and I'm very sure that's a good thing. Caffeine is currently the most abused drug in this country by far (I think that makes it eerily akin to the morphine phenomenon before that drug was taken out of common use), and giving children free access to a mix of that and a sugary liquid seems terribly irresponsible. As for pop culture, I'm no fan of what that does to kids these days, either.

Needless to say, I disagree with your final assertion - lacking evidence, it remains just that. Saying that no problem-child has it is hypocritical, as you show great disdain for the view that many, let alone all, problem children have it. Such is the problem with extremist arguments...does it occur to you that there's a middleground? Science does not deal with theories in terms of right and wrong, but *how* right and *how* wrong?

Needless to say, I disagree with your final assertion - lacking evidence, it remains just that. Saying that no problem-child has it is hypocritical, as you show great disdain for the view that many, let alone all, problem children have it. Such is the problem with extremist arguments...does it occur to you that there's a middleground? Science does not deal with theories in terms of right and wrong, but *how* right and *how* wrong?

If you read the DSMIV most disorders have the "causes impairment in normal functioning" clause which divides normal ranges of behavior from problematic ones. It seems that the normal range is getting shrinking, while commercials, etc, encourage people to define any quirk as problematic. Children are especailly vulnerable to this because of the inabilty (part legal, part due to just being a child) to determine what is problematic for them.

Still, I'm not saying that ADHD doesn't exist. I'm saying that I don't accept that it is a "brain abnormality." It is a psychological/emotional/behavioral problem and not a "physical" one. Which doesn't mean that the kids are "bad" or the parents are "bad." What is perfect for the psychological and emotional needs for one person could be disasterous for another, and when these needs aren't met behavior patterns - often maladaptive- emerge.

The majority of the evidence used to help prove that this is a brain abnormaility relies on showing howing the medicines used can change/improve behavior. But all this really means is that psychoactive chemicals change behavior. Not exactly a newsflash. Psychoactive chemicals change behavior in *anyone* not just people diagnosed with a disorder. The dual propaganda campaings involving "good" psychiatric drugs and "bad" drugs of abuse has gone a long way in covering up and clouding this issue. But the truth is the same types of drugs produce the same general types of effects. The difference is that many recreational users (certainly the most publicized and talked about) are going for the rush more than the effect and end up over-using as compared to those taking more controlled amounts, thus the harmful side effects are more pronounced, show up more quickly, and lastly more loudly denounced when they do occur (as opposed to the attempt to almost cover up the negative effects of the prescription drugs). Use of drugs like methamphetamine produce increased alertness, mental performance, attention to detail, etc until they are overdone. People who are given prescription diet pills (stimulants) also experience these "positive" side effects similar to ADHD drugs as well as the negative ones.

What is really frightening is that there are attempts to claim that children using prescription stimulants for ADHD who experience some of the more troubling side effects like severe depression or psychosis have had these conditions "unmasked." Nothing is being unmasked. These are well known results of over-use of stimulant drugs (hell, even over use of caffeine can result in temporary low grade depressive moods). A dieter who experiences depression or psychosis will be weaned off the drug, where as with ADHD patients, it is becoming more routine to start adding SSRI's or anti-psychotic meds.

Further while ADHD meds can change behavior, they do not take care of the underlying causes. So unless the issues which gave arise to the problem (side note: some research shows emotional distress/well being changes brain chemistry too, only naturally - further reason why I say these things are not "abnormalities" but results of emotional/psychological issues) is dealt with, the emotional/behavioral problems are going to return when the drug is discontinued. Chemically regulating behavior is not enough. Especially with the drugs we have now. There are too many negative physical affects and too many additional emotional/behavioral changes other than the targeted changes. Some research shows that overuse/continual exposure to stimulants depletes the D2 (dopamine) receptors. Which means the normal pleasure/reward system is disrupted. Recent research with monkeys show that genetically blocking the D2 receptors causes the monkeys not to procrastinate. Not because they were happier, or more motivated, but because they could not longer percieve pleasure/reward so no reason to goof off. Now think about the "zombie", loss of interest in normal activity effect that happens with people who are on prescriptions stimulants for long stretches of time. Sure their behavior is in line with how parents/teachers want, but at what cost to long term psychological well-being?

Again, this doesn't mean that I don't think that there is no room for psychiatric drugs. Sometimes the problem is severe enough that something has to be done immediately. Sometimes the problem is severe enough that the patient needs to be brought to a more level place in order to begin working on the problem. But thinking of ADHD as a "brain abnormality" which these drugs "cure" is a recipe for misery.

ADHD has been around for a long time. The difference with today to years ago is children in North America are wrongly being diagnosed with it at alarming rates. Just because you have a hyper or spirited child, that doesn't mean there is any thing wrong with them. Heaven forbid a 6 year old should actually act like a 6 year old... you get the point. I personally know if I'm ever told my child need medication because they are hyper, I'll tell the doctor to get stuffed. Parents are abusing this disorder to medicate their kids instead of having to parent them. I know people who have their kids on medications for this disorder, there is not a damn thing wrong with their kids, they are just too lazy or busy to parent. One of my friends kid had too much personality for their liking and is now on medication. I mean if it's obvious and the child really has the disorder that is one thing. However, far too many parents are using medication on their children. We as a society in general think there is a pill for every thing. Heck, we get told by the pharmaceutical companies now via the TV what to go ask your doctor for. It's gotten way out of hand in my opinion.

A psychiatrist is a doctor, and doctors are bound by oath to help people, not drug companies. Granted, there are some greedy sh-ts out there, but that's true in any field. Most want medications used responsibly and properly so that the patient benefits, finding drug reps to be pushy and something of an irritation.


True, but even if the doctors are annoyed some studies by the AMA still show that their prescribing behavior is influenced.

Then there is the fact that doctors learn by reading journals, continuing education etc. But many reviewers/editorial writers for the medical journals are paid by the pharmaceutical compaines and the pharm companies are underwriting the costs of a greater percentage of the continuing education, as well as funding a most of current drug research. So a lot of doctors *ARE* trying to do what they think is best for the patient, but in many cases they are seriously misled. This is true for every branch of medicine to some degree. Psychiatry is just extra-vulnerable because of the "newness" of the drug approach as a cure.

Ties to drug manufacturers cause undue influence

By Ivan Oransky and Jeanne Lenzer



When you see a doctor, you want unbiased advice and prescriptions that are best for your health. But what if the treatment your doctor gives is skewed by drug company influence? What if the pill prescribed for you is several times more expensive than other equally effective drugs? Or, what if it isn't the right drug at all?

Unfortunately, you may never know what really sways your doctor's decisions, thanks in part to The New England Journal of Medicine. It recently loosened its guidelines regarding the financial ties of experts who write for it. Now such authors who write reviews and editorials can receive up to $10,000 per year from interested companies.

Such articles are an important way for your doctor to keep up with new treatments. Long regarded as one of the last bastions of scientific integrity, the journal stood apart from other medical journals by not allowing commentary from those with a financial stake in the therapy or drug they reviewed. The Journal of the American Medical Association, for example, already allowed its experts to receive money from drug companies.

The New England Journal's editor, Dr. Jeffrey Drazen, said the fact that he couldn't find experts to write for him prompted the change. Every one he found had financial ties to the firms that made the drugs they would be writing about. In 2000, before Drazen became editor, the journal acknowledged — following a story by Los Angeles Times reporter Terence Monmaney — that it had violated its own conflict-of-interest guidelines in 19 out of 40 articles since 1997.

The dilemma Drazen cites is real. Clinical research is increasingly funded by private interests — particularly biotechnology companies and drug companies — with a stake in the results. In turn, researchers and universities have become increasingly dependent on the good will and cash of the drug industry, putting them in a precarious ethical position.

Whether journal editors can reliably weed out bad or questionable medical information from authors with financial ties is debatable. Researchers can slant reviews in many ways: by not offering their results for publication if the data undermine a desired outcome; by writing conclusions that are contradicted by their own data, or by emphasizing certain studies while ignoring others.

Take non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen. Virtually all of the clinical trials of such drugs between 1987 and 1990 were sponsored by the manufacturer of the specific drug being studied. A miraculous 100% of the studies concluded that the sponsor's drug was equal or superior to the comparison drug; 86% also dubbed the sponsor's drug safer. Clearly, if the manufacturer pays, the manufacturer wins.

It also will become difficult for doctors to track discredited studies. The manufacturer of Celebrex, a new form of anti-inflammatory medicine known as a COX-2 inhibitor, claims it causes fewer ulcer symptoms than older drugs such as ibuprofen. The authors of a Journal of the American Medical Association editorial agreed — until they learned that the study's authors didn't provide all the data. Dr. Michael Wolfe, one of the editorialists, was "flabbergasted" at the deception. When all the data were reviewed, he noted, Celebrex's safety advantage all but vanished.

However, most doctors attending a conference remained unaware of the study's flaws, believing the results of the original study.

The New England Journal of Medicine's decision was a mistake, even though it says it will disclose financial ties below $10,000. That helps somewhat, but the real answer is to cut commentators' financial ties to their subjects.

Even Drazen would seem to agree: "For a journal to be of value, it must publish authoritative, up-to-date information that is free of commercial influence," he and Gregory Curfman wrote in an editorial announcing the change.

Indeed. Doctors should know what's influencing the articles they read — and you should know what's influencing your doctor's decisions. Increasing publicly funded research would help ensure that science is not deformed by the rush for profits.

Ivan Oransky, M.D., and Jeanne Lenzer are writers in New York.