NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I remember a long, drawn-out thread started by Texastambul I was arguing in before I took my leave from this site last summer which attacked psychiatry as some kind of hoax to bilk people out of money. One of the arguments that he and another individual kept coming back to was that there was no test to determine if the diagnoses were correct, and that, though the field is still young comapred to other medical sciences, it ought to be held to the same standard or be considered fraudulent.

And I agreed that there are no tests - yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/conditions/11/30/bipolar.study.reut/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/conditions/11/29/hyperactivity.reut/index.html

So I guess those folks aren't just imagining their illness...fancy that.

Ha, so my freud is bunk theory is looking more right all the time.

Ha, so my freud is bunk theory is looking more right all the time.

No, this is psychiatry, not psychology, so this has nothing to do with your misunderstanding of Freud's place in the latter.

No, this is psychiatry, not psychology, so this has nothing to do with your misunderstanding of Freud's place in the latter.


One day people will realize that all psycho-pathology is rooted in brain funtion and structure.

One day people will realize that all psycho-pathology is rooted in brain funtion and structure.

Heh, you've got a lot of evidence to debunk to prove that, but stick to your black-and-white theory if you like.

Heh, you've got a lot of evidence to debunk to prove that, but stick to your black-and-white theory if you like.

I don't have to proove nothing.

Those science boffins with too much time on their hands are going to do it for me.

The pharmaceutical company reseach and quick cure "pill" therapy shit that is being pushed ignores cause and effect. Yes people with psychological illnesses will have different brain morphology and chemistry. That is because experiences and mental attitude actually CHANGE the brain which is a highly plastic organ.

Succesful forms of talk therapy cure these "imbalances." Drugs leave the imbalances but cover the symptoms (somewhat) while causing horrible side effects.

This article shows how drugs and talk work in different ways:
Patients Recovering from Depression with Talk Therapy Show a Distinct Pattern of Brain Changes (http://www.baycrest.org/news_2004_baycrest_pathrecovery.asp)


This article, in the Washington Post, verifies that sugar pills are just as effective as psychaitric drugs - causing changes in the exact same area of the brain as the medications (can we say placebo effect????):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A42930-2002May6&notFound=true

The confounding and controversial findings do not mean that antidepressants do not work. But clinicians and researchers say the results do suggest that Americans may be overestimating the power of the drugs, and that the medicines' greatest benefits may come from the care and concern shown to patients during a clinical trial -- a context that does not exist for millions of patients using the drugs in the real world.

And one more from psychology today:
http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20040521-000010.html

The chief problem with the view of depression as a consequence of a “chemical imbalance in the brain” is the fact that depression can be both triggered by and resolved by life events. The misconception the commercials foster is that the brain somehow develops a chemical imbalance and the result is depression, occurring in a single directional process.

In fact, the relationship between brain chemistry and experience is a two-directional phenomenon: Life experience affects brain chemistry at least as much as brain chemistry affects life experience. There is a growing body of evidence that psychotherapy, so-called “talk therapy,” can alter brain chemistry in ways similar to drugs, without the adverse side effects.

/\ way to go... you are my new hero!

I agree with what you are saying and the links are great.

The pharmaceutical company reseach and quick cure "pill" therapy shit that is being pushed ignores cause and effect. Yes people with psychological illnesses will have different brain morphology and chemistry. That is because experiences and mental attitude actually CHANGE the brain which is a highly plastic organ.

Succesful forms of talk therapy cure these "imbalances." Drugs leave the imbalances but cover the symptoms (somewhat) while causing horrible side effects.

This article shows how drugs and talk work in different ways:
Patients Recovering from Depression with Talk Therapy Show a Distinct Pattern of Brain Changes (http://www.baycrest.org/news_2004_baycrest_pathrecovery.asp)

This article, in the Washington Post, verifies that sugar pills are just as effective as psychaitric drugs - causing changes in the exact same area of the brain as the medications (can we say placebo effect????):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A42930-2002May6&notFound=true

And one more from psychology today:
http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20040521-000010.html

Actually, your article would indicate or provide evidence for your theory, but it does not "verify" it. There is no concrete proof in science, and this is one study pointing to a conclusion. That's evidence, not verification. Furthermore, in the antidepressant article, that's one study. That'll have to be replicated a few more times before a conclusion such as yours is reached. Furthermore, even your articles don't reach your conclusion.

Ugh, you people and your "this or that" theories. Arguing that either physical or psychological causes are at the root of mental illness is foolish. Yeah, just try and go out and do talk therapy on a schizophrenic...I bet you'd be very successful. :rolleyes: I'd offer the same for a person with severe bipolar disorder. Just like the Genetics versus Choice argument in the gay threads, such arguments are narrow-minded and ignorant.

Your own article says it best:

"It is not clear how many patients received medicines in a context of therapy, although research has indicated that combining medicines with psychotherapy produces the best results."

-And later-

"Blackmon, the Washington psychiatrist, said it behooved mental health clinicians to better integrate the power of biological treatments with the effects of belief and therapy.

"We would say it's absurd if an internist says, 'I believe in penicillin, so everyone should get penicillin whether they have cancer or a broken bone," he said. "

-Why limit it to the WP article? This from the Baycrest article-

"When treating clinical depression we know that one type of treatment doesn´t fit all," says principal investigator Dr. Helen Mayberg, a senior scientist at The Rotman Research Institute at Baycrest and the Sandra A. Rotman Chair in Neuropsychiatry at the University of Toronto.

"Our imaging study shows that you can correct the depression network along a variety of pathways. Anti-depressant drugs change the chemical balance in the brain through effects at very specific target sites. Cognitive behavioral therapy also changes brain activity, it’s just tapping into a different component of the same depression circuit board."

Looking at depression as the foundation of an argument is a joke. Today, a huge number of people are convinced they're depressed about this or that, because today people are incredibly shallow, self-centered, etc. And since it's such a broad category, such people can easily find a place.

"Still, drugs may have become the reflexive treatment for the vast majority of Americans receiving medical attention for depression: As the number of doctor visits for depression rose from 14 million in 1987 to almost 25 million last year, medications were prescribed for nine in 10 patients, according to research published last week." (Washington post aticle)

Ever see "Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy?" It sums up the depression-treatment craze quite well. Of course sugar pills do well - have you watched TV in the last 10 years? You can't get through a single commercial break without hearing about how if you take X drug, it'll flip a magical switch in your body and your life will be restored (Hallelujah)! With that kind of propaganda, is it any surprise that a placebo effect could be greater than two decades ago? The Washington post article discusses such changes in attitude amongst people towards the end.

Actually, your article would indicate or provide evidence for your theory, but it does not "verify" it. There is no concrete proof in science, and this is one study pointing to a conclusion. That's evidence, not verification. Furthermore, in the antidepressant article, that's one study. That'll have to be replicated a few more times before a conclusion such as yours is reached. Furthermore, even your articles don't reach your conclusion.

Ugh, you people and your "this or that" theories. Arguing that either physical or psychological causes are at the root of mental illness is foolish. Yeah, just try and go out and do talk therapy on a schizophrenic...I bet you'd be very successful. :rolleyes: I'd offer the same for a person with severe bipolar disorder. Just like the Genetics versus Choice argument in the gay threads, such arguments are narrow-minded and ignorant.

Your own article says it best:

"It is not clear how many patients received medicines in a context of therapy, although research has indicated that combining medicines with psychotherapy produces the best results."

-And later-

"Blackmon, the Washington psychiatrist, said it behooved mental health clinicians to better integrate the power of biological treatments with the effects of belief and therapy.

"We would say it's absurd if an internist says, 'I believe in penicillin, so everyone should get penicillin whether they have cancer or a broken bone," he said. "

-Why limit it to the WP article? This from the Baycrest article-

"When treating clinical depression we know that one type of treatment doesn´t fit all," says principal investigator Dr. Helen Mayberg, a senior scientist at The Rotman Research Institute at Baycrest and the Sandra A. Rotman Chair in Neuropsychiatry at the University of Toronto.

"Our imaging study shows that you can correct the depression network along a variety of pathways. Anti-depressant drugs change the chemical balance in the brain through effects at very specific target sites. Cognitive behavioral therapy also changes brain activity, it’s just tapping into a different component of the same depression circuit board."

Looking at depression as the foundation of an argument is a joke. Today, a huge number of people are convinced they're depressed about this or that, because today people are incredibly shallow, self-centered, etc. And since it's such a broad category, such people can easily find a place.

"Still, drugs may have become the reflexive treatment for the vast majority of Americans receiving medical attention for depression: As the number of doctor visits for depression rose from 14 million in 1987 to almost 25 million last year, medications were prescribed for nine in 10 patients, according to research published last week." (Washington post aticle)

Ever see "Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy?" It sums up the depression-treatment craze quite well. Of course sugar pills do well - have you watched TV in the last 10 years? You can't get through a single commercial break without hearing about how if you take X drug, it'll flip a magical switch in your body and your life will be restored (Hallelujah)! With that kind of propaganda, is it any surprise that a placebo effect could be greater than two decades ago? The Washington post article discusses such changes in attitude amongst people towards the end.

My theory that experience changes the brain is based on the prepondance of evidence in the entire field of neuroscience - not just the branch of neuropathology. Scientist have demonstrated that bilingual people have a slightly different brain structure than people who speak only one language. They have shown how memories that carry different emotional weights get "recorded" in different areas of the brain.

How do you jump to the conclusion that my theory is "this or that?" My theory is that the physical and the psychological are indistinguishable, that the dichotomoy is a false one (in the fields of psychiatry and neuroscience).

I'm not saying that psychiatric medicine has no value. I'm saying that it is not "the answer" as the pharm companies and some psychiatrist present it to be. My arguement is against the field of psychiatric medicine (or at least the pill-pushing only branch) that asserts these "brain malfunctions" just spontaneously arise and can be "cured" simply by flooding the brain with certain chemicals. They totally ignore that envoirnmental causes change the shape of the brain and its chemistry in the first place and the fact that the introduction of chemicals changes modes of thinking which, in some cases but not all, corrects the problem. The pills can cover up the "negative" emotions or thought patterns. In such an enviornment, the patient either through self-evaluation or therapy can develop more positive thinking patterns. In these cases, they can stop taking the meds and still be healthy. But without a change in enviornment or a change in underlying patterns of thought, all the pills do can do is treat the negative symptoms, not cure them. Now this may one day become an irrelevant distinction if the medicines are ever able to target just the "problem" without causing other effects such as changes in appetite, supressing sexual response, and over-all emotional flattening among others - side effects which are often as harmful to the quality of life as the disease itself. But until then, insisting the pills are THE cure has lead many patients (as well as some doctors and insurance companies) to ignore avenues which could assist in the healing process (or in cases of the "less severe" illness largely replace chemical intervention).

Even in cases of severe illnesses such as schizophrenia , therapy has a place. For example, CBT is used to help people distinguish between what is a perception as opposed to what is just fact. While it hasn't been found to "cure" schizophrenia as it can with some lesser disorders, it has been found to ease some of the symptoms in ways that the medicines do not.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/szresearch/archives/001073.html


The attempts by the psychiatric industry to define psychiatric illness as purely physical are self-serving. If people overlook the psychological aspects then they become solely dependent on just the drugs for their well-being. This is irresponsible medicine. But that is what much of the psychiatric profession is now promoting.

Pshaw, we don't even know if we are really conscious or not.

I'm telling you those science boffins are going to put it down to the brain being broken.

My theory that experience changes the brain is based on the prepondance of evidence in the entire field of neuroscience - not just the branch of neuropathology. Scientist have demonstrated that bilingual people have a slightly different brain structure than people who speak only one language. They have shown how memories that carry different emotional weights get "recorded" in different areas of the brain.

How do you jump to the conclusion that my theory is "this or that?" My theory is that the physical and the psychological are indistinguishable, that the dichotomoy is a false one.

Thank you, that makes it a bit more clear. I thought you were hopping on the bus with DeaconDave.

Pshaw, we don't even know if we are really conscious or not.

I'm telling you those science boffins are going to put it down to the brain being broken.

Everyone has a broken brain, because there is no perfect brain (nor perfect set of circumstances to form it). There is not a person alive without some abnormality, defect, quirk, etc.

Everyone has a broken brain, because there is no perfect brain (nor perfect set of circumstances to form it). There is not a person alive without some abnormality, defect, quirk, etc.

And one day the science boffins will fix us.

I, for one, look forward to it.

Thank you, that makes it a bit more clear. I thought you were hopping on the bus with DeaconDave.

Nah... If I sound a bit strident at times it is because the way I see things going, the psych doctors are going to have someone with stage-fright taking a $200/month perscription 3x daily rather than suggesting that they just learn how to deal with their stagefright.

Nah... If I sound a bit strident at times it is because the way I see things going, the psych doctors are going to have someone with stage-fright taking a $200/month perscription 3x daily rather than suggesting that they just learn how to deal with their stagefright.

And some doctors do...I've heard my bosses (psychiatrists) lament in the past that psychiatry is turning into a field of doctors who simply want to throw meds at a patient and do nothing else. Needless to say, they're also advocates of both psychiatric and psychological therapy.

And some doctors do...I've heard my bosses (psychiatrists) lament in the past that psychiatry is turning into a field of doctors who simply want to throw meds at a patient and do nothing else. Needless to say, they're also advocates of both psychiatric and psychological therapy.

One of my biggest problems with the drug-first approach with the less severe illnesses is that it ignores all the research that has been done to prove why using non-governmentally approved drugs is bad. Yes, I know that most of the recreational drugs are stronger, and the the research presupposes that all recreation users are addicts and are flooding their bodies with chemicals 24/7. Still the drugs used in psychiatric medicine are flooding the system 24/7 and if used long term, they will change how well the brain can regulate itself. As psych drugs are not yet highly specific, anything but a REALLY gradual ceasation will leave a patient with more "imbalances" than what they started with.

So, I remember a long, drawn-out thread started by Texastambul I was arguing in before I took my leave from this site last summer which attacked psychiatry as some kind of hoax to bilk people out of money. One of the arguments that he and another individual kept coming back to was that there was no test to determine if the diagnoses were correct, and that, though the field is still young comapred to other medical sciences, it ought to be held to the same standard or be considered fraudulent.

And I agreed that there are no tests - yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/conditions/11/30/bipolar.study.reut/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/conditions/11/29/hyperactivity.reut/index.html

So I guess those folks aren't just imagining their illness...fancy that.

well, I'll be damned... it looks like I was right after all.

see, what you're failing to recognize is that while they are just now getting to the science of all of this (which is neurology, not psychiatry) the pharmacutal companies are already acting like it's old hat. That has always been the problem -- they're just exploiting people selling their snake-oil, pretending that it's based in science, when you've quite clearly shown here that we're just now starting to study this stuff.

well, I'll be damned... it looks like I was right after all.

see, what you're failing to recognize is that while they are just now getting to the science of all of this (which is neurology, not psychiatry) the pharmacutal companies are already acting like it's old hat. That has always been the problem -- they're just exploiting people selling their snake-oil, pretending that it's based in science, when you've quite clearly shown here that we're just now starting to study this stuff.

1) And you still seem to fail to recognize that the science is young. Are you of the opinion they should have come up with these findings in the '60s or something? Medicine can only advance as fast as the technology to develop it, and you still don't seem to grasp that this, while being a much better way, is not the only way with some validity. Do I have to point out again that this is a young science involving the most complex organ in the body? I think it's pretty evident why we are where we are in that area.

2) Of course it's neurology - with results which will be applied to the field of psychiatry. Do you think there are rigid walls between the fields or something?

3) Quit b-tching about the drug companies - everyone knows that they're just another big-money evil, and while they influence the field, they have nothing to do with its actual validity. Some drugs work, others don't, that's why they do studies. Time will tell who was honest about those studies. Vioxx shows this to be true, and not just a problem with psych drugs.

But, if you want to continue to try to toss the baby out with the bathwater, you go right ahead. And whatever happened to these people just making up their illnesses? Hmm, you seem to have not addressed that...perhaps the egg on your face obscured the screen a bit. ;)

1) And you still seem to fail to recognize that the science is young. Are you of the opinion they should have come up with these findings in the '60s or something? Medicine can only advance as fast as the technology to develop it, and you still don't seem to grasp that this, while being a much better way, is not the only way with some validity. Do I have to point out again that this is a young science involving the most complex organ in the body? I think it's pretty evident why we are where we are in that area.

2) Of course it's neurology - with results which will be applied to the field of psychiatry. Do you think there are rigid walls between the fields or something?

3) Quit b-tching about the drug companies - everyone knows that they're just another big-money evil, and while they influence the field, they have nothing to do with its actual validity. Some drugs work, others don't, that's why they do studies. Time will tell who was honest about those studies. Vioxx shows this to be true, and not just a problem with psych drugs.

But, if you want to continue to try to toss the baby out with the bathwater, you go right ahead. And whatever happened to these people just making up their illnesses? Hmm, you seem to have not addressed that...perhaps the egg on your face obscured the screen a bit. ;)

I'm not certain but I think the point that Texastanbul is trying to make is that when a person goes to a doctor the doctors don't conduct brain scans. This can lead to a doctor -not even a neurologist or psychiatrist - deciding, for example, that a widow still greiving the death of her husband of 26 years after a month is depression and prescribing meds because, in the doctor's opinion, that is an inapproapiate length for said emotional response. And that widow gets the same exact meds that someone with actual clinical depression gets. You yourself implied that all the propaganda has turned what used to be normal sadness and angst into "depression" and its not just the people buying the propaganda, the doctors have bought into it and are promoting it as well.

It is not that the science is bunk, but rather that the establishment's attitude toward the science (holding it up well beyond what it has proven itself to be) has allowed for the classifying of any emotional response or behavior outside of a steadily shrinking range of normal limits to be classified as pathological. And, as I discussed before, giving the meds to someone who doesn't already have an actual chemical imbalance will create one.

If the field of pain medication were allowed to operate as loosely as the field of psychiatry does, someone with recurring headache would be given the same meds as someone with serious chronic pain and half the world would be opiate addicts right now.

One of my biggest problems with the drug-first approach with the less severe illnesses is that it ignores all the research that has been done to prove why using non-governmentally approved drugs is bad. Yes, I know that most of the recreational drugs are stronger, and the the research presupposes that all recreation users are addicts and are flooding their bodies with chemicals 24/7. Still the drugs used in psychiatric medicine are flooding the system 24/7 and if used long term, they will change how well the brain can regulate itself. As psych drugs are not yet highly specific, anything but a REALLY gradual ceasation will leave a patient with more "imbalances" than what they started with.

That's is the influence of the government/drug companies (well, possibly more the latter pulling the former's strings), and that's the unfortunate state of things. The drug companies stifle the potential of a lot of useful substances if they aren't profitable. Lithium, for example, is a naturally occuring element, so no one puts money into research on it because it can't be patented.

I'm not certain but I think the point that Texastanbul is trying to make is that when a person goes to a doctor the doctors don't conduct brain scans. This can lead to a doctor -not even a neurologist or psychiatrist - deciding, for example, that a widow still greiving the death of her husband of 26 years after a month is depression and prescribing meds because, in the doctor's opinion, that is an inapproapiate length for said emotional response. And that widow gets the same exact meds that someone with actual clinical depression gets. You yourself implied that all the propaganda has turned what used to be normal sadness and angst into "depression" and its not just the people buying the propaganda, the doctors have bought into it and are promoting it as well.

Your own article, as I pointed out earlier, shows that many of the presciptions come form family practitioners, so yes, that's a problem since those people aren't specifically trained in that kind of thing. Incidentally, grieving widows and such generally get tranquilizers, as far as I know. To be diagnosed with (and subsequently treated for) depression, you need to show a history of strong depressive episodes with no obvious trigger. Obviously, it's a bit more technical than that, but that's a summary.

It is not that the science is bunk, but rather that the establishment's attitude toward the science (holding it up well beyond what it has proven itself to be) has allowed for the classifying of any emotional response or behavior outside of a steadily shrinking range of normal limits to be classified as pathological. And, as I discussed before, giving the meds to someone who doesn't already have an actual chemical imbalance will create one.

If the field of pain medication were allowed to operate as loosely as the field of psychiatry does, someone with recurring headache would be given the same meds as someone with serious chronic pain and half the world would be opiate addicts right now.

Actually, this is a continuation of a previous thread by Texas, and that was essentially his point - that, since the science isn't up to the level of older medical fields, it's a farce perpetuated by greedy charlatans. He's being a bit more civil since he ducked out of the last thread, which is good, since his rantings and insults there were pretty counterproductive.

Your example is interesting...you do realize that it directly hearkens back to when other forms of medicine were at the stage the psychiatry is now, right? People seem to have forgotten how medicine has advanced historically. Doctors find something that may work and start recommending it to patients who want it. If it doesn't work, they stop doing it. That's how surgery advanced. That's how pharmaceuticals advanced. Psychiatry is advancing no differently. Today, we have an upside and a downside. On one hand, there are regulations and procedures that such older practices weren't cultivated under, making the trials safer. However, there is also an industry applying pressure and forcing an agenda, and this industry is the producer.

It's all the brain.

One day we'll be able to fix it. This other stuff is all just naturopathy.

Your own article, as I pointed out earlier, shows that many of the presciptions come form family practitioners, so yes, that's a problem since those people aren't specifically trained in that kind of thing. Incidentally, grieving widows and such generally get tranquilizers, as far as I know. To be diagnosed with (and subsequently treated for) depression, you need to show a history of strong depressive episodes with no obvious trigger. Obviously, it's a bit more technical than that, but that's a summary.

Actually, this is a continuation of a previous thread by Texas, and that was essentially his point - that, since the science isn't up to the level of older medical fields, it's a farce perpetuated by greedy charlatans. He's being a bit more civil since he ducked out of the last thread, which is good, since his rantings and insults there were pretty counterproductive.

Your example is interesting...you do realize that it directly hearkens back to when other forms of medicine were at the stage the psychiatry is now, right? People seem to have forgotten how medicine has advanced historically. Doctors find something that may work and start recommending it to patients who want it. If it doesn't work, they stop doing it. That's how surgery advanced. That's how pharmaceuticals advanced. Psychiatry is advancing no differently. Today, we have an upside and a downside. On one hand, there are regulations and procedures that such older practices weren't cultivated under, making the trials safer. However, there is also an industry applying pressure and forcing an agenda, and this industry is the producer.

My mother's doctor (gp) gave her *paxil* - which as she wasn't actually depressed, but was rather grieving, actually made her worse for the month or so that she was on the meds, at which time she slowly got off of them and began to deal with the situation.

I've heard of infirmaries on college campuses (where students without other forms of insurance have to go for affordable care) that are not allowed to prescribe anti-anxiety meds or sleep aids, so instead of handing out these as-needed medications, write the students perscriptions for some of the stronger anti-depressants or even anti-psychotics (such as seroquel) to deal with sleeplessness and test anxiety. Perhaps this is somehow tied into to the drug-war hysteria that tries to ban or limit medications that are useful to a great many people just because a few people may purposely misuse them - but still, it is irresponsible beyond belief.

Part of the problem may be the insurance industry which is strongly pushing away from treatment by specialists, and that is highly dangerous, especially in fields where the information held by the specialist is new and not quite proven. The advertising to the public and the doctors about the "safety" of psych meds is troublesome too - but that goes back to regulating the greedy ass pharm companies, who have manipulated ALL of the medical fields and not just psychiatry far too much.

I guess I am being rather idealistic in thinking that doctors would *learn* from the patterns of the development in past fields and perhaps be a little more careful, considering the harm that some of the psychiatric medicines (or any medication for that matter) can do when used improperly.

My mother's doctor (gp) gave her *paxil* - which as she wasn't actually depressed, but was rather grieving, actually made her worse for the month or so that she was on the meds, at which time she slowly got off of them and began to deal with the situation.

I've heard of infirmaries on college campuses (where students without other forms of insurance have to go for affordable care) that are not allowed to prescribe anti-anxiety meds or sleep aids, so instead of handing out these as-needed medications, write the students perscriptions for some of the stronger anti-depressants or even anti-psychotics (such as seroquel) to deal with sleeplessness and test anxiety. Perhaps this is somehow tied into to the drug-war hysteria that tries to ban or limit medications that are useful to a great many people just because a few people may purposely misuse them - but still, it is irresponsible beyond belief.

Part of the problem may be the insurance industry which is strongly pushing away from treatment by specialists, and that is highly dangerous, especially in fields where the information held by the specialist is new and not quite proven. The advertising to the public and the doctors about the "safety" of psych meds is troublesome too - but that goes back to regulating the greedy ass pharm companies, who have manipulated ALL of the medical fields and not just psychiatry far too much.

I guess I am being rather idealistic in thinking that doctors would *learn* from the patterns of the development in past fields and perhaps be a little more careful, considering the harm that some of the psychiatric medicines (or any medication for that matter) can do when used improperly.

Yes, these mostly highlight failings in the healthcare system. Off-label use is always risky (i.e. antipsychotics used for sleep-aids in low doses), but have always been a part of the medical profession. You say that you'd think medical professionals would learn, but learn what? Medicine got where it is today by these means. Doctors try things, reports of a certain drug being good for Y besides being good for X surface, and studies begin. With some of the more risky drugs, the problem is the untrained, unspecialized people (gp's and campus clinics, as you say) playing with these things. The days of trained professionals who cared about their patients and so could effectively monitor these case-by-case trials are quickly becoming a thing of the past; and, despite how over-regulated research is today, there are too many hands in the pot to make it work as it should.

Ha, so my freud is bunk theory is looking more right all the time.

The types of therapy used with bipolar disorder differ from those employed to fight depression, so a correct diagnosis is important, Port said. Most diagnoses are made based on conversations with the patient.

Since the first article only indicates a method of diagnosis, but refers patients to therapy for treatment, how does this bear on any argument that attempts to debunk any kind of therapeutic theory? The article never says the physical evidence of the disease causes it, only that their are certain patterns in the brain when a person has it. How do you leap to the conclusion--which the scientists responsible for this advance do not--that a physical brain state, and not a psychological phenomenon, causes the condition?

most analysts never rule out the possibility that a physical condition in the brain is responsible for mental disorders. My father, who is a practicing psychologist and sympathetic to (but not trained in) analysis, holds a similar view. When treating depression, for instance, he resents the ease with which psychiatrists medicate people--and never really make them better. Often, medicine just controls the symptoms, and usually adds some rather undesirable side-effects. On the other hand, Dad also tells me that sometimes a person is so depressed that you cannot even get them to talk... or talk in a way conducive to therapy. In such cases, he is more than happy to make a referral for an anti-depressant... but the point is that once the medicine "balances them out" a little bit, they should turn back to the therapy option to get themselves off the medicine and back to a normal life.]

One day people will realize that all psycho-pathology is rooted in brain funtion and structure.

Funny how only a small minority of scientists studying psychopathology would agree with this claim... yet you make it with the certainty of a prophet.

I wonder what chemical causes such an unmoveable and irrational belief?

My thoughts on anti-depressants: If I ate a large portion of turkey everyday, I would get the same amount of tryptophan as I do from the pills I've begun consuming... it's no different that taking a Vitamin C supplement when you can't get enough orange juice. In just the same way that some people don't produce enough iron for their need, there are some people who don't produce enough serotonin; both people need help supplementing their natural inabilities. Nobody mocks the asthmatic kid whom sometimes needs the help of an inhaler, nobody mocks the anemic who takes iron-supplements to stay alive, but science still don't understand the human brain and how it works: that's why we don't understand depression.

There's no need for stigma, but I also don't want to see a generation turned into guinee-pigs for the pharmacutical industry.