I had honestly never run into this brand of nuttery until a couple days ago via a youtube post.
Hypothesis: There is no such thing as mental illness.
Now, I'd heard anti-psychiatry arguments, usually from Scientologists who are nakedly trying to sell their own brand of psychotherapy, and people who bring up the horrific history of psychiatry from lobotomy to electroshock therapy (these things can't be readily denied) but I had never heard anyone suggest that mental illness is, like, not a thing man. Especially in the face of modern neuroscience.
I guess having a girlfriend for over a decade with chronic, clinical depression caused by *gasp* neurotransmitter imbalance put me in a bubble of people actually affected by, and thus unable to blanket deny, mental illness.
TL;DR- Lolwut?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even I don't go this far. Thats how you know they're nuts.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
It seems like his main beef is with the medicines used to treat mental illness? His focus on this seems to be financial: mental illness isn't real because the meds to treat it are sometimes ineffective and have horrible side effects, and it's all just sheeple being preyed upon by big psychiatric pharmaceutical companies and medical insurance companies! Presumably this is in opposition to non-psychiatric medicine, which exists in a utopian dream world with 100% effective treatments for everything and absolutely zero capitalistic profiteering. The other assumption here seems to be that medicine is literally the only way to treat depression? Therapy isn't "science-y" enough, I guess.
I also like how he points out racism and homophobia as supporting evidence, as if other sciences don't have histories and even current instances of reinforcing oppressive ideologies.
Or in other words, can not see it therefore it is not real.
It seems like his main beef is with the medicines used to treat mental illness? His focus on this seems to be financial: mental illness isn't real because the meds to treat it are sometimes ineffective and have horrible side effects, and it's all just sheeple being preyed upon by big psychiatric pharmaceutical companies and medical insurance companies! Presumably this is in opposition to non-psychiatric medicine, which exists in a utopian dream world with 100% effective treatments for everything and absolutely zero capitalistic profiteering. The other assumption here seems to be that medicine is literally the only way to treat depression? Therapy isn't "science-y" enough, I guess.
I also like how he points out racism and homophobia as supporting evidence, as if other sciences don't have histories and even current instances of reinforcing oppressive ideologies.
It would be a good motive for an over-prescription conspiracy.
Mind you, motive does not make the case, but it does make the case better.
He has a few valid points, but mostly he is just full of it.
Anti-psychiatry nutjobs are sadly not a rare thing, nor all scientologists. They come in all stripes today, financed by various very dubious sources. It is a good thing to remember, particularly with the income from all the new books by antipsychiatrists, that they certainly don't do this out of the goodness of their hearts.
The principle, as sad as it is, is simple: Some people have debilitating mental illnesses. This causes them problems of all sorts in merely living a normal life - interpersonal, physiological (fatigue, easily stressed, other health issues, etc), and mental (depression, psychosis, etc). These problems can usually be solved through medication, but any drugs used do have side effects, so understandably, it's not a happy situation and many would far prefer not to have to take these drugs.
At this point, it is important to bring up the issue of a person's definition of health. See, how we think about things affect how we see them. Most people have a definition of health that says "if am not limited in what I can do and I can live a functioning life, I am healthy". Today, there are many, in particular the many on these kinds of medications, who instead opt for "if I am not on medications, I am healthy". The results are predictable, with people stopping to take their medications, relapsing into depression and psychosis, with the very real risks involved in that (suicide, violence, hospitalization, and so on). Even worse, in serious mental illness, the understanding of being mentally ill is impaired.
So... if there are hundreds of millions of people on these drugs, and a significant percentage of them don't want to have to be, what would a truly remorseless human parasite do? Why, tell them, large scale, that they don't need the drugs, of course! The mentally ill are the ones who carry ALL of the risk, and there is HUGE money to be made, most recently in book sales.
So, is there something to what they say? In some facets. Psychiatry, like all disciplines, has things that are not optimal. I would point to the legal practices of getting politically problematic people declared insane, usually in trials. However, seeing the video above was like seeing someone very carefully cherry-picking sound bites and avoiding the reasoning. There were also very few data on how the studies referred to were conducted. Many of the things he said missed some very important facts: At one point, he claimed that those who were taking antidepressants in a population study had a higher frequency of suicide than those who did not. Well, presumably, those who did not take antidepressants were not depressed, which is the leading cause of suicide. Those on antidepressants were also more often physically unwell, which is a well-known correlation: depression causes physical unhealth.
There are some very good arguments against their tirade too. Remember his line about placebo being more effective than antidepressants? Well, if true, there should be no differences of efficacy between antidepressants of different kinds... but there are. I have yet to see the antipsych people explain that.
tl;dr: The usual hogwash by the usual predators.
One more thing: The brain is what governs our behaviour. It is also the most complex system known to man. Of course problems in the human brain show themselves through behaviour. And, are they really saying the brain, alone in all the human body, indeed all of biological and artifical existence, could not have problems?
Speaking as someone who is actually on meds due to a brain disorder that causes mental health issues?
The guy isn't entirely wrong, and some of what he says is far from unfounded.
Part of the problem with balancing meds is that they do not affect two people the same way. While this is true of all medications, the effect can be greatly exaggerated with mental health medications due to the fact they affect the brain and you can actually observe the changes. Top it all off, the results sometimes produce false positives; what can appear to be corrections that signal a high effectiveness can actually be a symptom of a worsening of the problem or even an entirely new problem that the med is creating. Plus, the effects will almost never stay the same; the human body adapts, builds up tolerance, and the effectiveness of the medication lessens (this can, in some cases where multiple drugs are involved, actually change how the individual drug is affecting someone).
If you're lucky, dealing with all of the above is the end of your problems. The simple fact is, when it comes to mental health, the above is just the tip of the iceberg. Because this is where the human factor, specifically the human factor on the side of the psychiatrist, comes into play.
If you're very lucky, you get a psychiatrist who gets to know you, comes to understand your individual quirks, and understands how some things that can appear healthy under meds are definitely not healthy at all. From what I've heard, a small fraction of those who deal with mental health professionals are this lucky. In my case, I am because of the fact that dealing with my particular mental health issues requires a specialist who knows how to get to know patients.
Most of the time, you'll probably get a mental health professional who doesn't really pay close attention. They've got too many patients, or they have other cases more pressing, or they simply lack the necessary education to deal with certain quirks, or they rely more on their personal idea of what a healthy mind is than learning what is healthy for you, or they're in the middle of burnout and just honestly don't care anymore. Sometimes, you get unlucky and get one that just doesn't like you and lets that affect the quality of their care.
And if you're really unlucky, you'll get one that has an agenda; those are the worst, as not only do they not actually care about your mental health, they will probably screw you up even more in trying to force you to fitting the mold of what they need to fulfill their agenda. They're also the source of most of the modern horror stories about psychiatrists.
So, to a degree, the anti-psychers are not unfounded in their opposition; even I have file cabinets full of evidence as to why you should trust the average psychiatrist only as much as you should trust the average identity thief.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, MJ, but none of that even approaches the claim that mental illness doesn't EXIST.
Which is why I said he isn't entirely wrong as part of my lead-in.
The part I love about this nutjob? He talks about cocaine-like stimulants, yet misses the fact that several painkillers used in medicine are refined heroin. Or that some medications currently in use include mercury. And that's before you get into medicine asking you to drink radioactive liquid.
Personally, I think he should be more worried about becoming a radioactive brain damaged heroin addict!
I will give him props on the bit about PTSD; last time I saw any studies on it by the U.S. government, they found a lack of medication and encouraging the soldiers to play certain violent video games actually helped more and tended to get far better results. IIRC, that study was early last decade.
It is also extremely interesting that he claims that antidepressants are addictive. They are not, and have never been shown to be, despite rigorous studies.
This dude breaks the mold in one specific instance from most antipsych nutters: He understands that anxiolytics of the bensodiazepine type are severely addictive and dangerous. Normally, the antipsych people want to paint a picture where talk therapy cures everything, if the patients are only given enough bensodiazepines (which makes them calm and addicted to the treatment, i.e. not likely to protest against ineffective therapy). However, it may just be an expression of the new style of antipsych discourse, where literally NOTHING is offered as an alternative to psychiatric treatment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, he lost me when he tried to claim that schizophrenia isn't real.
I'm not surprised in the least. Human stupidity is limitless. There are people who think vaccines cause authism, FFS!
Best part of the anti-vacc crowd's ideas is that autism is something a child is born with, but a vaccine given at four years of age would cause it? To actually miss an autism spectrum disorder of some sort of severity until a child is four years of age... well, it's impressive. I am not talking about diagnosis here, merely the fact that the child who is diagnosed with autism at six was not like other children, ever.
That is not the anti vacc propaganda I've seen, thejeff. Four years old is a recurring theme, always combined with "he was absolutely normal before".
|
Which is why I said he isn't entirely wrong as part of my lead-in.
Stating some correct facts and then jumping to abhorrently incorrect conclusions is one of the oldest tricks in the book when it comes to deception. You say a couple of things that you can reliably assume your audience will identify as correct, which puts them in the mood to not inspect your words to carefully later.
I am familiar with this speaker from previous occurrences of crazy. Nothing good I can say about him. I have seen evidence of him spreading other harmful ideas - like encouraging people to cut ties with their families over ideological disputes and, in one case, blatant antisemitism. There's also a record of him outright lying in some accounts (which is more serious than the purposeful misinformation he usually trades in).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no such thing as mental illness!
At least that's what the voices in my head keep telling me...
On a more serious note, if we are talking about the same person, he is basically saying that so called mental illness is nothing more than fraud and attempts to game the system. To this I reply wow, just wow.
Seeing as this guy is a far-right libertarian/anarcho-capitalist, I see his assertion of mental illness as a sort of "poisoning the well" against otherwise rational arguments to the contrary.
For example, anarcho-capitalism requires that all actors are equally rational, and if it is possible that some people are, by their very nature, irrational, then it would fly in the face of AnCaps base assumptions.
Furthermore, if there's no such thing as mental illness, there's no rationale for the state to exact a lesser punishment against those with diminished facilities OR confiscate firearms/other dangerous weapons.
It is also extremely interesting that he claims that antidepressants are addictive. They are not, and have never been shown to be, despite rigorous studies.
Just thought I'd address this.
While they're not addictive in the 'traditional' sense, your body can become dependent on them. My fiance suffered some rather horrible withdrawl when she lost her health insurance and couldn't cover the 3 or 4 meds (depakote, seroquel, and topamax that we can recall) she had been on for 6 years beforehand. Granted, yes, one's an anti-depressant, another is an anti-psychotic, and the third was just put on to counteract the "always hungry" side effect of the first two.
So, under certain circumstances, one's body can get dependent on the drugs. Fortunately she's learned to (mostly) control her bi-polar paranoia through willpower and keeping herself nice and well distracted, but Asmodeus forbid if she gets put in a crowd.
Personally, I've never heard of this anti-psychiatry BS. Haven't watched the video, but from what I over hear of this... Thing... All I gotta say is "Whadufuh?"
Now, I'm of the firm belief that there are a lot of people who are medicating when they really shouldn't need to. Around 70% of the population on some form of anti-depressant? Are you kidding me? Sounds like a bunch of people who can't deal with reality and want to spend time in happy la-la land.
I can see the appeal of it myself, life sucks, and I've more than once had the occasion to think I might need to take a look into it myself. But then, that feels to much like running away to me. And I realize that I'm more depressed about the situation my fiance and I find ourselves in, rather than any form of actual mental imbalance.
Yeah, there ARE people that need meds. If my fiance hadn't gotten raped while on a multitude of meds that kept her in a dazed funk, I'd be more inclined to encourage her to at least try and get a low-dose mood elevator. But, seeing as she doesn't want to take the chance, or go through potential withdrawl again, I can't disagree that there's some seed of truth to the paranoia. For those that actually have a mental imbalance, get some help. For those that don't, figure out what your problem is, and fix it.
Though, I have noticed that any time I go to any form of doctor, even just for a check up, I'm getting some form of medication shoved in my face. Medication for my allergies (OTC is fine thanks), medication for my digestive (again, OTC is fine thanks), steroidal anti-fungal medication for my scalp/forehead! (Are you trying to make some sales quota like an Avon Lady of the Pharmaceuticals or something!?)... Feels more like doctors these days just throw medication at patients, rather than actually trying to address the problem in a more permanent and less-costly way. But that's a conversation for another topic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, I'm of the firm belief that there are a lot of people who are medicating when they really shouldn't need to. Around 70% of the population on some form of anti-depressant? Are you kidding me? Sounds like a bunch of people who can't deal with reality and want to spend time in happy la-la land.
I'm not going to scold you or anything, because I used to feel the same way, but now I'm on zoloft.
My parter of 10 1/2 years abruptly left me in the middle of the night with no warning and left me holding the bag on a myriad of things. I needed help. I'm dealing with reality, and I'm hardly in la-la land, I'm just not having the near daily panic attacks and breakdowns that typified the first 6-8 weeks after she left.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depression is not, counter to public perception, that you are sad. It is an inability to be happy. Again, counter to public perception, bad circumstances do not prevent happiness. Even those in the worst of situations feel happy when they should... Unless they are depressed. Depression carves out your self-image, your will, your happiness and your hope. Sure, you will live, but the price (in years lost) is steep. Not to mention the risk of suicide. All in all, the antidepressants have very few problems for what they cure. Weight gain, for most drugs a mild one of a few pounds, lack of sexual interest (depression usually kills this dead anyway, so it is not a problem until you get better), dry mouth, and some autonomous frizzles when changing your dosage. These frizzles consist of mild nausea, tiredness, numbness, yawning, etc, but pass after five to ten days (when your new blood concentration has settled). This last is why some think they are addictive.
While many claim they make you happy, in truth they do not. They restore your ability to be happy when you should. After a few weeks on the right dose, your close ones will recognize you as who you used to be. After another week or so, you will find that you feel better.
What comes next is what people tend to miss. When you get depressed, you lose the ability to imagine success. The best mental image you can manage is ho-hum, no matter what it is you do. This in itself will mean you fail more often, and after months of this, you will have adjusted your self-image to protect yourself ("I didn't manage this job, oh well, I knew it wasn't going to work out for me"). Therapy in this situation will not help you, because that won't work either. But once the depression has been treated, you have a lot of work to do in building up a new self image. It takes a few months of taking on reasonable projects you can succeed at, the same as the process of getting any new habit. This, therapy can help you with.
As for numbers, depression is very common. The estimate I have seen is 5-10% point prevalence (number ill at a point in time) and about half of women and a third of men in lifetime prevalence (people who have depressions at some point in their lives). Add to this that recommendations are at least one year treatment first episode, two years second, lifelong third, and 13% is probably too low. It is important to remember that these are mild drugs that people can try out. Most of the 13% thus likely feel helped by it.
As for change in numbers, let's not forget that the method of dealing with depressions used to be "nothing to do about it, too bad, so sad." It was not seriously diagnosed until the postwar era.
I'm very sorry to hear that, Comrade Meatrace.
Depression is not, counter to public perception, that you are sad. It is an inability to be happy. Again, counter to public perception, bad circumstances do not prevent happiness. Even those in the worst of situations feel happy when they should... Unless they are depressed. Depression carves out your self-image, your will, your happiness and your hope. Sure, you will live, but the price (in years lost) is steep. Not to mention the risk of suicide. All in all, the antidepressants have very few problems for what they cure. Weight gain, for most drugs a mild one of a few pounds, lack of sexual interest (depression usually kills this dead anyway, so it is not a problem until you get better), dry mouth, and some autonomous frizzles when changing your dosage. These frizzles consist of mild nausea, tiredness, numbness, yawning, etc, but pass after five to ten days (when your new blood concentration has settled). This last is why some think they are addictive.
While many claim they make you happy, in truth they do not. They restore your ability to be happy when you should. After a few weeks on the right dose, your close ones will recognize you as who you used to be. After another week or so, you will find that you feel better.
What comes next is what people tend to miss. When you get depressed, you lose the ability to imagine success. The best mental image you can manage is ho-hum, no matter what it is you do. This in itself will mean you fail more often, and after months of this, you will have adjusted your self-image to protect yourself ("I didn't manage this job, oh well, I knew it wasn't going to work out for me"). Therapy in this situation will not help you, because that won't work either. But once the depression has been treated, you have a lot of work to do in building up a new self image. It takes a few months of taking on reasonable projects you can succeed at, the same as the process of getting any new habit. This, therapy can help you with.
As for numbers, depression is very common. The estimate I...
We've debated before about the use of medication, but I have to say that this is an excellent description of depression. Too often people think "well I was depressed when my pet died, but I got over it." There's no awareness of what it really means, what it's actually like. So often it isn't about what you feel, it's what you don't feel... what you can't feel.
Well said.
|
It is also extremely interesting that he claims that antidepressants are addictive. They are not, and have never been shown to be, despite rigorous studies.
Whilst personal anecdotes are of little use in rigorous academic studies, personal experience and sharing it has been something I've seen meet with greater success in getting people convinced. I'll still testify that the prescription-grade cough syrup that was taken in conjunction with my pneumonia medication years ago was harder to quit than prozac.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I work as a psychologist. I hear less anti-psychiatry supporters these days than in years past. Some who are 'anti-psychiatry' are more down on medications of all sorts, and believe that government and science and the pharmaceutical companies are forcing them on us and laughing all the way to the bank. I think you could argue that some medications are over-prescribed; but this argument is usually made on the milder diagnoses (kids & ADHD stimulant meds, Prozac for 7 year-olds). I have yet to hear anyone seriously argue that violent paranoid schizophrenics should stop taking their prescribed psychotropic medications.
Anti-depressants aren't addictive. Some of the anti-depressants have 'withdrawal' effects when you go 'cold turkey' and stop taking them without tapering off. SSRI's (Prozac/Paxil/Zoloft) are examples of this. Having unpleasant physical effects when you cease a medication doesn't meet the definition of 'addiction.'
Only two classes of medications are 'addictive'. One, the synthetic opiates (pain meds) aren't given for psychiatric reasons. The other, benzodiazepines, are given for anxiety related problems. The reality is that 'benzos' are highly effective for treating anxiety, and many report that Buspar and other non-benzodiazepine medications are less effective in relieving anxiety/panic related symptoms. Are most people taking benzos for anxiety, 'addicted?' Probably not. I think the context/reason why one is taking a prescribed medication ought to be considered when defining 'addiction,' rather than just flatly stating that any medication that a person 'needs,' is addictive. A cancer patient 'needs' certain medications, but isn't addicted to them.
Some of the more conservative ideologies may view psychiatry/mental health as excuses for bad behaviors. In my experience (and I am a conservative practitioner of psychology), most conservatives understand that mental illnesses exist right along with physical illnesses, and one is no less/more significant than the other. The brain is after all a bodily organ, just like the heart, lungs and the rest, and like the others, many don't work the way they should.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killer_GM, there's a video in the OP. About the 17 minutes mark he starts explaining his theory for why schizophrenia is something that's purely made up, and caused by, psychiatry.
Bensodiazepines are strongly addicitve. While they work wonders for anxiety relief short-term, it takes no more than (at most) a month or so to addict people, with the result that they no longer get anxiety relief for taking them, only worse anxiety when not taking them. This still motivates them to keep taking them indefinitely, in some cases 40 years plus. It is extremely important to keep this in mind. The worst part is that bensodiazepines make you unfocused - which increases falling injuries with elderly, and dampens the willpower you'd need to get off them, should you want to.
They are brilliant as acute medication and preoperatively. They work well against seizures. Use them for that instead.
Anti-depressants aren't addictive. Some of the anti-depressants have 'withdrawal' effects when you go 'cold turkey' and stop taking them without tapering off. SSRI's (Prozac/Paxil/Zoloft) are examples of this. Having unpleasant physical effects when you cease a medication doesn't meet the definition of 'addiction.'
That seems kind of a fine distinction to make. Whats the difference between an alcoholic who will get the shakes if they go off of alcohol and that?
Some of the more conservative ideologies may view psychiatry/mental health as excuses for bad behaviors. In my experience (and I am a conservative practitioner of psychology), most conservatives understand that mental illnesses exist right along with physical illnesses, and one is no less/more significant than the other. The...
The problem is the lack of objectivity. If someone has a broken bone you can see it on the x ray. How do you tell someone that's just not coping with life from someone that has a chemical and or physical problem in their brain?
Killer_GM, there's a video in the OP. About the 17 minutes mark he starts explaining his theory for why schizophrenia is something that's purely made up, and caused by, psychiatry.
Perhaps the video in question (which I haven't watched) is put together by Scientologists. They have a very dour view of psychiatry in general. I've worked with people who have schizophrenia. How does psychiatry "cause" people to have psychotic symptoms. All people who are eventually treated for psychotic symptoms or schizophrenia actually have to demonstrate the symptoms before they are ever prescribed any medications for the behaviors. Whether or not you like medications, unless you want to commit 'schizophrenics' to insane asylums or give them lobotomies, medication is the main way to keep many of these individuals stable and able to function in society. Many of the perpetrators of mass shootings/killings in recent history in this country have supposedly had this condition. I respectfully disagree with those who would suggest that 'psychiatry' or psychotropic medications cause the condition. Ridiculous. You can make arguments for/against the medications, but the meds do not cause the condition. End of story.
Unless you want to return to surprise baths, various alcoholic tinctures, high speed swings, long baths and similar methods (that did not work), the methods that existed before 1953, antipsychotics are the only known way of treating psychosis. Not treating it brings a very serious risk of death. Lobotomy was done before antipsychotics came simply to give these patients a chance at living at all. Nowadays, it is seen as gravely unethical not to give antipsychotics when indicated, so we are in the unfortunate situation that we can't find out for certain whether the long term effects are due to the medications or the disease. We do know, however, that psychosis happens anyway, and that the outlook for those who do not get antipsychotics is oh so very bleak. Bleak enough that even lobotomy was seen as preferable. The scientologists are very much aware of this, and keep doing what they do. They instead insist on vitamins only, with a few cases of noted horror. Such as the girl they imprisoned and LET STARVE TO DEATH rather than getting her proper health care.
That seems kind of a fine distinction to make. Whats the difference between an alcoholic who will get the shakes if they go off of alcohol and that?
Anti-depressants aren't addictive. Some of the anti-depressants have 'withdrawal' effects when you go 'cold turkey' and stop taking them without tapering off. SSRI's (Prozac/Paxil/Zoloft) are examples of this. Having unpleasant physical effects when you cease a medication doesn't meet the definition of 'addiction.'
To meet the qualification of being addictive you need to take ever increasing doses for the same effect. Even a drug that has painful and/or sanity shattering withdrawal effects is not considered 'addictive' if it does not meet the increasing dose criteria.
That seems kind of a fine distinction to make. Whats the difference between an alcoholic who will get the shakes if they go off of alcohol and that?
Anti-depressants aren't addictive. Some of the anti-depressants have 'withdrawal' effects when you go 'cold turkey' and stop taking them without tapering off. SSRI's (Prozac/Paxil/Zoloft) are examples of this. Having unpleasant physical effects when you cease a medication doesn't meet the definition of 'addiction.'
Food has an unpleasant side effect when you stop taking it, as does oxygen and water.
I think unpleasant side effects when you stop taking something might be too liberal of a sole criteria to consider for "addiction" to have a useful meaning.
In some ways, an addictive substance is one that causes addiction. I can't find the pharmacological criteria for addictiveness with a very quick googling, but addiction is comparably well defined, with drug seeking behaviour, loss of interest in other things, dysfunction of important relationships as a consequence, continuously increased tolerance, ignoring increasingly different or dangerous behaviours etc. I have yet to see or hear about a study showing SSRIs cause this.
I'm not surprised in the least. Human stupidity is limitless. There are people who think vaccines cause autism, FFS!
It is a shame, considering humanity also has a lot of potential for brilliance as well. Seems like it's just easier to let the stupidity take control.
Killer_GM, there's a video in the OP. About the 17 minutes mark he starts explaining his theory for why schizophrenia is something that's purely made up, and caused by, psychiatry.Perhaps the video in question (which I haven't watched) is put together by Scientologists. They have a very dour view of psychiatry in general. I've worked with people who have schizophrenia. How does psychiatry "cause" people to have psychotic symptoms. All people who are eventually treated for psychotic symptoms or schizophrenia actually have to demonstrate the symptoms before they are ever prescribed any medications for the behaviors. Whether or not you like medications, unless you want to commit 'schizophrenics' to insane asylums or give them lobotomies, medication is the main way to keep many of these individuals stable and able to function in society. Many of the perpetrators of mass shootings/killings in recent history in this country have supposedly had this condition. I respectfully disagree with those who would suggest that 'psychiatry' or psychotropic medications cause the condition. Ridiculous. You can make arguments for/against the medications, but the meds do not cause the condition. End of story.
While schizophrenia certainly exists without drugs and always has and medications are the only effective way to treat it many psychiatric drugs can in fact cause psychosis and other mental health issues like bi-polar symptoms in patients that have never had them when they are tapering off a drug.
Such meds are often given to people with no mental health issues for medical issues or off label purposes and it can take months before their brains readjust and the symptoms fade.
Edit: Can't find the study on the internet but I remember reading about Ziprasidone and the mental illness symptoms it caused in previously not mentally ill people upon tapering off.
Edit 2: Basically my understanding of it is if, for example, you give someone an anti-psychotic who has no natural problems long enough for their brain to acclimate to it then slowly deny it to them they can have the same reaction as a person who naturally has that problem would i.e. becoming psychotic, the only difference being that the naturally non psychotic person will get better without additional drugs as their brain chemistry balances out again.
It is not really that surprising either when you consider that psychiatric medications target the brain, there are plenty of non psych meds that can produce painful withdrawal and/or mental illness symptoms as a side effect.
The brain is part of the body and a delicate part at that, it's pretty easy to knock it for a loop.
All this being said I am firmly pro psychiatry, nothing else I am aware of truly helps the seriously mentally ill, at least at the beginning stages of recovery.
Do anti-psychotics replace deficient neurotransmitters, or augment them?
Been a while since psych classes...
To meet the qualification of being addictive you need to take ever increasing doses for the same effect. Even a drug that has painful and/or sanity shattering withdrawal effects is not considered 'addictive' if it does not meet the increasing dose criteria.That seems kind of a fine distinction to make. Whats the difference between an alcoholic who will get the shakes if they go off of alcohol and that?
Anti-depressants aren't addictive. Some of the anti-depressants have 'withdrawal' effects when you go 'cold turkey' and stop taking them without tapering off. SSRI's (Prozac/Paxil/Zoloft) are examples of this. Having unpleasant physical effects when you cease a medication doesn't meet the definition of 'addiction.'
1) That's a very fine distinction to make. If someone can't stop taking something without horrible side effects from withdrawal that may be "not addictive" from a clinical sense but i don't think that holds up in plain English. It also doesn't help against an anti psychiatry argument because that looks like disingenuous chicanery to avoid the label of addiction: you picked a definition deliberately to exclude your product.
To me that doesn't say "don't prescribe these" , it just means. "you want to be a little more careful with this stuff?" (or in the case of add medication a LOT more careful with this stuff)
2)You can build a tolerance to psychiatric medication, just like anything else.
To meet the qualification of being addictive you need to take ever increasing doses for the same effect. Even a drug that has painful and/or sanity shattering withdrawal effects is not considered 'addictive' if it does not meet the increasing dose criteria.
I've never seen this particular criterion listed in an actual medical or psychological diagnostic manual as a requirement. (The more so as some addictive substances actually display substance sensitization.)
In some ways, an addictive substance is one that causes addiction. I can't find the pharmacological criteria for addictiveness with a very quick googling, but addiction is comparably well defined, with drug seeking behaviour, loss of interest in other things, dysfunction of important relationships as a consequence, continuously increased tolerance, ignoring increasingly different or dangerous behaviours etc. I have yet to see or hear about a study showing SSRIs cause this.
Definition of addiction, from DSM-IV-TR:
Addiction (termed substance dependence by the American Psychiatric Association) is defined as a maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by three (or more) of the following, occurring any time in the same 12-month period:1. Tolerance, as defined by either of the following:
(a) A need for markedly increased amounts of the substance to achieve intoxication or the desired effect
or
(b) Markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance.2. Withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following:
(a) The characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance
or
(b) The same (or closely related) substance is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal
symptoms.3. The substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than intended.
4. There is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use.
5. A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance (such as visiting multiple doctors or driving long distances), use the substance (for example, chain-smoking), or recover from its effects.
6. Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use.
7. The substance use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance (for example, current cocaine use despite recognition of cocaine-induced depression or continued drinking despite recognition that an ulcer was made worse by alcohol consumption).