Okay. After re-reading this a bunch of times, I think I understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey
I think that no one today really understands mental illness.
I think there are some that are more keenly attuned to the difficulties of mental illnesses and while not really understands it, it's like saying astronomers really don't understand the universe.
Quote:
Those who think that they do are kidding themselves, IMO.
And yet, there are those in power that are now trying to understand it and address it. Should they not?
Quote:
You may have a closer personal or professional connection, but it doesn't mean that you understand it.
I understand it better than the average person on the street. I've dealt with both the negative and positive affects of mental health issues. I've had bipolar symptoms since I was 12 (17 years) and have gone to 6 doctors in 10 years. I self-diagnosed my symptoms correctly and have had a very positive relationship with three doctors because of my awareness and my response.
Quote:
To be honest, there's a dangerous bit of hubris in calling others "ignorant," as though you're enlightened, especially regarding a frontier subject such as this.
Would you call those that spout intelligent design over evolution as ignorant? There are truly some that are ignorant of the conditions of mental illnesses and simply don't understand the impact.
Quote:
That's not a helpful attitude, IMO. You don't have a dialogue and persuade others by calling them ignorant and publicly banging your head on the wall when they say something that you disagree with.
Let's bring up homosexuality. Would you consider people ignorant and bigoted if others don't believe in gay marriage? Gay rights because it's something they disagree with?
It's not disagreement. It's the fact that they don't understand and refuse to understand or listen. I mean, and I do apologize, but look at one of the posts in this thread about depression. Those are what people actually believe.
Quote:
That only convinces yourself of your righteousness, which can be an impediment to your own consideration of other viewpoints.
Not necessarily. A truly enlightened person can see both sides of an argument but as well try to get people to understand better.
Quote:
Just consider that, a hundred years from now, society will shake its head at what
even the most "enlightened" of us thought that we'd figured out in 2012.
So you don't laugh that people used blood letting as a form of medicine back in the 1700-1800s? Leeches!
Quote:
Our best treatments might very well seem to 2112 society to be as ridiculous as "walking off" cancer seems now.
like I said the fact that the very meds that are meant to help it says on the bottle they will make you want to kill yourself. This leads me to wonder if "depression" is not something that cab be stopped by NOT taking the medication as they seem to be counter productive. call me crazy but ANYTHING that tells me that it will make me want to kill myself seems bad to me. BUT people take thse meds and the meds never get blamed why?
that and most people that claim to be depressed seem to be people that have or had it all.
Clara huges is an example she has mulitple olympic medals in BOTH winter and summer olympics the only person to ever do that. She has endorsement deals, if she was smart she doesn't need to worry about anything. Someone like me? I live check to check month to month AND CONSTANTLY have to worry about rent,food etc there have been some close calls.
If she's that depressed switch lives with 90% of the world lets see how you do.
but thats just it [mod], depression can make people who others would think have a perfect life feel hopeless.... it is a medical/physiological condition that makes people irrationally sad/hopeless/despondent.
if depression isnt a real disease why the hell would Wade Belak kill himself?
Last edited by Fugu: 12-25-2012 at 01:56 AM.
Reason: flaming
The only ignorance is from those who believe the pseudoscientific garbage generally referred to as psychiatry.
its true that, driven largely by great demand, there are a variety of schools of thought and treatment regimens for mental illness
the problem is measuring the results of psychiatric treatments objectively is very difficult, and thus it is much easier for crackpot psychiatric remedies to continue to be used than other treatments whose success can be measured objectively, like therapies for blood pressure or cholesterol....
antidepressants aren't a magic bullet to cure all yours problems, but they can be a key part of your treatment plan for things like depression, anxiety, OCD, etc.
there aren't any studies out there showing that anti-depressants are bad for you long term, when used correctly. oftentimes when starting a med you have some initial minor side effects that will go away within a week or so. if the problems are severe or don't go away, you try other med with a different side effect profile.
people love their personal andecotes of how there friends took antidepressants and had all these problems, but the primary literature doesnt support these claims. you also dont hear about all the success stories of people starting an SSRI and then having their depression/anxiety/whatever go into remission, because there is still the negative stigma regarding psych disorders. people dont talk about the success stories. the bad experiences with antidepressants get all the attention.
there also is the BS idea out there that people with depression or whatever just need to man up and deal with it, that meds are for the weak, etc. i think thats crap. being depressed can be a real disease just like having gallstones, both of which require real treatment.
for truly depressed people, there is an imbalance of neurotransmitters in the brain that meds can help. there is something wrong with their biology.
if you take two genetically identical twins, separate them at birth, and then one develops depression, there is like a 46% chance that the other twin will also develop depression.
depression is legit, and not just something that weak minded people like to whine about.
finally, the origin of the idea that antidepressants can cause suicide needs to be clarified a bit. SSRIs and other antidepressants do not suddenly cause a mildly depressed person to become suicidal, despite folks personal anecdotes. if given an SSRI, a severely depressed individual who is already suicidal but who is in a near catatonic state, unable to get out of bed and do the basic activities of daily living may now, with the med, be able to get out of bed and now carry out their suicidal plan.
antidepressants do not cause someone to develop suicidal ideation or make someone suicidal-- they can give an already suicidal person the "energy" to actually carry it out.
basically, meds aren't for everyone and are probably over prescribed, but that should not prevent people from seeking effective treatment.
It's just not scientific. There is not a singular stitch of evidence to suggest that the chemical imbalance theory is valid. In fact, it is widely and heavily criticized in the scientific community.
Jonathan Rottenberg is a top researcher of emotion and psychopathology out of the university of South Florida said "As a scientific venture, the theory that low serotonin causes depression appears to be on the verge of collapse. This is as it should be; the nature of science is ultimately to be self-correcting. Ideas must yield before evidence."
There are tens of thousands of other sources. The point is, the pharmaceutical companies are big business. They are the largest lobby in America, even surpassing the oil companies. They will do as any other organization would do, preserve their interests to increase their profits.
The "chemical imbalance" theory is only believed to be a scientific fact by ignorant people. You will not find a singular psychiatrist on the planet that will admit that there is a singular stitch of evidence supporting the theory.
The issue I have is giving people medication which alters their brain chemistry based on an unproven, unsubstantiated hypothesis. It's bad science, and potentially dangerous.
It's just not scientific. There is not a singular stitch of evidence to suggest that the chemical imbalance theory is valid. In fact, it is widely and heavily criticized in the scientific community.
Jonathan Rottenberg is a top researcher of emotion and psychopathology out of the university of South Florida said "As a scientific venture, the theory that low serotonin causes depression appears to be on the verge of collapse. This is as it should be; the nature of science is ultimately to be self-correcting. Ideas must yield before evidence."
There are tens of thousands of other sources. The point is, the pharmaceutical companies are big business. They are the largest lobby in America, even surpassing the oil companies. They will do as any other organization would do, preserve their interests to increase their profits.
The "chemical imbalance" theory is only believed to be a scientific fact by ignorant people. You will not find a singular psychiatrist on the planet that will admit that there is a singular stitch of evidence supporting the theory.
The issue I have is giving people medication which alters their brain chemistry based on an unproven, unsubstantiated hypothesis. It's bad science, and potentially dangerous.
You do know that psychoactive medication makes up a small portion of the field of psychiatry right?
You do know that psychoactive medication makes up a small portion of the field of psychiatry right?
One out of every 8 children is diagnosed with "adhd" and advised and often times prescribed synthetic cocaine (this ratio may be off) to treat a "medical disorder" with no empirical evidence to suggest it even exists. Even if what you say is true, that small portion is far reaching.
One out of every 8 children is diagnosed with "adhd" and advised and often times prescribed synthetic cocaine (this ratio may be off) to treat a "medical disorder" with no empirical evidence to suggest it even exists. Even if what you say is true, that small portion is far reaching.
Your original statement discounted the entire field. However, your subsequent posts have only focused on medication. Psychotherapy makes up a huge portion of the psychiatry and psychology fields.
And also, while I don't know anything about ADHD. For other mental diseases, there is a plethora of 'empirical evidence' to support their diagnoses.
Your original statement discounted the entire field. However, your subsequent posts have only focused on medication. Psychotherapy makes up a huge portion of the psychiatry and psychology fields.
And also, while I don't know anything about ADHD. For other mental diseases, there is a plethora of 'empirical evidence' to support their diagnoses.
My only banes of contention are with depression and adhd. I'm not opposed to the rest. And you're right, I threw the baby out with the bathwater with my initial post. Poor choice of words on my part.
As a person diagnosed with ADHD at 9 years and put on ritalin, I can agree with Minimalist's issues on its legitimacy. I became more anti-social and still didn't see any improvement in school or generic attention span. I stopped taking it my last year in high school and got some of the best grades I had there and quickly became more social (though I'm still somewhat awkward even today).
Of course, this is all largely anecdotal, but it definitely had no success with me.
I do, however, have an issue with calling the drugs "synthetic cocaine". They're similar structurally, but they're much different in how they work, their side effects and their tolerance. Using such a term seems to be nothing short of needless fear-mongering. The controversy over it stands strong enough on its own and it's lack of evidence supporting it without needing to try and present it as a type of addictive and dangerous drug.
but thats just it [mod], depression can make people who others would think have a perfect life feel hopeless.... it is a medical/physiological condition that makes people irrationally sad/hopeless/despondent.
if depression isnt a real disease why the hell would Wade Belak kill himself?
depression is indeed real, however wasn't there some question over whether Belak's death could have been an accident?
You play around with choking yourself and you usually pass out in 8 seconds. You pass out and you can die.Not sure if that's what he was doing, though.
Another aside on mental illness, I've suffered from severe anxiety/panic issues. In my case I believe certain life circumstances gave rise to them and in other circumstances I would not have had them or would have had much less issue with them. Some people would have developed them no matter what. I believe mine are learned and have been able to manage to function somewhat normally. 40 years early I would have probably been institutionalized, and I'm not completely ruling out that I may be in the future. I can still tell the difference between reality and fantasy at least although for 2 or 3 seconds occasionally I will be confused.
It's downright insulting to say that it's the meds that make people with depression suicidal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Foster Wallace
“The so-called ‘psychotically depressed’ person who tries to kill herself doesn’t do so out of quote ‘hopelessness’ or any abstract conviction that life’s assets and debits do not square. And surely not because death seems suddenly appealing. The person in whom Its invisible agony reaches a certain unendurable level will kill herself the same way a trapped person will eventually jump from the window of a burning high-rise. Make no mistake about people who leap from burning windows. Their terror of falling from a great height is still just as great as it would be for you or me standing speculatively at the same window just checking out the view; i.e. the fear of falling remains a constant. The variable here is the other terror, the fire’s flames: when the flames get close enough, falling to death becomes the slightly less terrible of two terrors. It’s not desiring the fall; it’s terror of the flames. And yet nobody down on the sidewalk, looking up and yelling ‘Don’t!’ and ‘Hang on!’, can understand the jump. Not really. You’d have to have personally been trapped and felt flames to really understand a terror way beyond falling.”
David Foster Wallace, who suffered from severe depression, eventually commit suicide after being off of antidepressants for over a year.
As a person diagnosed with ADHD at 9 years and put on ritalin, I can agree with Minimalist's issues on its legitimacy. I became more anti-social and still didn't see any improvement in school or generic attention span. I stopped taking it my last year in high school and got some of the best grades I had there and quickly became more social (though I'm still somewhat awkward even today).
Of course, this is all largely anecdotal, but it definitely had no success with me.
I do, however, have an issue with calling the drugs "synthetic cocaine". They're similar structurally, but they're much different in how they work, their side effects and their tolerance. Using such a term seems to be nothing short of needless fear-mongering. The controversy over it stands strong enough on its own and it's lack of evidence supporting it without needing to try and present it as a type of addictive and dangerous drug.
the problem in your case may not have been the ritalin but you may have been misdiagnosed.
the use of stimulants/amphetimines("synthetic meth" would have been a more apt analogy than "synthetic cocaine") to treat a hyperactivity is so counter intuitive, and yet it works, which leads credence to the hypothesis that ADHD suffereers have neurochemical mechanisms that are different than non-sufferers.
the problem is, ill-behaved children are everywhere, and whereas in the past all you could do for it was parental discipline and supervision, now there is a pill, which takes the responsibility off the parents.... thus parents actually push their unruly kids towards a diagnosis of ADHD, and sadly, doctors bow to the pressure to diagnose it, and so we have a lot of kids getting synthetic stimulants who probably just needed some better parenting.... and this confounds the perceived effectiveness of the ADHD meds.... leading drug companies to come up with new meds, which get foist off on the kids who didt respond to the old meds(because they were misdiagnosed in the first place), yadda yadda yadda and the viscious cycle goes on...
the problem in your case may not have been the ritalin but you may have been misdiagnosed.
the use of stimulants/amphetimines("synthetic meth" would have been a more apt analogy than "synthetic cocaine") to treat a hyperactivity is so counter intuitive, and yet it works, which leads credence to the hypothesis that ADHD suffereers have neurochemical mechanisms that are different than non-sufferers.
the problem is, ill-behaved children are everywhere, and whereas in the past all you could do for it was parental discipline and supervision, now there is a pill, which takes the responsibility off the parents.... thus parents actually push their unruly kids towards a diagnosis of ADHD, and sadly, doctors bow to the pressure to diagnose it, and so we have a lot of kids getting synthetic stimulants who probably just needed some better parenting.... and this confounds the perceived effectiveness of the ADHD meds.... leading drug companies to come up with new meds, which get foist off on the kids who didt respond to the old meds(because they were misdiagnosed in the first place), yadda yadda yadda and the viscious cycle goes on...
Which is the really weird thing. I was, while very fidgety and didn't really sit still a lot, generally well behaved as a child.
I'm not sure if I was misdiagnosed so as much as my symptoms might have just been something similar to ADHD without being caused by it. Perhaps it was something else, or perhaps it was just the way I was naturally. Though I guess that probably fits the term "misdiagnosis" anyway.
I'm honestly not well-versed enough in psychology or psychiatry to really have any sort of opinion on whether it's a legitimate field or not. I just have my own personal experiences, which really don't amount to anything worthy of a discussion.
Lastly, my issue with the term cocaine wasn't the accuracy (I disagree that meth is more apt...it's much more like cocaine than meth based on the chemical composition and the observed effects on the subjects), it was the mental imagery and the scare tactic that I viewed the use would result in, even if such wasn't intended.
the problem in your case may not have been the ritalin but you may have been misdiagnosed.
the use of stimulants/amphetimines("synthetic meth" would have been a more apt analogy than "synthetic cocaine") to treat a hyperactivity is so counter intuitive, and yet it works, which leads credence to the hypothesis that ADHD suffereers have neurochemical mechanisms that are different than non-sufferers.
the problem is, ill-behaved children are everywhere, and whereas in the past all you could do for it was parental discipline and supervision, now there is a pill, which takes the responsibility off the parents.... thus parents actually push their unruly kids towards a diagnosis of ADHD, and sadly, doctors bow to the pressure to diagnose it, and so we have a lot of kids getting synthetic stimulants who probably just needed some better parenting.... and this confounds the perceived effectiveness of the ADHD meds.... leading drug companies to come up with new meds, which get foist off on the kids who didt respond to the old meds(because they were misdiagnosed in the first place), yadda yadda yadda and the viscious cycle goes on...
Actually, that is a common misconception. While adderall is an amphetamine, the effects it has on the brain are much more similar to cocaine than they are to meth.
As for the latter, nobody denies symptoms. The "symptoms" are in and of themselves perfectly normal and inherent characteristics a small group of shrinks gathered together and subjectively deemed "undesirable"; who then created the label "attention deficit disorder" which represents the collection of characteristics that small group of people determined themselves were "bad".
Somehow, don't ask me how because I'm still not sure how they pulled it off, they managed to have this classified as a disease. No scientific data to suggest this, nothing biologically verifiable about the hypothesis. It is classified as a disease simply based upon a small group of people voting a set of characteristics undesirable. ****ing mind boggling. Even more crazy, they now prescribe synthetic to cocaine to kids as a means to treat this "disease".
And despite Leafsdude's objections, synthetic cocaine is a medically apt term for adderall. They are remarkably similar.
And despite Leafsdude's objections, synthetic cocaine is a medically apt term for adderall. They are remarkably similar.
I stand corrected.
That said, Adderall is much more strictly controlled and prescribed than Ritalin and most of the other drugs for ADHD, so I still think terming it as a synthetic form of a type of extreme recreational drug is unnecessary, regardless of its accuracy.
Though I guess that probably fits the term "misdiagnosis" anyway. 
