Where is the scientific evidence that psychiatry says it has?

Question

is my way right just because I say it is? So if the answer to that is no or yes, does it make psychiatry any more right when they are just the same human beings that I am when they give the world their oppinions based on false and half completed research?

Have him answer these in a valid and reliable scientifically conclusive way
1. Evidence That Establishes the validity of "schizophrenia" "depression" or other "major mental Illnesses" as biologically-based brain diseases.
2. Evidence For A Physical Diagnostic Exam such as a scan, blood, urine, genes, spinal fluid, etc that can distinguish individuals with these diagnoses (prior to treatment with drugs), from individuals without these diagnoses.
3. Evidence For a Base-line Standard of a neurochemically balanced "normal" personality, against which an "imbalance" can be measured and corrected by pharmaceutical means.
4. Evidence That Any Psychiatric Drug can correct a "chemical imbalance" attributed to a psychiatric diagnoses, and is any thing more than a non-specific alterer of physiology.
5. Evidence That Any Drug can reliably decrease the likelihood of violence or suicide.
6. Evidence That Psychotropic Drugs do not in fact increase the overall likelihood of violence and suicide

You might also want to find out if there is a diagnostic test such as blood, urine, stool, brain tissue sample, spinal fluid sample to prove that any so said illegal or recreational psychotropic drug such as pot, cocaine, magic mushrooms, etc. is more harmful then any of the prescribed psychotropic drugs?

Do they have any proof that illicit drugs have an adverse effect on the outcome that psychiatrists are trying to accomplish with their prescribed psychotropic drugs?

Is there any proof that their psychotropic drugs cause less damage to the brain than the ones that they say are being misused or used illegally?

Do they have any proof to say that their prescribed psychotropic drugs are any better for a person to use for the effects that they give or are they all poisonous and harmful if used in the wrong ways?

Do they have any proof that most of the prescribed drugs are not addictive and are not being misused and causing crimes that are getting people put into jails?

I have asked PubMed for the answers and have it in an email from them that they can not give me anything besides "textbook" information and "adaptable" (changeable) information which I could use "anyway that fit my needs".

What is conclusive about being able to adapt scientific information anyway that I see fit? One must go through about 1,000 articles to find this research, not conclusive evidence, or scientifcally reliable and valid conclusive answers, it is all just research and theory or speculation.

I did not say that articles of "research" do not exist, what I said is that they do not have any "conclusive" information that can not be adapted. In the same exact set of research articles one is able to find just the exact opposite conclusions.

Behaviors and thoughts are changeable over time and with physical and environmental conditions from situation to situation, so they are not valid and reliable indicators of anything other then oppinions.

Performance can change from time to time according to the physical condition and mood one is in at the time which can be determined and reported as different from person to person from time to time, if one is feeling extra good has eaten decent food and had good housing and all is going well in their personal lives they have a tendency to do better on all test.

Neurological function is seen differently it is an exact symptom of a condition such as in brain injury or epilepsy.

Normal can be defined from person to person from situation to situation and is a perception, it is not concrete.

Tylenol does not stop the underlying cause of pain from a sprained ankle. However, there is a definite test an x ray that shows that the ligaments and such are messed up. The Tylenol as far as I know may have the "sugar pill" or "placebo" affect just as well as psychiatric medications do. I can show that Tylenol effectively takes down a temperature in many people.

There is FDA information available to show that in fact these medications have the affect of increasing violence in some people, there is also other social information to show exactly how these cause some crimes.

What we are talking about is pushing dangerous, mind altering, brain and other body organ damaging, addictive medications that are shown to increase risk of violence and early death on the American public without any scientific valid and reliable conclusive evidence for doing this, this is not candy. I was taught better as a child, our children are not being taught better they are having some so called legal and harmful drugs pushed on them. So I need the answers to my questions before this can ever been seen as okay with me.

Brain chemistry??? is maybe not the best way to put this, our chemistry in general is different that is why no drug can be measured to produce one certain affect in any two people and not even in any person across time.

The surge in those who are now diagnosed is a marketing scheme to push these medications. There is no reason for this therapy to be coerced or forced on anyone so that they can call it research. They are using people as guinna pigs. Regardless of how harmful it actually is to people.

This is an indictment of psychiatry and the governmental oversight of the health care system. They are building diseases for profit to have something to say they are fixing, rather then fixing any of the real issues or problems like the differences between the haves and the have nots and making sure all people have what they really need to do good in life. And making sure that we know our constitutional rights and they are upheld for each and every individual.

It might be drawn in parallel to the diet pill phenomenon. It is so much easier to pop an amphetamine or anti-absorption pill than to change one's eating and exercise habits. It takes less time and gives a quicker fix. But it masks the problems and creates a larger one. thus it is with psychiatric medication. I know a few people who say they benefit from taking legal drugs and I know a few people that say that it benefits them to take illegal drugs until they are busted. We need to titrate people off of these drugs slowly and ask them what they need in order to get clean and stay clean with respect to their financial problems or other real needs and such like that, not increasing the use of drugs or stress on them.

I think the main mandate is for psychiatry to answer these hunger strike questions or admit publicly that they can't, and stop the coercion and force that is involved in this.

The side effects are known by the FDA when all of the research results are in and reported, and the public should become well aware of the black box warning labels on these drugs. This must also involve informed patient consent or a liability and accountability independent of those insisting on these treatments. This means each and every person would have to agree to this without being threatened in some way or in fear of losing something important to them if they did not participate. However, the way it is being done there is no informed consent involved in this at all.

Psychiatric treatment is the only instance of medical care that one does not have to fully understand and give their "agreement" to and that is the only reason that it can survive and do what it does and has gotten so out of hand.

Please do not call me stupid, that is rude and ignorant.

The hunger strike happened 3 years ago! 3 years! and they still can't answer these questions conclusively in any definitive document anyplace.

I said that is was psychiatry, well it is that and PhRMA and NAMI that doesn't have this information and push these drugs, as well.

This guy that sited the CDC is about right. Only it is not a matter of being more savvy, or crafty, or creative, it is a matter of telling the truth or not, and they don't.

We have asked for them for three years now. I am not standing on my own on this. I have lots of people that want these answers or want them to admit that they don't have these answers in any conclusive form is that too much to ask?

I just got a call from someone wanting me to go on a tv show, but I am not sure that it is the right show, I would not go on any show just to get trashed by them anymore then you will be allowed to trash me here. I want the facts!

I didn't mean to miss this, but I would like to answer it.

You say, "i would like to say one thing. if psychiatrists are giving opinions based on false and half completed research, they are doing a good job.. in 1970 i worked in a large mental health facility that had over 2400 patients in it. today because of psychiatry, and medications, and follow up the hospital is down to 400,"

The fact is that this is more due to legislation and people speaking up for themselves and the laws that have changed not that psychiatrist are doing a good job. Some of those that you helped to treat stood up for themselves and said no more, they pushed for their human rights and some things changed.

Don't you agree that lay people deserve honest answers and fully informed reliable and valid medical evidence since we are going to call it a medical thing? There is no other serious and true disease that if you need to take medication for the rest of your life on a daily basis that a doctor would not sit down and do their best to give you any bit of information that you asked for and then it would be up to you to trust them or get a second oppinion or take that information to another professional to ask them what it meant and what you should do before you made your choice, that is called a right to fully informed consent. There are professionals that do not like to make diagnoses, because they know that a political body sitting in one place making up labels is not very scientific in the first place. It is called name calling. The DSM is a political tool. That shrink can not be with you or anyone else 24/7 so you could tell them anything that you wanted to and it be a lie? True?

"You take what options and advice in psychology that apply to you,the rest is bullshit.What seems silly to you,may not for the next person,and sometimes you gain insight from the what ifs, even when common sense says youll never use the dribble they say to you"

I can respect what you say out of your personal experience, but this, I want the answers to the hunger strike questions, what happened to those ones that said Pub Med had it could they not find it or something? How come no one has told the APA, the Surgeon General, and NAMI what I am saying here, how come they can't defend themselves, this is right out in plain public? Where are the answers to the questions? There is none they have none so I don't think anyone has to accept anything that is forced on them or they shouldn't, if they have it and you want it that is a very different thing right? Get me the answers!

Answer 1

I have seen several psychiatrists in my life and I think most of them are just pill pushers. I was never offered any type of therapy at all. It is a big money racket as they charge a huge fee for their consultation which for the most part is questions from them without any real answers for you. What is your diagnonsense? I think Lisa on Girl Interrupted hit the nail on the head.

Answer 2

I think your call to responsible psychiatric therapy is an apt one; however, it is my opinion that brain chemistry is subtly (or quite) different between individuals, and a drug that affects one person well will cause bad side effects or unforeseen effects on another. The trend I see in daily life is for more children taking medication, mainly for ADHD. Most of the children I have seen take this medication become little more than zombies and they cannot maintain long streams of thought or conversation either before or after the meds. It has been suggested that there is a strong environmental factor in creating an ADHD child; it would seem that the surge in diagnosed ADHD in today's children can either be seen as a shift in the practice of psychiatry itself or an indicator of a serious social problem born of the busy modern lifestyle and concomitant changes in child-rearing practices. The fact that life must be maintained at a faster rate for the adult members of society suggests that symptomatic or "quick fixes" are the order of the day and that only those who have the time and funds for followup will actually get the therapy they need to supplement the medication that suppresses the undesired effects.

In all, this is a complex problem and an indictment of the whole medical profession and the governmental oversight of the health care system, which, even when I was a child, was more focused on emergency care (i.e. fixing the barn door after the horses are gone) than on prevention. The new wave of mental diseases, quick treatments and subsequent complications seem to be a progression of this problem.

It might be drawn in parallel to the diet pill phenomenon. It is so much easier to pop an amphetamine or anti-absorption pill than to change one's eating and exercise habits. It takes less time and gives a quicker fix. But it masks the problem and creates a larger one. thus it is with psychiatric medication in many cases (not all). I know a few people who benefit from taking psychotropic medication, but it is my opinion that cognitive behavioral therapy would do just as well or better for most of the people who are stuck on antidepressants and mood stabilizers. However, since I am not a medical professional, my opinion won't count for much.

I can say that Tylenol is an agonist (acts upon) of the synthetic pathway of prostaglandins (chemicals that tell the body that it is in pain) at a different point than aspirin or ibuprofen and thus is slightly different in metabolism and may benefit some while having no effect on others. To me, Tylenol is a placebo; to others, it works in its intended manner. This points up the complexity of biological systems, even between individuals and underlines the danger of blanket diagnosis of just about anything.

In closing, I think the main mandate for psychiatry would be to be more responsible in the prescribing of drugs to individuals, simply because diagnoses are often tricky and the individual quirks of one person might cause adverse reactions where none should be. IMO, the category of "side effect" should be studied as hard as the main effect, as these are variables in the genetic code and expression between individuals. Also environmental factors must be taken into account; instead of saying simply that a disease has a completely neurochemical basis, one should look at environmental factors and devise protocol for changing this possibly ROOT cause of many mental complaints.

Answer 3

sorry i cannot answer all your questions, but i would like to say one thing. if psychiatrists are giving opinions based on false and half completed research, they are doing a good job.. in 1970 i worked in a large mental health facility that had over 2400 patients in it. today because of psychiatry, and medications, and follow up the hospital is down to 400, the answer to your question, about violence , can be addressed by saying that our hospital had a ward for the crimiley insane, and we had some schizophrenic people that killed other people because of their illness, and once were given medication the violence stopped and eventually returned to the community. violence , however, is not the norm for people with schizophrenia. i say your way is not right, because it is misinformed information, but you have made some good points. most mental illness is based on the symptoms that a person provides, and unfortunately their are no tests such as blood tests. however there is research being done to study the brain function, of people with mental illness, and so far they can see that people with mental illness, have abnormal brain activity. i do agree psychiatry is not an exact science, and has room for improvement, but it has come a long way. hope this shed some light on you questions.

Answer 4

For a variety of reasons, psychiatrists think they have all the answers for any person send to them to be analyzed. I have worked around this type of environment. Some patients do need direction and others are playing the psychs to get the right kind of medications that will keep them on a high while receiving a lot of attention.

In many cases the psychs are more creative and imaginary than the PhD administering the treatment.

Answer 5

The first book I recommend you check out is the DSM-IV TR. The letters stand for Diagnostic Statistical Manual, 4th Edition/Text Revision. It is expensive, so you might want to peruse one at Borders or Barnes & Noble or do a 'net search.

A lot of research is on-going in this field, which is why we are up to the 4th edition.

I work in the field and haven't come across any of the false and half completed research you mention. If you have specific questions/issues this is a great forum to discuss them.

Often people have issues with a loved one being diagnosed and call that "labelling" -- I can tell you that in my professional experience, it is not about putting a label on a person, but if we can identify WHAT is going on with them (the correct diagnoses) then we help them.

In my opinion, the vast majority of people are not diagnosable; we just have our own quirks. But for those who are diagnosable, it helps that all of the providers are on the same page. The goal is to help the person, not inflate a professional's ego.

Answer 6

I bet the nearest I've come to dying used to be while I had a auto spoil and used to be subconscious for a little while..until the paramedics woke me up. I did not do not forget something approximately that point. One time while I had an individual holiday in on me and threaten to kill me...it gave the impression of a film and I used to be just about "looking" what used to be going down. I notion I used to be going to die and I bet that used to be some way of retaining me from "freakin out". Afterwards, I used to be pacing in circles and hysterical. I'm definite I used to be having a panic assault. But, I've HEARD of many many stories wherein individuals say they did die and what occurred to them. I do not see how any one might say there is not any proof of it on account that there are such a lot of said reports. I do not believe those individuals might have any motive to lie.

Answer 7

I went through rehab and fought this very fight tooth and nail,heres what I settled on.......
You take what options and advice in psychology that apply to you,the rest is bullshit.What seems silly to you,may not for the next person,and sometimes you gain insight from the what ifs, even when common sense says youll never use the dribble they say to you

Answer 8

I LOVE your feedback,even though I didn't read it ( you put a lot of energy into it ).

I studied psychology for four years : the result was I used to wear a t-shirt that said " WHY BE NORMAL?"

Authorities govern what is " normal " . Normal is according to what the LIES THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN TELLING US TO TRY TO CONTROL US !!!

A right mind is not GOVERNED by the NATURAL things around us.

WHO was the one (s) that designated sane and insane ? Personally I believe MOST of the so called SANE people is REALLY insane.

If you really want a MIND BENDER check out my 360.

Answer 9

Well, most of the evidence is in peer-reviewed scientific journals. You can find them on PubMed or Google Scholar, or at a library.

Now on to your specific requests...

1. Schizophrenia:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17107237&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17349856&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17174336&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17135482&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum
Those are just from the past 6 months. There are hundreds of studies about this if you bother to look before leaping to the conclusion that they don't exist.

Depression:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16952764&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16919786&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16848678&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_DocSum
Again, there are hundreds more studies on this if you take a minute to look for them.

Sorry, but there aren't too many papers written on "major mental illnesses" in general, so I can't search for that one for you. If you have any other specific psychatric disorders you're interested in, then try typing them into PubMed or Google Scholar.

2. Most psychiatric illnesses are diagnosed primarily based on behavioral or congnitive assesments, which are just as valid as many of the tests used to diagnose physical illnesses. Until you can show me evidence of why preformance on cognitive tasks is not a valid indicator of neurological function, or why a patient's report of mood is not a valid indicator of mood, you don't get to arbitrarily decide that a catagory of diagnostic tests are invalid simply because you want them to be.

3. Virtually all published clinical studies compare a treatment group to a control group. A control group is normal. So look at any published clinical study demonstrating any neurobiological abnormalities associated with any psychiatric disorder and you'l find your baseline for that aspect of normal neurobiology.

4. If you can show me evidence that Tylenol makes a sprained ankle stop hurting by fixing the underlying cause, then I'll consider your argument. Until then, treating the symptoms is a perfectly valid approach.

5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16754835&query_hl=22&itool=pubmed_docsum

6. See above for evidence that certain drugs are proven to decrease the likelyhood of violence, which is a good indicator that they don't increase that risk. Of course that's not true of all drugs. But you should look up the side effects of some treatments for non-psychiatric illnesses sometime.

Answer 10

WOW!
I have found that ....shrinks.....just feed me back my own words....And call it information....like I won't notice that it is the exact thing I just said to them....I have to be ....shrunk....once in a while for my job. But I think that we should leave the shrinking to the shrinks, and when laypeople start making diagnosis...then there is trouble.