On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 03:49:54PM -0400, Isaiah Weiner wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 03:14:34AM -0400, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > No comparison necessary. You imply that containing uncivil conduct from
> > "eccentrics" quells the productivity of a LUG. We contain such conduct on
>
> Yes, it does quell the productivity of a LUG.
>
> > the SLUG list, yet we've had tremendous successes recently in two major
> > shows down here (soon to be a third).
>
So containing uncivil conduct from eccentrics quells the productivity of
a LUG, and we do that, yet we're productive. Yet you still maintain the
original premise? Well okay then, impasse.
>
> > They study the same basic information, and one is an MD (who obviously
> > studies more medical stuff) while the other is not. I have equal contempt
> > for both.
>
> . . . so you've already made up your mind, and defending them would be
> a waste of time. But I feel so obligated. ;)
>
Absolutely I've made up my mind. And so have you. Your point?
> > Read the minutes of the APA's meetings, if you don't believe what I say
> > about their methods of choosing what goes in the DSM. But here's
>
> I've attended a few, thanks. I still think your idea about that is
> misplaced.
>
> > something else to think about. Psychs make money when people have mental
> > difficulties. So it's in their best interests to have as many and as
> > minor difficulties turned in the "syndromes" or "diseases" as possible.
>
> Sure, except they did take a Hippocratic oath. If you're having
> problems with dishonesty in the field, that's one thing. You can find that
> in any field.
>
Except that the dishonesty in this field is, I feel, greater than most
others. In fact, the whole field is a complete sham.
> > Voila the DSM. Once there, it can be encoded with the proper medical
> > industry code, put on insurance forms, and "treated". And don't tell me
> > these people aren't putting minor ailments into the DSM. The DSM has
> > mushroomed in recent years from mental "disabilities" that before were
> > simply facts of life. And don't tell me these people are doing what they
> > do for the "good of mankind". There is more fraud, abuse and malpractice
> > in the psychiatric field than any other healing art (and I only
> > reluctantly use the term "healing art", because that's the way insurance
> > companies look at it).
>
> Erm, you should really look into where ever you read that. It's a
> well known fact that emergency medicine has the largest number of
> malpractice cases. Consistently. ;)
>
Okay, we'll put psychiatry and psychology at number 2 on the malpractice
list, but we'll keep them number 1 on the fraud list.
>
> > Okay, so Joanne has a "chemical imbalance" (the latest buzzword of the
> > psych industry). Did they test the actual chemicals first to determine
>
> Not terribly recent buzzword . . .
And your point is?
>
> > that? And are they completely certain that they know what the right
> > "balance" is? And did they check her diet first? And once they determined
> > her "chemical imbalance", what did they do? Let's see. Paxil.
> > Wellbutrin. Et al. Oh that's right. Joanne just went through a divorce
> > and is fighting for the custody of her children. Or, Joanne just lost her
> > job. Or Joanne has been tense about sex ever since she was raped at 19.
>
> This type of thing would be uncovered through therapy sessions, if the
> patient is honestly seeking help. To be quite honest, I always recommend
> a patient first seek out therapy and a theraputic relationship (half the
> therapy, in many cases) with a psychologist, not a psychiatrist. At that
> point you elminate any preemptive medication.
>
Therapy, ah yes. I can just imagine the therapy sessions with Woody
Allen that lead to him divorcing his wife and taking up with his
step-daughter. Whatever "feels" good.
> On the other hand, if you need a little help over a bump in your life,
> there's nothing wrong with a two week supply, no refills, of something like
> celexa or zoloft. You can't overdose on that family anymore, either (used
> to be many anti-depressants would act like neurotoxins if you overdoses,
> now you just get diarrhea).
>
Ah the American Dream. Take a pill and make it all go away. Let's not
exercise and eat right to lose weight; just take a pill. Not making your
quota at the office? Take a pill. And here we go again with Valley of
the Dolls, 2001.
> > Spare me. Even if such a "chemical imbalance" exists, psychs are loath
> > to discern the true reasons for it. Actually, "incapable" and
>
> That's a very broad generalization. I thought you were more
> intelligent than that . . . guess not.
>
Nice ad hominem. The point stands.
> > "unwilling" are the more proper terms. And their treatment is
> > symptom-based, not cause-based. And often, their treatments are worse
> > than the "disease". Witness Ritalin, a favorite of the psychs. It's a
> > powerful stimulant, given primarily to children. Unfortunately, it's
> > addictive, and causes children to become violent and antisocial with
> > some regularity. You'll find that most of the shooting incidents at
> > schools in this country are perpetrated by children on psychiatric
> > drugs, primarily Ritalin.
>
> Firstly, most of the shooting incidents at schools in this country (not
> the ones you heard about on TV) are unrelated to any _legal_ "medicine" the
> students are taking.
>
There are shooting incidents I haven't heard about on TV? And the
national media hasn't seized upon this to make more misery? Hard to
imagine. Still incorrect, though.
> Secondly, there are two ways to treat ADD and ADHD: anti-depressants
> (prozac, celexa, zoloft, etc.) and stimulants (ritalin, aderol, etc.).
> Included in the American Toxicology Report annually is information related
>
By far, the most prescribed drug for AD[H]D is ritalin.
> > And BTW, the psych industry has been given more money than God and more
> > opportunities to figure out what makes people tick than any other field.
>
> You are smoking SO MUCH crack. Anti-viral agents are the NUMBER
> FUCKING ONE research topic. This benefits HIV, HSV-{1,2,3,4,...&} patients
> and has TRILLIONS of dollars pumped into it every year (combined private
> research and various countries' government's programs). Drug research for
> psychiatric-prescribed drugs are funded mainly in the US, nearly totally by
> private companies. Complain about them; they're the ones you're angry
> with.
>
Exsqueeze me? Did I say anything about drug companies or viral research?
> > With all that time and money, they should know precisely what causes
> > what, and precisely how to "cure" (not _treat_) it. And yet their
>
> Average consumers with a desire to "cure" brain-related "problems" led
> to pre-frontal lobotomies. Be careful what you wish for.
>
Wow, so it's the consumers' fault for wanting these mental problems
cured? Nice. No, brain operations were not the result of average
consumers wanting cures. They were the result of blind experimentation
and goofy theorizing by psychs. And the first psycho who cut on
someone's brain and produced a turnip should have stopped the practice
cold. And yet they didn't. And yet they professed to be honestly
attempting to "save mankind". And yet they took the Hippocratic Oath.
Doesn't add up.
> > treatments say volumes about the fact that they really haven't a clue.
>
> The brain is incredibly complex. I'm sorry you cannot appreciate that.
> Observing how the body heals on a cellular level is much easier than
> observing the chemistry of the brain. Our observation tools are no where
> near advanced enough.
>
Yep, I knew it would come to this. The inevitable defense of the psychs:
the brain is complex. Therefore we can't be blamed. Never fails.
BTW, there are two things here. The brain and the mind. They are _not_
the same thing. The brain affects the mind and the mind affects the
brain, but they are not the same thing. Some often ignored mathematics
was done years ago. Given the memories of a lifetime, all recorded and
available, with all perceptics (far over the five senses commonly
touted), time-stamped and given context, it is mathematically impossible
for the human brain to store anything like that amount of information.
Much less do the other functions the brain does. Yet psychs continue to
push and pull on the brain to resolve the problems of Man.
> > Moreover, here is a field where "expert witnesses" are a dime a dozen,
> > each hired (often in the same case) to testify as to the sanity or
> > insanity of perpetrators. When two seemingly respectable members of the
> > same field can look at the same individual and come to diametrically
> > opposed conclusions as to his mental state, you're not talking about
> > science. A ballistics expert can say without hesitation whether a bullet
> > came from a given gun. Hire twenty other ballistics experts, and they'll
> > all come to the same conclusion.
>
> The ballistics experts have the laws of physics concreted for them.
> Their field is not progressing in that area. Psychiatric and psychology
> have many fields of study and are too often compared to each other (like
> you're doing now). Let's look at another science. A chemical engineer and
> a civil engineer are both asked to inspect an apartment's interior for
> regulation violations. I'm fairly certain the civil engineer will condemn
> ANY place, and the chemical engineer will walk around with a confused look
> on his or her face.
>
A civil engineer and a chemical engineer walk into a bar... (sorry, I
couldn't resist!).
What do the differences in viewpoint of a CivE and ChemE have to do with
ballistic analysis? Besides which, if you want to find regulation
violations in an apartment, you call a city inspector, not engineers.
> On another note, I agree that too many "expert witnesses" are neither.
>
> > Putting a field in the category of "science" does not necessarily make
> > it a science. Psychiatry and psychology are good examples.
>
> Your expectations of an admittedly-growing science are very large. I
> suspect in another time, you might have dismissed physics because you
> didn't understand the math behind it.
>
A great deal of physics is likewise full of nuttiness. Einstein's
theories of relativity are full of holes and generally incorrect. Matter
of fact, I just this week read about some experiments that proved
objects could travel faster than light, one of the underpinnings of
Einstein's theories. In fact, the theory of relativity sprang from the
Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, which was in turn invented as a way of
explaining the failed Michelson-Morley experiment. Much of modern
physics is based on pure mathematical theorizing, which has very little
to do with the physical universe.
The biology of DNA is another scientific boondoggle. We're going to find
and handle the gene that causes people to be violent, are we? Good luck.
DNA has a lot to do with male pattern baldness and the shape of one's
nose, and very little to do with human behavior and disease.
> > And the _Random House College Dictionary_ disagrees with dict.org.
> > Interesting, too, that the word has a history long before the advent of
> > modern psychology and psychiatry. I would say that since some
> > dictionaries now list it as a medical word, it's been co-opted as an
> > excuse for the psychs to gain authority over its discovery and treatment.
>
> I would argue that while it may have had a history, its meaning was not
> truly fulfilled until that advent.
>
The psychs have a propensity for transforming mental problems into
physical illnesses. This makes sense, since otherwise insurance
companies are loath to pay for things. Besides, it serves to make psychs
the "authorities" on the matter.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:13:21 EDT