On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 12:03:45AM -0400, Paul M Foster wrote:
> Absolutely I've made up my mind. And so have you. Your point?
Even monkeys fall from trees. No harm done, except to yourself. :)
> Except that the dishonesty in this field is, I feel, greater than most
> others. In fact, the whole field is a complete sham.
I wonder if you could say that to a room full of people that feel like
their lives are better because of the field?
> 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.
Why? It's obvious you haven't researched it, so chances are good it's
not number 1 on the fraud list, either.
> > > 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 it isn't the latest buzzword of the "psych industry", as you said
it was. (I feel like that sentence needs a, "Duh!" on the end.)
> > 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.
I'm sure if you had a subpoena, you could get that information.
> > 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.
Oh, not at all. It's not making it go away, it's helping you focus
your efforts on solving the problem instead of fighting the confusion. A
good example is myself: my SO of the last three years took up with someone
else when I went to California. Well, it was pretty difficult for me to
focus on my work, but I really needed to be successful
> > > 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.
I don't see how.
> > 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.
Absolutely not. You are flat-out wrong. You sound like you're using
at least 5 year old information.
> > > 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?
You said "the psych industry has been given more money than God and
more opportunities to figure out what makes people tick than any other
field" which is not a correct statement. I'm pointing that out to you.
> 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.
So generalized . . . do you argue everything this way, or just things
you have no background on?
> 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.
It's got nothing to do with blame, it's got everything to do with
reasonable expectations.
> 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.
Kindly cite the source for the mathematics if you're going to use it in
your defense. Otherwise it doesn't mean anything, and could very well not
exist at all.
Personally, I agree with that stance (the mind and the brain are
different). Try proving it through science.
> > > 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?
As far as I know, there's one type of ballistics expert. There are
many types of engineers, and many types of psychologists. That is what it
has to do with the discussion. Your analogy doesn't work, mine does. You
can change mine to a nuclear versus industrial if you like, or any of the
various engineering sections, if it will make you feel better.
> violations in an apartment, you call a city inspector, not engineers.
I always call an engineer first, to scope out the problem and threaten.
If threats don't work, I call the inspector.
> > 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 second time you referenced relativity you did not specify WHICH
theory you meant.
> 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.
Behavior I'll agree with, but disease I will not. If you can alter DNA
to change the cell membrane design thereby giving vacinations to virii like
ebola, or HIV, I won't condemn it with my own uneducated thoughts.
Gosh, it doesn't sound like you hold offense to any particular
sciences, just ALL OF THEM.
> > 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.
So disillusioned :)
It must be difficult keeping up that idea all the time.
So negative!
--
- Isaiah
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:13:48 EDT