Psychology, according to Wundt, drew on definitions of human nature as distinct from prior religious interpretation, that human beings are neither bad nor good. Although thereby not conditioned or inhabited by supernatural forces they are driven by the forces within and of their environments.
Psychiatry believes mental illness is determined or pre-determined, and that even when environment plays a part people react to the environment in pre-determined ways. People can and do claim that psychiatry is a science because it can be measured. I believe this is suspect!
The role played by drugs in psychiatry is seen by some as evidence of its scientific basis, as drugs belong to science and fit the claims of medicine for almost three hundred years. Drugs will suppress so the good they do, combined with their addictive nature, is suspect. Or do you consider otherwise? Again the effects of drugs are subject to measuring, or are they? Psychiatry predetermines human nature but is the categorisation of human beings reliable?
Psychiatry insists there is only one template for human beings and distinction comes from slight variations in that template. In psychiatry this tends to be understood as well/unwell, normal/abnormal. Isn't normality an undefined state?
Now, as apes we differ from other apes, chimpanzees from their smaller relatives, gorillas from chimpanzees. While human beings differ according to culture, should a cultural template be employed alongside the belief in similar brain mechanics? Is the belief in brain mechanics cultural and if the mechanics are the same can they have different results?
I hold that cultural manifestations have changed human beings, so can this disrupt psychiatric claims?
Stanley Wilkin what makes you think that psychiatry predetermines human nature? I am not aware that psychiatry categorised human beings. However, it does categorise and label human behaviour that deviates from social norms and values. It seems to me that some of your ideas are confused.
Valerie, possibly. But in what way does your definition differ? Sorry, but how do you determine deviation unless you have an idea of what it deviates from?
Psychology and psychiatry do differ, with respect to their professional function in modern societies and their scientific level.
A great lot of psychiatry is about the prescription of drugs; this also involves the role of mental police !
A great lot of psychology is about testing human capacities.
From this viewpoint, I do regard certain fields of psychology, e.g. experimental social psychology, as scientific and valid knowledge.
Personally, I have great scientific difficulties to regard psychiatry as a medical profession, with respect to the Hippocratic Oath.
People, who suffer from mental health issues, are better informed to search for a professional therapist.
In this sense, I think W.Wundt was on a good track.
Stephen,
Don't forget William James.
I am deeply concerned myself on the legitimacy of claims for mice as the means of gathering information on human minds. This seems absurd, but medical propaganda closes down discussion on what surely is a dangerous practice? Prior to experiments on mice, monkeys were used and this stopped because of public uproar. Nevertheless genuine data was obtained on how the human mind functions, very different to now where laboratory testing prejudices results in order to create legitimacy for drugs.
The MAOA gene is held to be responsible for aggression but psychiatry rarely goes further but dams the aggression based on a kind of zombie rendition of human personality. It ignores the mind and its plausibility as a directing force and makes no attempt to acknowledge let alone explain it. The MAOA gene thereby acquires an independence as a functioning force, and is removed from human characteristics. If you experiment on mice, you get human beings who express the level of mice and drugs that are primarily for mice.
The questions you raise, Stephen, on psychiatry's role in policing and the legitimacy of that role is accepted because people, particularly politicians, embrace medical models of madness (sic) which are based on the need to control aberrant behaviour and people. The entire position is fraught with uncertain values, morality and science and ignores the role of psychiatry in creating the illnesses it suggests it is healing.
Stanley Wilkin I do agree with your concerns about the role and efficacy of psychiatry in labelling people and in incompetent so called treatment. However, it is abundantly clear from your posts that you do not have a background in social sciences, and as a result some of your statements are confused and ill informed. It would take too long to refute some of your allegations, so i suggest you read a basic text about sociology, in particular about norms and values, and who or what determines such.
Where psychology is concerned I will make 2 points for discussion.
Psychology has effectively designed plausible codes for professional conduct, examining professional responsibility in health situations. Compare this with psychiatry's codes codes and behaviours.
· Beneficence and nonmaleficence – This means that the psychologist should not put their participants in any harm, and the experiment should not be life threatening.
· Fidelity and responsibility – The psychologist should understand that they have had enormous amounts of trust put in them by the participant, and comma not needed should take responsibility for their actions in order to keep them safe.
· Integrity – The psychologist should not lie to participants about their experiment, however minor deception can be used if it is required for the exercise.
· Justice – The experiment should be fair towards people, and no ethical or prejudice issues should arise from it as it should be socially and ethically equal.
· Respect – The psychologist should respect the privacy and confidentiality of participants, and not reveal any private information that the participants do not want to be public.
While this is directed towards certain aspects of psychology, as the psychiatrist assumes an authoritative position, this kind of responsible attitude does not appear in their agenda.
Another point!
But, Stephen, what if psychologist's understandings are actually cultural? The ability of tests and experiments to be designed for particular perspectives is never considered and specific values are held up. Although, unlike psychiatry, results are constantly reconsidered the roots of perspective are held onto.
Valerie,
You seem to have a persistent desire to point out my deficiencies, rather than perhaps your own. I have a degree in Sociology, I mark degree papers in psychology and sociology, I worked as a psychoanalyst for many years. I publish books in these matters.
Sometimes people see reflections when they look at others. They see confusion rather their own intellectual limitations.
Valerie,
I am getting annoyed at this kind of thing and the site's letting in of people not up to the levels desired.
Worth considering is the A (MAOA), the supposed gene for aggression Evidence Found for a Possible 'Aggression Gene'
VIRGINIA MORELLSCIENCE 18 Jun 1993
The author of this article raises necessary questions as can be seen the gene would likely as not be considered rather than any other cause for a violent outburst, certainly those not clear to an observer, usually a physician. This point is important and briefly considered in the article. The result would be drugs used instead of other treatments. That symptoms become the cause is evident in psychiatry with genes, etc, used as perceived reasons.
The idea of genes, etc, being the cause for reactions instead of a host of other reasons (chemicals of course is the go-to rationale, but that argument is less supported now than it was once) or that people identified with the gene (which may not actually exist)can only act in one way-see article-and are not able to control or sublimate (Freud and Jung) their anger is the claim of psychiatry. All people act exactly the same to genes, chemicals, etc, when these are viewed as drivers of behaviour.
Diego, you have hit on a problem which has an historical base except that many, too many, people have been diagnosed as mentally ill. The evidence for psychiatric validity, although commonly believed in, is false. On the issue of a longer life span, I wrote on this matter long ago, that this is probably more to do sanitation, that is sewers and clean water. Introduced in the 19th century into London, length of life increased by leaps and bounds.
Below is one investigation, much like I hope to do here.
Fundamental Flaws of the DSM: Re-Envisioning Diagnosis
G. Kenneth Bradford
Volume 50, Issue 3
It is necessary to distinguish between disorders of brain mechanics and cultural differences. It is necessary to know the conditions of normal brain mechanics. But now there are big problems with this. Now, for example, the consensus opinion is very far from understanding the causes and mechanisms of depression. Now there is no understanding whether this mechanism exists at all and what are the conditions for mental homeostasis. But, indeed, the mechanics of the brain or the conditions of mental homeostasis are the same for all people - there are no differences in this. These conditions have already been established and defined. Culture is a superstructure over the normal functioning of the psyche. If the mental mechanism functions normally, then the result is appropriate. If the mental mechanism is disturbed, then most of the cultural manifestations can be spent on leveling the disturbed mental mechanism.
Vasil, could you go further in your estimate of mechanics and mental homeostasis and the brain as being the same for all, as although the appearance of my brain may look the same, through the means of testing that I know as the next, it would be doing different work. Therefore is it just mood that is being tested or have I misunderstood?
cultural manifestation seems a bit abstract. Is the disturbance of the mental mechanism through internal 0r external factors?
Stanley Wilkin well, well, well. I am shocked that you actually have a degree in sociology. I am also not happy at you casting doubts on my competence. Please desist. Given that i am an Oxford graduate and used to teach at Oxford, perhaps you need to rethink your posts above.
Psychiatric Diagnosis as Reified Measurement* JOHN MIROWSKY CATHERINE E. ROSS University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Journal of Health and Social Behavior 1989, Vol . 30 (March) :
The paper above is worth reading in its entirety. I remember reading it many years ago.
I question whether psychological problems are real rather than problems we all face regularly are real and the means of solving them create an internal reality, especially if they seem not to permit any means of solving them. The physician is there to solve them but as the authors below state treat matters ambiguously or/and within the framework of physical complaints. Thereby the ascent of drugs in the treatment of mental illness. The illness is contained or with ECT eradicated, albeit temporarily.
There are other points here that I have treated elsewhere. The false claim of chemical imbalance, now rarely offered, and also denied, actually represented mental illness as something that suddenly jumped on a person's back out of the blue but at the same time belonged to that person. The model here was demonic possession.
Mirowsky/Ross
Psychological problems are real, but are not entities . They are not discrete . They are not something that is entirely present or entirely absent, without shades in between. They are not alien things that enter a person and wreak havoc . Nevertheless, psychiatrists often speak of depression and other psychological problems as if they are discrete entities, entering the bodies or souls of hapless victims. An imagery of detection follows from such language of discrete entities . The psychiatrist detects the presence of an entity, determines its species, and selects an appropriate weapon against it . This categorical language is the legacy of nineteenth-century epidemiology and microbiology . A person is diseased or not.
The author below asks why and how psychiatry survives.
Psychiatry is a powerful institution that has gained even greater leverage through its involvement with giant pharmaceutical companies, who grew because of their association with mental illness and the apparent efficiency of their drugs. That efficiency is nevertheless confirmed by psychiatry and not, due to the difficulties of the process, neutral bodies. No one asks the patients!
These drugs tend to be hypnotics and change patient's personalities creating thereby the seemingly lazy people on them who possess neither ambition nor drive.
In Social Science and Medicine (August 2007)
THE SURVIVAL OF PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS
David Pilgrim
Abstract
Past and current debates about applying medical diagnoses to psychological difference in society are examined. Beginning with a brief historical overview from antiquity to ‘anti-psychiatry’ and a summary of recent debates, the article then offers two case studies of common diagnoses (‘depression’ and ‘schizophrenia’). The main challenge for social science is no longer about what is wrong with psychiatric diagnosis (that is now well rehearsed) but how to account for how and why it has survived. In answering this question about survival, inter-disciplinary work could attend to the pre-empirical positions of mental health researchers; the ways in which mental disorders are similar and different to physical disorders; and the interest work of different social groups defending or attacking psychiatric diagnoses in varying contexts.
Psychiatry and psychology are generally considered genuine sciences, but they have some unique characteristics and challenges that distinguish them from traditional natural sciences. Here are some key points to consider regarding their genuineness as sciences:
In summary, psychiatry and psychology are considered sciences due to their commitment to rigorous empirical investigation, adherence to scientific principles, and their substantial body of knowledge and research. However, they have their own set of challenges and complexities, given the unique nature of their subject matter, which involves human behavior, emotions, and mental processes. While they may not conform to the same experimental standards as some natural sciences, their scientific status is well-established and widely recognized.
I have consumed many psychiatric papers but I think their position as science requires a re=thinking of the nature of science. Where psychiatry is concerned I challenged the truth of chemical imbalance with, with others, considerable success, claiming it was a myth and there was no real proof. The drugs provided patients. Diagnosis. I can now see that work needs to be done on the plausibility of certain sciences. If an elite group decides for others, problems occur as at times it becomes that group's perception.
Depression is a consequence of a violation of only internal mechanisms. External factors can be defined as possible stressors. The cause of depression is related to mood or you can say contentment. In essence, depression is a lack of mood and, as a symptom, a deficiency of a certain set of neurotransmitters. Neurotransmitter imbalance is a symptom of depression. I can rate the deficiency of a certain group of neurotransmitters as exceptionally high. With depression, your body tells you: I’m tired of you, you can’t solve the problem that I’ve been telling you clearly and clearly day and night for months and years. The body sends a clear signal that it needs, but you do not understand anything that it says. Your body is telling you that it is tired of waiting for you to solve the problem. You don’t understand anything and you don’t solve the problem, and problems begin one after another. The cause of depression is within you. Neurotransmitter imbalance is a symptom of depression, not the cause. Therefore, artificially influencing the balance of neurotransmitters does not affect depression, then you are only affecting the symptom. Therefore, antidepressants are ineffective. If you take antidepressants, you continue to develop the process of depression and at the same time you start a process that is fueled by antidepressants.
I contest that depression is only or ever a violation of internal mechanism and is not an environmental response as with sadness, and that the processes you relate exist in the fashion described. One 'expert' pushing back at this notion used the term 'the brain is not an hydraulic system', as the neurotransmitter idea demands, and with that I concur. There is no real evidence that it functions in that fashion. Thereby the drugs not working at all is hardly surprising!
Psychiatry visits symptoms not the patients, so backgrounds are rarely visited and where they are not by the right people. Drugs indeed I hold are part of the problem not part of the release from the problems and that genuine and ever widening search for causes beyond the psychiatric perceptions is necessary.
Yes, depression is an internal mechanism. The body tells you that there are disturbances in the functioning of its internal processes. Nowadays, disruption of a very important process is widespread and, accordingly, depression is widespread. The body tells you through depression that there is a violation. When the body sees that the violation is not eliminated, the body can make a decision, even self-destruction, since a very important process is disrupted. Depression can be called a signaling mechanism about problems in the body. The body does not know how to speak or write texts, so through depression it tells you what to do. If you don't follow his signals, then problems begin. Yes, probably psychiatry now operates only on symptoms, and should also operate on causes that should be accessible to it, but now, for example, one of the main causes of mental disorders in psychiatry is inaccessible.
I do not want you to think I do not believe depression can certainly be internal, the disease model much loved by psychiatry, but my point was that maybe these illnesses should not be simplified. In the past, there was some acceptance of depression but it was often changed into something to be learned from or a philosophical stance. Although psychiatry claims it, it cannot 'cure' it.
In one of my papers on here I look at different neurological perspectives and found there wasn't complete agreement.
Indeed, the etiology of depression is simple and unambiguous. But this simplicity is now inaccessible to psychiatry and complexity and complex multifactorial explanations arise. Nowadays, many diseases are considered to be mediated by many factors, but in reality these diseases are single-factorial. If you do not know the real cause of the disease, then you define the disease as multifactorial. Without knowing the real etiology of depression, of course, psychiatry cannot now treat and prevent depression. Depression was viewed from a philosophical point of view because, not knowing the cause of depression, they tried to adapt to it. There is depression, you don’t know its cause, you don’t know how to treat it, and then the person tries to adapt to it and views it in a philosophical way. When you understand the reason, then you simply eliminate depression and there is no need to adapt to depression. Philosophy was needed to adapt to living with depression.
Vasil,
Its difficult to see why there should be depression. It seems to play no part in the brain's nature. Manic Depression known of for thousands of years represents two known states, but depression seems to relate to the difficulty of controlling life and subsequent resignation. Illnesses of the brain, such as dementia affect memory, so therefore there is a clear effect, but depression merely stops someone living.
This is an important topic. Psychiatry, like other medical sciences, seeks to continuously improve outcomes in complex dynamic human systems. It relies heavily on therapeutics that achieve varying outcomes. Very few of the medicines and psychotherapies lead to outright curses, but there are some disorders for which specific causes have been identified and corresponding remedies are extremely effective. However, syndromes and disorders in which the etiology is unknown, involves interventions that seek to manage symptoms, but the interventions cannot eliminate the person's clinical presentation. At this point in time, the field has made significant scientific advances in classifications of a number of mental disorders. We now have a better descriptive understanding of a number of syndromes, disorders, and diseases of the mind, including their onset, course, and prognosis. However, the etiology of many conditions remain unknown. Consequently, it is similar to many other medical conditions.
The classifications have markedly improved on managing symptoms associated with specific clusters of signs and symptoms (syndromes) and some disorders. However, the search for causes remains a major challenge for schizophrenia spectrum disorders and other serious mental illnesses. This is also the case in cancer research and other areas of medical science. For some conditions, psychiatry and psychology have good therapeutics for managing the presentation of distress and dysfunctional symptoms and for managing broader prognostic and syndrome involved classifications of conditions, but the science has been less effective in achieving interventions that are capable of instituting cures. Psychology has made similar advances in classifying some disorders of the self and personality But, these classifications involve more reliability challenges in diagnostic processes than is true of some major mental disorders. Much more work is needed in both of these areas of clinical science.
Jose, but are they real disorders or simply prognosis that extends the power and scope of professionals. I have just read the paper of one of my students where she puts this view, and puts it well. I spent a decade dealing with clients whose lives were or are ruined by psychiatric drugs. I am aware psychiatrists claim differently about these drugs and I suggest dissonance is common within the profession.
Indeed, with simple analysis it is very difficult to understand why depression occurs. Now, based on the simple observation that the mood in depression falls, they are trying to influence the mood with drugs, but this is of course the wrong strategy, which leads to many side effects and does not affect the cause of depression. Dementia and depression are linked. We can say that these are stages of one process. Symptoms of dementia show how important it is for the body to properly function the processes that cause depression. Symptoms of dementia show the "strength" of depression. Depression is certainly not harmless. The destructive power of depression is equivalent to the power of the disorders that occur in the brain. But, if you don’t know what to look for, then changes in the brain are difficult to notice and difficult to determine what is causing them. Depression is solved by a complex analysis of the causes, not the symptoms. The difficulty also lies in what reasons to analyze? Now, they take the symptoms of depression and try to influence them, this strategy is of course incorrect and ineffective.
I was marking a psychology paper today and the student brought up depression and loss which psychiatry falsely constitutes as mental illness rather then the natural response to a partner's demise for example. In the past people died of heartbreak, as some animals can. Drugs may keep people alive a little longer but to what end? Psychiatry sees health as freedom from emotion, from feeling life as our ancestors did but also learning to survive. Drugs destroy natural coping methods. Recently, I had a client (I have had only three in Portugal ) whose intense relationship had broken up and she seemed to miss the intensity. She had been placed on drugs by a previous therapist, and they were harming her. The therapist had not helped her. I got her off the drugs but could not remove her pain. She had to endure it, something we have forgotten to do. Life can stink, and you cannot stop it stinking. She had to endure the pain until it went. It always goes. All this is part of life, of human nature.
Entering psychiatry creates an illness paradigm which lasts forever. Drugs, bugs, and hallucinogenic are a means of embracing illness and putting yourself under dubious remedies, doctors and methods.
I gave the student A.
Psychiatry most likely views health not as freedom from emotions, but as the normal movement of emotions. A symptom of depression is a stunning (or one might say very, very large) deficiency of a certain set of neurotransmitters. In conditions of such a deficit, the normal flow of emotions is probably impossible. Eliminating depression allows you to show emotions normally and this will be a state of health. Depression itself is the absence of emotions and the absence of a sense of life. Depression is an internal disorder. External stress is transformed and intensified by depression.
Vasil, your description of depression is fine but knowing it is true is another matter. I understand this is what is taught in the profession. Nevertheless, while in psychology there are thoughts on the nature of emotions it is hard to find such thinking in psychiatry.
My position, one drafted over many years investigation, is that psychiatry is both authoritarian, and there are perspectives attached to authoritarian thinking from both psychology and philosophy, but none from psychiatry because of its nature, and powerful. A dangerous combination. Such institutions often (Indeed often rather then not) devise realities pertinent to their power and authoritarianism. Putin's world is evidence of one, fascism of the past and Nazism others. Reality is refashioned and orthodoxy is created. that reality becomes suspect of rejection-psychiatrists tend to act badly to pushbacks. If we claim that reality can be constructed, then psychiatry is an excellent example of such a case.
Psychiatry evolved from an elite group and is still an elite group but one with an immense number of rationales for both its power and authority and for its methods, which it in an obsessive and fixed way it calls a science which none must doubt. So laboratory confirmation based on mice is a true and genuine scientific process because they say it is. Psychiatry controls its own reality and none dare reject that reality. Psychiatry tells us when it cures, how it cures, its science and what it is, and we must not deny it.
What if there is no deficiency of transmitters (I cannot see why there could not be deficiency there but belief surely transcends proof?), nor all the many illnesses somehow ascertained by psychiatry, and growing? Psychiatry says there are while although psychologists tend not to naysay psychiatry as it is extremely powerful, they provide far better reasons for different phenomenon. While psychology provides no cures, and that may be a good thing, with its obsession with cures psychiatry has killed millions. None of course it has or will admit to.
Stanley, there is a similarity between the reasons for the existence of authoritarian psychiatry and the authoritarian regime. Now there are total violations in any society and total violations in psychiatry. I have long assumed that the symptom of neurotransmitter deficiency (can also be called neurotransmitter deficiency syndrome) is the physiological basis for the manifestation of geopolitical aggression and authoritarianism. Perhaps the authoritarianism of psychiatry is a consequence of some of the properties that are now inherent in depression. 1) Currently, the consensus opinion completely lacks an understanding of the mechanism of depression and its causes. 2) Now depression is “treated” by trying to influence only the symptom; the consensus does not know the causes of depression. 3) I have already said that a symptom of depression is an unrealistically high deficiency of vital neurotransmitters. 1*) Psychiatry does not know the causes of depression, and if you don’t know the causes, then how to treat the disease? 2*) Complicating methods for finding a solution does not bring results. 3*) If psychiatry does not know the causes of depression and at the same time uses random and unpredictable methods to influence a vital process that continues to develop rapidly and plus drug-related disorders are added, the result is of course unsatisfactory. And this commonality between psychiatry and the authoritarian regime is the lack of solutions to vital processes. Psychiatry is justified by the fact that it affects a vital process. And the authoritarian leader also justifies himself by saying that he is deciding a vital process. Of course, one can doubt whether a huge deficiency of neurotransmitters exists, since throughout his entire life a person may not know what it is or whether it exists at all. Of course, it is surprising that such an important process for a person is almost constantly turned off. We can say that now a person exists with one very important process that is constantly turned off. It is amazing and amazing that this happened to a person. But this is a fairly simple phenomenon and it will not be difficult for me to demonstrate this phenomenon if necessary. So this deficit can precisely be defined as the physiological basis of authoritarianism. Now psychiatry is authoritarian and now in psychiatry there is a complete lack of understanding of the main cause of depression and the main symptom - neurotransmitter deficiency. Psychiatry - the basis of deviations is unknown, the cause of these deviations is very important, random exposure does not eliminate the deviation, and the exposure itself generates new deviations. Authoritarian regime - the leader of an authoritarian regime is under constant pressure from the causes of depression, there is no mental homeostasis, attempts to solve something for which he does not know the reasons destroys normal ways of resolving problems. But the quality of authoritarianism can also be seen in democratic countries, the cause of which is probably also depression. Symptoms of depression are now freely spreading among 99.99% of the population. Thus, authoritarianism can be defined as one of the consequences of depression.
Vasil, I am closely following what you write but I think its time we dismiss all this and start again, but psychiatrists should play little part. We need supervised researchers to look at it all. And analytical types who can position ideas where they belong and not be taken in by class based and culturally based notions of human personality or abnormality.
In the UK and indeed in Portugal where I now live I have noticed the Upper Middle Class nature of psychiatrists and psychiatry and how their effusions fit backgrounds. My statement on perceptions goes as I have studied psychiatric papers for years and been very concerned about their scientific nature rather than the professional acceptance of certain tropes based on repetition and wishful thinking. And on laboratory experiments on rodents as reflecting on human beings, which while I accept abnormalities in brains and nervous systems these are few and far between. I will say that in my paper on Saul's madness it seems likely, to the extent the story has any historical basis, it was a narrative devise to shed light in the practice of genocide but if he was at all mad this can be understood as fighting in many battles and blows to the head. This and the few illnesses that affected the brain, like syphilis which can be seen in Maudsley's descriptions of the mad. From there he presented the views of specific illnesses. But, I will point out that understandings of madness/mental illness are or were based on reflections within asylums, not in the 'real world'. Small worlds indeed!
Perception can be negotiated and manipulated by power. Then knowledge becomes delusion.
While I have the space, I will allude again to the incarceration for perversion, concentrated on women in the 1930s, which seems to have been lesbianism and female promiscuity, which probably included prostitution. Whatever your feelings on this behaviour really its your problem not others. A middle class elite group given too much power has no greater rights than others and should also come under national laws.
I did research work for a friend of mine into the reasons for mental illness in the older populations. I found young women being placed into treatment centres for promiscuity, a life choice and one distinguished by greater sexual drive. No men were likewise labelled mentally ill for the same reason. I found people forced into treatments, labelled, their lives destroyed. I found brainwashing: people called and treated as mentally ill who started to believe they were!
Now there are many diseases with unknown etiology. To somehow explain the causes of the disease, multifactoriality is used. Multifactoriality scatters the efforts of researchers or research is carried out in a dead-end direction and becomes even more confused. The cause is not discovered, since the disease is essentially interdisciplinary. For intradisciplinary research to move forward, it is necessary to bring in competencies and findings from other disciplines and broad interdisciplinary analysis. But often researchers do not go beyond the boundaries of their disciplines and continue to make efforts in a direction in which it will not bring results. Some researcher finds a certain phenomenon, becomes interested in studying this phenomenon and receives a new unexpected result. But researchers do not go beyond the boundaries of their disciplines; they believe that only they can produce results in their disciplines. This is the situation now, including in psychiatry. Psychiatry is now a science that lacks understanding of the etiology of depression, for example, one of the most widespread diseases. Depression is caused by disturbances in certain physiological processes. These physiological processes belong to the primary class and therefore depression is widespread. If the problem is widespread, it is necessary to create a coalition of disciplines in order to bring other knowledge into the discipline and move research forward. If you have moved your research forward, then you can continue research within the discipline in the right direction you have found. Now psychiatry is at a dead end, just as research on many other diseases is at a dead end. The peculiarity of depression is that the disease is now total. Mass diseases require a special approach. The mechanism of depression is this: one of the most important processes is disrupted. Since this is a very important process, the work of all other processes is disrupted. All processes in the body begin to gradually degrade. Psychiatry and many other disciplines need input from outside knowledge. Most likely, many behavioral features or behavioral disorders are united by a violation of one process, which is very important, but cannot be controlled in any way now. Whoever can appreciate the importance of this process can provide a solution.
Vasil, you appear to be resolutely supporting the disease etiology of mental illness without exploring what it is or supposed to be. While I do not deny that etiology, I believe it is limited in scope not complete as your response insists.
I also raise other issues. Psychiatry hives to itself. A small elite group who believe certain things and keep to that narrow interpretation. Do pharmacological treatments cause mental health? I suggest they do. This may not be reflected in the activity of mice but human brain expression divides it completely from rodents. An amazing absurdity with immense mileage.
But in the end, mental illness is whatever psychiatry believes it is. Belief here, not science, is the abiding word.
Heil, surely, it is what we say it is!
Might be worth looking at my paper, Fabrication and Fraud on here which again deals with events in the 1930s and concerns mental health as entirely subject to events in the brain and the invaluable use of brain surgery. New at the time. The Rockefeller Institution offered hospitals in the US and Europe to provide proof for such effective surgery and receive substantial grants. A researcher in Central Europe claimed to find one in one particular case. Long story short, it was accepted and the researcher found work in the USA receiving a fortune at the same time.
His claims were essentially fabricated but the operation persisted for years in psychiatry. Remember, lobotomists received accolades and financial rewards at the same time and their 'cure' , which initially drugs imitated, celebrated throughout the medical profession.
An American writer, name forgotten but he wrote the Body, remembers working in a London hospital (where historians claim such surgery did not happen) as a young student and opening a door into a lobotomy ward and finding zombies. Locked away from sight. Later researchers claimed that the effects of lobotomies were exaggerated.
They were all done without the patient's permission reflecting Nazis behaviour of the time.
Depression has a cause and symptoms. Now psychiatry studies only symptoms and recommends, for example, taking medications. There are many different variations of symptoms. You can carefully experiment with the symptoms and study them, but there will be no positive result. But depression does have one underlying cause that generates many symptoms. Once you eliminate the real cause of depression, you eliminate the various manifestations of depression. It is not easy to accept that depression can have one underlying cause. The main cause of depression is a certain physiological disorder. Elimination of depression based on real etiology is solved not by barbaric methods, but by natural methods - the process-cause is regulated and thus depression is regulated and eliminated. Psychiatry is now in a narrow framework, limited by a lack of understanding of the real etiology of, for example, depression. Under these conditions, subjective interpretation dominates. If you know the real etiology of depression, then of course you can repeat it in animals. If you don’t know, then most likely not. Lobotomy is something out of a horror movie. Long-term use of drugs to treat depression is not based on the actual etiology of depression. Taking medications is based on a superficial consideration of depression, only its symptoms, when there is no understanding of all stages of depression, starting from the very first stage. They see only a decrease in mood and decline and try by any means to directly influence the mood. But they don’t look for what causes the loss of mood.
Vasil, you are correct about psychiatry but that's probably the result of its relationship with drug companies, with the companies calling the tune. I personally see depression as a justified response to life and its problems, psychiatry says it isn't and desires to eradicate it. Manic Depression is one of the few recorded mental illnesses throughout time, so maybe that's real as well, but no matter how disabling, it can also reflect a viewpoint.
At an earlier point in time affect reflected thought but because of psychiatry it no longer does. Affect reflects mental states and modes of illness. These psychiatry has a duty to eradicate using endless supplies of differently named drugs that have the same affect.
Stanley, the principle of action of drugs for depression is similar to the principle of action of a lobotomy. Lobotomy disrupts normal signaling pathways, disrupts signal transmission processes, and drugs also disrupt normal signaling patterns. This achieves the goal of preventing or reducing the transmission of a signal from a disrupted process and replacing the necessary signals with artificial signals. The principle of action of lobotomy and drugs is to disrupt the normal signal transmission pattern. For example, if you break your arm, it may temporarily distract you from depression, but it may also make your depression worse. The drugs can provide temporary relief or can make depression worse. When you break your arm or take a drug, you disrupt mental homeostasis. The most optimal means of managing depression is to influence the responsible process, which is the cause of a huge deficiency of a certain group of neurotransmitters. The cause of depression is a violation of primary physiological needs. Reaction to life's problems is secondary needs. When violations of primary needs are combined with violations of secondary needs, a dangerous situation arises. Chronic violation of primary needs leads to unpredictable consequences. Now they are trying to destroy normal signal transmission patterns with drugs, and with the help of psychotechnics they are trying to adapt to depression or the use of drugs.
Vasil,
I will use some if your arguments at some point and of course will quite you. The matter of lobotomy unfortunately is that it didn't work at any level nor was there any genuine discussion as to what it was actually meant to do, that is within a scientific format. Its practice over a number of years destroyed people. The idea was formed in the 1930s in fascist states (Portugal/Italy) so no surprise that it violent and brutal. The connection of European psychiatrists with Nazism was no accident! For psychiatrists then (and now?) patients were for experimenting on.
Your description on the effects of drugs is good, and as above, one I will employ myself. Several years ago I campaigned against tranquillisers pointing out they were dangerously addictive. The medical profession to a man and woman informed the governments of the time they were safe. I also claimed that their addiction nature was not simply neural but affected the brain's processes. Therefore the damage to short term memory. But nevertheless I and many others were pushed back, us against expert professional opinion (sic) after all. A few years ago I needed to get dental work done and I have needle phobia (nothing I might add to do with pain but try telling dentists that!) and the dentist suggested tranquillisers, which, as it was for a very short period, I agreed to. He gave me a prescription but it was refused by the chemists I went to. The UK government had placed it on the dangerous drugs list!!! As I had warmed them years before.
Were psychiatrists and General Practitioners reprimanded? Did they lose money for the harm they'd done? Of course not! They are a powerful group and the public losing faith in the medical profession was seen as a worse crime. Which takes me back to magic, brainwashing and misrepresentation by and of the medical profession!
Psychiatry, more so than psychology, has presented specific notions of human nature through an illness framework. People are subject to mental illness or at all times without notions of normality except with comparisons to mental illness. That none of this may be correct analysis never seems to occur to people and there is a general acceptance of ideas based more on the intellectual, internal functions of an elite group. Whereas psychology looks outward, confirming itself through others behaviour through lengthy peer discussion, and thereby obtaining proofs, psychiatry finds its proofs within a small group of doctors. This elite group confirms the proof. It justifies itself.
It is necessary to clearly understand what normality is. Now psychiatry is such that it lacks an understanding of the etiology of depression - the most widespread deviation and others. Depression and other related diseases are widespread, and there is no solution in consensus psychiatry and no understanding of the etiology of depression. 99% of the population has symptoms of depression of varying degrees. Is depression normal based on the fact that 99% of the population has symptoms of depression? Is depression cultural diversity? Or is depression a deviation and disorder? Depression is of course a deviation. The cause of depression is well identified and easily eliminated by routine means. I mean remedies based on the etiology of depression. Antidepressants are not based on the etiology of depression. Is depression normal and culturally diverse just because it is widespread? No, depression is not normal. Nowadays, depression is common only because treatments based on the etiology of depression are not used to manage depression. Depression is not normal. Depression is not a normal condition. Cultural development and diversity are different in depressed and non-depressed settings. The main stream of cultural efforts is absorbed by depression. Psychology and psychiatry are now under significant pressure from a major unresolved problem. The main unresolved problem is the lack of understanding of the etiology and pathogenesis of depression - the main cause of deviation. When the psyche is under constant destructive pressure, it introduces significant disturbances into culture and psychology. We can say that there are basic conditions for the absence of deviations, and cultural manifestations depend on these basic conditions.
The principle of action of lobotomy and antidepressants is the same. The principle of action is to disrupt the transmission of signals, fill the natural flow of neurotransmitters with some other flows. This pattern can now be observed even at the level of state behavior. In the absence of understanding the etiology of the disease, this is a kind of solution. But since this option is associated with many side effects, then to protect against criticism, of course, a certain wall of various kinds of measures is created. Along with such harsh and often inadequate techniques, it is necessary that such a period ends so that the management of disorders occurs on the basis of etiology and pathogenesis. The longer the period of non-etiological control of the disorder, the greater the damage society and each person will receive.
Vasil,
Lobotomy was a crime, one of many perpetuated by psychiatry.
At present I am gathering more evidence on the nature of psychiatric assertions, and their actions as police officers outside of parameters of health based on dubious ideas and harmful medicines.
One complaint I often receive involves those on the therapeutic side outside medical attempts to addict everyone to drugs. The crudity of my assertion meets the crudity of the science.
The complaints? The sense of superiority, ergo, the right to control clients according to their innate superiority of class, position and their sense of entitlement. Power again is the key.
Stanley,
Lobotomy is now considered a crime. But when it was used, they hoped to get a positive result. The practice of using lobotomy gave negative results and it was stopped being used. The motive for using lobotomy and antidepressants is the same. Let's do something, and then we'll see what happens. They said that if the real etiology of depression is discovered, it will be a big step forward, but for now we are using antidepressants as the lesser of evils. There is currently no understanding of the real etiology of depression in psychiatry. Psychiatry acts harshly, as it is necessary to use drugs that are ineffective or harmful. Antidepressants are used because you can show some kind of result. But the result of using antidepressants is an imitation of the result, and not a real effect on the cause of depression. A simple observation that the mood is changing and a simple conclusion - let's change the mood with antidepressants. But it is necessary to unravel the whole sequence of events of how we come to the fact that a depressive state comes. Now psychiatry does not understand this and it has to impose ineffective or harmful means by harsh methods. Antidepressants are used because a surrogate result can be obtained. This is not a real result, but in the absence of an understanding of the etiology of depression, the use of antidepressants is now considered acceptable. Before psychiatry gets access to the real etiology of depression, it may take a long time and a lot of experience of negative cases will be accumulated. But then antidepressants will be mentioned in the same context as lobotomy.
Vasil, I will point out that lobotomies were invented in fascist countries, and that was no coincidence. i think you can be too kind towards the profession. almost all German psychiatrists joined the Nazis party. The model for an extermination system came from a psychiatrist. Psychiatrists in USA were active in creating the Nazis system and responsible for cruelties against black people and effectively created the racial system of differences involving intelligence and inferior and superior understandings of human races. They institutionalised it. In the USA psychiatrists picked homeless and drug takers off the streets to experiment on them.
they did these things because they could, they do these things because they can.
one reason for depression is life. will drugs really fix that?
I will discuss psychiatric science with you at a later point, but I do not believe it is really a science. Although my investigations go deeper than that, including there is no genuine follow up on drug effects except within a limited spectrum, it represents professional projection- The three. They decide what illness is, they decide what cures, they decide the efficacy of the cure. This is neither scientific nor approximate but reflects earlier medical approaches that were little more than professional hubris, guesswork, speculation, such as lesions.
Psychiatrists are not responsible for what they do. There is no comeback if a ºcureº fails and kills or creates another illness so therefore they cannot learn but keep on doing the same pointless treatments again and again. Arrogance and hubris, nothing learnt.
Apart from wanting to eat too much, antipsychotics mean my son can hold down a good job. He has also developed new interests and is free from the anxiety that threatened to completely derrail his life. Of course others have not been so lucky. No doubt he is dependent on them, but what other choice does he have?
Paul,
I welcome this kind of information and any insights you have to offer. Why antipsychotics? I agree with you that dependency is not the worst difficulty but drugs have equally caused psychosis.
Stanley, he was diagnosed as having psychosis after being sectioned. There was no question that he could not distinguish what was real, from what he imagined to be real. I.e. a nuclear device on the neighbour’s roof that was emitting radiation and would kill us all. Note. He doesn’t drink or take drugs, but could be the result of sever trauma at birth and has other learning difficulties. Despite that he can apply himself to any subject with great zeal.
Paul Healey,
There are problems with the idea of psychosis as it may be several illnesses or difficulties not a single one. I recall William Blake whose episodes were dramatic but who moved forward humanitarianism through his in-your-face sense of social good and evil. My first wife after giving birth started receiving messages, yes I know that happens to everyone but these were specific to her, from the TV. Clearly this concerned the birth and she experienced the same with a previous child, which I had not known about. I will add, she was very disruptive and made my bringing up our child very difficult. When common life experience grew difficult she would disappear, often into other relationships with, I must add, the collusion of our GP.
No treatment worked on her. Usually treatment involves a hit and miss approach with different drugs of different strengths some of which occasionally hit the mark. Strangely, most are the same and only their negative effects are different.
The med. professions fixation on treatment prevents the dealing with life which, if not the original issue, becomes it. Their lives become the illness. With physical illnesses the issues do not sidetrack involvement in life. Again, the med professional are unable to move away from diagnosis and even when she was not having episodes they pumped her full of drugs causing as much as curing her swings and roundaments. The profession is fixated on their own ideologies and of fixing one dimensional descriptions to multi-layered experience. Providing goals and learning to value herself would have been better. We would deal with others going through these matters by not separating them into other experiences and dilemmas and understand better the range of human experience.
In our present worlds, by design, everything is in its place and human worthiness is connected to production, even your son's.
Stanley, Paul in his response recognizes a limit in current psychiatric care and medicine that theorists from other disciplines often do not understand about medicine. That psychiatrists and other medical professionals seek to produce desired effects associated with distressing symptoms. They seek to produce a desire effect and monitor whether or not the intervention is successful in achieving that effect. The intervention may work for some persons, but not others and a major part of the scientific enterprise is trying to understand why these differences are occurring.
When I began practice in mental health, the DSM-II was very theoretical (based primarily on psychoanalytic principles). Some presumed it produced success and an understanding for dealing with neurosis and this presumed success was unfortunately extended to other conditions with much more of a biological bases (for instance Schizophrenia). You are correct that culture can affect clinical presentations, but not necessarily to the same degree as you suggest in presenting some of your concerns.
The anthropologist's Jane Murphy's (1976)'s seminal piece Psychiatric Labeling in Cross Cultural Perspective examines a number of issues you address in a number of the threads in this discussion. She found that many cultures considered similar conditions abnormal, but differed in their explanations of these abnormality. Subsequently to this paper the jury is out about culture bound syndromes. While the clinical features of Schizophrenia are similar across cultures, the symptoms delusions and hallucinations are cardinal features of this disorder, but the content of the symptom (delusion) will not be the same e.g., KGB versus FBI in paranoid delusions. You are correct psychosis can be due to varying factors, In the DSM-II, many forms of psychosis were unfortunately mislabeled. Some forms of postpartum psychosis were labeled Schizophrenia. However, there are now multiple descriptive efforts at differentiating between brief psychotic disorders with a post-partum onset, Schizophreniform disorder, Schizophrenia and other variants where there are overlapping symptoms, but the onset, course and prognosis differs among these conditions and their expected durations. Now Schizophrenia is treated as a spectrum condition and the focus in treatment to some extent is on specific symptom patterns and the course of the clinical presentation. This is part of the descriptive movement in psychiatry which began in 1980. In this period, the move was to not diagnosis based on theory because of a lack of supporting evidence for specific theoretical explanations of disorders (e.g. psychoanalytic). Unlike your concerns about its focus on a single biological dimension, it introduced a multi-axial or dimensional system for understanding disorders at this point in time. Another major recent development has occurred that involves the elimination of the axis system, which has been replaced by biopsychosocial formulations or conceptualizations of a clinical case. However, you are correct that the medical system, and the attendant insurance institution, gives significant lip service to other non-biological and medical intervention considerations. It is the funding mechanism of the system and the battle for resources between physicians and other service providers, which does not support interventions that focus on important social and cultural determinants of significant disabling and distressing mental conditions. All in all, progress has been slow and it is a continuing societal challenge. The field is shifting much more to a neurobiological focus, which is good for some conditions, but not for all contained in the DSM system for classifying mental disorders.
Jose Ashford,
Thank you for this-balance is essential in reaching understanding.
Nevertheless, this is current medical orthodoxy. We now take a less absolute and authoritarian position. Do you? Isn't it the same song to a different melody, hummed to yourselves. This is not what's coming through to me from people experiencing the services, its the debate you're having with yourselves. A debate you've been having with yourselves for over two hundred years.
Years ago I was involved with helping patients gain compensation for years of mental health drug addiction. To a man and woman, the mental health service claimed the drugs were not addictive. From what I saw they were and are highly addictive with mental side effects. I campaigned to stop the prevention of the valium and ativan group from being prescribed, that they were harmful. A few years back I discovered some were placed on the dangerous drug list.
While the service has conversations with itself no effective model will be discovered. Doctors, for example, will continue to be paid to test drugs on patients without, absolutely without, the monitoring you claim. Shouldn't all doctors make known what they receive from drug companies? Shouldn't this gentleman's and gentlewoman's club, redundant with privilege, be controlled? Its rights considered through oversite undistinguished by the dying remnants of class?
I will add a genuine problem in that the experiencing of life problems and stresses have become subject to reclassification as mental illness treated mainly by drugs. A terrible divorce? Can't sleep? Anxious? This drug will cure this and help you endure not experience and deal with divorce court problems and the aftermath. Take them long enough and you become say a narcissistic zombie as life floats by you. Yes, you will conclude you feel better, but the cost, what is the cost?
I think you are correct that after my youthful adoption of many of the early antipsychiatry challenges to mental illness that I recognized the need for increased caution in evaluating existing constructs and debates about mental illness. I have observed individuals who worked with the Seriously Mentally Ill generalizing their observations to persons with less serious disorders or problems in living. Similarly, persons working primarily with the worried well attempting to extend some of their valid observations to the seriously mentally ill. I see these attempts to apply these assumptions to all deviations in thought, mood, and behavior and life difficulties as problematic. Thomas Szasz and other participants in the Antipsychiatry movement, for instance, assumed that Schizophrenia was essentially a problem in living. Conversely, the developers of the double bind theory in family treatment contexts attributed dysfunctions to communications, which they assumed contributed to or caused their Schizophrenia. While I know recognized the presence of serious mental disorders that involve major brain and genetic contributions, the frameworks for this condition can be misapplied to problems of living. Where problems emerge is when a person is experiencing complicated grief, cancer or another condition and people deny them the potential opportunity to benefit from medications even though they develop a clinical depression that produces substantial impairments in their lives. This is as harmful as treating psychosocial issues as a clinical pathology as you point out. The issue is establishing appropriate guardrails and boundaries for differentiating signs and symptoms of psychopathology from problems in living.
Please, do not place me amongst the antipsychiatry as by doing so you affirm the legitimacy of psychiatry which in the end I see as an adaptation of class, by and large all from the same class within western societies, with the prejudices of that class. An expansion of 19th century madhouses which produced a testimony of human minds from within the closed societies of asylums, projecting them species wide. Pinot's methods by which the only valid interpretation was by the ones with most power. He gave what today we would call psychotherapy to a young rich Frenchman but at no point genuinely listened to him, and, never once 'mentioned the war', the French Revolution going on at the time. Pinot is interesting for what he didn't say in that he never married and did he have an affair with this young men who a little latter killed himself?
Nevertheless, the drug culture of psychiatry places it within pseudo science as it is the doctor, see above on power, who decides how they work and ignores both patient and whatever is before their eyes, going by training instead. On Academia.edu a psychiatrist confronted me and started by alluding to a paper of mine suggesting that psychology and psychiatry had their births in a position taken by John Locke regarding colonialism whereby there was a separation between colonisers and colonised. He clearly did not understand it suggesting to me the level he was at but also his only argument was ºbut treatments were effectiveº which he said numerous times. I pointed out that perhaps they were according to him and his colleagues, not necessarily to the patient. In the end he asked me if I was taking ºthe mickey out of himº. I was but I told him not to be so silly.
He vanished. Thank God.
The religious components of his attempt to convert me to psychiatry is yet another facet of the discipline.
Stanley, when the etiology of the disease is unknown, then usually some abstract concept is chosen as the cause - for example, that the cause of depression is life. Or they assign many causes as the cause of the disease - they make the disease multifactorial. Depression is a single-factor disease. The cause of depression is unambiguous and established. Depression is embedded in one of the largest pathological processes in the human body. Depression is one of the many symptoms of this large-scale pathological process. The processes associated with depression create many mental disorders. Currently, psychiatry does not understand the etiology of depression. The principle of lobotomy and antidepressants is not to hear what your body is telling you. The body gives you certain signals - you don't hear them. Depression is the body's message that you are not hearing its signals. The body does not know how to tell you by text or forcibly do what is necessary. The body sends certain signals. Psychiatry does not understand that the signal is sent by a certain process that is disrupted. It is necessary to make efforts to solve the problem in the body. Instead, psychiatry tries to destroy the body's signals so as not to hear them. And with the help of antidepressants, create a kind of parallel reality. But this is not the reality of your body, but an artificial reality. For example, one of the side effects of taking antidepressants is an increase in appetite. The body is trying to fight for its existence and sends you another clear hint, but psychiatry ignores it. Then there is a gradual deterioration of the situation. Psychiatry absolutely does not understand that depression is an interdisciplinary disease. Depression is just a signal of some kind of violations. Instead of solving the problems of these disorders, which are physiological, psychiatry imposes an artificial signal. Creates a virtual reality , and real violations continue to progress. Antidepressants are an attempt to change the image in the mirror without changing the source of the image.
Depression is the body's message that you are not hearing its signals.
Vasil I must agree with your statements here and after, although your understanding of depression, or rather description, I am less sure about. Your description of the effects of drugs could have come from me . I cannot improve on your description but let me add that the effects of the drugs create artificial processes that are dangerous. To repeat your words, doctors have absolutely no idea of the effects of their drugs on patients. Before adding to this, the doctors go by their training not in their capacity for observation of phenomenon outside of their training. They have no idea and should be removed from their supervisory/managerial roles.
I have a few more points to make although yours have been excellent.
There is a lecturer called Wells I believe who has a PhD in physics who gives lectures found on You Tube. One is entitled, 'Why Doctors are Stupid.' He teaches doctors and other professionals his subject and claims doctors by and large seem unable to understand it. In his audience another lecturer piped up and confirmed he has the same experience. I posted here my talk with a psychiatrist and found him the most stupid individual I have discussed any matter with on Academia. Edu. I will make the point that doctors do not achieve exceptional scores on IQ tests, whether they are accurate or not is another discussion, but with solicitors score lowest of professionals. While doctors seem to regard themselves as in the upper echelons in terms of intellectual potential, this simply may not be true.
They may therefore be intellectually unable to grasp the effects of their treatments. Your understanding has immense merit but I think that the negative potential of these drugs is greater than generally thought and greater than you have so far expressed.
Peter Hitchens, the lesser sibling of Christopher, wrote several papers several years ago on the impact of psychotropic drugs and advanced the claim that shooters in the USA had all been prescribed these drugs, and several had shown no personality disorder before being prescribed. While there is no absolute proof this remains one of my concerns.
I have just marked a psychology student's degree paper and the number of positions and ideas struck me. Some, well most, are linked to therapeutic practices but how many do people suffering from various problems know? Probably very few. Why?
Because the medical model overwhelms everything. Drugs, drugs. Worse, doctors know nothing or very little of these other models and their effectiveness. Worse, in their ignorance they ignore them convinced of drugs.
The Medical Model? Mass treatment! Brave New World! Treatment of and for the masses. Deal with symptoms thereby deal with problems engaging in subsequent bullying and brainwashing. If you see a doctor you will walk away with a diagnosis pinned to you all your life. The doctor could then bully you to accept the diagnosis, often subtly.
Stanley, doctors certainly see the negative consequences of using antidepressants. And patients see it too, and some openly talk about it. Doctors in practice use currently accepted treatment methods because no other methods are offered to them. The problem is the problem of depression itself, which is the main problem and which is not trivial. I describe depression in terms of a problem solved. If we look at the problem of depression from the outside, if we look at the real solution to depression, we can say that psychiatry does not currently have a minimum set of reliable knowledge that would allow further stable research into depression. There are sciences in which there is a certain basic set of elements, which is a reliable basis for this science and on this basis science develops successfully. In psychiatry, at least half of the foundation bricks of the psychiatry building are now missing, and that is why the psychiatry building is so fragile and unsafe. It so happens that in psychiatry there is currently no understanding of at least half of the volume of mental processes that are basic for humans and very important for the body. I make assessments based on the practical methods available to me. We can say that a person has lost at least half of his “life” and depression constantly reminds him of this. Along with the unpredictable effects of antidepressants, the main harm of antidepressants is that you do not act on the cause of depression and depression with accompanying pathological processes develops freely. And the basic processes of depression are very, very dangerous. Now the basic processes of depression develop equally successfully in those who take antidepressants and in those who do not take them. Antidepressants do not affect the cause of depression. Depression is a multidisciplinary disease, and to effectively treat depression it is necessary to understand all the underlying processes of depression.
Vasil, no matter how many insights you bring, there remains something wrong. Not only do you, without realising it I suspect, present the medical profession as passive victims you present them as helpless in the grip of their own ignorance. Their inability to cure but using measures of control. The move to drug giving is not as innocent as perhaps you think as the drugs came first and mental health was the basis for pharma wealth. The illnesses energised the production of drugs but within a mutual dependency. The more illnesses were established the more, slightly different, drugs were produced. Without mental health, western countries would be poorer. The money from mental illness and thereby the need for mental illness has grown within the same time frame. I studied this and realised the behaviour of mental health in the growth of the drug industry was no different to that of gangs in the criminal production of drugs. Doctors and therapists work hard convincing patients that they are mentally ill, are out of touch with reality, and need to be controlled. Another group of criminals, Putin and his St Petersburg cronies, are doing something similar in Russia.
Is it modern society we need to be analysing?
I took my research back to ancient times and although mental illness can be recognised then its origins were seen in relation to society. The Ancient Greeks saw mental illness in terms of the polis, and its rejection. A hermit was defined as mentally ill. These social aspects function in modern concepts as the authoritarian role of the medical profession has an organising role in western society in the same way that poverty has in many other societies. The medical profession, a caste not far away from nepotism, serves as part of the ruling group determining who is approved of and who not, functioning very much like the ancient priests of Judea, both before and including rabbis (very much like doctors) who decide what behaviour is justified and what not.
ADDED: I wonder if you know the degree that doctors and therapists functioning as part of institutions control and define people. Stephen put it well at the beginning. They actually act like secret police, that is, after defining someone of being mentally ill (a crime against society) they then can control them for life. Is this the old outsider paradigm and society's means of controlling them in case that upset the tender frame of institutional complicity. The working class in the past filled the ranks of the mentally ill.
Stanley, there are many examples of ignorance in history. Ignorance still exists today. For example, examples of ignorance in the past:
history.com/news/7-of-the-most-outrageous-medical-treatments-in-history
sciencefriday.com/articles/the-murderous-medical-practice-of-the-18th-century/
And now this ignorance exists. For example, the practice of fluoridation of tap water in the USA and some other countries. Fluoride is mistakenly considered a cure for tooth decay. And although no positive results from the use of fluoride have been demonstrated, it is still used. Fluoride can cause serious illness. Some researchers considered fluoride to be a silent lobotomy. Antidepressants are now such a soft lobotomy. Antidepressants can only be used for a short period and in cases where immediate action is necessary. Previously, the toxic substance calomel was used for various types of treatment, despite the fact that there was no positive result. If there is no positive result, then of course you need to react.
I previously noted that symptoms of depression, to varying degrees, are now prevalent in 99% of the population. This is how the circumstances developed. Now we can say that a person loses or does not receive at least half of his “life”. In such homogeneous conditions of general loss, institutions are needed that try to manage people, since there is general uncertainty and insecurity.
Vasil, I wish people would read more my papers as I cover these matters endlessly. In fact I cover the use of medicine within power, political, context. Until the 18th century at best, the methods of the medical profession were no different to folk or common medicine, but doctors had been to university and were from at least middle class backgrounds. It was already as much about power and social mobility and control as science, well, more so. Medicine then reflected social factors and class as it does now. The common use of leeches was similar to drug use now, doctors told people it worked, convinced, indeed brain washed (as now), the general public and thereby kept traditional public respect and monetary reward. Like drug giving, it was a cover for ignorance. The use of blood letting killed hundreds of thousands and did not do more damage because ordinary people could not afford doctors or treatments.
Remember most treatments today factor in two essential additions: this is a science and doctors are better, more intelligent than their patients. Doctors know better. The fact is that the harm, or mistakes as you put it, to patients is based on these assumptions not on scientific misjudgement per se. Social positions and problems with professional status.
Bloodletting is similar to drug giving in mental health, the former was attested by the number of people dying but the treatment continued to be taught and used, with drugs, closed medical minds going by the book.
Where depression's prevalence is concern, people's reactions to life are being restructured from external to internal as it is easier to deal with individuals than society. Each diagnosis is symbolic, representative of doctor's claims to understanding through class, and within the context of doubtful scientific understanding displayed by the DSM, a list that predicts rather than explains. In each case they symbolise drugs and their nature-mass produced within industrialised societies.
Let me give an example from my practice, an example I came across several times.
Teenagers escaping abusive parents end up in mental hospital -a place to escape to. They were fed drugs to deal with conditions formulated as a consequence of inadequate detail and medical hubris. And manipulation by the aggressors, the parents. Doctors, while claiming knowledge of human behaviour, have little genuine knowledge of life and so make things up. Anyway, of course the drugs were addictive, a fact denied by the medical profession until recently.
The result: one client, a 15 year old couldn't walk past windows, badly affected by sunlight, and became agoraphobic for a year. He was reassessed as psychotic. That diagnosis was used to control him by equally arrogant and irresponsible doctors (quacks?) and his life was almost completely destroyed. As doctors do not admit to mistakes, no recompense was possible.
The 99% suffering depression, is that in the West. I hold that psychiatry/psychology concerns Western cultures not necessarily elsewhere.
Stanley, the practice of using antidepressants to manage depression will continue until any overt disaster occurs due to their use or until a real solution to depression is understood. The consensus understanding of depression is now very far from understanding the actual processes of depression, and doctors and 99% of researchers now know as much about the basic mechanisms of depression as patients do. Both doctors and patients now know almost the same about depression - one might say that they know nothing. The consequences of using antidepressants, that is, using methods that do not affect depression, can lead to very serious consequences. Since depression is a consequence of a violation of primary physiological processes in 99% of the population of all countries (depression is distributed evenly across all countries), the behavior of people who have great financial or geopolitical opportunities poses a great danger. Everyone sees such examples now.
It is characteristic that ketamine was originally used as an anesthesia. Anesthesia is an ideal remedy for depression - while under anesthesia, depression disappears.
Depression is a consequence of disruption of low-level primary processes. In Western countries, depression has its own nuances. It seems that you have material wealth and no everyday problems, but depression appears out of nowhere. Antidepressants in Western countries are used to compensate for the lack of household, financial and other problems that exist in less wealthy countries. By using antidepressants you bring chaos and distraction from depression. We can say that antidepressants in rich countries model the lack of money, domestic or other problems of less rich countries. In rich countries, primary needs are more fully satisfied, but not all. All countries are now united by depression, since in all countries 99% of the population is susceptible to disruption of a certain primary process, which is the cause of depression. In rich countries, depression is more pronounced because more people can relax and think calmly, but here depression appears out of nowhere.
I think you take this biological truth of depression too seriously. If doctors say it is at 99% is true and not social and philosophical actors involved. People believing in whatever doctors tell them, equal to the brainwashing in Russia and achieved within obedience tropes in the same way.
Depression arises out of nothing. This is nothing and is a disturbed primary physiological process. Violation of this process leads to a huge deficiency of a certain group of neurotransmitters, which is a symptom of depression. An anxiety disorder occurs. Since the deficit of neurotransmitters is very large, the anxiety is very great. Anxiety lasts continuously and captures a person. There is no improvement. You can try antidepressants to break this flow of negativity. But antidepressants do not work, as they do not affect the source of depression in any way. The source of depression does not disappear over time and does not normalize itself. The process becomes chronic. The process of depression can be clearly demonstrated and confirmed. The primary physiological processes are very complex. To see such a process, you need to know the formula of the process.
Vasil, can, not will.
For depression you have to have a viable opposite otherwise you have no basis for the specific feelings or moods. People can say they are depressed because of an absence of clear happiness, which might be pleasure or comfort. the depression you describe has to be very rare and involves the absence of something else equally powerful.
Everyone has the depression I'm describing. Everyone has it, because the basic primary processes that every person has are disrupted. 99% of the population has depression. Depression is an internal message in the body's language. The body can tell you through pleasure that this is good. And through depression to communicate that he is feeling bad. Depression is a completely normal message. What is abnormal is a person’s reaction when he tries to silence the body with antidepressants. This powerful happiness deficit is present in 99% of people, but it is difficult to see. To do this, you need to know the formula for this deficit. If necessary, the formula can be provided. Yes, people rightly say that they are depressed due to lack of happiness, pleasure and comfort. This is an accurate description of the actual process of depression. And this powerful lack of happiness is within us. It is in everyone. This is of course a very interesting question, how did it happen that everyone has such a gigantic deficit? Why doesn't anyone see him?
Vasil, come, come this is nonsense. people have negative feelings as they have positive ones but this dichotomy id a natural consequence of life, not an illness. This is what psychiatry claims to hand out a few drugs to brainwashed citizens.
Life can be divided into two areas - the life of the body - the processes within the body. Life occurring outside the body is processes outside the body. You can separate negative (for example, you hit your hand) and positive (for example, you ate a tasty product) sensations inside the body. There are negative and positive emotions, the cause of which is outside the body. Depression is a consequence of disturbances in processes within the body. Therefore, depression seems to come out of nowhere, the cause is not visible. Therefore, antidepressants do not work because they try to influence the emotion of depression, but do not affect the cause of such emotion. Of course, you can try to find a drug (an antidepressant model) that will imitate satiation with tasty food or, conversely, eliminate the feeling of hunger. The emotion of eating delicious food or feeling hungry is a model of the emotions associated with depression. But such an antidepressant will not be used for long - until you become completely weakened (since instead of eating you take a drug that makes you feel full) and begin self-destruction due to lack of food. By taking antidepressants, you simply disrupt natural information flows and create chaos, in which the information flow of depression may also presumably be disrupted, but the cause of depression itself continues to thrive. Therefore, while taking antidepressants, the root processes of depression continue to develop and negative processes in the body progress.
Vasil,
I realised that you don't actually read my responses so it doesn't matter to you what I say, but your raising of depression as a determinate is nonsense.
Stanley, the disease has a cause and there are symptoms. If you don’t know the cause of the disease, then you try to at least influence the symptoms, in the hope of somehow influencing the disease. In the same way, now psychiatry does not know the cause of depression, but is trying to influence depression by random means. When people did not know what bacteria and viruses were, diseases caused by viruses and bacteria were considered incomprehensible and were treated with random methods. Doctors are now treating depression in the same way. 99% of the population now suffers from various symptoms of depression because current treatments usually do not address the cause of depression. The real cause of depression has certain properties. Based on these properties, we can say with confidence that depression will develop successfully if appropriate measures are not taken. Depression has one cause. Neurotransmitter imbalances are not a cause of depression, but a symptom. The cause of depression is permanent if left unchecked. If the cause of depression is eliminated, depression disappears. Now psychiatry does not influence the cause, and since the cause of depression is permanently active, it is trying to use permanent influence with antidepressants. Depression is predetermined by the properties of certain processes in the body and is eliminated by influencing these processes. Depression is a symptom of a violation of a certain process in the human body and is not a consequence of any cultural manifestations. We can say that depression is a consequence of the lack of culture in managing certain processes in the body. Ignorance and lack of cultural control of certain processes in the body produces depression.
Vasil, but you think in terms of disease, an attitude gained from the medical profession which employed these terms erroneously and then conceptualised ways adjustments to life or variations of adjustments could be viewed in order for, say. drug therapies to be pursued. A disease is an illness picked up from others and cured through invasion remedies. Again, drugs, lobotomies and ECT.
Stanley, depression is a normal message from the body. If we look at depression from this perspective, then depression is certainly not a disease. If you do not respond to depression in any way or use inadequate means of response, then a condition arises that can be called a disease. In the case of depression, the term "disease" should denote a disturbance in the causal process of depression, which arises either from misunderstanding of this process or from ignoring it. If you don't know the real etiology of depression and don't know how to manage depression, then the cause of depression is ignorance. For example, now depression is widespread due to lack of understanding of the real etiology of depression and therefore lack of understanding of how to manage depression - random methods of managing depression are now used. If you know the real etiology of depression, then the quality of depression management is determined by your competencies in managing depression. Depression is now widespread due to large gaps in a person's understanding of their body and an abnormal response to depression - a normal message from the body.
Vasil,
but not the enormous numbers affected that you claim, again confusing with moods.
Thomas Browne, the Elizabethan writer, wrote memorably on the nature of depression, but he connected it to the environment. An unhappy childhood? bullying parents? Difficulties in life. But why use depression for such difficulties, when the difficulties merely cause unhappiness?
Stanley, depression is a bad mood. It is necessary to clearly distinguish between a normal bad mood and a depressive bad mood. These are different moods. Depressive bad mood is normal. A normal bad mood is also normal. But in an ordinary bad mood, we usually know the reason for this bad mood. In a depressive bad mood, psychiatry does not find a cause and defines this bad mood as causeless. Now depression can be defined as a bad mood without a reason. Now psychiatry does not know the reason. Psychiatry does not know the cause, because the cause is not as obvious as any life problems that can be the cause of a normal bad mood. A person consists of primary bodily processes and high-level social processes. Depression is initiated by low-level processes. To identify these low-level processes, special knowledge is needed, which psychiatry currently does not have. I found these processes.
Vasily,
Look at my new first chapter on psychiatry, which I describe as a false science and my reasons for doing so.
What you are doing is reflecting psychiatry's position and assuming it is accurate, even in its un-knowledge. Psychiatry seeks to classify human beings as sick or potentially sick, so any mood indicates sickness or potential sickness.
I am attempting to understand why people imagine psychiatry is a science when at best or worse it is merely rhetoric.
Stanley,
Pathological reality dominates society due to the presence of significant physiological disorders to which 99% of the population in all countries is now exposed. This disorder is easily demonstrable and easily repeatable. Despite the easy demonstration of this super disorder, 99% of the population does not know it. The authoritarianism of psychiatry is due to the properties of this disorder. In depression, psychiatry operates on symptoms. The symptom occurs due to a super disorder. But a super disorder is “not visible,” for example, like radiation. In order to see a super disorder and repeat it, special protocols are required. Primitive fear of the unknown creates the authoritarianism of psychiatry. Fear of the unknown drives the creation of authoritarian structures of manual control. The use of antidepressants is justified by the fact that they can have some effect. The principle of action of antidepressants is as follows. A symptom of depression is an imbalance of neurotransmitters. By using an antidepressant you create even more destruction. And psychiatrists, as a positive effect of an antidepressant, show you the process of normalization from the degree of destruction, obtained with the help of an antidepressant to the state that was before the use of an antidepressant. Antidepressants do not have any effect on the development strategy of depression. An antidepressant is like hitting your hand with a hammer. After being hit with a hammer, there is a chance that you will have to treat your hand. This process of treating the hand is presented by psychiatrists as a positive effect of an antidepressant. But after a hand injury, it is possible that on the contrary, depression may intensify. You can imagine a computer as a model of a person. A computer may not perform well for two main reasons. The software is damaged. Or the hardware is damaged. The computer is not working and you may not know whether the hardware or software is damaged. In humans too. Greater confusion can be caused by the unknown of what is disturbed - disorders in emotions or disorders in the organs of the human body. Depression is a consequence of disorders in the human body. Since a person always has some kind of emotion, confusion may arise with disorders in the body and emotions. Philosophy of mind is not the subject of psychiatry. Psychiatry does not know the mechanism of development of depression and is now actually engaged in collecting numerous symptoms that arise during the development of the super disorder process. Super disorder creates a homogeneous environment of disorders in which 99% of the population, including governments and psychiatrists themselves, find themselves. Not knowing the cause of depression is in some cases convenient and, of course, you can build a business on this ignorance, especially if 99% of the population does not know this reason. You can always express surprise at the remark about the dangers of antidepressants and refer to others who also do not know this reason. Depression is a consequence of “hardware” disorders in a person, and psychiatry now mixes the emotions of the mind and disorders in the human body into a mush.
Why should this be so emphatic? The desire for it all to be true? What if it is just human beings?
Stanley,
The exceptionally high deficiency of a particular set of neurotransmitters in 99% of the population of all countries is easily demonstrated by preliminary demonstration. In a preliminary demonstration, it is possible to present well-known facts, but with explanations of how these facts are related. It is also possible to demonstrate the actual mechanism of depression. And this mechanism can be shown on any specific person. “Treating” depression with antidepressants does not affect the strategy of depression and can cause the well-known mistrust of psychiatry and medicine and mistrust of people in general, since there is no real result in eliminating depression with the help of antidepressants. I watched on TV a famous singer tell a wide audience that she would not take antidepressants, because she knows and understands that they are harmful and useless. The mechanism of depression is associated with processes within each person, and in order to manage these processes, you need to know them. The mechanism of depression is simple, but the problem is that 99% of the population does not know it. The mechanism of growing potatoes is very simple, but this mechanism seems simple to you because you know its basic principles.
Vasil, I do not like absolute expressions but in fact mental illness has grown according to the amount of drugs distributed. My clients have expressed the changes made to them by the drugs, including degradation of short term memory. Psychiatry says the use of tests on rodents is sufficient to confirm ideas on the brain origins of mental illness.
Anyway, I will restate, the treatments are causing mental illness.
Stanley,
I am forced to use the number 99.99 based on the practical result obtained. The result was checked many times.
A monkey can build itself a house-like shelter out of branches. Man also builds houses for himself. Compare the house of a monkey and a man. A person's home is much more functional. So, in some areas man remained at the level of a monkey. In understanding depression and related mental disorders, humans are now at the monkey level. Why this happened is a separate question.
Since antidepressants do not affect the real cause of depression, taking antidepressants can of course join the real processes of depression, without the ability to influence the real cause of depression. When it comes to depression, brain changes can be a symptom of depression. Depression is a normal signal of some event that needs to be addressed. For example, you are hungry. An antidepressant is an attempt to create a feeling of fullness. But having created a feeling of fullness, you still remain hungry.
The number of mental illnesses will certainly increase. The main reason for the growth is the development of the real cause of depression. Taking antidepressants joins the real process of depression and randomly affects the main process, changing its speed. But antidepressants do not return a person to mental homeostasis; antidepressants do not have this ability.
Vasil,
Bruce Cohen writes Psychiatric Hegemony
A Marxist Theory of Mental Illness
- Book
© 2016
In doing this, the sociologist frames the construction of the third edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) in the wider context of the decline in social welfarism and the rise of neoliberal values in the 1970s. Cohen concludes that the psychiatric discourse has become hegemonic, a situation in which “we have all become implicated as subjects at risk of mental disorder.”
He challenges, wisely, the position you represent as this encourages the continued growth of psychiatry as essentially a parasitic science (sic) based on flimsy research. this position engrandises psychiatry which takes your view of the hegemony advised by Cohen. For me, this makes psychiatry very dangerous indeed. I agree with Cohen but inserts the developed middleclass controlling largely the lower class and this reflects as much the arrival of political groups within managerial tropes representing these groups. Looks made up to me!
Stanley,
I'm answering questions that Bruce Cohen asks. "What is the nature of mental illness?" The cause of depression and many related mental illnesses is the unresolved, over centuries, of the primary physiological disorders in humans that lead to depression. "How can we explain the rapid rise in mental illness in
recently?" Recently, the increase in mental illnesses is associated with the emerging favorable conditions for the development of the primary cause of depression. "Why are the cure rates for patients still so low?" The cure rates for mental illnesses and depression in particular are low, since psychiatry now does not understand the real etiology depression and uses drugs that have no effect on depression and even harm the person. Bruce Cohen notes that there is a component of totality in psychiatry. This is consistent with my statement about the prevalence of symptoms of depression in 99% of the population. I report that there is a way out of this state of totality. As the total spread of depression and related mental illnesses is eliminated, psychiatry will return to normal and then the component of totality and totalitarianism will disappear.The business of pharmaceutical companies for the treatment of depression is now fueled by the desire of people to somehow eliminate depression and is associated with the specific etiology and pathogenesis of depression. The real etiology of depression is associated with very emotional phenomena and this adds a component of hysteria to the component of totality. Bruce Cohen mistakenly believes that psychiatric discourse is determined by socio-political priorities. Depression and related mental illnesses have been freely developing for thousands of years, including the last hundred years. Depression may be increasing in recent years only because the real physiological cause of depression is becoming stronger, as well as due to intervention with antidepressants. Real physiological processes of depression may accompany socio-political processes, but the primary processes of depression determine the strategy for the development of depression, and not socio-political ones. And the hysteria around depression is associated with an exceptionally high deficiency of neurotransmitters, which is a symptom of depression, and with the total prevalence of symptoms of depression. As the real cause of depression is eliminated, hysteria and totality will go away and psychiatry will become normal.
Vasil,
No you are confirming his complaints with your need for illness and the hegemony of mental illness with billions paid out on dangerous and unnecessary drugs. Psychiatry provides immense power to doctors who construct more and more unlikely conditions. The evidence for each condition is hard to secure.
You are not answering his questions as he denies psychiatry which he considers the myths of powerful elite groups, Where depression is concerned, life is often difficult, floods, failed relationships, lost jobs, failed careers, war, and it is within this understanding we need to engage not with the effects or symptoms, creating a pseudo illness treated by expensive pointless and dangerous drugs.
Stanley,
Depression is not actually a disease. Depression is a transdisciplinary disease. Psychiatry has made a disease out of depression and related mental illnesses due to a lack of understanding of the etiology of depression. Depression is a normal condition that can be eliminated by normalizing certain physiological processes. Psychiatry makes depression a disease when it does not respond adequately to signals of depression. Perhaps in the future depression and related mental illnesses will be removed from the jurisdiction of psychiatry. Depression is a transdisciplinary disease and psychiatry currently lacks the necessary competencies in managing depression. The forced hegemony of depression is associated with the characteristics of the etiology of depression. We can talk about the hegemony of food, because we eat every day. But most people have enough food. In depression, hunger is very great - there is a huge deficiency of certain neurotransmitters, and the person does not receive these neurotransmitters. Therefore, the presence of a problem of total neurotransmitter deficiency leads to very emotional consequences. In addition, the deficiency can be assessed as follows: only 1% of the required amount of neurotransmitters is present. Man solved the food problem by creating a food production industry. The problem of depression will be solved in the same way - an industry will be created that will generate the necessary neurotransmitters, but in a natural way based on the real etiology of depression. Depression is a natural condition and depression can be successfully resolved using methods that are based on the natural processes of depression. What needs to be remembered is that the main characteristic of anxiety and depression is that depression comes out of nowhere. Look at the situation with depression in prosperous countries. The totalitarianism of psychiatry is associated with a very great danger of depression and attempts by society to manage depression in any way.
Isn't this a contradiction:
Depression is a transdisciplinary disease and psychiatry currently lacks the necessary competencies in managing depression.
You are earlier correct in saying that depression is not a disease but the use of the word allows Psychiatry to connect mental illness to physical models. In the 1990s psychiatry continued to develop such a model aiming it at the general public. More recently better models have emerged for adolescent depression as for example focused on the different stresses in their lives. Psychiatry needs a physical etiology involved somewhere.
Another problem lies in the search for cures through physical models coming from psychiatryºs need again for a physical rationale. The chemicals for sexual development were indicated and are still believed in by many. Counteracting this chemical, a stupid move by itself, has not created a cure. Again the use of chemicals to deal with natural chemical processes has disturbed these natural processes.
Stanley,
Psychiatry has taken over the management of depression. But psychiatry now does not have the necessary competencies to manage depression and it tries to manage depression by seeing only the symptoms of depression (neurotransmitter imbalance) and does not have access to the causes of depression. To effectively manage depression, the management of depression must be taken away from psychiatry and transferred to an interdisciplinary level, or psychiatry must acquire the necessary interdisciplinary competencies. If you do not reliably know the real etiology of depression, then you try to manage depression in the most optimal way under these conditions. The authorities may see the danger of depression and may abuse their power to impose any solution. Opponents see the abuse and ineffectiveness of non-etiological management and try to reduce abuse and harm. Currently used biological models of influencing the balance of neurotransmitters with the help of drugs are non-etiological. Managing neurotransmitter balance with antidepressants is flawed because it does not take into account the cause of the imbalance. Depression is a result of biological disorders, but pills do not cure depression. Depression is effectively managed by normalizing certain biological processes through specific protocols. It is necessary to take into account new data, which are not yet widely disseminated, which identify previously unknown biological reasons that form the symptom of deficiency of a certain set of neurotransmitters. The Critical Psychiatry Network is wrong when it rejects the existence of biological causes for depression. These biological causes have been found and can be demonstrated by three types of demonstrations. Depressive suffering and anxiety are not the norm and it is not necessary to adapt to them. Depressive suffering arises from a previously unknown physiological disorder, and the tragic experiences that may accompany this suffering are attached to the primary process of depression. Depression is suffering without a reason, that is, there is a reason, but it is physiological. Other suffering is added to the main process of depression. The cause is not an imbalance of neurotransmitters, which is a symptom. And the reason is in the pathogenesis of depression in the early stages of depression, when there is not even an imbalance of neurotransmitters and there is no suffering.
Vasil,
I do not believe that depression is biological unless you mean it has biological effects, but even that is disputable.
Think, we have or have invented a word that seems to describe a natural if annoying condition. That word has changed, for example, the 'blues'. Although depression functions as both noun and adjective it is possible to add to it using combinations.
Morning blues.
Night blues.
We may not have any kind of personality alteration but we need to identify the mood change. It needs both a name and a history. It may be simply low energy in the morning. Now Thomas Browne invented depression to understand his approach to life, an excessive dwelling on his past. He linked that to his upbringing.
Now this is merely discussion but it is medicine that makes it into an enduring trope with a personality, effects, and eventually a clinical condition. The road is long and completed by aspects, such as Byron's tragic pose and excuse for being a bit of a bastard, especially to women. In Shakespeare, Misanthropes are clever and reserved, but are also archetypes as in psychiatry.
Psychiatry has inherited perceptions and language but because none in the profession do or have done cultural studies or understand the separate nature of ideas they believe in their studies. The information in their teaching or taught years is absorbed like concrete and allowed to set. It is all real and followed as if fixed, unbending, religion and ideology. Critical thinking is not their strong point.
Stanley,
You can use a metal detector to search for metals underground. You can use dogs and pigs to search for truffles. It's the same with depression. To see depression you need a special tool, and to manage depression you need special protocols. It was only necessary to create them. Depression occurs when a certain process within the body is disrupted. Therefore, depression seems to arise out of nowhere and without a reason. Life events add to depression. Everyone has this disorder, since it is a total violation of the physiological process that everyone has. This disorder explains childhood and adolescent depression, depression after pregnancy, suicidal tendencies, other psychoses, or, for example, Club 27. A certain disruption of the physiological process explains all the current questions regarding depression. Yes, the etiology of depression is complicated, but it is easy to demonstrate and there is a very clear fact at the basis of depression, which even allows one to assess the risk of depression and allows one to predict depression. Assessing the risk of depression allows you to take routine measures that allow you to fully control the occurrence of depression.
Vasil,
Still not a believer. Isn't this medieval thinking. Things just happen? Devils will just pounce into us when we're just walking alone? Until recently psychiatry made the same claim. The unbalanced chemicals theory is just the same.
Stanley,
The main proof of the correctness of any theory is practice. With depression, anxiety occurs for no reason and you cannot have fun. Hysteria may then arise, which may lead to suicide. If you try to adapt to depression, you will be forced to lose yourself and suffer every day. The primitive mindset would be to endure and try to adapt to the loss of more than half of one's life and the constant decrease in vitality. The modern approach would be to try to figure out what leads to this condition? What is missing in life to feel energy and not loss of strength and anxiety? Yes, there is a huge imbalance of neurotransmitters. But imbalance is only a symptom. Ancient antidepressants - alcohol and drugs. It is possible to trace the entire pathological process and prevent it from developing at the initial stage.
Human relationships are complex and what we can often own is given to us by others. I suggest psychiatry brainwashes and drugs can be used, not intentionally to create mental states in patients.
Human relationships are complex in the sense that they are burdened by the constant pressure of a certain physiological disorder, which creates a gigantic deficiency of a certain set of neurotransmitters. This is the same as when communicating with another person they will constantly hit your hand with a hammer and at the same time be offended that you are distracted and do not listen to your interlocutor. To normalize high-level relationships, low-level processes must be in homeostasis. Psychiatry currently does not have complete information about the processes of depression and uses non-etiological methods for managing depression. It should be noted that due to the lack of necessary competencies to manage depression, psychiatry does not understand that depression and related diseases are much more dangerous than is currently realized. Depression takes away at least half of a person's life. Depression interferes and disrupts the normal functioning of all processes.
VASIL
I have just included the below in my new book:
To avoid truly understanding the multitude of reasons for anxiety and depression, alongside its prescription of one shoe fits all drugs (differences in drugs of the same group are unremarkable and largely if not mainly concern strengths: providing a drug with greater strength can work by halting mental deterioration, but as this is something I have told and not witnessed, for me their value is not proven), the same treatments in effect no matter the condition. Medical claims for adjustments of medicine are perhaps akin to various types of milk alongside brainwashing, which will be considered later. I have reviewed one drug trial Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of drug and psychological treatments for common psychological disorders in general health care, in Goa: a randomised, controlled trial. (Patel, Vikram, et al, 2003) (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(03)12119-8/abstract) but will, after, consider why such methods and views leave much to be desired.
Here drug treatment is considered more effective short term but not long term compared to placebos. Flouexotine was the drug of choice but nowhere do the authors admit (they probably did not know) that this drug affects short term memory, while the placebo of course only increases boredom. Although the window of opportunity and effectiveness for the drug is limited, long term help provided is not here given. My understanding of such drugs is that after a few months they cause the patient problems. The drug nevertheless is chosen as the winner because it has proven itself over a very short period and is cost effective. Is it, I suggest, about treatment appearing to be given and as money expended plays a part, the experts' job is done. The consequence? Or one. Many millions possibly suffering degraded memories and therefore limitations on their efficiency? Many millions more suffering addiction to the drugs.
Psychological methods are considered least effective, but this conclusion rests on the provision of questionnaires, and indeed expenditure. As usual, little effort is made into understanding the nature of the experiences being rendered or the personal narrative of each patient. The last missing ingredient concerns the psychological premise of depression, for example, and other assessments seem not to have been used. The overall consideration! Money, money, money. At the time this review took place, it was still usual for patients to be prescribed and then consequently addicted to the drugs, although denied by the medical profession. The addiction produced frightening results.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication