Legitimacy

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/14/tom-paine-christianity-and-modern-psychiatry/

That was an interesting read - some new history there for me. My only real criticism of the article is that it may lead some readers to go to the extreme of feeling psychiatry should be outlawed. The history of medicine is littered with quackery, but we should not be too quick to throw out psychiatric practice because of historic unprofessionalism and lack of intellectual rigor. I accept that there remain some deep problems within psychiatry: some of it because it is the nature of the beast (difficulties in defining mental illness; practical problems in its study); and some of it from allowing dogma to overrule scientific discipline.

 

We all know that mental illness and disorders exist. But, given that we have no objective way to measure these things, we are left only with more subjective measurements or assessments. I accept that it is inevitable for there to be some 'art' involved in psychiatry. And given that we are talking about 'dysfunctions of the mind', maybe there is something to be said for the subjective and human (or 'art'). Having said that, there should be greater intellectual and scientific rigor in the profession. Oh, and a lot more in resources devoted to its practice. No doubt some of the problems are because of lack of funds for research and psychiatric practice (certainly true in the UK and US).

"Actually, Rush was not a complete loser, as he sued the journalist Cobbett for libel and won; and perhaps this legal triumph is inspirational for the APA and modern psychiatrists—providing them with hope that they too can triumph over truth tellers."

 

Doctors are excellent at using their reputation and financial power to crush malpractice lawsuits, so at least they are continuing that ignoble tradition to honor Rush. I always wondered why other doctors protected psychiatrists and accepted their pseudoscience, but if you look at other medical specialties, you realize they engage in the promotion of treatments without evidence as well. For example, cancer screening has never been shown to save lives, yet $6 billion is spent in the US screening for lung cancer alone. So I guess the attitude is "why risk my own business?"

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.h6080

 

 

 

We all know that mental illness and disorders exist. But, given that we have no objective way to measure these things, we are left only with more subjective measurements or assessments.

 

The problem is that declaring that mental illness exists is in and of itself a subjective assessment.

 

Saying that someone who has paranoid schizphrenic symptoms is mentally ill is one thing, but the mere fact that these diagnoses are voted into existence and the criteria for applying them is basically a symptoms checklist makes mental illness ripe for exploitation by the pharmaceutical companies and the medical establishment in general. So essentially, with psychiatry the entire profession is based on "art", not science. I don't know how that can really be called medicine.

 

Since the advent of modern psychiatry, are things such as depression and anxiety increasing or decreasing? Everything I have read leads me to believe that despite whatever supposed advances we have made in psychiatry, rates of these common issues are going up, not down.

 

Are you aware of the history behind the APA and the DSM? Years ago the profession was struggling to find legitimacy, so they basically created it for themselves.

 

Are people getting more and more mentally ill, or are we expanding the definition to include more people and offering treatments that actually exacerbate the problem rather than treat it?

Back in the 80s when I was in nursing school, during my psych rotation, I was struck by how "schizophrenia" was just a way to label those in distress who could not otherwise be diagnosed with a more definitive diagnosis.

 

Back then, "bipolar" was very rare.

 

Now everybody and their sister has "bipolar".

 

Don't get me started on NAMI, where family members can scapegoat their identified patient victim...without having to look at their contribution to the "mental healthcare consumer"s distress.

 

A bunch of witch doctors...with the power to take anyone with a DSM diagnosis' freedom away.  Just cuz they say so.

 

Psychiatry is about social control.  Period.

 

It's true. Can you imagine any other patient group being treated that way? Like if someone with cancer didn't want treatment and they just locked them in a room and forced chemo on them for weeks? Pretty sure that would be considered torture.

Ack!  Data_Guy!

 

I deleted that poorly composed comment fearing retribution.

 

Ah, well.  The jig is up!!

Ha. I can delete it if you like.

Ack!  Data_Guy!

 

I deleted that poorly composed comment fearing retribution.

 

Ah, well.  The jig is up!!

 

'Retribution'? From whom? Why?

 

You seem to recognise that you probably did not choose your words as carefully as you might have done. We all do this from time to time, but not everyone is capable of recognising this or are willing to correct the record. No biggie. Don't worry about it.

Ha. I can delete it if you like.

 

I don't think there is any need, unless cookienose would really you to do this and you do not mind.

Ack!  Data_Guy!

 

I deleted that poorly composed comment fearing retribution.

 

Ah, well.  The jig is up!!

 

We'll have to wait Cookie's answer. I actually think she made some good points. Bipolar diagnoses are way up, coincidentally with marketing of the disease. My doctor told me that at medical school they now teach that someone who becomes manic on an AD almost always has bipolar disorder. I feel like this is probably an attempt to parlay an adverse event into a new diagnosis, but I don't have proof. I know that ADHD medication can also induce mania and result in a new bipolar diagnosis.

 

I should be clear I don't think this is some conscious plot on behalf of doctors to sell drugs and mass medicate people. Like polydrugging people who end up with neuropsychiatric disorders as a result of long-term benzo usage, it is more a lack of understanding, which I find really difficult to fathom. Probably the bipolar push came from pharma.

It *is* my experience.  If ok with Colin...

 

You're right, Data_Guy about the source of the skyrocketing "bipolar" diagnosis...and ADHD dx funnels kids into life long drug habits, "legal" or otherwise.

 

The information is out there, but with pharma sponsoring most of the drug studies these days, discernment is essential.

 

As with politics, Follow the Money...

 

 

"Big Pharm, Big Money" is a documentary on YouTube, which shows definitively the incestuous relationship between Big Pharm and the psychiatric complex. Disgusting, but very eye opening for me. And, no, I'm not saying all psychiatrists are bad. I'm sure there are some out there who actually try to help people with non-medical means, but the majority seem only too happy to hand out pills.

"Big Pharm, Big Money" is a documentary on YouTube, which shows definitively the incestuous relationship between Big Pharm and the psychiatric complex. Disgusting, but very eye opening for me. And, no, I'm not saying all psychiatrists are bad. I'm sure there are some out there who actually try to help people with non-medical means, but the majority seem only too happy to hand out pills.

 

Sorry - bullshit documentary. I feel I have call out this kind of stuff in no uncertain terms. I have not watched the three hours of nonsense, but I did watch the first minute! The first two sentences from the narrator formed a logical fallacy. The documentary's opening lines:

 

There is no denying that psychological and emotional problems, even severe mental distress, can affect most anyone. But does this mean we are all insane?

 

The documentary is deceptive, employing an emotional plea (and fallacy), right from the get-go. Shite.

 

Does anyone know who is behind the so-called documentary?

*shrug* It made sense to me.

I should be clear I don't think this is some conscious plot on behalf of doctors to sell drugs and mass medicate people. Like polydrugging people who end up with neuropsychiatric disorders as a result of long-term benzo usage, it is more a lack of understanding, which I find really difficult to fathom. Probably the bipolar push came from pharma.

 

It's not, but it is very convenient that the drugs they prescribe often cause symptoms that can easily be dismissed as a preexisting condition or a new illness. It's easy to look the other way when the "treatments" you provide create more problems resulting in a repeat customer.

Let's talk about the legitimacy of Psychiatry...say, as it has developed since the mid-twentieth century.

 

"The modern deinstitutionalisation movement was made possible by the discovery of psychiatric drugs in the mid-20th century, which could manage psychotic episodes and reduced the need for patients to be confined and restrained. Another major impetus was a series of socio-political movements that campaigned for patient freedom. Lastly, there were financial imperatives, with many governments also viewing it as a way to save costs."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalisation

 

1).  Medications

2).  Patient freedoms

3).  Financial imperatives

 

Where does Psychiatry stand today?

 

My perspective is that current Psychiatric meds hurt me, and others here at benzobuddies (understated).  I also see many people in my life who use and benefit from Psychiatric medications with little to no problems.

 

Where does Psychiatry stand today and what are its responsibilities?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"More importantly, the DSM is taken VERY seriously by both professionals and the society at large. Not all, but lots and lots. Saying that a person “has depression” implies that there is something wrong with THAT PERSON for feeling that way, that they have a “medical problem” and that they need “treatment.” A survey in the late 2000s showed that over 80% of Americans believed that “depression” was caused by “low serotonin.” This belief did not just happen – it was the result of a large and coordinated effort to convince Americans that “mental health problems” were, in fact, biological. There is plenty of documented evidence that the thrust of the DSM III, which prompted a huge expansion of biological explanations for “mental illnesses” defined in the book, was to expand psychiatry’s market share. It was, in fact, a quite cynical effort to position psychiatry as a “real branch of medicine” and to promote its practices as “scientific” and “proven effective.” Naturally, the pharmaceutical industry was happy to team up with psychiatry in this effort, and continues to provide most of the funding for the continued propaganda campaign to that end.

 

It’s easy to think that those who made the DSM are just trying to understand better and refine their model, but the origins of the DSM series belie that suggestion. It is more than possible to provide good support to people who face mental and emotional suffering without the slightest reference to a “diagnosis.” Again, if an individual wants to view him/herself through that lens, they’re welcome to do so, but the profession has no right to promote the idea that these “diagnoses” represent real, biologically-distinct entities when they know absolutely that they do not and never will."

 

quoting Steve McCrea, moderator at Mad in America

"More importantly, the DSM is taken VERY seriously by both professionals and the society at large. Not all, but lots and lots. Saying that a person “has depression” implies that there is something wrong with THAT PERSON for feeling that way, that they have a “medical problem” and that they need “treatment.” A survey in the late 2000s showed that over 80% of Americans believed that “depression” was caused by “low serotonin.” This belief did not just happen – it was the result of a large and coordinated effort to convince Americans that “mental health problems” were, in fact, biological. There is plenty of documented evidence that the thrust of the DSM III, which prompted a huge expansion of biological explanations for “mental illnesses” defined in the book, was to expand psychiatry’s market share. It was, in fact, a quite cynical effort to position psychiatry as a “real branch of medicine” and to promote its practices as “scientific” and “proven effective.” Naturally, the pharmaceutical industry was happy to team up with psychiatry in this effort, and continues to provide most of the funding for the continued propaganda campaign to that end.

 

It’s easy to think that those who made the DSM are just trying to understand better and refine their model, but the origins of the DSM series belie that suggestion. It is more than possible to provide good support to people who face mental and emotional suffering without the slightest reference to a “diagnosis.” Again, if an individual wants to view him/herself through that lens, they’re welcome to do so, but the profession has no right to promote the idea that these “diagnoses” represent real, biologically-distinct entities when they know absolutely that they do not and never will."

 

quoting Steve McCrea, moderator at Mad in America

 

I have followed MIA since finding my way here to Benzobuddies early this decade.  I don't discount their message, in fact tend to agree with much of it.  It was important in my understanding of what happened to me and why I was motivated to stay off the meds and find out how I would feel after I recovered.  My experience with benzodiazepines suggests I was a poster boy for the deception wrought by big pharma and psychiatry.  There is lot's of other corroborating evidence in the liturature to confirm that all is not well with the DSM and in Psychiatry in general.

 

With my experience and so many other's experiences here aside, as well as elsewhere, it's puzzling for me to grasp what is going on with Psychiatry.  How do I account for so many in my life sleeping so well with certain sedating antidepressants?  Most high functioning professionals.  How am I to account for the help I received in withdrawal from the benzodiazepines with trazodone and seroquel (sleep and anxiety)?  Both taken for about 3 years shortly after my cold turkey from xanax and then tapering off both over about 6 months without a lot of trouble.  I've been drug free since. 

 

What am I to make of psychiatry knowing so well my experience and other's here with the psych drugs available in light of what appears to be a much larger group who benefit from them?

 

I don't know what to make of the legitimacy of psychiatry.  I don't know how loudly to yell my experience.  I'm recovered and truly don't even relate much to the symptoms I had but continue to read here because I understand and respect the power of the drugs and what they did to me over 35 years.  I do not want to forget despite my fading memories.         

I found “American Addict,” was helpful in explaining a lot in all of this. Just thought I’d mention it because I haven’t seen any of the others and I thought it had some participants and information which appeared credible at the time.

 

I watched it during my taper in 2016, here are two links to YouTube trailers/previews:

 

 

 

Wish I could watch it again but I don’t have a good enough financial situation to do these things seeing as I have been disabled by psych drugs and cannot return to work or even school yet.

 

I realize that the complexities of benzodiazepines themselves and the issue of dependence regarding them are not necessarily related in any way to addiction and also that often both of these can also be intertwined in certain individuals harmed by bzds, but I still think this is definitely worth watching in terms of the question of the legitimacy and merit of psychiatry as a whole and how the entire pharmaceutical industry influences it. Addiction is part of the  discussion of course, but I remember quite a bit of information in the documentary that could be useful for many reasons and/or issues, not necessarily involving the matter of addiction itself.

What am I to make of psychiatry knowing so well my experience and other's here with the psych drugs available in light of what appears to be a much larger group who benefit from them?

 

Are you sure there is a "much larger group benefiting from them"?

 

It easy to take a snapshot in time and draw a conclusion but it isn't just as simple as "I have a sleeping problem and the drugs help me sleep, therefore they are good". We have been drugging people for 60+ years and during that time the problems these drugs were prescribed for have skyrocketed. Are the drugs an effective treatment, or are they actually making people sicker in the long run?

 

The official studies (the ones that are comissioned by the drug companies themselves and cherrypicked, because that's how the approval process works, mind you) show that most of these drugs aren't much better than placebo. They aren't required to study the effects of these drugs long term. I believe they are required to study them for 30 days after cessation, that's it. I didn't even get slammed with symptoms until a month or two after I quit.

 

You are coming from the assumption that these drugs help people. That might be true short term in some cases but there is absolutely zero proof that you will be better off long term if you take them.

 

This is kind of like taking a statin drug to reduce cholesterol. Did you know that autopsies show no correlation between high cholesterol and heart disease? Did you know that all cause mortality is lower in people who have high cholesterol, and that elderly people who have high cholesterol live longer?

 

The fact that these drugs seem to help some people in the short term really means nothing. If you want to reconcile something you should be reconciling why people are sicker than ever despite all of these "advances" in medicine.

What am I to make of psychiatry knowing so well my experience and other's here with the psych drugs available in light of what appears to be a much larger group who benefit from them?

 

Are you sure there is a "much larger group benefiting from them"?

 

It easy to take a snapshot in time and draw a conclusion but it isn't just as simple as "I have a sleeping problem and the drugs help me sleep, therefore they are good". We have been drugging people for 60+ years and during that time the problems these drugs were prescribed for have skyrocketed. Are the drugs an effective treatment, or are they actually making people sicker in the long run?

 

The official studies (the ones that are comissioned by the drug companies themselves and cherrypicked, because that's how the approval process works, mind you) show that most of these drugs aren't much better than placebo. They aren't required to study the effects of these drugs long term. I believe they are required to study them for 30 days after cessation, that's it. I didn't even get slammed with symptoms until a month or two after I quit.

 

You are coming from the assumption that these drugs help people. That might be true short term in some cases but there is absolutely zero proof that you will be better off long term if you take them.

 

This is kind of like taking a statin drug to reduce cholesterol. Did you know that autopsies show no correlation between high cholesterol and heart disease? Did you know that all cause mortality is lower in people who have high cholesterol, and that elderly people who have high cholesterol live longer?

 

The fact that these drugs seem to help some people in the short term really means nothing. If you want to reconcile something you should be reconciling why people are sicker than ever despite all of these "advances" in medicine.

 

Ugh.  Actually, why some statistics can be interpreted to show that people are more sick now than ever with the new medications is a heck of a question.  Which could certainly be part of the discussion regarding the legitimacy of psychiatry. 

 

I would actually like verification that is true.  I don’t know if it is or isn’t but have certainly read Anatomy of an Epidemic and even used that information to try to educate others about the dangers of psych drugs.

 

However, attempting to incite emotions by telling me what it is I should reconcile doesn’t really promote this discussion.

 

I totally get that you don’t think much of the legitimacy of psychiatry.  I’m not sure I do either.  It’s why I’ve come to the discussion.