Psychiatry: Science or Fraud

[Shamana]

It's well known so called anti-depressants work almost exclusively through the placebo-effect. So called antipsychotics work by turning people into zombies so they don't care about their symptoms. Benzo's work to some degree (much like getting loaded on alcohol) for the short term but they are highly addictive and actually worsen the very symptoms they are used to treat long term. None of these medications were discovered by psychiatrists or based on research done by them.

Nobody, me least of all me, disputes that chemistry is a real science.

None of the effects of psychiatric medicine have ever been adequately explained scientifically no are there actual cures in the field of psychiatry, there simply is no known biological cause or physical mechanism behind any so called mental illness (except drug induced psychosis) and researchers in the field have come to the conclusion that psychopathology is a pseudoscience.

Unless they actually make real progress in the understanding of what they pretend to study psychopathology will never be a science and psychiatry will never be science-based.

The number of patients out there is a huge sample. For some the medications save their lives. For others like myself they have damaged me more than they benefitted me.

 

[Jean Améry]

For some the medications save their lives.

Do you have evidence for this bold claim? 'Saving' would imply they had a life threatening disease: to my knowledge none of the so called mental illnesses are lethal. If you mean 'saved from suicide': there's no way to know if they'd actually have done it and untill further notice suicide is still a voluntary act and not the causal effect of some pathology.

If you mean 'benefitted from': most of this is due to the placebo-effect (not a curative effect by the chemical) and reaping some benefit from use of a chemical without knowing why that is is hardly scientifically informed medicine. In the past they had certain methods to 'treat' what we now call depression: like now they had no clue what it actually did but it seemed to work to some degree. Surely you can't call this scientific?

 

[Shamana]

Do you have evidence for this bold claim? 'Saving' would imply they had a life threatening disease: to my knowledge none of the so called mental illnesses are lethal. If you mean 'saved from suicide': there's no way to know if they'd actually have done it and untill further notice suicide is still a voluntary act and not the causal effect of some pathology.

If you mean 'benefitted from': most of this is due to the placebo-effect (not a curative effect by the chemical) and reaping some benefit from use of a chemical without knowing why that is is hardly scientifically informed medicine. In the past they had certain methods to 'treat' what we now call depression: like now they had no clue what it actually did but it seemed to work to some degree. Surely you can't call this scientific?

There are a lot of patients out there who would testify that psyc meds saved their lives from ruin and suicide. A lot of them had to go through several drugs before they found the right one that worked for them. There are lot of psyc meds in existence. Not just antidepressants. I believe som AD's have some benefit, but the vast majority of the ones prescribed are completely shit.

You won't really find someone more antipsychiatry than me. The reason why i'm here and suicidal is because SSRI' gave me chronic anhedonia and PSSD from Lexapro that I was on as a 20 year old (now 32). But it's clear that some of the meds work as intended for some folk. One of my closer friends is Schiziprehenic and becomes psychotic without treatment. With his treatment he stays sane with more or less no side effects.

I would generally say that psychiatry are best at treating anxiety and most shit at treating depression and psychosis.

 

[Nova]

If you mean 'benefitted from': most of this is due to the placebo-effect (not a curative effect by the chemical) and reaping some benefit from use of a chemical without knowing why that is is hardly scientifically informed medicine.

ALL molecules ( both psychiatric and non-pyschiatric) are tested on animals first. Rats and mouses are not susceptible to the placebo effect . You can actually induce cognitive-impairment and depression in mouse with scopolamine for example, to the point where it would stop eating, mating and would leave itself to die. You can artificially induce anxiety, amnesia, cancer, etc.. in mouse and rats. They are dissected , go thru scanners, MRI, etc to see the difference in various regions of the brain ( before/after administrating the molecule being tested). That's how they do it.
Millions of mouse and rats are sacrified everyday for our health benefits.

 

[Jean Améry]

There are a lot of patients out there who would testify that psyc meds saved their lives from ruin and suicide.

Again: all this amounts to is opinion. Many will claim religion 'saved' them from ruin and suicide: must we therefore conclude that religion is actually medicine and saves lives?

ALL molecules ( both psychiatric and non-pyschiatric) are tested on animals first. Rats and mouses are not susceptible to the placebo effect . You can actually induce cognitive-impairment and depression in mouse with scopolamine for example, to the point where it would stop eating, mating and would leave itself to die. You can artificially induce anxiety, amnesia, cancer, etc.. in mouse and rats. They are dissected , go thru scanners, MRI, etc to see the difference in various regions of the brain ( before/after administrating the molecule being tested). That's how they do it.
Millions of mouse and rats are sacrified everyday for our health benefits.

I'm quite aware of the fact that animals are used to test medications and the fact that certain chemicals can induce negative mental states. I've never claimed psychiatric medications have no effect on the brain: I merely deny they cure actual diseases.

What is your point exactly? How does this prove that the placebo-effect in humans is not real and psychiatric medications actually heal people? The placebo-effect is a fact and it's been shown by Irving Kirsch to be the main factor in explaining the so called succes rate in antidepressants.

 

[HGL91]

You're being naive. Generally everyone wants to think that because why wouldn't you want to think that but in reality it's not true.

Yeah. Psychiatrists are the best sociopaths. They studied behavior, body language, and interpersonal communications in University among all the hard science classes. They should do acting on the side for a paid hobby.

 

[not_a_robot]

It's actually the very definition of scientific research. The only way to find out if "Med A" helps "Patient B" is to let him swallow it and wait for results.
The meds themselves have been through that process of testing before they got approved. There's still a large variety of them which may or may not help you, but like I said it simply isn't well understood yet which is probably the reason why there's so many different meds with more or less effectiveness on individual persons.

Oh please. The FDA approval process is a joke and there's never once been a physical scientific analysis of "chemical imbalance in the brain", you are just talking out of your asshole.

 

[HGL91]

I took a Pharmacology class in college for Nursing, and our professor was also a pharmacist at a hospital. He spoke to us like colleagues and admitted that there are a lot of shady things that happen between pharma companies and the FDA, where the companies will pay big money to get the drugs on the shelves BEFORE enough research has been done.

I wish I knew what I know about pharmaceuticals now when I was a kid because I was put on antidepressants at 11 years old and it has made me dependent for life! The withdrawal is terrifying! One time I tried to wean off and my previous boyfriend HEARD my brain zaps and asked me if I was a robot.

 

[Nova]

I'm quite aware of the fact that animals are used to test medications and the fact that certain chemicals can induce negative mental states. I've never claimed psychiatric medications have no effect on the brain: I merely deny they cure actual diseases.
What is your point exactly? How does this prove that the placebo-effect in humans is not real and psychiatric medications actually heal people? The placebo-effect is a fact and it's been shown by Irving Kirsch to be the main factor in explaining the so called succes rate in antidepressants.

I never said that the placebo effect in humans is not real, I don't know where you got that from. I said it was not real on mouse and rats. Of course the placebo effect is real, for the simple reason that our thoughts are chemical reactions and neural networks to begin with, and those thoughts( chemical reactions) can precipitate other thoughts ( chemical reactions ). We are constantly using are thoughts to modify our thoughts , and therefore creating new and breaking old connections between our neurons and various chemical reactions.

My issue with your post is that you look at this in a binary way : " IF placebo effect is Real, THEN all psychiatric effects are Fake". Which is as false as saying :"IF psychiatric meds do work, THEN it is impossible for placebo to be real." That's false logic.
NO, BOTH are real. The existence of one doesn't invalidate the other. If I say that aspirin doesn't do shit for my headaches, it doesn't mean it is impossible that it might work on other people.
Absolutely NO ONE in the scientific field is disputing the existence of placebo. In fact , the very basis for any scientific study to be taken seriously by other scientists is that it must be done double-blind using placebo ! Studies that don't include comparisons with placebo are always rated as less relaible as those than do. Go ahead, pick any molecule you can think of that is being used for any biological use , psychiatric or not, go to the biggest scholar databases, and see how almost all serious large-scale studies always include placebo as control.

I've never claimed psychiatric medications have no effect on the brain: I merely deny they cure actual diseases.

"Cure diseases " is a loaded expression. They don't "cure" anything. In fact, nothing on earth "cures" anything. It's not magic or voodoo. There are simply molecules ( either artificially created or herbal/plants based ) that create effects on various biological parameters. The same molecule can "cure" you or kill you equally depending on your initial state. You can die from a lack of potassium, and you can die from an excess of potassium. All science does is observe, test, make conclusions, and repeat the cycle. People noticed that GABA and GABA receptors are linked to anxiety, including on mouse and rats. They created molecules that bind to GABA receptors ( called benzodiazepines ) and noticed that anxiety sufferers get some relief from it. Meanwhile, in India, a few centuries ago, some dudes noticed the same effect on anxiety from a plant called Ashwagandha ( used in Aryuvedic traditions ). Guess what, Ashwagandha works also by being a GABA receptor agonist, basically the same mode of action as many benzos. It has other effects too, like raise the levels of testosterone, etc..

Whether the recently-created benzodiazepines or the centuries-old-used Ashwagandha plant "cure" anxiety is a long complex debate, that I have neither the time nor the energy to conduct here. What is certain, is that they both alter the chemical balance of GABA , ( in slightly different ways , benzos work like a hammer, with a more severe withdrawal effect profile, while the Ash works more gently, but still has some withdrawal issues, although less brutal than the benzos).
The fact that some people may feel placebo effect from both benzos or Ashwagandha doesn't invalidate that their action real, verifiable, observable, measurable, in both humans and rats.

 

[Shamana]

I never said that the placebo effect in humans is not real, I don't know where you got that from. I said it was not real on mouse and rats. Of course the placebo effect is real, for the simple reason that our thoughts are chemical reactions and neural networks to begin with, and those thoughts( chemical reactions) can precipitate other thoughts ( chemical reactions ). We are constantly using are thoughts to modify our thoughts , and therefore creating new and breaking old connections between our neurons and various chemical reactions.

My issue with your post is that you look at this in a binary way : " IF placebo effect is Real, THEN all psychiatric effects are Fake". Which is as false as saying :"IF psychiatric meds do work, THEN it is impossible for placebo to be real." That's false logic.
NO, BOTH are real. The existence of one doesn't invalidate the other. If I say that aspirin doesn't do shit for my headaches, it doesn't mean it is impossible that it might work on other people.
Absolutely NO ONE in the scientific field is disputing the existence of placebo. In fact , the very basis for any scientific study to be taken seriously by other scientists is that it must be done double-blind using placebo ! Studies that don't include comparisons with placebo are always rated as less relaible as those than do. Go ahead, pick any molecule you can think of that is being used for any biological use , psychiatric or not, go to the biggest scholar databases, and see how almost all serious large-scale studies always include placebo as control.


"Cure diseases " is a loaded expression. They don't "cure" anything. In fact, nothing on earth "cures" anything. It's not magic or voodoo. There are simply molecules ( either artificially created or herbal/plants based ) that create effects on various biological parameters. The same molecule can "cure" you or kill you equally depending on your initial state. You can die from a lack of potassium, and you can die from an excess of potassium. All science does is observe, test, make conclusions, and repeat the cycle. People noticed that GABA and GABA receptors are linked to anxiety, including on mouse and rats. They created molecules that bind to GABA receptors ( called benzodiazepines ) and noticed that anxiety sufferers get some relief from it. Meanwhile, in India, a few centuries ago, some dudes noticed the same effect on anxiety from a plant called Ashwagandha ( used in Aryuvedic traditions ). Guess what, Ashwagandha works also by being a GABA receptor agonist, basically the same mode of action as many benzos. It has other effects too, like raise the levels of testosterone, etc..

Whether the recently-created benzodiazepines or the centuries-old-used Ashwagandha plant "cure" anxiety is a long complex debate, that I have neither the time nor the energy to conduct here. What is certain, is that they both alter the chemical balance of GABA , ( in slightly different ways , benzos work like a hammer, with a more severe withdrawal effect profile, while the Ash works more gently, but still has some withdrawal issues, although less brutal than the benzos).
The fact that some people may feel placebo effect from both benzos or Ashwagandha doesn't invalidate that their action real, verifiable, observable, measurable, in both humans and rats.

Where is it proven that thoughts are chemi al reactions?

 

[Nova]

Where is it proven that thoughts are chemi al reactions?

From pretty much all we know from neurobiology from the last centuries or so.
It's not just chemical reactions of course, that's a shortcut. Chemical reactions are the mediators of impulses between neurons , transported by synapses. A thought is formed by linking a network of neurons. Breaking that network results in "forgetting" that thought. For example most stress related thoughts are formed in the amygdala, that controls fear. People with a lot of anxiety issues have denser networks in the amygdala that those who don't. It is even observable in real-time now thru MRI. And this can be effect directly by using molecules , or by our own thoughts (There was even a recent study observing people doing meditation thru MRI, and after 8 weeks, the density of the neuron network in their amygdala was visibly less dense than before. Meditation slowly broke up the links inside fear networks )

 

[TAW122]

Examples of actual real science in society is in physics, engineering, computer science, chemistry, healthcare such as in surgery & medication for the purpose of defeating a bacteria and mathematics.

- It is extraordinarly corrupted by the pharma industries , especially in the US where people would sell their mother for a few more bucks and the amount of money you have is constantly promoted as the barometer by which you measure if you "made it" in life or not, and falling sick can make you bankrupted if you don't have insurance ( which most people in the rest of the industrialized countries get for free )
Personaly, I would nationalize ALL the pharmaceutical industry.

Yes, I follow that much more than I do for other psychiatry itself. I don't want to say that psychiatry doesn't have it's merits though as it is a pseudo science, meaning that it can explain some things that otherwise other science would not be able to do. I would not trust religion more than I would trust psychiatry and while I detest both in favor of actual science and evidence, it is the slightly lesser of the two evils for me. @Nova In regards to the other points in your post, yes what you said about capitalism and healthcare is true. I do think it is a travesty that in a country like the US, we have one of the best healthcare facilities in the world, but yet still haven't nationalized healthcare and even charge an arm and an leg (pun intended) just for someone to get a diagnosis (sometimes even incorrectly) for certain things let alone treatment (and effective treatment).

The only other gripe about psychiatry that I have is their black and white view of how suicide is a mental illness rather than a 'choice' that people make given the circumstances that they are put in.

 

[Black_Knight]

I haven't dug as deep as a lot of you folks but I see it as a sociological thing. Psychiatrists, in my experience, rarely act in your best interest but in what they believe to be society's. Diagnoses are not deep enough to function as anything other than a tag assigned to a person that allows for efficient processing, whatever that means, and guilt displacement. Once you enter the world of "mental illness", which is not to say that I don't believe that one can be psychologically damaged, it becomes its own damaging lifestyle, often divorced from what I believe to be the truth of one's condition. Drugs are meant to return someone to an arbitrary definition of normalcy so that they create no disturbances, because society needs a certain level of predictability and consistency to function, and most people are simply too stressed or fresh outta hecks to address a given problem cognitively when it's more efficient to dole out zombie pills that, on a wider scale, along with psychological manipulation, prevent the kinds of eruptions that could break our system. The only cool drug psychiatry has in its arsenal is Adderall and they waste that by force-feeding it to kids who won't sit down and shut up because they know school is bullshit. Damn I miss that script.

The science is real but the purpose is fraudulent, I think. I'm not a fan of the chemical imbalance narrative, which seems to me like gaslighting on a national scale, especially when people are rarely tested for these imbalances before haphazardly being given drugs that can actually cause real chemical imbalances. It's instead assumed by default that these imbalances are there, almost dogmatically. And even then, a chemical imbalance can still be indicative of an external source. I'm not saying people shouldn't do what makes their lives easier. But I don't see the greater entity as benevolent, and I think, barring extreme circumstances, when someone doesn't understand another's behavior it's better to ask them than the doctor. But everyone is so alienated from each other, too busy, too stressed. Parents are too concerned with their children's grades and the hierarchical power structure of the family to both speak and listen to them honestly, as individuals. Friends are easily replaced so why not drop a problem person, you don't have time for this bs when your life already has so much. Teachers and employers couldn't give two shits, they need your efficiency and sometimes intellect and nothing else. It's a crapshoot and a fairly ineffective bandaid for a much deeper and more nebulous problem.

Is anyone else ever accused of being a Scientologist whenever they talk smack about psychiatry? It almost seems like associating psych hate with what's perceived as a loony cult is a deliberate psychological ploy.

 

[Shamana]

From pretty much all we know from neurobiology from the last centuries or so.
It's not just chemical reactions of course, that's a shortcut. Chemical reactions are the mediators of impulses between neurons , transported by synapses. A thought is formed by linking a network of neurons. Breaking that network results in "forgetting" that thought. For example most stress related thoughts are formed in the amygdala, that controls fear. People with a lot of anxiety issues have denser networks in the amygdala that those who don't. It is even observable in real-time now thru MRI. And this can be effect directly by using molecules , or by our own thoughts (There was even a recent study observing people doing meditation thru MRI, and after 8 weeks, the density of the neuron network in their amygdala was visibly less dense than before. Meditation slowly broke up the links inside fear networks )

So what happens when people have thought-free awareness? Also for sure there is strong interdependency between mind and body, but you can not objectively locate or quantify a thought, hence I don't think you can call a thought a chemical reaction.

 

[SelfHatingAspie]

Psychiatry: An Industry of Death (Video 2006) ⭐ 4.7 | Documentary

1h 48m | Not Rated

www.imdb.com

Psychiatry: An Industry of Death Museum

Watch the videos. The Citizens Commission on Human Rights gives the truth about psychiatry. Take a virtual tour of Psychiatry: An Industry of Death Museum. Arm yourself with the truth and then find out what you can do to take action to help bring psychiatry to justice.

www.cchr.org

"Fraud" is a very forgiving description for all of this.

Yep. Because Scientology propaganda is a considerably more reliable source than thousands of peer reviewed journals. Google "Citizens Commission on Human Rights" and get back to us.

 

[Thorn]

Yep. Because Scientology propaganda is a considerably more reliable source than thousands of peer reviewed journals. Google "Citizens Commission on Human Rights" and get back to us.

I could not care less about any of the political bullshit. What "peer reviewed journals"? Statistics speak for themselves, without any need of the filler or convincing. The history is well known. I collected late 19th and early 20th century medical literature as a hobby, and unless they have a time machine, the propaganda aspect takes some explaining to do. As far as the modern "cures" and "medications" go, I have gone through the most they have to offer, there is nothing to "get back to". That industry has ruined lives of many people I know, including my own family. Everyone who sought some relief, is now just a zombie. And additionally, anyone who wishes, is free to go for "preventative" chemotherapy, just in case, if they see anything in it.

 

[Ralph334]

Psychiatry exists to profit by treating invented diagnoses. See the gut-brain connection. The overwhelming majority of serotonin is produced in our stomach. There are no scientific tests to prove any of what psychiatry claims to be true. I know this information because I survived psychiatry.

 

[Never Free]

Mainstream psychiatry/ psychology is a fraud. It's a fraud since the authorities allowed themselves to be bought by big Pharma. It's been proven they determine Dx by how they can sell drugs. If they weren't confirmed to lie , and have pharma reps as ghost writers. If the drug companies didn't fund the studies, and report on the outcomes. They manipulate the results. If psychiatry was doing honest research, and reporting then perhaps it would be a soft science. It may've even found more mechanisms at this point in order to qualify as a hard Science or at least partially one. https://www.thoughtco.com/hard-vs-soft-science-3975989

Psychiatry exists to profit by treating invented diagnoses. See the gut-brain connection. The overwhelming majority of serotonin is produced in our stomach. There are no scientific tests to prove any of what psychiatry claims to be true. I know this information because I survived psychiatry.

Psychiatry probably won't because they're fraud and allow themselves to be bought by drug companies. Although I also think the gut brain connection is promising.

 

[Jean4]

I am a licensed LCSW-R. There are good and bad in all fields. I never had a complaint and still pro bono help people die when asked.

 

[Never Free]

I am a licensed LCSW-R. There are good and bad in all fields. I never had a complaint and still pro bono help people die when asked.

Fair enough if the field wasn't built on lies, discrimination, and force. Although some good people work within it. The field itself is the problem.

 

[terry_a_davis]

I can only speak for myself, anti-psychotic drugs cured my schizophrenia. The psych docs i've seen, many of them, seemed ok people.

 

[Chlo]

Psychiatry/psychology has come a long way in the last few decades. All great scientific discoveries start with theories.

 

[NotGoneButNotHere]

I think there's a lot of good information in the field but a lot of people behind the practise or in the medical community are ignorant and cant understand a lot of it from the perspective of those who suffer. There's also those who take advantage of it or don't care which is also fairly common

 

[passenger27]

Professional crooks.

 

[hatelife]

fraud, im worse off now

 

[Never Free]

Psychiatry/psychology has come a long way in the last few decades. All great scientific discoveries start with theories.

Again the problem is that these theories have been demonstrably disproved time, and time again. The reason they are still toted is from conflict of interest. Again I'd like to reiterate that perhaps if they were being earnest instead of making underhanded deals they'd be much closer or even right on about causes. I'd certainly think they would be at least closer, but am not certain.

I can only speak for myself, anti-psychotic drugs cured my schizophrenia. The psych docs i've seen, many of them, seemed ok people.

Just curious if you don't mind sharing when you say cure do you mean you stopped the drugs?

 

[OneBigBlur]

Fraud and I'd say that for pretty much the entire mental health field. I'd highly recommend Suicide Prohibition and the Myth of Mental Illness by Thomas Szasz, though I'm sure that some of his other books are good as well but these are the only ones I've read.

It's a field that mostly cares about insurance and lawsuits, not the people themselves. The labels are dehumanizing and meaningless, the way in which they practice is nothing short of emotional coldness, and you are just another number to them, an afterthought at best. I'm sure there are some hidden gems that actually care but the profession itself treats people like me as if we're inanimate objects. Many of the types of "therapy" that they tout have been proven not to work but they use them anyway to feed their egos that they are doing something good and meaningful. Most of them don't realize what actually helps and it's mostly something that can't be found in therapy and it cannot be bought with money. There is a lack of genuine humanness in the mental health field.

Yes, most therapists must receive post-graduate education and certification. The education they receive is functionally like that of a priest; e.g. they are taught to view things through a very particular scope - whereas the priest is taught the lens of their particular religion, the therapist-to-be is taught the lens of contemporary psychology and its endless pathologies. Therapy in-and-of itself, is like a confessional in a church, the therapist is the priest and the patient the confessor. The patient confesses their worries and problems much like a would-be blasphemer would confess their "sins".

The sad thing is, "just put your head in the sand" is probably a pretty common response to the OPs concerns not only at mental health resources across the world, but from peers and colleagues; the patient lives in a world where being open about such things in the dehumanized, hyperindividualized public sphere typically only invites scrutiny and further alienation (likely from individuals who are just as alienated and scared as them), which increases their reliance on the therapist as much as it increases their sense of cognitive dissonance, as though they are caught between two realities in a depersonalized limbo. Of course, there's only the one reality as far as we know, but to this patient their inner world has become an enigma and its workings thoroughly mystified by an industry that portends one must go through many years of schooling and certification before they can make sense of the human mind; which is as absurd and circular claim to make as "God works in mysterious ways." - as if that explains why your toaster catching on fire this morning and the delay that caused made you miss your train commute derailing, killing everyone on board. Likewise, it is just as circular to tell someone they have a disease called "depression", which can only be treated by "trained professionals" - trained, of course, in "psychology", an invention of the human mind as much as the phrase "mental illness" with all it's implicit meanings. But the backbone of the entire practice is to be a truthclaim, much like any religion - they suppose "mental illness" to be as sacrosanct as religions hold their Gods; that is, as self-evident and infallible as a physicist would consider thermodynamics.

Perhaps it would be too radical to admit "depression" is an entirely normal reaction to a world in which one exists as a dehumanized, chronically hollowed-out wage slave whose life has been reduced to a series of empty, mindless labor and emptier consumption rituals, comforted only by addictive drugs pushed on them at every turn, and vacuous social ties of similarly hollowed out wageslaves who only know how to monologue and compete; who breathes, eats and shits microplastic, pollution and pesticides, and can't remember the last time they felt somebody actually cared if they lived or died. It'd be far too radical to admit we're living through the slow-motion collapse of the living super organism we call 'civilization' and every case of "depression" is like one little support column showing signs of giving out under the weight of a monstrosity that has become too bloated and labyrinthine for its own good. Then we'd be engaging in reality, giving the "illness" the scope it deserves, and psychology cares not for this.

The reality is, contemporary psychology functions much like a religion or a cult does, in that what one receives from it depends very much on what one puts into it - the power wielded by such organizations are directly correlate to belief of their followers. This is the power of placebo, confirmation bias, and magical thinking. If one considers their reaction to, say, climate change to be "abnormal", they merely have to walk into a therapist's office and their belief will be confirmed - their conscious experience will become a list of "symptoms" of "illness", for which they'll receive "medication". The words, the labels, the pills, they're all momentarily comforting, but none actually deal with the original problem any more than popping an Aspirin cures a raging influenza infection. That's because the entire "mental health industry" is palliative at best - worse yet, it serves at the behest of the state, which benefits massively from an industry that teaches individuals to view their life's problems through a scope that is not only decidedly apolitical but atomized as well.

Take an issue like climate change and this scope fails almost entirely - its sufficiently large-scale enough that the therapist's individualizing lens has no real answer to it. One who is trained in end-of-life therapy may have some more substantial answers that verge into decidedly philosophical territory, but most "by the book" therapists will preach willful ignorance; their role is not to create independent-thinking individuals, community leaders, politically-minded citizens or would-be revolutionaries, because they don't operate in this paradigm; an office vending machine is more communalistic than a therapist's office could ever claim to be. No, their role is to keep people complicit and complacent in the consume/work false dichotomy lifestyle for they are part of the very same paradigm, this being their work as much as preaching is a priests'. The "mental health" industry is obliged to meet the absurdity of the world it exists in and profits off of, and so existential terror becomes "eco-anxiety", another cutesy label which can be "treated" with the right combination of benzodiazepines and willful ignorance, just as a village witch doctor may have once treated "spiritual possession" with a concoction of ayahuasca and a ceremony. Now this ceremony only takes 45 minutes and $200 a week and a monthly trip to the pharmacy. Who ever said capitalism wasn't efficient?!"

 

[Carina]

I have degrees in psychology, mainly to teach, but I had always wanted to be a psychologist/psychiatrist--ironically what stopped me was me thinking 'if I can't help myself, how can I help others'.

That said, some of the psychological things that they teach in many classes, I despise with a passion. I find the entire premise, practice, theory to be messed up. And they teach it in nursing, psych, other fields like it's some gift to humanity.

One of my favorite teachers was a specific type of psychologist. I kind of liked his way: you listen and support. Sometimes a person just needs to talk. Thing is, shy of therapists from my experience, the others don't listen as much as 'listen so they can prescribe/send to someone who can'. I actually had more help in the past talking to him than others... just because he listened. And made a comment that shocked me (he told me I was acting like a rape victim from mental state after like 45 minutes)-- no one since has EVER even noticed that about my past.

So really, some are good, some are bad. It's a science, but some of them are fraudulent. A lot of psychology can't be tested because it's unethical, which in some ways kind of hurts it's advancement compared to others--which is good, I mean you want only ethical things done.

 

[chris8000]

Jean Amery, I find your posts engaging, but I'm still not convinced by this perspective you have.

It's well known so called anti-depressants work almost exclusively through the placebo-effect.

What is your point exactly? How does this prove that the placebo-effect in humans is not real and psychiatric medications actually heal people? The placebo-effect is a fact and it's been shown by Irving Kirsch to be the main factor in explaining the so called succes rate in antidepressants.

The author and paper you cite was actually a pretty controversial one from what I can tell. I am not in psychiatry nor claiming to be an expert on it, but I could quickly find this out using google scholar from a review.

You might be interested to know the meta analysis has been reanalysed to find quite a different conclusion, "This recent study re-analysed data used in the meta-analysis and reported the correct drug–placebo difference to be 2.18 or 2.68, as opposed to 1.80 stated in the original study" https://doi.org/10.1177/2045125312445469

Since anti-depressants are frequently show in clinical trials to be significantly more effective than placebos, I am still not convinced anti-depressants = placebos.

I definitely don't think they are going to cure or as you say "heal" anybody, are not getting at the underlying issues, and have a bunch of side effect problems, but they seem to be of benefit to some people to me at least. My way to deal with some mild-moderate depression I was dealing with was mindfulness and I have never taken pharma drugs for psychological problems, but I am open to the possibility some people really need these drugs for depression.

I think for certain kinds of psychological illnesses and people, pharmacological drugs can be very helpful, just reading this thread I can see that some people do benefit a lot from them. So to say the whole field is a fraud, to me, doesn't line up with the accepted science or people's experiences. Not to say, the field does not need reforming and the drugs cannot cause great harm as well.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

I have degrees in psychology, mainly to teach, but I had always wanted to be a psychologist/psychiatrist--ironically what stopped me was me thinking 'if I can't help myself, how can I help others'.

That said, some of the psychological things that they teach in many classes, I despise with a passion. I find the entire premise, practice, theory to be messed up. And they teach it in nursing, psych, other fields like it's some gift to humanity.

One of my favorite teachers was a specific type of psychologist. I kind of liked his way: you listen and support. Sometimes a person just needs to talk. Thing is, shy of therapists from my experience, the others don't listen as much as 'listen so they can prescribe/send to someone who can'. I actually had more help in the past talking to him than others... just because he listened. And made a comment that shocked me (he told me I was acting like a rape victim from mental state after like 45 minutes)-- no one since has EVER even noticed that about my past.

So really, some are good, some are bad. It's a science, but some of them are fraudulent. A lot of psychology can't be tested because it's unethical, which in some ways kind of hurts it's advancement compared to others--which is good, I mean you want only ethical things done.

I find that psychiatry is often very one dimensional and even discriminatory in its attitude. They hear what you say in order to either attempt to correct your thinking or prescribe drugs to correct your thinking. I've never been treated as a person but as a condition or a label. This doesn't help.
For example, I'm depressed and anxious because I have a deteriorating physical illness that I can't cope with. I actually think my emotions are entirely valid in my situation.
My psych just wants me to take medications to correct my attitude. That's their one trick pony here. I'm much more inclined to talk to a psychologist but again it's hard to be straight with them because of the attitude that if you are depressed you are not thinking straight.
I actually feel that anonymous and non judgemental conversation on here has helped me more than any professional. They try, but they need to stop blaming everything on chemical imbalance and treat the whole person. An actually listen.