Posted by huxley on July 21, 2012, at 23:37:35
In reply to Re: Correcting an Imbalance or getting high? » huxley, posted by SLS on July 21, 2012, at 6:38:47
> > You don't have to be anti-psychiatry to question there methods.
>
> Very true. However, it is productive to know their methods before questioning them.
>
> > I don't mind a risk benefit situation as long as the risks are properly conveyed. Which they are not in many cases.
>
> Very true. This is probably true in more cases than not.
>
> > Medications are bundled up in cherry picked studies
>
> From what I understand, this is true. I think a drug company must produce at least two positive clinical trials in order to be granted approval for a new drug or new indication for an old drug. Certainly, more than two trials are conducted. I would like to see each clinical trial that is to be conducted by a drug company be registered with the FDA before the trial begins.
>
> > and sold based on lies.
>
> Can you name any one lie in particular?
>
> > You are not carefully treating your illness. No one here is.
>
> This is not true in my estimation. The careful use of imperfect treatments is pervasive in modern medicine. Anyway I don't think it is helpful to speak in such absolutes.
>
> > These meds are not precision lasers, they are a shotgun blast.
>
> The same can be said of many of the treatments that represent the foundations of other fields of medicine. Is there any reason in particular why psychiatry should be exempted from such tolerance? Besides, at this point in history we need to make use of all of what we have to work with.
>
> In the absence of lasers, do you have a proposition of how to treat mental illnesses?
>
> > If your illness is so serious that you feel thats what you need and you are prepared to take the risk then thats fine. I have no problem with that and wish you well.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> > But,
> >
> > If a doctor is going to give you amphetamines, they should warn you of the risk 10 years down the track.
>
> Which is?
>
> > If they are going to give you anti psychotics they should warn you of the tardive syndromes, the brain shrinkage, the liver failure, weight gain and the diabetes.
>
> Yes.
>
> > If they are going to give you anti depressants they should warn you of the sexual dysfunction,
>
> Yes.
>
> > the discontinuation syndromes which can last years
>
> I am still unsure about these syndromes lasting for such extended periods of time. I don't see that this is conceptually impossible, though.
>
> > and cause suicides and violent crimes.
>
> I would say that this is true, although infrequent, during treatment. I think that these things could also occur during acute withdrawal. They certainly happen often enough for a doctor to be explicit in educating their patients about these possibilities and what they should do if these symptoms emerge. Just as important, I think a doctor should see a patient on a weekly basis early in treatment with a new drug to closely monitor for negative reactions.
>
> > etc....
> >
> > All very real problems with these drugs.
> > But they are not conveyed.
>
> Unfortunately, I think this is true more often than not.
>
> > They are hidden away behind lies.
>
> What lies?
>
>
> - ScottWhat lies?
All of the above. My whole point for this thread.The lie that we are carefully tuning the brain to 'rebalance' certain things. When the doctors are clearly not in control of what they are doing.
This is fine, but they should tell people this.
Also the drugs are presented as a safe treatment.
When they are not. Yes they come with some literature of side effects (which are again cherry picked) but I think more should be done to inform people of the risks.I don't know how about sharks with lazer beams on their head?
The long term side effects of ADHD drugs is that they induce psychotic episodes. Have seen it first hand.
poster:huxley
thread:1021755
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120718/msgs/1021914.html