by their standards I've lost 23% of my brain...and I was on massive doses for a good 10 years of that 23 years...like 2 and 3 times the regular highest therapeutic dose...just off antipsychotics completley for a matter of days...it took me 4 years to wean myself off.

Let's hope some of that 23% regenerates...for that there has been no research...no one knows what happens to people like me...I suppose I should offer myself up for study. I certainly have distinct cognitive impairment.

Really really interesting post Philip.

~ "Either way, evidence like this has huge implications for non-psychotic conditions which are being treated with atypical antipsychotics in vast numbers these days." ~

Absolutely. Big time. In that respect, this is a bombshell. However, although Nancy Andreasen is the psychiatric MRI and imaging research guru, I dont believe she is the first person to worry about this. It is still not accepted or reported that the benzodiazepines cause atrophy in certain parts of the brain. But they apparently do. And Peter Breggin as far as I now, was the first to widely publicize it in "Toxic Psychiatry" in '92 or '94 (?). He has also written aboout antipsychotics causing structural alterations and damage.

He has really been at the forefront about warning their whole profession about specific medical dangers, and although some people believe he is too extreme or too whacked, the comparison of his book and Nancy Andreasen's "The Broken Brain" around the same time ( late 80's I think) highlights a common theme with his work, which is that it is never accepted initally, but his books never become dated in any significant way. All the trash thats written about in Andreasen's book is dated at this point -- even some of the major conceptual paradigms.

I give her credit thoutgh in that she values the importance of psychosocial interventions and is not entirely reductionist and is open to reappraising her previous views, which she has done before.

But this has been speculated about at length and researched before. The publications are just older and they were made public by people who no one listens to.

We cannot be using these things for depression, anxiety. These are difficult chemicals and the most prudent approach should always be taken.

And as these findings would apply to kids. Well, I don't even want to think about it.

I don't and cannot think about how many gray cells I have lost in the 23 years and 35 different meds I have been on. All I can tell you is I use to be a card carrying member of Mensa.

I cannot even answer half the questions on their test when I tried to take it a few years back.

I long to be 23 again, when the only meds I ever took were Tylenol, and Midol, and the only shrinks i knew were in my psychology books.

Sigh.

I take 200 mg of Seroquel.
I'm not schizophrenic, psychotic not even depressed.
I was put on an antidepressant to help withdrawing clonazepam and became a psychiatrist patient who was misdiagnosed and put on many psych-drugs on the market.
After withdrawing 400 mg I could not withdraw the last 200 mg.
I have already heard about the shrinkage.
How much must I have already lost and will loose?
Me too: I have no idea.

"But I did take them at low doses"
uh not to be obvious here , but what other dose would you have taken them at?
I postulate that at a higher dose, from the effects you would have been unable to hold down a job. So then wouldn't take the medicine?

"...people with schizophrenia are losing brain tissue at a more rapid rate than healthy people of comparable age..."

Does this literally mean that the tissue is disappearing, or merely that it's still there, but no longer functioning, owing to the chemical action of the drugs?

I've gotta say, I'm getting steadily more skeptical about the use of drugs to treat mental health disorders. They don't work, it's as simple as that (ie, people can spend their whole lives on drugs, and still be regarded as mentally ill), which must mean that the answer lies elsewhere, but it seems that we're denied the right to go and look elsewhere, because too much money is being made from selling drugs.

Jesus! I ask you!

Matt

"...But it’s interesting: we lose brain tissue, but we don’t necessarily lose cognitive capacities. A lot of people at 50, 60, 70 or 80 are quite sharp. I can quantify their brain tissue and see they’ve lost quite a bit from what would be normal for a 45-year-old, but their cognitive abilities are not at all impaired..."

This is neuroplasticity, again, isn't it? That is: one part of the brain ceases to function (eg, accident/stroke/whatever), and another part of the brain takes over - the electrical signals get re-routed. The upshot is that no "functionality" is lost - a person who loses control over the muscles to the LH side of their face, due to a stroke, *can* regain that control (ie, it *has* happened).

Can drugs cause such a phenomena, or is the power of suggestion more powerful? And how does one suggest such a thing, with any accuracy, such that one gets the result that a patient is looking for?

Matt

As a psychiatrist I hasten to agree that this is another bit of news showing that the treatments we have are imperfect, often woefully so. We need better treatments. But this will take years or decades, and in the meantime it is folly to think these medications have no merit that sometimes outweighs their significant side effects. They might be likened to chronic, low-grade chemotherapy--distasteful, yes, but sometimes necessary and life-changing.

But to paraphrase Shakespeare, first let's kill all the drug reps (well, not really).

arspsychiatrica.blogspot.com

Weird. My erstwhile psychiatrist claimed that the atypicals promoted neurogenesis. Hope this comes to his attention.

Dearest Philip:
4.5 % gone and you keep on going, not bad for the Bam Dramaged {SMIRK}. You add this to all the other life altering side effects of these so called medications and you have to wonder what the heck is going on here? I gather now we all know how the real clinical trial system works {let’s see how much damage we cause, and the legal fees we incur; then we’ll start to think about the well being of the patient maybe?}. Now comes the scary part! They are feeding these drugs to kids like candy while the brain is still in development as we sit here reading this day.
Sounds to me like a Dr. Strange Love nightmare come true. What’s next? The Russians Fluoridating our drinking water supply {laughing}. Gosh how I miss those good old days of the cold war {smirk}. At least then I had my duck and cover drill down pat {laughing}.
If these findings are credible, the FDA has a responsibility to pull all these drugs off the market yesterday. But with Big Pharma running the show! What are the true running odds that will happen? I better call Vegas and get the spread on this one! I knew in my heart that at some point the whole system would have to go back to a more therapy based treatment process, and definitely a holistic approach of mental health in the long run.
Now the evidence is mounting every day against this legal drug Cartel. I guess these want to be Gods with piles of cash will have to decide whether they want a brain dead population that is controlled behaviorally, or start going the more humane route. To be honest, I'm not holding my breath that Big Pharma, the APA, or the FDA, then add in all those ego centric Psych Doc's everywhere that are unwilling to admit their crimes against humanity and change course until we force them too. I’m almost sure that those brainiacs at Harvard and Stanford University are running trials as we speak to prove brain shrinkage has some positive correlations to happiness and daily living in those with mental health related problems {smirk}.
You only have to take a look at Wall Street, Our Government, and Society as a whole to see Money and Power has become their failed God of choice. Anywise, I'm sure with the brain damage I have incurred over these so called medications will limit my ability to communicate this reality articulately. So I guess I just sit in front of the computer and look at the shiny things {many of us bipolar love shiny things to watch while passing the hours of our limited existence}. I guess I should end this now, since all that drool I’m protruding is making the keyboard to slimy and to gross to type on.
Good reporting my Bam Dramaged friend. Bye the way, congratulations on making your fund raising goal, three dollars is a lot, or was that three thousand? Numbers are getting so hard with the Bam Dramage you know {Laughing}.
Yours Truly
Stan

I wonder what 4 years on 1800mg of seroquel and up to 9 mg of risperdal did. Let alone the last 5 years slowly comming down on both, then off risrerdal. I'm almost scared to know.

Novalis said:
They might be likened to chronic, low-grade chemotherapy--distasteful, yes, but sometimes necessary and life-changing.

and sometimes they are given like high octane chemo UNnecessarily and are catastrophically life-changing...

unfortunately most psychiatrists don't want to look at those of us for which that is the reality...no, we are not taken seriously...the casualties...just those who supposedly benefit so much that all the rest of us just don't count...

and that sort of thinking keeps us in the old box not even improving what exists when really these drugs help very very few and usually only temporarily...

I've worked with the most seriously mentally ill too Novalis. I'm sorry if I'm making an assumption but I'm afraid it's probably a fair one and you would simply dismiss my story and thousands of others like it.

Neurogenesis is actually a response to trauma. It occurs after strokes too. It doesn't mean it's healthy neuron growth as those using it to assert benefit like to imply.

I think what's physically happening in the brain is that the "holes" whatever they're called, the spaces, get bigger, when you're on these drugs and there's more fluid and less cells. Sorry I forget the scientific name. I think it might be the white matter that's shrinking too, not the gray matter. Maybe someone else knows more. I have read about this. Glenmullen even talks about it in Prozac Backlash. But there are others who have written about it too.

My guess is that it's not easy to get this kind of research published especially now as pharma's hold gets stronger and stronger. Maybe that's why she's speaking out before publication. No one wants to touch it like a hot potato.

Dearest Philip:

I have used my limited thunking powers that still remain to come up with reasons for people to still take their anti-psychotic medications.
1. The pills now come in brighter and more fun colors all the time.
2. Brain activity is way over rated; no one has used their brain in Wash D.C. in over thirty years, and look how good things are.
3. Now I’m thunking of ways to create a pop up blog so many readers can follow along with the latest mental health happenings, even if they are unable to understand them { note: must use bright shiny colors}.
4. This should make dating so much easier, all that conversation and upper cognitive ability was just wasted energy and getting in the way of more primal instincts.
5. Big Pharma, Psych Doc's, and Major Universities need our money to keep their lavish life styles going; who wouldn't donate a few million functioning brain cells to this important effort and cause.
6. Thunking this would be a good time to invest in Super Spiderman Depends for the active anti psychotic user adults.
7. Thunking about developing computer bibs for journalist and bloggers that are still able to muster up enough brain activity to write. (OUCH! Must of just thunk because it hurt I thunk?}
8. At least now we will know how it feels for the Gorillas and Orangutans at the Zoo looking at us like we are the dumb ones.
9. 3+2 = 6 make perfect sense now
10. “stupid is, as stupid does” is now only a complex riddle solved by going through a large box of chocolates and anti psychotics.
11. Is the on and off switch for the computer the same button? {Eyes rolling}
12. This should end once and for all the hopes I had of using those spent North Korean Nuclear rods I purchased on E-bay for evil intent, and the production of my own home made thermal nuclear device. I can’t even figure out what wire goes where anymore. Plus all this glowing in the dark is keeping me up at night. I guess I need some more Seroquel in helping me sleep and hasten my journey toward total lack of brain activity.
13. I don’t care, even if I now understand what TF says or types here in the comment section anymore; argument and ignorant banter in Borg terms is completely and utterly futile {laughing} I guess this is what they call BLISS?
Yours truly
Stan

novalis, i appreciate your point but perhaps you'd look at the tradeoffs a bit differently if you went and took some antipsychotics for a few weeks, in order to get a sense of what your patients go through on an intimate level. then you'll have a better idea of why some of my readers hate these drugs so much.

Exactly Sara. The neurogennsis from antidepressants and (antipsychotics?) is probably bad for you. The cells only develop because they need to in response to the chemical trauma. But psychiatrists never talk about that. They're likely not healthy cells histologically.

Psychiatrist are big fans of sexy science and buzzwords. But the sad irony is that the people who tout the biology of mental illness the most, are the least likely to have any idea about how complex things are and how little we know.

This is really scary, though the brain shrinkage on psych meds thing is old news. It reminds me of psychiatric hospitals. Here in Georgia we have a couple of journalists who have done a great job of reporting on the terrible situations in psychiatric "hospitals," Alan Judd and Andy Miller, in case anyone wants to google. Turns out no matter what your "mental" condition, being in a psych hospital in Georgia is worse than not being in one, than sleeping on the street, and yet still when people with psych labels don't want to go into these places, have no money to pay for being in them, it's considered further proof that we are crazy because we don't want help. I'm wondering what non psych labeled person would consider being locked in a place where they are more likely to be beaten, raped and/or murdered than if they were homeless a sane decision.

The same can be said of psych drugs. Generally these drugs rob people of their ability to function mentally and cause permanent brain damage as your piece discusses. Psych patients have been saying for years that they don't want to take these drugs because they are poison, turns out they're right, and yet we're still forcing them on people.

Meanwhile, as we all know, in places where "psychosis" is treated as temporary, as one possible normal response to life, where people aren't shunned, imprisoned or medicated, many people actually recover. It's not easy to see what the answer is but I'll spell it out - emotional and social support, respite, Soteria style. It works like drugs and imprisonment don't.

Of course it's okay if someone choose drugs to give them temporarily or even forever but to pretend like there's some body of knowledge that indicates that taking these drugs helps the person taking them or society at large is criminal.

Novalis wrote:
"...We need better treatments. But this will take years or decades, and in the meantime it is folly to think these medications have no merit that sometimes outweighs their significant side effects. They might be likened to chronic, low-grade chemotherapy--distasteful, yes, but sometimes necessary and life-changing..."

[SARCASM ALERT] Life-changing? Yes, I imagine we can all agree on that.

The industry is kidding itself, if it believes that it's going to find a cure, using its current model. In fact, it has no motivation to find a cure - what it wants is palliative care, preferably for the last 68 years of your life. At least, I hope the only motivation for the current solution is money...

In the case of SSRIs, the vast majority of the beneficial effect is placebo. What's one to make of that? Is the same true of antipsychotics? I'd be willing to wager that it is.

Your paradigm, as I understand, relies on ADHD/schizophrenia/etc actually existing. What if they don't? What if the "symptoms" that typify these "disorders," are indicative of something completely different? What if a person who reacts in this way is actually perfectly healthy, but is reacting to a perceived (or real), provocation/trigger/stimulus?

I don't want to get pissy at you, really I don't. But until your profession feels like addressing a few of these (fundamental, from my perspective), questions, then I'd be very careful about defending these drugs to people who perceive that they've suffered terribly as a consequence of having taken them.

Matt

if you went and took some antipsychotics for a few weeks, in order to get a sense of what your patients go through on an intimate level

Yes. It seems that they still don't listen to their patients.
I was in hell withdrawing 5 psycho-drugs at the same time and when I reported withdrawal symptoms the psychiatrist said that it was psychological and that I should go to her office that day so that she could assure me it was all in my head.
And still asked me why did I wanted to sleep at 6 p.m. . "-It's too soon."
Too soon when you're feeling fine. But the idea of any relief.
So in the next decades, while other psych-drugs are being found with the same acknowledge of the brain we have now, - nothing is known let's be sincere here - same drugs will be used.
Prozac, Paxil, Seroquel, Zyprexa ...
The only problem are the side effects.
Ok!

Stan,
Good to know your PC is working!
At last a good new!

Well, I'll just say that the VAST majority of people who take these drugs do so voluntarily (I'm talking about adults--I don't happen to treat children, and I agree they are haphazardly and excessively used in minors). I certainly think that if people are not imminently threatening to hurt themselves or someone else and don't want to take meds, then DON'T TAKE THEM.

There are inept and corrupt psychiatrists just as there are inept and corrupt teachers or judges. But there are also people out there honestly trying to treat severely ill people.

I'm not into psychiatry boosterism, but to use an Obama/McCain analogy, one can criticize the government while still recognizing that government--some government--is a necessary evil.

I honestly think it would be great if mental disorders suddenly didn't exist--then I could go and be an English professor which would be more fun anyway. But it ain't going to happen...

It came to me. The word for those spaces in the brain is sulci(singular sulcus). Those are what expand under the stress of these drugs.

1800 mg. of Seroquel? Yikes, I can't imagine surviving that -- what is the therapeutic range of doses that are recommended? I have to admit it kind of blows my mind what doctors think they can get away with in terms of prescribing these drugs. Keep piling it on -- that's the philosophy.

Novalis wrote:
"...I honestly think it would be great if mental disorders suddenly didn't exist... But it ain't going to happen..."

Hmmm. I could analyse that statement... but I won't, other than to say that you don't *know* that it will never happen. That's just what you believe, and your profession relies on that being true for its very existence. Ergo, psychiatry has no motivation in finding the answer, either.

I've a question for you: is it true that psychiatrists/psychologists, and so on, are taught/advised routinely to break rapport with their clients, in order to avoid getting dragged into their clients' realities - to avoid getting "infected" with their thoughts and ideas?

A word to the wise: if that is common practice, you'll never learn anything.

Matt

NOVALIS which must also stand for TF:

You are a self serving ignorant twit; this information is just coming to light of day, and no action has been taken by the drug industry or the FDA as of yet. So simple for you to say just "DON'T TAKE THEM"; when so many already have with devastating results. Let's not forget to mention getting off these drugs is no easy task even for the strongest and hearty of suffers. And please don’t feed me your horse manure about most taking these drugs do so by choice! When was the last time you visited a Psych Hospital and saw those patients being either force fed or being manipulated into taking these poisons? You’re so full of Crap; I’m getting out my rubber boots just to finish typing this remark.
Your absolute indifference and stupidity are so obvious there is nothing anyone can say or do to save you from yourself. Your arrogance and demeanor are exactly why so many dislike and are critical of the profession you espouse to work within. Now as for teaching English as a second career choice; I can only hope that your far better at that, than you are here in the comment section of this blog. Because you are destined to be not much of a teacher either if all you do is stand in judgment of the people you took a Hippocratic oath to protect and serve {or did you skip that part in medical school?}.
You should be out there on your hands and knees shouting from every street corner about how your profession has been high jacked by drug companies and greedy so called intellectuals. But no! You would rather come here and beat a dead horse to death with those who have suffered at the hands of your Witch Doctor so called profession.
You want a battle of wits moron? I say bring it on! Wasn’t it Shakespeare who said “first let’s kill the entire psychiatrist profession” {laughing}. Then again, why waste my time having a battle of wits with a half wit in all seriousness. I’m only writing this comment just in case anyone out there possibly might read your fantasy and believe even the smallest fragment of it. You’re the evil enemy and can’t see anything but your fragile ego staring back at you in the mirror of life. There is a huge difference between you and many that post here. Most posting have been in the trenches and fought countless battles and won in spite of an abusive and corrupt system of health care. You on the other hand sit in your ivory tower thinking you know better; and yet you know nothing, absolutely and conclusively nothing at all.
Yours Truly
Stan

Novalis,
Most of the people I know actually do *not* have much of a choice about taking medication, especially if they're in the public system. While the choice is technically there, the reality in practice is if you don't take your meds you're deemed "non-compliant". A refusal to take medication, any medication, often (in some systems always) ends in termination by the psychiatrist. Which kind of makes sense because prescribing meds seems to be the only thing most of them are able to, or maybe (sadly) are given the time to do, in the current system.

I can also tell you that we are NOT giving informed consent, not by a long shot. To withhold information ("you'll have a dry mouth and maybe a little weight gain, but this is a good drug") and call this "voluntary" really isn't honest, is it?

I'm not talking about withholding information about side effects that are controversial, I'm talking about systematic withholding of stuff that's well known. We're told a "little" weight gain, then treated like prima donnas when we blow up like balloons, then denigrated a few months later ("you need to walk more and eat less") when the weight won't come off. I've taken over 70 pounds off but it's taken five years of Weight Watchers. The only reason I was able to do that is because I'm lucky enough to be married to someone who can afford it. If I were single and having to live on my DIB I'd be fresh outta luck and also a lot fatter since my guess is I'd have gained even more.

All I know is if I get in real trouble again with depression I won't be turning to the mental health profession for help because they only offer me drugs or incarceration, neither of which has been helpful in the past. My biggest problem isn't that they can't help, it's the refusal to acknowledge how few people their services actually help and how little they help that bothers me. It's the dishonesty, coupled with the refusal to listen that drives so many of us, well, bonkers.

That and the fact the most psychiatrists/Ph.Ds are making a LOT of money off the misery of others. That does bother me, especially when the patients are largely struggling to live on $700/mo. Again, there's no acknowledgment of this disparity and the issues that inevitably arise from it.

Thinking about it, a lot of the problems seem to stem from the inherent power imbalance of the doctor-patient relationship.

Zyprexa -- the drug for diabetic non-surgical lobotomies!

Somehow I don't think that slogan would have worked for Lilly.

I really am sorry to be sarcastic (I've been on atypicals myself, for the record), but if you didn't laugh, at least derisively, you'd cry.

Stan: My point, exactly. Thank you for demonstrating it so eloquently.

Sherry: You are right. The drugs have grievous side effects for a lot of people, and psychiatrists need to be far more open up front about what those side effects could be. You are right that those diagnosed as having mental disorder struggle with an inadequate system and with appalling power imbalances. I wish you well.

Sherry, your description of coercion in the public system is right on. Rob had never been on Medicaid, rather using up all the small amount of money he made from a lawsuit (he was misdiagnosed and mismedicated for the first three years of having manic depression - doctor idiocy deemed him schizophrenic because he had been psychotic). Anyway, money gone and job at the FDA gone, he signed up for Medicaid, SSI, the whole drill, a system designed to demean you in every possible way. And as you say, the doctor coerced and lied. Though we don't know exactly how many state Medicaid systems became fraudulent with psyc drugs, for sure Maryland did. And we were kept in the dark. Nothing on the label, nothing from the doctor except lies.

For the anniversary of Rob's death this year, I'm going to go in and talk to Grassley's staff about a bill to establish some new Soteria houses around the country. If only we had had kindness, exercise, healthy food, and skillful care, along with the most minimum of drugs, I would still have my Rob back.

I was prescribed antipsychotics to treat the insomnia caused by the antidepressants I was on. Let's see...insomnia or brain shrinkage. I vote for insomnia. I don't know too many patients who would knowingly choose the risk of brain shrinkage over insomnia. Informed consent? Not so much. I thank my lucky stars I was noncompliant - smartest decision I ever made.

Oh wow. Novalis has never been inside a psychiatric hospital where antipsychotics are forced with injections; and to make a statement that a person should just not take them unless a danger to self or others? what the heck is that?

Sounds like a psych eval FOR inpatient psych wards!

I just tapered off Zyprexa after I slept the summer away. Four months 15 hours a day. I was living in the country and I recently relocated and when I was saying goodbye to one of my roommates she said, "Yeah, I wish I'd gotten to know you better. You slept a lot."

I don't sleep that much and I haven't gone psychotic. Next is getting off the Lamictal.

I wrote a song about being on Zyprexa that some of you might find amusing. It's the main song on my myspace page:

www.myspace.com/hanburymusic

--dth--

I forgot to add that Novalis comments re: don't take meds unless a person is a danger to self or others? this means this person must believe antipyschotics are useful for prevention of violence, and oh down the road we walk to discrimination and mental illness. These are the thoughts of Fuller Torrey types, and the bottom line is that antipsychotics ARE chemical restraints, and what I consider to be a way to give a person a chemical lobotomy.

IF these meds worked then there would be NO mental illness, and ALL psych wards and institutions would be EMPTY. These meds are the medical paradigm for treating mental illness, and NO ONE can say they are efficacious. They dull the mind, cause damage to the body, and at best keep some ppl living in a chair all day, and what do we call quality of life?

Scary thing here is that antipsychotics are being mainstreamed for MDD and anxiety, to children, autistic kids, the whole thing is alarming.

Wow. Just wow. Hostility, stereotyping, assumptions, overgeneralizing, ad hom and strawman attacks, same old shit, what is the basis for this attack on Novalis? Where is the reality-base? Oh here we go, the man provided his blog addy, hmph, well, I am not so comfortable with his comments, so what do I do? Put a monster mask on him comprised of all the faces that came before and attack that? Sorry, but Novalis is new.

Still, I am not comfortable with his comments, so better scurry on over and check out his philosophy, the better to inform my opinion of him, in reality. Is he easily dismissible or educable? Quite the puzzler. But oh, he left a trail, anybody bother to take the trouble? From the ethos on front page:

the purpose of this blog is to consider alternative perspectives and to celebrate the humanistic fringes of the profession. Three cheers for the neglected margins--of anything, but particularly psychiatry and psychology.

Discern. I implore all lovable Furious Seasoners, first discern, then destroy all monsters.

The vitriol and hate of all these comments is amazing. It's really apparent that Novalis is not the enemy.

Not to put words in his/her mouth, but I think Novalis was advocating medications as a last resort (as I do), not necessarily that they are "chemical restraints" intended on "slowly lobotomizing" all people. That doesn't mean "they don't work," that means that the potential benefits would outweigh the possible risks.

Also, don't tell me that lithium doesn't work. I've watched this site for a while and I've seen a startling number of comments either deny the existence of bipolar disorder and/or deny any biological basis. The "chemical imbalance" theory of depression is in a different territory, not the same thing. C'mon, what about all of the adoption and monozygotic twin studies of bipolar disorder? All fabricated? Most mental illnesses are regarded with the biopsychosocial model, but bipolar disorder is primarily dealt with on the biological basis. The genetic component is fairly well established and is very plainly seen looking into the family trees of bipolars. Bad parenting doesn't account for honest to god mania.

There are definite flaws in the mental health system, that's a given. Getting all indignant and denying that mental illnesses exist or even a problem is a step in the wrong direction.

On another note, which I'm sure will be flamed at for even wondering, I would like to see how Andreasen has found that neuroleptics directly cause brain shrinkage. I respect Nancy Andreasen and anticipate she's accounted for it, but is it possible that people with more severe schizophrenia simply get more medications and that brain shrinkage is proportional to the severity of schizophrenia?

There have been studies suggestive that manic/depressive episodes in bipolar disorder may cause brain damage/shrinkage that gets worse with successive episodes and I wonder if there could be a similar effect in schizophrenia. Then again, I didn't hear medication taken into account so maybe it could be due to the use neuroleptics. In any case, I'm looking forward to reading her publication.

ridiculous wrote:
"...There are definite flaws in the mental health system, that's a given. Getting all indignant and denying that mental illnesses exist or even a problem is a step in the wrong direction..."

I'm not sure about "vitriol." I think one would have to understand what a person (Philip, say, or Stan), had been through with meds and the mental health system, in order to fully comprehend just how cheated they feel. And seeing as Novalis chose not to investigate that side of things, (s)he was never going to see the full picture. That being the case, and if one believes meds to be the a real solution, then the aggression shown towards something that has failed these people so completely should not come as a surprise.

In any event, a holistic view of the problem is what's missing, I think. Nobody is denying that a person diagnosed with bipolar, or whatever, exhibits certain behavioural traits - they do certain things. And they themselves find these things discombobulating and unhelpful, to say the least. But why is that behaviour classified as an illness? And why is it assumed to be irrational, and without foundation?

Hence my comment to Novalis, who ignored me, you'll note. If (s)he chooses to ignore the possibility that the explanation that a patient gives him/her for what they're feeling is actually true, if only from the patient's perspective, then Novalis will learn nothing new, and should go and teach English, as (s)he threatened to do, because (s)he will always see that behaviour as irrational.

I know it's *not* irrational, because I took the time to ask, and then to understand. There is always a logic. Always. In essence, then, Novalis chooses to believe only his/her own reality to be true. That's a fatally flawed worldview. As is requiring others to be aberrant, in order for one to be correct.

Matt

And as an afterthought, I'd say this: psychiatry demonstrates its fundamental lack of understanding of the way that the human mind works, when it sits a patient in a chair and tells him/her that (s)he is aberrant; a damaged thing, which only psychiatry can fix. Psychiatry then demonstrably fails to fix anything.

What impact do you imagine that psychiatry's conduct has on the patient, who is probably already desperate (as illustrated by his/her willingness to admit that something's wrong)? Psychiatry is a failed system, ridiculous, and notwithstanding its financial wealth and pharmaceutical industry backing, it should fuck off.

Matt

wow, the validation is just near daily, isn't it?

Note to any providers who wander into this site: watch for characterological pathology; sorry, no road signs to warn you.

Just read how they react to this comment.

As I wrote at Clin Psych, antipsychotics are overprescribed, but as long as these pharmaceutical companies rake in obscene monies, and get absurd FDA indications approved, they will just pervade into society like cancer.

Again, you have to challenge these docs who now write for this medication class like pez. But the real scary thing is now, it will include Primary Care Docs. Don't believe me, just wait and see.

Novalis, watch your site, it would not surprise me if it gets hacked.

"Discern. I implore all lovable Furious Seasoners, first discern, and then destroy all monsters."

“The vitriol and hate of all these comments is amazing. It's really apparent that Novalis is not the enemy.”

my retort:

The Monster reared its ugly head and blamed the victims. So the sword was justly drawn, and the monster was slain! No apologies {I don't write verbal assassinations without knowing the beast in advance)! Opinions work in many ways as seen here time and time again.
Novalis's insulting and demeaning display of obvious bias and lack of understanding deserved exactly the comments he received. In a profession where ignorance abounds, and caring is most times lacking at any humane level; a Psych Doctor of all people should understand this paradox and show some sensitivity to the plight of those that battle these monsters on a daily basis and the suffering they have endured.
Truth is not hate by any stretch of the imagination, it's just truth. Of course some of those riding the fence don't want to hear how ugly and evil the truth actually is.
All I can say is too bad for you; yet that does nothing to end the suffering or the inhumane track the freight train of our mental health system is chugging on down. That's my honest and personal opinion. I have seen this beast/monster countless times from both the patient and professional side; I know it all to well, when I see it clearly standing in front of me.

Yours truly
Stan

therapyfirst wrote:
"...Novalis, watch your site, it would not surprise me if it gets hacked."

I doubt that that will happen. Novalis came to Furious Seasons, and sought to impose his/her worldview, when his/her worldview is completely at odds with that of most of the posters on here. It has been rejected, that's all.

I, for one, have no interest in pursuing Novalis, anonymously. That's a cheap trick, employed by charlatans and cowards.

However, my "reaction" to your comment would be to suggest that you avoid piddling diagnoses, which amount to denigration of character, based on a couple of paras of text. The only person to engage in ad hom was Stan, and given what he's been through, I shouldn't wonder, at that.

If you can get Joe Bondlebloom, or whatever his name is on here, to defend his paradigm, we'd be very pleased to hear from him, and then you may find out what the words "vitriol," "invective," "ad hominem" and "gratuitous character assasination" amount to.

Matt

I wonder what 4 years on 1800mg of seroquel and up to 9 mg of risperdal did. Let alone the last 5 years slowly comming down on both, then off risrerdal. I'm almost scared to know.

My layman's opinion is that it affected the areas of your brain controlling spelling and capitalization.

(That was honestly meant in jest. Hope it was taken that way)

There have been studies suggestive that manic/depressive episodes in bipolar disorder may cause brain damage/shrinkage that gets worse with successive episodes and I wonder if there could be a similar effect in schizophrenia. Then again, I didn't hear medication taken into account so maybe it could be due to the use neuroleptics. In any case, I'm looking forward to reading her publication.

I found studies going back to 1975 regarding brain shrinkage in schizophrenics. Generally, they said that schizophrenics have shrunken brains (thank you, Dr. Obvious), though a couple pointed out regions that were actually enlarged. Two or three tried to take into account the effects of various neuroleptics, but none established a clear cause-and-effect relationship.

Also possibly associated with brain shrinkage: mood disorders, alcoholism, hypernatremia, eating disorders.

From Matt:

Novalis came to Furious Seasons, and sought to impose his/her worldview, when his/her worldview is completely at odds with that of most of the posters on here. It has been rejected, that's all.

Not just rejected, but mocked and dismissed out of hand. I see a distinct difference there.

...However, my "reaction" to your comment would be to suggest that you avoid piddling diagnoses, which amount to denigration of character, based on a couple of paras of text.

I can't find anyplace where Novalis diagnosis anyone here.

Then there's this, from Stan:

Novalis's insulting and demeaning display of obvious bias and lack of understanding deserved exactly the comments he received.

Words from Stan's post one could construe as directly insulting and/or demeaning:

• self-serving


• ignorant


• twit


• horse manure


• full of Crap (with a capital C, for some reason)


• stupidity


• moron


• half wit


• evil

Words from Novalis's post one could directly construe as insulting and/or demeaning:

• uh...folly?

There is some thoughtful discussion in these comments. But there's also a remarkable amount of disdain and self-pity. Me, I can't indulge in either of those and expect to maintain my own mental health very long. Your mileage may vary.

Do you think that you changed Novalis's mind, or even got him to consider your perspective, by calling him "the evil enemy"? If anyone agnostic about the greatness of psychiatry were to drop by and read the thread, would they be seduced by Novalis's low-grade sophistry, or would they assume that people who overflow with righteous anger must have the truth on their side, even if they don't bother to articulate it?

IRL, I put up with people calling me a MURDERER to my face (usually for suggesting that it's sensible to apply the same sort of critical thinking to pharma's claims as we do to any company trying to push its product) because once in a while I might persuade someone to think a little differently.

People who are truly interested in reforming, restricting, or even destroying the edifice of psychiatry ought to do whatever they can to reach out to anyone who might by sympathetic, especially psychiatrists (whom you may have noticed have most of the power), and try to persuade them.

It is nice to read comments like that by Underthethresher. I couldn't have said it better as was done.

There is a middle ground here, folks. Doctors and patients can be jerks. But there are a lot of those in the middle.

After all, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. A trekian comment!

As Michael B. First, M.D., a Director/Editor of the research agenda for DSM-V, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has written, "Although the past two decades have produced a great deal of progress in neurobiological investigations, the field has thus far failed to identify a single neurobiological phenotypic marker or gene that is useful in making a diagnosis of a major psychiatric disorder or for predicting response to psychopharmacological treatment." In other words dudes, there ain't no proof that there are any genetic mental illnesses.

There are no twin studies purportedly proving bipolar disorder is a medical disease. There are no two psychiatrists who even agree on what bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, or adhd...are. There are no studies demonstrating that the brains of people who have these purported conditions are shaped or structured differently from the brains of other people, only studies showing that the drugs pushed on these people can alter the brain.

Furthermore, Haldol, Olanzapine Cause Brain Shrinkage in Monkeys. This was reported in the Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology 9 March 2005.

What's going on with you scary folks who preach and believe in biologically based mental illness is the horrid sort of groupthink Orwell wrote about:

"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. . . . Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."

Psychiatry is the prevailing orthodoxy, it is the Hostility, stereotyping, assumptions, overgeneralizing, ad hom and strawman attacks, same old shit. It is as Fromm predicted: "the tool in the manipulation of man. The specialists in this field tell you what the 'normal' person is, and, correspondingly, what is wrong with you; they devise the methods to help you adjust, be happy, be normal."

As Bruce Levine then explains: "Both the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard and psychiatry's DSM (the official diagnostic manual in which mental illnesses are voted in and out by elite psychiatrists) have much more to do with dogma than science. Both Scientology and psychiatry embrace science fiction techno-babble that poses as scientific fact."

Now let someone refute that with facts or even sites to studies.

I will say this to Sally, you do present your point with sound references, and I respect that.

There are always "facts" and expert opinion to support a point of view. In the end, you have to be at peace with said view and it gives you hope and faith. If this does, then you are ahead of the game.

As I asked early on when first commenting here, what is the "mission statement" by Philip? To be a voice of dissent to promote change, to just be provocative, or just rant, or perhaps combinations or another point? And I ask you as the commmenters to this site, what do you hope to gain by reading regularly and commenting?

Me, it is to educate and be educated. I don't learn from shouting. I do learn from challenge, when it includes repect and appreciation of what has morphed such point of view.

just an opinion.

Add trauma to that list. Bessel van der Kolk, et al have found shrinkage of the hippocampus and amygdala in trauma survivors.

I try not to think about this a whole lot, to be honest.

TF, that hacking business really was a gratuitous swipe. There's no need of that.

Now let someone refute that with facts or even sites to studies.

Okey doke.

In other words dudes, there ain't no proof that there are any genetic mental illnesses.

Conversely, there's no proof that there aren't any genetic mental illnesses.

There are no twin studies purportedly proving bipolar disorder is a medical disease.

You may interpret the findings any way you like, but there are plenty of twin studies. Here are three:

• One
• Two
• Three

There are no studies demonstrating that the brains of people who have these purported conditions are shaped or structured differently from the brains of other people, only studies showing that the drugs pushed on these people can alter the brain.

Again, here are a few:

• One


• Two


• Three

I don't by any means believe that any of these studies constitutes the last word on anything. But they do exist, for crying out loud.

Your turn, Sherry. "Former patient", or not? When that kind of crap goes on, it does validate my right to warn others of what can occur here.

When people act like the past has no bearing on the present, but the behaviors now are the same, that is beyond ignorance. Prove me wrong. By example in your writings as a "group", I would like to read people can weigh in here and be respectfully refuted. Others besides me seem to be echoing the same things I have said about handling differences of opinion. Or, is dementia another topic to broach here?

Certainly not a diagnosis that warrants the use of long term atypical antipsychotics, to bring it back to the posting sparking this discussion. Those brains are already shrinking as it is.

If a poor joke, my apologies.

Ikhllwd, Thanks for the links. From a brief glance I'm pretty sure such studies have failed to prove anything, but I could be wrong. I'll look more closely at them later tonight when I have time. I don't have the time or resources to get a degree in neuropharmacology so my word will probably not be the last. Still, thanks I love looking at stuff like this.

As you state, there's no proof there aren't any genetic mental illnesses, I'd say let's argue over proof. If so many lives weren't being destroyed by those who believe mental illness is genetic, I wouldn't care because psychiatry is a religious, not a scientific way of thinking. I can't prove there is a god, you can't prove there's not, but people who want to believe in god badly enough may well think they have proof god exists and people who want to believe badly enough that there is no god may think they have proof god doesn't exist. It's a matter of faith. I don't care if you're a member of a religion unless your religion directly harms me. Much of psychiatry directly harms me and those I love, though conversely, there are psychiatrists and psychologists, and even counselors who have been a great help to me and who I admire, these are folks generally outside of the mainstream.

TF, this site is a great source of information and communication to me. Your comments are valuable insights into the mind of a provider.

Small town in North Wales wrote:
"From Matt:.."

I think you'll find that comment regarding diagnoses was directed to therapyfirst, who posted the following:

"Note to any providers who wander into this site: watch for characterological pathology; sorry, no road signs to warn you."

"Dismissed out of hand"? Ah, I think we're getting somewhere, now. Perhaps mental health professionals, as a whole, might begin to understand how patients feel, when they are constantly invalidated, when they complain of the inadequacies of the system. THE SYSTEM'S SOLUTIONS DO NOT WORK - I cannot put it any plainer than that, and the system denies the possibility that others know better, or could even contribute. In any case, I did not denigrate Novalis; I merely took issue with his stance. And (s)he still hasn't answered my question, although, by not answering my question, (s)he has probably answered it.

You may not like my views, lkhllywd. You may even decide that my views require that you don't like me, as a whole. But you still won't best me in an argument. Not in this millenium. And it is a matter of supreme indifference to me as to how much longer either you or I maintain our blogs.

Matt

TF, you asked what readers gain from this website. I'll tell you what I gain. When I read the stories of others who have gone through similar experiences I feel less alone. I see incredible stories of courage here. There are people who comment here who have been through things that are in many cases unimaginable & yet they are still somehow finding a way to get through it.

Do I agree with every comment? No. Does everyone agree with me? No. Do I understand why some are angry & frustrated? Absolutely.

Dear Therapy First,

Why do you need to dig particular persons that comment on these threads? And then make blanket warnings to "treaters" that might peruse these comments. I personally find that kind of attitude both condescending and totally uneccessary? As a busy professional, why do you need to do that?

There are lots of people with widely varying view points. Talking about character pathology in the context of the comment thread to a mental health news blog seems unecessary to me.

And why the swipes at Philip? I'll be a little more direct about this and say that Philip's website houses great coverage of media and analysis of mental health topics in the media that you can't find anywhere else. And while he doesn't agree with you about anything and has suffered to some degree, as many people have because of mental health treatment, you're beliefs don't change facts. I wish many people in your profession, and this isn't directed at you in particluar at all -- could just stop being angry at patients for being angry. Or belittling those who have been mistreated by dismissing out-of-hand any criticism not generated from within your profession.

It is deeply disturbing to me to read your insensitive posts on these threads, knowing you are a psychiatrist, and realize they are on par with those who have no assumed moral high ground.

Words from Stan's post one could construe as directly insulting and/or demeaning:
Flattery in the copy and paste variety! I just love it!

self-serving

ignorant

twit

horse manure

full of Crap (with a capital C, for some reason)

stupidity

moron

half wit

evil

Note each word fit exactly the person I described in correct detail; but please use the whole context of the article or post when attacking me please {laughing}. I think you missed out on how brutal and mean I was really was.

Now some words for Ikhllywd:

Psychiatrists loving on their knees ******** ignorant fool that can go **** themselves many times over. Ikhllywd is someone that doesn't have the balls to stand up for the rights or dignity of those with mental illness. ************ Gosh, hope that wasn’t perceived as too personal or mean spirited {laughing}.

Is that better now! Pretty obvious you can't be rational or intelligent {how many links would you like to direct us to or do you have any thoughts of your own?}, so I tried to use words here you can understand moron.
Now go back to your job as a drug rep {laughing} and shut your pie hole {this is just too funny}
No study has definitively confirmed you’re a Troll, but the evidence strongly leads us in that direction and conclusion {wink}
I believe! “GET the "I" part you idiot” in the construct that psychiatrist are a complete waste of time, and a stain on society in every way, shape, and form (I believe they call it Voodoo science and medicine preformed on those least able to protect themselves from this indoctrinated evil and crime propagated against our humanity}. This of course includes TF and his supporters. Too bad you’re so afraid to hear it like it really is! Real people suffer, are tortured, and die each day from poor and inhumane psychiatric care preformed by or overseen by psychiatrist. The points you try to make in your sound bites are totally meaningless, and I take them with the same grain of salt I would take any statement from a complete and utter moron. My last words on this issue as a gift from myself to you lkhllywd is “fuck off”.
Now take that with your mind shrinking pills defender of nothing. Now for your sole consumption and enjoyment: this whole rant was meant as demeaning and degrading {smiling}.
Gosh, I believe I can feel the love radiate in here today, {laughing} that can be construed as the last word on this subject matter article for myself, you of course can continue to rant and rave all you want {Smirk}.
Comments in a blog format are very much pundits profusely arguing their point of view. I will continue to attack and defend the rights of any person with mental illness or disorder to state their opinion and bring to light the hypocrisy of this archaic system in which we now must endure.
That is until Philip decides I am banned from the site all together; which I gather is quite possible. I would not be shocked in the least at this juncture. Silencing the messenger is always an effective way to smooth the path to complacency.

Stan

My apologies for getting off topic but I wanted to specifically address this comment that Therapy First made:

"Me, it is to educate and be educated. I don't learn from shouting. I do learn from challenge, when it includes repect and appreciation of what has morphed such point of view.""

Hmm, I felt you disrespected me in a previous thread by saying I was not an expert on meds even though I am going through withdrawal and frankly knew more than most psychiatrists about how to do it safely. I then asked you what you knew about tapering slowly and you never responded. So how are you learning which I ask with the intention of not flaming you?

Also, how is it being respectful when you tell Novales (sp?) to watch out for hackers?

If I was the only poster who had issues with you, then that is one thing. But TF, the same complaints keep coming up with different people.

Novales, who I felt was not treated fairly by a few posters, not once lost his/her cool or flamed anybody. This person has my total respect even though I don't agree with everything he/she said.

I want to give that to you TF because obviously, you have good intentions as you keep coming back to this site and you give the tip about the Newsweek article for which I am grateful. But respect is earned.

AA

"Dismissed out of hand"? Ah, I think we're getting somewhere, now. Perhaps mental health professionals, as a whole, might begin to understand how patients feel, when they are constantly invalidated, when they complain of the inadequacies of the system. THE SYSTEM'S SOLUTIONS DO NOT WORK

The system does have inadequacies, but it is currently working for me. The medications I take actually help me. I am neither over nor undermedicated, and though I do have some side effects, I try to counter them in ways that are within my control. Given the choice between the side effects and the condition I have, I'd take the side effects any day of the week, thanks.

But you still won't best me in an argument. Not in this millenium.

Whatever you say, sir. But I'm not sure how you're going to go about besting me in an argument about my perception of my own mental health.

And it is a matter of supreme indifference to me as to how much longer either you or I maintain our blogs.

What on earth are you talking about? I don't have a blog.

TF wrote:
"...Or, is dementia another topic to broach here?..

...Those brains are shrinking as it is..."

TF, I don't want to get personal, but please fuck off with the innuendo. If you want to tell somebody that their thought processes are deficient, then be a fucking adult, and say it straight to them.

You know what? You're defending a position, irrespective of how aggressively you're attacking others with different views. When one defends a position, one ignores all evidence that countermands that position.

Am I right in thinking that you've determined that (at least some), mental disorders are hereditary, or genetic? Let's say that you *know* that. I'm not going to ask you to prove it. I'm going to ask you to explain how that helps you to find a fix?

Matt

TF, you said:
"Your turn, Sherry. "Former patient", or not? When that kind of crap goes on, it does validate my right to warn others of what can occur here."

Huh? Could you please tell me what on earth you're talking about? What do you mean by "that kind of crap?" Hacking? The current discussion? The many brown stamps you've been collecting here?

I really mean this. I feel as if I've missed something here because I'm not following you at all.

I took you to task for taking a gratuitous swipe at, well, I don't know to whom it was directed. What makes you think someone here is going to hack another person's site? Has it happened? Has it happened to you? How many of us have the skills, time and/or interst to do that anyway?

Geez, there's enough real stuff here for you to get pissy about, enough areas of real disagreement in this thread without you making stuff up. That's what I meant about gratuitous and there being no reason for you to say something like that.

Note, please, I did not mention your "warning" to your colleague. The only thing for which I held you accountable was that one statement. That was childish and unnecessary.

Unless, as I mentioned, I've missed something. Which reminds me, what's up with the "former patient" stuff? If anyone accused you of anything I missed it entirely. I do not appreciate being the target of your little witch hunt.

I also don't understand why you don't get over it and keep your mouth shut instead of dredging it up all the time. Personally, the last thing I'd ever want to do with a false accusation is breath life into it by mentioning over and over. Had you not brought it up I never would have known about it. Instead I'm now mildly curious. Can you see how this doesn't serve you well at all?

TF, the only time I respond to you is to hold you accountable for your behaviour. And that's mainly when I see it serving the exact opposite purpose as your stated goals or when it's excessively hurtful or just plain over the top. I'm really not your enemy.

What we as a group, or collective, and I'll add myself to that designation to be fair, will probably never know or learn is that there are a good number of people who will not participate in these "threads" or commentary postings when they read the content that goes on here. There are too many people who regularly participate in these "discussions" who are quick to attack and dismiss what is fair, reasonable, and appropriate dissent or alternative points of view to the process of mental health diagnosis and care.

I have never said people have the wrong opinion, and I have never spontaneously attacked any commenter out of the blue. Go back to past postings and find me an example where I am wrong, and I will be corrected. I feel after having been commenting here for more than three months now, the tone of certain commenters can allow me to allude to certain qualities to an individual, just like some of you have done with me. I have never treated anyone here to my knowledge, and if I have, I would hope you would not introduce personal care matters into a public domain like this, but if so, that is your choice but I will not participate in personal care matters here.

That said, my instincts serve me right more often than wrong, and my gut tells me there are issues here that do not serve the general readership, and would hazard to say Philip to some degree, when we regress or stoop to name calling, overgeneralizations, and absolutes. Some of you will disagree with this point, and that's your prerogative(had to look that spelling up). I find it both interesting and curious that no one has called me on my request to clarify what we hope to accomplish by being here, until now where Lisa notes above she gets a sense of support, perhaps validation, but at least it seems to say for her some sense of faith and hope? I thought that was a great comment, a bit risky for her, maybe, but I thank her for sharing. And NO, I am not looking for a group session here, folks, just an understanding of what goes on at the patient's side of the process. Again, looking to be educated and educate where people may want it.

I know that there are people here who truly hate me for what I am and what I offer in participating. Whatever! You are just going to be called on it, just like you feel you are calling me on stuff you do not like or agree.

But it's process as much as content. The silent readers will figure that out if they already haven't. Hey, I like this site, and whether I stay because I am addicted or having a moment of terminal optimism, or maybe even some masochism, I will chime in at times to get what I'm looking from this. It is what I do, what I have done for decades even before becoming a doctor: looking to help people and see things improve. I was a regular guy in this screwed up society before I became a psychiatrist, so I still have those traits, and that makes me fine as far as I am concerned.

My advice, my opinion: lighten up a bit if someone says there are some good points to my field. There are. I have seen people get better and be healthy and functional. And the beauty of it was they did most of the work, I was along for the ride to aide and clarify.

I agree drugs are too much, too pervasive. I will not accept the endpoint is to remove them all for any reason. Extremes fail. Review history if you do not agree.

Just an opinion. Have a nice weekend.

lkhllywd wrote:

"The system does have inadequacies, but it is currently working for me..."

Well, good for you. You'll appreciate, I imagine, that it does not work for a lot of people, some of whom have commented on this thread. What should one make of that?

Should one dismiss those people, as anomalies, and perhaps try to pretend that they're not really that important, given that there are plenty of people like you around, too, who claim to be benefitting? That is, after all, how the industry appears to conduct itself. The system has inadequacies, all right, and yet nobody appears willing to address themselves to those failings.

In any event, I didn't say I was going to best you. I just said that you wouldn't best me. And you don't have a blog? Perhaps you should.

Matt

TF wrote:
"...the tone of certain commenters can allow me to allude to certain qualities to an individual, just like some of you have done with me..."

You could speculate, nothing more, I think. But when you were speculating, you would probably need to consider the context of the comments made. In order to do that, you would need to understand what a person had been through, to cause them to display antipathy towards the system that they perceive has served them so ill, and towards anyone who represents and defends that system.

The question is, would you be willing to sit and listen to a person recount their experience, and not interrupt them, nor invalidate them? Would there be occasions when their views left you with a feeling of deep unease, and yet, knowing the value that allowing that person to tell their story was doing, you would continue to try to understand what it was that led them to approach you in the first place? There's a logic behind everything - you may not like what it says, but it's there.

And don't forget, however disconcerting you find the story you're told by a patient, you can go and have your reality re-validated - what is it? Once a month, with a fellow professional? Oh, the luxury: having your reality validated on a routine basis! I ought not be facetious. In fact, I wasn't: it's a luxury few people enjoy.

Matt

Um, the 1:00Pm posting about dementia was a general joke about the shrinking brains seen in dementia do not need further insult to be exposed to antipsychotics.

Matt, while I am sorry you were offended, it reinforces my position you folks will attack even if I said the sky was blue.

Did you read the end: "if a poor joke, my apologies"? Obviously not!

I also want to say I have respect and appreciation for what Philip does in this site, I just do not agree with his "mediation" with comment approval. If Philip thinks I have "taken swipes" at him as JC suggests, I hope you, Philip, will call me on it.

I have no hesitation to say I have, and will again depending what is forwarded in these commentaries, taken swipes at commenters who have crossed the lines of fair and reasonable discussion. I am not treating you here, so the playing field is level. Insult me without validation, be ready for the return volley. Hey, it is the blog, there are no rules! That's what I have been told by internet aficionados(another word to look up--this site is helping my spelling and vocabulary--thanks).

Maybe I need to stick around this weekend!

TherapyFirst wrote:

"...As I asked early on when first commenting here, what is the "mission statement" by Philip? To be a voice of dissent to promote change, to just be provocative, or just rant, or perhaps combinations or another point?..."

"...Or, is dementia another topic to broach here?..."

"...Your turn, Sherry. "Former patient", or not? When that kind of crap goes on, it does validate my right to warn others of what can occur here..."

Are you serious? Is that something serious for a professional to say? -- Internet or not. I agree with Mathew Holford that doubting or outright labeling someones mental processes as deficient or else, is worse than cheap. Can you just not ignore those who you do not agree with here or who are especially vocal?

I can tell you I am absolutely outraged and even frightened by that kind of careless, abrasive language. Who are you educating?

Does the commenting ever get so really bad that there needs to be this dramatic exchange and process about secondary issues to which we should be commenting. When it riles up into this focus-on-one-person business, I feel we are feeding into something that to some extent is enjoyable for at least half the parties involved. OK, some people were offended by TP's insensitive comments, myself included -- TP felt it productive or worthwhile to give some of us a lecture about our failures. Why can't we just ignore each other, if we already think that person is demented? Thats what I do in the supermarket or on the street. I don't insult or criticize someone with "dementia" for saying things that are the product of a "demented" brain. And I don't know anyone who would self-aggrandize themselves in the situation.

Isn't it alright for people to have heated disagreemnets with each other? But this stuff is just a whole 'nother ballpark. People can think whatever they want about my previous comments. But this is going to be my last about this subject. I dont want to run the risk of self aggrandizing.

Well, good for you. You'll appreciate, I imagine, that it does not work for a lot of people, some of whom have commented on this thread. What should one make of that?

Well...what I make of it is that it does not work for a lot of people, some of whom have commented on this thread.

Should one dismiss those people, as anomalies, and perhaps try to pretend that they're not really that important, given that there are plenty of people like you around, too, who claim to be benefitting?

No, one should not. And I do not claim to be benefitting. I am benefitting.

That is, after all, how the industry appears to conduct itself. The system has inadequacies, all right, and yet nobody appears willing to address themselves to those failings.

If I could choose where to start, I'd ban advertisements of pharmaceuticals in any and all media. I find them irresponsible and immoral.

From there, I don't know where I'd go next. There really is a lot to do to get the system where it does the maximum good for the most people.

I'm certain, though, that trading insults in this forum (and that's a general comment, not specifically directed at you) makes absolutely no progress toward a better mental health system.

Novalis, when you commented: "We need better treatments. But this will take years or decades, and in the meantime it is folly to think these medications have no merit that sometimes outweighs their significant side effects," two things came to mind. One, that therapy has been around since the early to mid-1890s, and that 120 years without significant progress suggests that therapy is going in the wrong direction. Two, that recovery from mental problems is possible without medications, and that even if it is possible that long-term beneifits exist from meds, the world would be just fine without them.

From a personal perspective, the article causes grave concern. Due to having taken antipsychotics (Seroquel for insomnia) and due to my 20 yr old having been on them since age 11 (from a wrong dx); I sympathize with all who are speaking from their heart and soul from experience.

I also have witnessed so much in locked down psych wards, (forced injections of Haldol, etc "B-52's")that this article needs to be addressed.

Philip also wrote about how antipsychotics increase cancer risk, that is in the archives.

I am most alarmed and concerned for people who have no experience at all as most commenters here do--with these meds.

I am concerned for children who are placed on them and for ppl who soon will be dx MDD and handed Seroquel. Not knowing(understanding) truly what an antipsychotic is...for those who have been trialed on meds for decades, and you know who you are---keep on fighting, it is your voice that can change this system and raise awareness based on your experience on the drugs.

Peace.

Alright, after taking 2 hours off to listen to some smooth jazz and Eagles, to clear my head after this day long chat room type exchange, I will sign off for the weekend with some offerings of transparency and hope that next week will not only be full of fascination by new offerings/revelations by our blog author, but some of the group here may also step back and consider some reflections as to what we as a group will accomplish by reading and participating in this ongoing forum of hopefully true, honest, direct expression.

I grew up with two very dysfunctional Axis 2 siblings, so I am very good at identifying this type of disorder; as Monk says in the show, it is a blessing and a curse. I learned in my own 2 separate periods of psychotherapy that I have made strides in accepting what I have dealt with, but I will be frank in saying I will not put up with such individuals expecting meds to be their one and only savior. Hence one of the foundations to my pursuit patients should be in psychotherapy. Meds can't cure personality disorders. Maybe that is why there is a good number of people who show up at my doorstep as a psychiatrist who are frustrated with multiple meds failures. They can't find insight with chemistry.

I have taken on some pretty nasty colleagues in my career, both in residency and as an independent physician. What I have learned is that a good many of my colleagues who have been in practice for more than 25+ years are entitled, patriarchal assholes who will never understand what humble and supportive means to patients. I would have to guess some of you have dealt with such a person, hence why you are expressing the sense of outrage and dismay. You just have to remember that not all psychiatrists are not just like the clueless bastard you dealt with in your life. Diagnosis is based on experience, and no one can know a patient in one visit. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an arrogant prick.

Lastly, I hate managed care, if you haven't figured that out by now. In my opinion, this is the main cause to why we are debating these issues with meds and diagnoses. And, I firmly believe that my profession has been a shining example of what is defined as whores and cowards. We as a profession should have told the insurance industry back in the early 1990's to go eat shit and die before we would agree to their definitions and limitations to care options. I have no problem saying that last statement is harsh and cruel. You think what I said is bad? Talk to an insurance CEO, and you are talking to a minion of evil. But, until we as a collective (in a positive term) can rise up and squash this scum of an industry, medication is the frontline of treatment. If you came into my office as a patient, you would hear me tell you if you are not already in therapy or would not begin it, I would not follow up with you. Having had more than a few patients either directly or passive aggressively refute this recommendation, all I can say is find someone else to agree to your self crafted treatment plan. Odds are you will fail. Hopefully, Philip may mention an article I brought to his attention that speaks of the role of therapy as a possible effective treatment for depression.

Okay, I gave you some sense of who I am and believe. You don't care, fine. You are intrigued, cool. You appreciate this, thanks.

You fuck with me, I will fuck with you back. That's me as a fellow writer, not as a doctor.

I hope you are comfortable printing this submission, Philip. Honesty is the best, and only policy, that is one truism I uphold.

I look forward to Monday's postings. Live well and prosper. Or, as a true Star Wars fan, may the force be with you.

I also fear children and teenagers being put on drugs that can promote these kind of harms.
If one of the DSM-5 concerns is taking care of children to prevent future mental problems shrinkage of the brain and other side efects should be taken in consideration because the brain is developing.
It's really scary.

TF writes:

"I grew up with two very dysfunctional Axis 2 siblings, so I am very good at identifying this type of disorder; as Monk says in the show, it is a blessing and a curse. I learned in my own 2 separate periods of psychotherapy that I have made strides in accepting what I have dealt with, but I will be frank in saying I will not put up with such individuals expecting meds to be their one and only savior."

It's this sort of thing that makes TF's presence here so valuable. We get to look into the brain of either an actual pshrink or of a troll who gets off on flaming. While there's no evidence axis 2 disorders exist and even the DSM says they're not discrete illnesses, other than mental retardation which shouldn't be axis 2 but is labeled as such, it's important to see how a pshrink uses such labels to judge, harm and justify. Imagine therapy with a guy who thinks you need to be punished. Lots of folks reading this don't need to imagine such therapy as it's all too common.

These disorders, as everyone knows, were voted into existence by a committee, not created at the end of any sort of research or information gathering.

Still I agree with what TF writes here:"We as a profession should have told the insurance industry back in the early 1990's to go eat shit and die before we would agree to their definitions and limitations to care options. I have no problem saying that last statement is harsh and cruel." And I'll even go further in saying that patients want insurance to cover purported treatments that generally do more harm than good. But it's neither the insurance companies nor the patients here that are responsible, it's the doctors. Pshrinks not insurance companies came up with the definitions and limitations TF mentions. In creating the dsm as a tool for insurance reimburse, pshrinks were falsely representing to insurance companies and the public that there was some sort of scientific basis for the dsm. There's not. Insurance companies should have in TF's words, told the mental health field to go eat shit and die or doctors should have refused to come up with the definitions and limitations TF mentions.

And one last thing. TF wrote: "In my opinion, this is the main cause to why we are debating these issues with meds and diagnoses." No native speaker of English would have written that sentence. That doesn't mean non native speakers are bad but it does present problems if your main job is talk therapy in a language you don't understand. Also it could explain some of the weirdness this guy posts whether he's really a pshrink or not.

lkhllyd wrote:
"...I'm certain, though, that trading insults in this forum (and that's a general comment, not specifically directed at you) makes absolutely no progress toward a better mental health system."

Well, I think you're probably right, there. However, by and large, I think the discussion, whilst robust, has avoided direct attacks, which I guess is heartening.

Do you know the story of the Argo? When Jason set out, he had a ship of that name. During the course of his many adventures, various bits of it were lost or damaged, and replaced. At the end of the voyage, the only original part of the ship remaining was the figurehead. Did that make the returning vessel any less the Argo?

I tell that story by way of analogy. I think routinely destroying parts of the system because one doesn't like them, or because they are defective, is a mistake. One needs to replace things, as one goes along. Hopefully with something that contributes towards the stated objective. Having said that, I'm inclined to agree with you: a drug should be successful because it is a profoundly useful therapeutic tool, and not because the adverts are visually attractive.

Matt

...We get to look into the brain of either an actual pshrink or of a troll who gets off on flaming...

In general, I find therapyfirst far less flame-prone than many, if not most, of the regulars here. In my observation, he tries to maintain a civil tone and only gets hot under the color when directly attacked.

there's no evidence axis 2 disorders exist and even the DSM says they're not discrete illnesses,

A question: have you ever dealt with a person who fell under one of these definitions? I mean, closely, and for any length of time?

These disorders, as everyone knows, were voted into existence by a committee, not created at the end of any sort of research or information gathering.

"Everyone" who "knows" this might be interested to learn that the conditions we now refer to as personality disorders have been studied since the mid-1800's, with the definitions becoming more refined along the way.

No native speaker of English would have written that sentence. That doesn't mean non native speakers are bad but it does present problems if your main job is talk therapy in a language you don't understand. Also it could explain some of the weirdness this guy posts whether he's really a pshrink or not.

I find it interesting that so many people here are fully willing to make assumptions and jump to conclusions (usually in the most condescending tone), but pounce on others when they perceive them doing the same thing.

Hello, Kettle? This is Pot. You're black.

TF wrote:
"...Matt, while I am sorry you were offended, it reinforces my position you folks will attack even if I said the sky was blue..."

You perceive that I am on the attack? LOL: you've never seen me when I'm on the attack!

Now, given your experience, you're able to diagnose a person with a certain condition - they exhibit all the signs; they tick all the right DSM boxes. How does that help you treat them? No, I should put it better: how does that help you "cure" them?

I'll give you a scenario. A patient comes to your surgery, presenting all the usual symptoms for depression, or whatever: (s)he's lethargic, sad, feels isolated, etc. So this patient is depressed, right?

What happens if you make just one of these symptoms completely untrue for this patient? For example, you have them no longer feel isolated? The remaining symptoms would no longer amount to depression. Correct? And supposing that one makes another of the symptoms untrue for this patient, and so on?

I don't know - to me it seems a lot easier to deal with things in this way, than to assume that a person is defective, and requiring years of treatment, which, it seems to me, just reinforces the belief in defectiveness, and hence the need for more treatment.

Matt

And, yes, I do shake my head from time to time at the stupidity of it all and why I was daft enough to go along for the ride.

i share the same feeling Philip. Especially why on earth after withdrawing Paxil and other 5 psych-drugs I was convinced to take Efexor. I blame myself. The first psychiatrist I ever saw told me I was not depressed and needed therapy, not anti-depressant.

Me again...
And what now? After the 18 months in the hell of Effexor withdrawal and having to go back to it because living was impossible and fear withdrawing the last 200 mg Seroquel it was impossible to withdraw.
I also fear creating a whole imbalance because I'm feeling fine now.
I fear that if I start withdrawing Seroquel it will affect the whole balance of the scheme:
150 effexor/2 mg clonazepam/200 mg Seroquel
I don't know what to do and... I don't know how to ask the psychiatrist I see to withdraw.
I wonder that many people have this kind of issue.
I'm taking these drugs without needing.
The Effexor has already been proven I'll have to take for life. 2 years of withdrawal and lasting side effects plus huge anxiety an many symptoms after three months off the drug= taking the Effexor again. At least I reduced 75 mg and it made a difference.
I was not depressed after quiting but was diagnosed as so...
What a mess!
Quite scientific!

Ikhllywd is someone that doesn't have the balls to stand up for the rights or dignity of those with mental illness. ************

No balls at all, actually. I'm female. And I'm all for the rights and dignity of those with mental illness, since I have it myself. What I'm against is impoliteness and intolerance.

Pretty obvious you can't be rational or intelligent {how many links would you like to direct us to or do you have any thoughts of your own?}, so I tried to use words here you can understand moron.

Actually, I think that even the people I disagree with here, if they were being honest, could agree that I'm both rational and intelligent. I have a great many thoughts of my own, and a strong tendency to not accept any party line until I've done some research. Hence, the links.

Now go back to your job as a drug rep {laughing} and shut your pie hole {this is just too funny} No study has definitively confirmed you’re a Troll, but the evidence strongly leads us in that direction and conclusion {wink}

I'm not a drug rep. I walk dogs part-time. And what exactly constitutes a troll around here? Anyone who disagrees with the majority opinion?

Real people suffer, are tortured, and die each day from poor and inhumane psychiatric care preformed by or overseen by psychiatrist.

On this point, we agree.

The points you try to make in your sound bites are totally meaningless,

On this point, we do not.

Now take that with your mind shrinking pills defender of nothing.

Okay, now you sound like that French guy in Monty Python and the Holy Grail

My last words on this issue as a gift from myself to you lkhllywd is “fuck off”.

Now this is a flame. And I'm wondering: why does this not draw any fire from anyone?

It is disturbing to me that a person claiming to be a board certified psychiatrist would flame up and attack people who clearly in some cases admit to having a mental illness diagnosis here.

Some of us DO, and we are vulnerable at times, we DO take medications, we DO have bad experiences to talk about and anecdotal stories help each other know we are not alone.

My psychiatrist would never spend time in a comment forum or reading blogs at all, and my psychiatrist would never engage me in a hostile confrontation that might escalate me and/or my current symptoms.

I wonder how constructive it is (and it's clearly off topic)for a psychiatrist to come here and begin to label people, and cause grief here.

TF, might you consider that some readers (and not all leave comments)might be depressed, anxious, or having a horrible time withdrawing from meds, or any other symptom, and don't you worry that your words could trigger someone into a bad space in their mind? I would think so, but that's just me and my opinion.

TF, Cher once said something that I have as my personal motto, but I don't write it here--but you've reminded me of it in your previous comment:

"I'm the nicest person you'll ever meet, but if you F*#@ with me I will mop the floor up with you."

Have a nice day.

One last thing...Sherry makes a good point asking about the hacking comment TF made. What on earth ? now we are wild, hostile commenters who could hack a blog? what? and just to check me off your list of "am I a former patient" syndrome: I am not and gladly so! I'm in Seattle area far, far away from you TF, and thank God you are not on my list of providers, your arrogance here simply cannot be held back, I fear your clients are subjected to this type of hostility and ranting that you do here. It really IS all you do here lately is pick on the commenters. That is just so unprofessional, and not ONE other professional has ever done that here, not ONE!

TF, I just hope you treat your patients better than you treat readers on this blog. We can choose to ignore your posts (which I admit I have miserably failed at) but based on personal experience, it is very difficult to switch psychiatrists even when you're in a bad situation.

I don't want to say never but I am going to do my best from now on, to not respond to anything you say unless it is something positive like mentioning the Newsweek article. It is clear from your posts that it is ok if you're disrespectful but when people rightfully object to what you wrote, you accuse them of actually what you are guilty of.

What is strange is I really think you have good intentions but there is another part of you that has to be so controlling and dominating.

Back on topic - Stephany, excellent posts as usual. I couldn't agree more.

As one who feels that ADs worsened my cognitive abilities, I wonder if they do the same thing although probably not as dramatically as neuroleptics is my amateur guess.

I came by to see the flame war as advertised elsewhere on the blogosphere. Wow. They weren't kidding.

One comment on the hostile posts against Novalis: Novalis didn't "force" his worldview on anyone; he simply presented it. The fact that most of you disagree with his perspective does not make him the villain.

***

I took atypicals for 5 or 6 years, without valid informed consent, because the drug reps did a great job persuading my psychiatrist there were few serious side-effects.

Early on, Big Pharma neglected to inform people about the potential for massive weight gain, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and now, apparently, brain shrinkage. Those of us who took Zyprexa when it first came out unwittingly participated in one of the worst extended clinical trials in the history of psychopharmaceuticals. We all naively bought in to the notion that these meds were "safe" because they'd allegedly been tested and FDA-approved.

It's not psychiatrists' whose feet should be held to the fire for our negative outcomes, but the pharmaceutical companies that suppressed unfavorable data in the name of profit. If you want to lay blame somewhere, put it there.

And no, Novalis is not my doctor. This is an unsolicited opinion.

"I'm the nicest person you'll ever meet, but if you F*#@ with me I will mop the floor up with you."

I had already noticed this Stephany. And I've also noticed many more.

I'm appalled by the way people are defending psychiatry on this topic.

I was not going to say anything else and even tried to remember what the post is about.
But it's useless.
I hope, Philip, you don't close this thread.
You've closed this discussion on "Fundraiser- Day Nine" and it has started once again here.
If it's necessary to exchange this kind of... what is this? I'm sure I cannot call it a discussion.
If this has to take place here so let's see what is going to happen otherwise it will be continued on another topic.
I hope we can reach the end of this because it's been like this for some months and it only puts in jeopardy Philip's work and good exchange of ideas.
I'm sure that in all these comments there are many good ideas but the way it's being presented covers it all.
I'm sorry but Therapyfirst has the skill to let us show our worst side.
I decline to give attention to a person like this and I'm sure we are not talking to a psychiatrist.
There's too much to discuss on highly serious subjects.
But not this way.
This blog is too serious an deals with highly important issues to have this kind of attacks.
People who are here are very concerned and want real answers for unspeakable abuses they have suffered or members of their families.
Let's see what can be done this way or if anything can be discussed this way.

I'm wondering why the two comments I submitted this morning haven't been posted.

mhf wrote:
"I came by to see the flame war as advertised elsewhere on the blogosphere. Wow. They weren't kidding..."

LOL. You're having a laugh, aren't you?

Novalis is a professional person, irrespective of the present context. An authority figure. (S)he *chose* to comment in a certain vein. That particular line of opinion was met with predictable fury by those whose own experience countermands Novalis' claims, which, from memory, asserted that mental illness was here to stay, as were drugs, irrespective of the fact that the latter don't appear to work.

Now, it's my perception that the first thing that people do, when they meet, is to assess whether they are superior, or inferior, to those that they are meeting. They then act accordingly.

Your perception is that Novalis stated his/her position, and got flamed in an unacceptable way. My perception is that (s)he stated his/her position, which, as I read it, amounted to "the system's imperfect, but you're stuck with it." That was never going to go down very well, not least because nobody in authority is making any attempt to make the system work better, when there are any number of ways that it could be improved.

Going back to my earlier observation: Novalis has decided not to stand and defend his/her position against criticism, as those on the bottom rungs of life are required to do, but instead "did a runner," apparently quite deliberately ignoring the questions that were aimed in his/her direction. This is a very authoritarian approach ("I am too important to respond," rather like Joe Bamberberg). Ergo, Novalis never had any intention of entering into a discourse: (s)he was laying down the "facts," which everybody was going to abide by, in the style of a person in authority, who has regarded those (s)he is addressing as subordinate.

You may regard that potted logic as accurate, or otherwise, as you see fit, but until Novalis comes back on here and answers the questions I put to him/her (and, indeed, TF does the same), then that is my position, and I'll be highly skeptical as to the strength of their claims with respect to their (implied), determination to seek the wellbeing of their clients.

In summation: Novalis and his/her ilk argue in favour of the problem, not the solution. They also believe that if anybody solves this riddle, it will be them, because they have been identified as being qualified to think about mental illness. As long as they look at things in that way, they will always struggle.

Matt

hollywood, apparently they went into the junk folder for some reason. i have pulled them out and posted them.

apparently they went into the junk folder for some reason. i have pulled them out and posted them.

Thanks very much.

Matt,

I believe Novalis is male. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

You said:

LOL. You're having a laugh, aren't you?

and later said:

Now, it's my perception that the first thing that people do, when they meet, is to assess whether they are superior, or inferior, to those that they are meeting. They then act accordingly.

I'd like to tie the two together because I have a different take on people when I first meet them. Mine is more along the lines of: friendly or hostile; rational or irrational? I can't think of a time when I've met someone, then tried to assess whether I was superior or inferior (although at times I've felt inferior). I believe we're all equal, with variable characteristics that may or may not mesh well with each other's.

Generally, the more friendly and rational someone is, the more likely I am to engage in ongoing conversation. The more hostile and irrational (in my opinion) someone is, the more likely I am to throw up my hands and walk away. I don't particularly like conflict.

So, no, I wasn't really laughing when I read the posts on this topic, because I was stunned by the amount of hostility and intolerance for different opinions that I found.

I don't really expect anyone to give a rat's ass about my views, but I'm telling you this to point out Novalis may have disengaged for some reason other than what you're thinking (feeling superior). If everyone started flaming me; if I was treated like public enemy #1; if no one was willing to consider my point-of-view, I would probably walk away, too. Some things are just not worth the energy they consume.

As far as seeing Novalis as an authority figure, that's kind of an individual assessment. I see him as a person with a particular education, body of knowledge, and personal experience that results in him having a unique perspective on the world and this particular subject. You can choose to accept or reject his opinions. They aren't forced on you; they are merely presented for your consideration, just as I'm presenting some thoughts for your consideration.

Thank you for explaining your perspective on the issue. Since I'm new here, I don't really have a sense of the blog's culture, but it appears many people feel as you do.

(Hope this posts with paragraph breaks, because the preview doesn't show any. If I've screwed something up in the html, sorry, my bad.)

Ana,
Based upon my experience in other forums, my bet is that eventually the group (okay, the "collective"...or is it "choir"?--I can never remember) will come to the conclusion that TF is ust a good old-fashioned troll and begin to ignore him--at least when he's in one of his negative modes. He does occasionally actually make sense, at least briefly.

However. When you decide to ignore a negative behaviour, you need to understand that it escalates before it extinguishes. It is crucial to understand this little factoid because if you attend to the behaviour at that point you are resetting the behavioural "clock". The next time you get fed up and ignore the behaviour, the strategy doesn't begin to kick in until you reach that prior cut-off point. Should you start attending to the behaviour again, you reset the clock again.

It is difficult in a group of independent-minded people (and I think we can agree we're that, if nothing else) to pull this sort of thing off. People disagree the person's a troll. They disagree about the strategy. They don't really grasp the implications of caving in. They're unable to resist the temptation to do so, especially when the person is manipulative, motivated and intelligent. So, if people decide this is the problem/solution it's essential for everyone to be on the same page.

This may not be the way things sugar off. But TF's behaviour has become so increasingly trollish (disruptive to the discussion, consistently side tracking attention to himself, etc.) that the issue more and more, for me, ceases to be whether he's actually a psychiatrist (I go back and forth on that) but more that he's a troll in this venue.

I really do not think he's a "professional" troll, actually, just someone who is unable to control his behaviour and emotions here, where he obviously expected to garner an appreciative, respectful audience of suitably grateful cyberpatients.

What a role model. Gee, I wish he were my shrink. Not.

lkhllywd wrote:
"...Well...what I make of it is that it does not work for a lot of people, some of whom have commented on this thread..."

Sorry, I missed this one, amongst all the other stuff. What I was hoping you'd perceive is that, because it does not work for everyone (in fact, just how far it falls short of this will probably never be known to us), it is not the *ideal* solution, because the ideal solution would work for everybody ("unattainable," I hear you say, but nevertheless something to strive towards). The fact that you *claim* that it's working for you (I don't know whether it's working for you - all I can discern is the words that you've written; as you've observed yourself, you're the only person who can be objective about your reality), is neither here, nor there, to the people who perceive that they've been fucked up by it.

Now, given that the system is not just imperfect, but very, very unlikely to be anywhere near good enough within the foreseeable future (and by "good enough" I mean that it at least has a mechanism that will look at its own failings, in order to develop its capacity to improve), the real solution is likely to lie elsewhere.

What we have at the moment is effectively a cartel that has cornered the market in therapies, none of which work, in any real sense. Let's suppose that this vast, money-making machine became threatened by a minor technology, capable of making real inroads into mental illness? It would be bought out and quietly mothballed, wouldn't it? That's what I'd do, if I were the Unholy Alliance that is the pharmaceutical industry the shrinkage industry.

Matt

mhf wrote:
"...(although at times I've felt inferior)..."

That's what I meant: if you feel inferior, the chances are you'll act inferior; the person you're facing will assume the position of authority, and you'll both proceed along those lines. In my experience, professional people believe that they have *earned* respect for their body of knowledge from those who do not have that body of knowledge, or who have that body of knowledge, but have not had it formally recognized, even when that body of knowledge yields no discernible, positive results, as is the case with psychiatry.

Anyway, there was a point when I put a very particular question to Novalis. A few posts further down he responded to Stan and Sherry, completely ignoring my question, framed in a post less than half a dozen comments earlier. Now, it may be that he didn't see it. Or maybe he deliberately ignored it. The fact is, I don't have an answer.

The reason I asked that question is this. I was on a NLP course, and one of my fellow delegates was a psychologist who worked with paedophiles. She disclosed to me that the *instruction* that they operate under is that when they interview these people, they should routinely break rapport, in order to avoid getting drawn into their reality - what with paedophiles being manipulative, and plausible. The assumption being that paedophiles do what they do for sexual gratification, and any other explanation of their behaviour is fabrication.

I was wondering if that was standard practice, across the shrinkage industry - mentally ill people are aberrant, and any other explanation of their behaviour is delusional. As I wrote, before, in a different way: if all one is doing is attempting to validate one's own perception, then one will never learn anything.

A question for you: why did you choose to reply to my comment?

Matt

PS "You're having a laugh, aren't you?" is a turn of phrase quite often used in southeast London, and is meant ironically.

I think part of the reason this has become such a long and emotional string is that all of us that have been on anti-psychotics have just been informed that our brains have sufferered in a new and more horrible way than we have been aware heretofore, and we were already aware that our brain functions have been compromised. As far as being civil, does that always wake people up to how you feel? Do people who are injuring others either willingly or unwittingly feel for themselves how serious is it for us if everything we say is presented in a way to try to please and appease the perpetrators? It IS that serious! So then what do you throw at us, a DIAGNOSIS? It's always the patients' problem when they are angry with you. This is the worst tyranny. You get to interpret any way you see fit.

lkhllywd wrote:
"...Now this is a flame. And I'm wondering: why does this not draw any fire from anyone?"

Because you and Stan are goading one another. Now play nicely, both of you.

Matt

Matt,

A question for you: why did you choose to reply to my comment?

...

PS "You're having a laugh, aren't you?" is a turn of phrase quite often used in southeast London, and is meant ironically.

Ah, I see. I'm in the U.S., so I wasn't familiar with the colloquialism. I thought you meant it literally, rather than facetiously.

I responded to your comment because I thought you were addressing me. Sorry. Was your post meant rhetorically? Did you not want an answer? I'm a little confused at your question, to be honest.

Does this blog originate in GB?

What we have at the moment is effectively a cartel that has cornered the market in therapies, none of which work, in any real sense

There are in fact people for whom existing therapies work. I am one of them. I'm telling you this from my own experience, yet you conveniently dismiss it, because, "all I can discern is the words that you've written." Would you prefer I used smoke signals? Interpretive dance?

With this flawed logic you could dismiss absolutely everything in the universe you didn't experience firsthand.

What I was hoping you'd perceive is that, because it does not work for everyone (in fact, just how far it falls short of this will probably never be known to us), it is not the *ideal* solution, because the ideal solution would work for everybody

So since we don't have a solution that works for everyone, no one should have a solution at all? And come to think of it, it's not just one solution; it's many solutions, some of which are pharmaceuticals and some of which are not. All of them are developing over time. Some will be found wanting, and some will prove valuable. That's how medicine progresses.

Now, given that the system is not just imperfect, but very, very unlikely to be anywhere near good enough within the foreseeable future (and by "good enough" I mean that it at least has a mechanism that will look at its own failings, in order to develop its capacity to improve), the real solution is likely to lie elsewhere.

Like "the" solution, "the" system is actually many parts, many systems within a larger system. Some categories of systems seem broken everywhere. Some seem broken in some places but not others. Some systems do have mechanisms to examine internal failings while others don't. Some doctors care, and some are flat-out fiends. But people need help, and as of yet we don't really have an "elsewhere."

As I've stated before, I do understand that there are people who have suffered real harm in the name of psychiatry. But I think this baby-with-the-bathwater line of thinking goes nowhere in terms of offering solutions.

I had what I considered a very wise psy-he wanted me on as low as possible does
Of Seroquel.and psy medicines-the less for me the better-

The trouble started when he left and a new shiny psy turns up-this women who had only spent 10 mins with me-said she would like my seroquel upped too 300 mgs-((From 25 mgs @night))-well I told her that wasn’t going too happen-she says but your body would get used to it and the side effects-I said crock of shit-why are they doing this still-I can read-when I tell them what Ive read about anti-psychotics-they say but that’s un-usual-I say no its not-etc. Ive been with a anxiety disorder unit for 6 years-I leave in a few weeks-Ive had great therapy becos of the therapy I can manage with out having too drug myself-

Iam also NOT staying in the public psy system-most of my issues are trauma based and the therapy over the years have been a god send-my Therapist does privant as well-we have a agreement-that if some-thing happens and I need help-support etc-I contact him--hes my back-stop.

There’s some great workers out there-they’re just hard too find-now I found one-hell Iam keeping him-LOL .got his private number now etc-I feel better about leaving cos hes my back-stop-

More therapy-------------------Less drugs-----------------

Meds can't cure personality disorders. Maybe that is why there is a good number of people who show up at my doorstep as a psychiatrist who are frustrated with multiple meds failures. They can't find insight with chemistry.

Thank-you therapyfirst-

Ive been blessed with a wonderful Therapist . He has been dedicated 2 helping me with out having too go too high does drugs etc--he has so gone out to bat for me--becosit would have been cheaper and faster too just drug me--but ya cant drug the flash-backs away-and the rest of ptsd stuffings--therapy has helped me save my own life-

Dear Philip:

I told myself I would not place any further comments in this topic venue; but the total absurd level this has been taken too is so far beyond comedic tragedy, that I just can't help myself. I have been laughing so hard now that I have tears rolling down my face from the complete and utter absurdity some with professional credentials will go to in a benign attempt to remain superior to us mentally challenged patient types.
Then I realized it was now the psychiatrist turn to be placed under the micro scope and be delved at for every peccadillo, insecurity, nuance, and fault. I worked with sociopaths for three years in a State Institution, and it has struck me how similar the behavior patterns are with TF, and Novalis. They pretty much nail the DSM criteria for sociopathic pathology. (lack of conscious for actions taken, no empathy for others, defending the abuse of others with unsupportable arguments, manipulation of weaknesses in others for their own amusement and gain, twisting of truth to only meet their own needs, they continue their antisocial behavioral patterns unabated, and have no awareness of their own pathology or illness with continued denial after denial, and when faced with too much reality based fact, they at times will go run and hide from interaction with others until they can devise another manipulation to try out)
I believe I saw someone write it's not the psychiatrist fault here in this threat (so I thought about that for a while, and determined since the drug Cartels' are manufacturing and distributing illegal drugs and the street drug dealer pushing these drugs for profit are just as culpable for the havoc, damage, and crimes they perpetrate upon others; then why should it be any different with psychiatrist.
Why should we hold back our rage and anger solely directed toward drug reps and big pharmaceutical giants? You would have to believe if someone is a well educated and spent many years training as a professional psychiatrist; wouldn't you think they could at the very least discern a sleazy sales pitch from reality, and question what was in all actuality adversely happening to the patients in front of their very eyes. I mean how are they supposed to diagnose severe and sometimes quite byzantine and complex mental health disorders if they can't discern a bad sales pitch from gift toting drug rep { even the patients know when the drug rep is coming through the door in a hospital as free pens, squeeze toys, donuts, and candy abound }.
Then I had this LIGHT BULB MOMENT! One logical conclusion that could make perfect sense for this strange occurrence and anomaly would be that the psychiatrist are so focused on themselves and their perceived omnipotent world of self; that they were, are, and will continue to be oblivious to reality and the patients needs that surrounds them. Thus they will continue to distribute any pill peddled to them as long as that pill peddler brings those psychiatrist gifts, rewards, tells them a nice story, and warmly strokes their sociopathic ego.
Now I wouldn't place every single psychiatrist in that particular category; but you have to strongly evaluate the behavior patterns and pathology of the ones that come to a forum like this where they know well in advance that most of the readers and posters have had some fairly horrific experiences with both medication, the medical model being used and abused to this day, and psychiatry as a whole?
Hollyweird {or was that Hollywood without testicles that is not a Psych Doctor or Drug Rep! I happen to love animals so I cannot say anything in contempt about her respected vocation. Her devoted defense of the psych profession, TF, and Novalis sends strong signals coming across as the personality disorder type { that whole what's bad for me, is good for me deal: which I just am not going to even come close to touching in this post}! Now, before every borderline that comes here to read and post jumps up and down screaming bloody murder at me, I happen to have deep and great empathy for those that suffer with personality disorders and the horrible pain and suffering that has brought this condition upon their lives). So you can put your knifes away for this moment at least.
Let's face the real demon in plain hard simple speak here: The systems is horribly screwed up, the psychiatrist are still handing out this poison without a second thought (what choice do they have? Quit psychiatry or hand out poison candy; it's not like they are going to do therapy with their clients! Most have handed out pills and written scripts for so long, they couldn't run a therapy session if it was a Mac Truck running over them), The Pharmaceutical companies are running the show at almost every level including the FDA, APA, NAMI, and every others place you can think of including the halls of government in Washington D.C. in both parties to great dismay to my liberal over the top friends. All of these lines of bleach washed criminals have their own cross to bear before each of us on the reckoning day.
So we as patients continue to get screwed in every way possible. Even those of you that have had good experiences and some luck with medications, know the clock is ticking on what these drugs are doing to your body and mind over the long haul.
So what other choice do we have than to be angry as all hell, and want some true, swift, and hard justice which includes some real humane effective treatment finally after decades and decades of non-stop abuse and profit grabbing at our expense by the so called psychiatric profession (which in this text encompasses the doctors, drug makers, drug peddlers, and etc).
Yours truly
Stan
PS: TF aka Therapy First: do to your pathology I will not respond or be able to give you any attention negative or positive from this post forward. I cannot feed into your obvious illness and condition for your own well being and the well being of others. Don't worry though; I will bill your insurance for my kindness ok {laughing}

lkhllywd wrote:

"...With this flawed logic you could dismiss absolutely everything in the universe you didn't experience firsthand..."

That's right. And yet, because you've experienced a benefit at the hands of the existing system, you would prefer not to listen to those who wish to change it, because their experience has not been good? I mentioned nothing of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" - it was you who did that.

I agree that the current system needs to be changed, in order that it may work for a much larger number of people, and preferably all, according to the stated "ideal scenario". But not everybody agrees with us. Indeed, the extent to which the system will be changed, and at what speed, is dictated (quite literally, I imagine), by those in charge, at the moment.

"Over time," is not good enough - the system should change, and change dramatically for the benefit of the patients, not the fucking "professionals". And it should change promptly, or risk becoming redundant, as people find alternative solutions.

I gave TF an alternative solution, several posts back. I believe that it works much better than the current methodology, but I don't believe that your average psychiatrist has the linguistic skills to pull it off. Shame. I guess they're not the elite that they thought they were.

Matt

"...You get to interpret any way you see fit."

Nicely put, Sophia.

Matt

lkhllywd wrote: "...Now this is a flame. And I'm wondering: why does this not draw any fire from anyone?"

Because you and Stan are goading one another. Now play nicely, both of you.

Matt

At no point have I tried to goad Stan. In the first post where I quoted him I was trying to make a point about hypocrisy. In the second, I was responding to a series of his personal attacks on me, and again trying to make a point about hypocrisy.

Maybe I was wrong, this could be a group therapy type process here at hand, just no real moderator to help it stay functional and productive. However, it has been an interesting read since my last comment Friday night.

I am a psychiatrist, and I don't give a damn who doesn't believe me, so ask Philip for confirmation if you don't. I would appreciate he not reveal my name or significant specifics, but nonetheless, it must really piss off those who have revealed it is so unheard of for someone in my field to talk with you the way I do. Gee, maybe it is because I am not here for treatment. If, for the sake my instinct has some merit that there are characterological factors in play with some of the participants, I only lose in trying to be continuously cordial and pleasant, as those traits are only used against me. We're blogging here folks, so deal with honesty and directness without the forced filtering of media or doctor's offices.

I find it again both interesting and curious no one made a comment when I said in the Sept 19, 4:26PM posting, "drugs are too much, too pervasive" which seems to go along with the general mentality of this site, and yet the attacks and rebukes continue as though I am an APA spokesman.

You, as the group, want to dismiss both anyone who does not tote the group line or is not chiming in here, as either has no bearing for you. Well, as I said before, the politics of extremism, but moreso to me of just hate, only gather the attention of likes or polar opposites, and I am interested in the views of the middle, since they are the ones who are most affected by the process at hand and will make the most difference in seeing things change should more of them get involved. Hopefully, changes for the better.

So, this site can attract the flamers, as one newcomer made mention is reported in the Blogosphere, or as I will eternally hope, maybe gain us some moderate participants who will add new and refreshing dialogue.

They just better have flame retardant persistance, 'cause there are Borgian elements at hand!

By the way, I offered some transparency two nights ago, not for validation, but to reveal I am a person. Maybe reread it and see if there are points/perspectives that could be somewhat appreciated. I wasn't a psychiatrist at birth, you know. Maybe the patients who have voiced respect and appreciation for my work with them sense I treat them as a person, not a gidget.

Sorry some of you haven't had that experience.

So, to read onwards Monday. By the way, 90+ submissions here? A new record, Philip?

mhf wrote:
"...I responded to your comment because I thought you were addressing me..."

I was. But as you've seen, not everybody I address replies, in turn (in fact, very few do). I was just curious as to why you did?

Anyway, "rhetorical," rather than "facetious," I think. I suppose the expression might otherwise be put as "are you being serious?"

In answer to your question, Philip's based in Seattle. Most of the commenters live in the US, I think, but that's of little relevance in the blogosphere - many UK-based "activists" (if I may put it so grandly), keep an eye on the US blogs, because we've got to know one another (and hence there's a degree of mutual support), and there's quite a lot going on, over here - what with the amount of legal activity at state level, and whatnot, not to mention the class actions, which have revealed quite a lot.

The mainstream media is getting better at reporting this stuff, but the blogs are ahead of the game. Quite apart from anything else, most of the bloggers have been "there," and have a degree of understanding of the system that simply eludes outside commentators.

The only official source of information in the UK, other than the companies, are the regulator (the MHRA), and the relevant government department, both of which routinely close down discussion, when it becomes uncomfortable.

Matt

Ok, since I have a few more minutes this AM, let's note the following comments by:

1. Matt: You write, "a patient comes to your surgery", then later, "you make one of these symptoms completely untrue for the patient", and lastly, "assume a patient is defective".

Surgery? what is the reference to that term?

Make symptoms untrue? Again, from what point of view is this based on? So you are claiming I invalidate what my patients tell me? You've been treated by me or spoken to a person who has?

Assume a patient is defective? I deal with people, not products. I've never used that term with a patient in my life, and never will. I've certainly called people demeaning. Probably will here at this site. Am I wrong to call someone demeaning? People here do it all the time. After all, we are people, so if we feel demeaned, we should call someone on it.

2. Alright, next, Stephany says in my shortening of the sentence, "disturbing...a person claiming to be a b.c. psychiatrist would flame up and attack people". Again, this bizarre and extreme notion that a psychiatrist can't react to attack? You folks who echo this line of thinking seem to assume you can keep me in some labeled "box" so I can't respond on equal grounds to your artillery. I will repeat this until the tone of this site commentary changes, for what I view as the better, that if you attack me viciously, cruelly, and with unsubstantiated cause, I am going to come back at you in this blog as a person. Either realize that is acceptable per the terms of this site, or live on in your own terms of reality. Sorry Stephany, you have a been a real valid contributor to this and other sites, but you lose it sometimes about me. I am a doc, which I would hope is somewhat apparent by what I have written at other sites you have participated at as well, which goes to the other point you voice:

"My psychiatrist would never spend time in a comment forum or reading blogs at all..." All I can say to this is, sorry he/she does not make an effort to experience different perspectives to what goes on in the mental health care debate. I don't base my philosophies and expectations just on one or few interactions, and I would offer since coming onto the internet these past 9+ months, this has enlightened me further. Why doesn't your doc read some blogs? Even if he/she doesn't agree with them, sounds kind of a bit closed minded to me, for what nothing I know about such provider.

3. Finally, AA writes "...but when people rightfully object to what you wrote, you accuse them of actually what you are guilty of." OK, what examples could you refer to in these or past postings that someone has "rightfully" in your use of this term be then accused by me of doing something I am guilty of?

I'll give an example: people accuse me of being an asshole, a troll, not being a psychiatrist, and I tell them NOT IN SO MANY WORDS but I will dare to summarize to say: fuck off. I even put this out at the end of my last Friday night Posting. So, you have me there.

So, if I am understanding you correctly, you, both AA and as the hostile group at large, can tell me to fuck off, and I have to sit here and not have a reply. (Listen for the sarcastic tone that accomplanies this comment): Oh, I am a psychiatrist, and I have to suck it up and bear witness to your global rage, not take it personally, and realize that you are really hurting from others' poor judgments and handling of you.

GET REAL! I am writing here as a commenter with the backround as a psychiatrist giving me SOME expertise to the debate, not all of it. DID YOU ALL READ THAT LAST LINE??? That is why I hightlighted SOME!!! Here is an expertise comment to swallow and digest, maybe purge in 2 seconds later but hopefully read: you can't rage at the man/woman who fucked you over in the care setting you were in, so let's go after this faceless, vague replica who MUST be the same type, if not the same person. Displacement is not a very effective defense, if it applies here, so move on and see me as a differing opinion, and hopefully when you "rightfully", which includes respectfully object, I will not only acknowledge it by my response, but maybe thank you for it.

Haven't I thanked people here who seem to practice this type of dialogue? There are examples of that too.

Gee, gray, what a bitch color here, hmmm?

Yeah, it's not healthy for me to get caught up in these comment threads.

Along with the brain shrinkage concern, cancer risk is increased with antipsychotic use. I do not want little children growing up on antipsychotics, I do not want my daughter to die young, and I would like to hope I haven't damaged my own body due to previous Seroquel use.

Schizophrenics At Highly Elevated Cancer Risk Due To Anti-Psychotics.

From Furious Seasons December 2007:

""Patients with schizophrenia taking antipsychotics had a 308% increased colon cancer risk."

TF, you said: "I am a psychiatrist, and I don't give a damn who doesn't believe me"

Then, in your VERY NEXT posting you said:
"I'll give an example: people accuse me of...not being a psychiatrist, and I tell them NOT IN SO MANY WORDS but I will dare to summarize to say: fuck off. I even put this out at the end of my last Friday night Posting."

Pardon me for being confused, but which is it? "I don't give a damn" or "fuck off"?

You couldn't lead anyone out of a paper bag.

TF wrote:
"...After all, we are people, so if we feel demeaned, we should call someone on it."

I agree, but I think one should understand what one means by that. That is, I think one should clarify that a person has intended to demean, before seeking retribution, if that's what you had in mind?

As to "surgery,"... Whatever. Office? I don't really care what you call your consulting rooms, to be honest. And no, one should seek never to invalidate a person, I think, especially if that is what they are anticipating, based on their life experiences. That can so easily look like one is deriding, or patronizing. But there are ways of having a person invalidate their own, conflicting beliefs.

In any event, at no point did I claim that invalidating your clients is something that you do, although you'd be surprised how easy it is to give that impression. Or perhaps you wouldn't. For the avoidance of any and all possible doubt, I am not a former, current or future patient of yours, nor have I spoken to anybody who is.

As to "defective" - the very system implies that a person is defective, as I understand it. The very fact that one is administered medicines indicates that there is something wrong with one - but nothing tangible, not like a fucking broken leg, or something; there's something wrong with one's mind, which will make one unpredictable, possibly violent, in the common perception (because everybody knows that the mentally ill are all violently, criminally insane). What is more, a lot of people are on medicines for a very long time (which, as I recall, is partly what Philip's (remember Philip - he's a journalist, who writes this blog), piece is about). As such, people are defective for a very long time, according to the system.

You may not use that term, but it's implied. And the behaviour of people such as Joe Booblebland reiterate this: "people, especially children, who behave defectively will be drugged, and nobody may say anything against that approach, because I am Joe Bidlemerd. What is more, I am the final arbiter of what is appropriate behaviour." I'm paraphrasing the little I've read of his public utterances, of course. And that's the trouble: one may not scrutinize his bizarre beliefs, may one?

It's not much of a profession, is it? Obviously, I'm looking at it in a very superficial way - the way that looks at the results that are being achieved - and realizing that the results give the lie to the claim of expertise, and still more the "right" that the profession has to exclude all others from putting forward alternative theories, in order to retain its pre-eminent status. I hope you'll forgive me for being so blunt.

Matt

TF wrote:
"1. Matt: You write, "a patient comes to your surgery", then later, "you make one of these symptoms completely untrue for the patient", and lastly, "assume a patient is defective"."

For the avoidance of any and all possible doubt, I was drawing a hypothetical scenario, to illustrate a point. The point being that if one can explode a person's belief that they are mentally ill, by simply having them fail to achieve the criteria, then they can concentrate on *not* being mentally ill.

You'd be astonished at the difference that change in perspective can make. Or perhaps you wouldn't. A word to the wise, though: always state what you're doing, up front - it gives people something against which to guage your conduct.

Matt

By the way, I offered some transparency two nights ago, not for validation, but to reveal I am a person...not a product...not a gidget.

TF it seems this is what you're trying to push through and I recommend you simply recognize that some people here see you symbollically. So what? It's their choice and their right. I see nothing to take personally or fail to understand. Why you fail to understand is beyond me. It is what it is. And will be until these folks get off their knees.

flawedplan wrote:
"...And will be until these folks get off their knees."

I can only speak for myself, but I'm trying to improve a massively imperfect system (as such, improvement shouldn't be so hard to achieve). What are you trying to do?

Get off my knees? I'd have to be on them, first.

Matt

to: Therapyfirst, in your earlier comment, "You fuck with me, I will fuck with you back. That's me as a fellow writer, not as a doctor," I would ask that you be true to this statement and not diagnose people who say things that you find distressing and/or insulting. Jeffrey Masson wrote that it can be a great violence towards a person to interpret their feelings. I am reminded of this statement when I see the words of an over-aroused psychiatrist reaching for his weapon out of anger and frustration.

Also, your statement, "After all, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. A trekian comment!" can be interpreted to mean that people on the fringes of the lovely bell-curve don't mean as much as the "important" people in the middle, which, as I understand from previous things you have written, is not your philosophy. I love Spock, but I think he got it wrong on that one.

All I can say to this is, sorry he/she does not make an effort to experience different perspectives to what goes on in the mental health care debate. I don't base my philosophies and expectations just on one or few interactions, and I would offer since coming onto the internet these past 9+ months, this has enlightened me further.

Jesus TherapyFirst! Nine months?
You didn't change a bit on your "philosophies"?:o) and it's obvious have not got any enlightenment from the sites you're visiting.
I have a cousin who also has a degree on psychiatry but he's working on a computer company.
I would really like to know what your philosophies are. Could you explain us?

I wonder why I still haven't seen motherfucker!

Ops! It has just appeared on the thread.
This thread must have this word or it will not be complete.

Sherry,
I understand your point. Let's see when the group, collective or the choir will: "come to the conclusion that TF is ust a good old-fashioned troll and begin to ignore him--at least when he's in one of his negative modes. He does occasionally actually make sense, at least briefly."

I've already seen trolls on social-networking that have stopped the discussion. We use to say "Don't feed the trolls."
That's what I feared.
But it's not happening here. Let's see how many comments on this post.
I don't know what is being discussed any longer because there are too many words and I don't have time to search what is valuable.
There are other important new posts.

FYI:

I am done at this thread. My comments stand as forwarded. Do as you will. You do anyway.

lkhllywd: hope you will stay involved as interested. Unfortunately, this is the best it gets in the commentary section. I appreciate your comments, for what it is worth.

Sincerely,
therapyfirst

Drugs are dangerous and unneccessary! It has been proven time and again that vitamins, minerals and amino acids will cure most mental health issues. Check out the work of Dr. Abraham Hoffer at www.orthomolecular.org or the successful Truehope program and lawsuit against Health Canada at http://www.truehope.com/ People have gotten off these dangerous drugs using safe food supplements and are doing great!
Wake up and smell the pharmaceutical corruption of our governments and medicine!

TF wrote:
"I am done at this thread. My comments stand as forwarded. Do as you will. You do anyway..."

Hmmm. For what it's worth, I don't believe that you're a troll, TF, although I don't think you succeeded in your stated objective of understanding alternative perspectives, or whatever it was - perhaps because you didn't really offer your own for scrutiny. Because you offered nothing of yourself, it was difficult for anybody to see you as anything other than untrustworthy (there's something deeply unnerving about somebody who pumps one for information, whilst giving nothing in return). But "well done," for braving the lion's den, anyway.

"Fortitude" is what you need more of, I think. I've had to put up with people taking the piss out of me for 41 years, that's how little I have been respected as a human being - you didn't even get a taster of what that's like, because you could always walk away, as you have done. You would also benefit from throwing in a few "pattern interrupters". And you might also answer, or at least attempt to answer, the questions that come your way.

Anyway, when you've actually cured a client - their perception, not yours - let me know.

Matt

Mr Holford:

I came back to see if the thread has come to a conclusion, and I read you haven't let it go, so since you ask a question, I'll answer it and hope this will end this thread:

Psychiatric illnesses are not sore throats, or boils. We don't "cure" people, we hope to see them attain remission, because illnesses can recur. Just like cancer is not "cured".

Sorry I do not display the level of Fortitude you write of, as I have little tolerance for ignorance and extremism, which can be pervasive in these threads at times. I only write to make sure the silent readers get both or multiple sides to a debate, when I feel a different viewpoint should be offered. I am not part of the mob mentality, I am a fellow blog writer who cares how mental health issues are portrayed. It is part of the job of patient advocacy I believe is part of the Hippocratic Oath I took at the end of my medical school education. It works for me in my office. For those of you who have expressed no desire to ever work with me, please do not ever change your mind. If rigidity works for you, rock on.

Read above postings from me for clarification if this statement is still unclear. My mistake for reading here one last time.

Maybe Philip could intervene now?

TF wrote:
"...Maybe Philip could intervene now?"

I suggest that you fight your own battles, TF, and not ask for the assistance of others - it never worked for me, in any case. I haven't attacked you personally, nor do I intend to. I was asking for information - I regret that that leaves you uncomfortable.

I understand that, aside from behaviour, there are no manifest signals, as to the presence of mental illness. Behaviour can be suppressed, though. How do you know, then, that a patient has not suppressed this "unwanted" behaviour, and is, in fact, in "remission"? Put another way, how do you know that the absence of the behaviour indicates "wellness"? Indeed, how do you know that the behaviour indicated "illness," in the first place? Finally, in your experience, does a patient know the difference between "wellness," and "illness," or is this something that only a trained psychiatrist is able to discern?

Feel free to ask questions of me - as I wrote, one tends to be able to trust more easily, when there is a proper, contractual exchange taking place.

Matt

Interesting concept re: remission and cancer analogy, which lends me to suggest to search this site for Philip's post about his own bipolar diagnosis and being off of medications, and how his doctor said "once diagnosed, never undiagnosed".

Many people do not consider themselves in "remission" some may have been misdiagnosed, and I believe that TF's comment fuels the fire that mental illness is forever, once a person is labeled.

Once Diagnosed, Never Undiagnosed is an excellent article based on Philip's personal experience, and worth reading if one has not read it yet.

TF said: "I am done at this thread."

Then, a mere two posting later: "I came back to see if the thread has come to a conclusion"

Typical.

Comparing mental problems to physical illnesses is metaphorical, and I suppose one could pick any physical illness he wants to illustrate his conclusions. I would prefer to liken mental problems to having boils or sore throats rather than cancer. I have heard of the discussion and venting of pain, anger and other uncomfortable feelings described as "like lancing a boil." What causes boils? I don't know, but the human body produces puss to fight infection, and this is an understandable response to something that shouldn't be in a person's "system." If the body's responses to it are curtailed, a person might show less obvious signs of "illness," but the "poisons" will be free to do more harm. Now let's say a person's "immune system" gets out of balance, and they have so many "boils" that they are in danger of a more serious "infection" developing. Curtailing this person's bodily responses MIGHT short-term, stop-gap, buy time to find out a way to change this person's "diet," surroundings, habits, and other ACTUAL causes of the "illness."

"RIP" may this threat rest in peace {laughing}
Stan

I went on my first antipsychotic when I was in middle school, about 14 or 13, for generalized anxiety disorder. It's been a long time since then, but I am still pissed at that dumb doctor for putting a middle school kid on an antipsychotic for anxiety. Seriously, doctors just love giving out antipsychotics for generalized anxiety disorder and ocd. Because having anxiety makes you psychotic. Doctors put kids on antipsychotics all the time for just about every condition. I was on stimulants for ADD at the time which increased my anxiety and changed my personality, made me really skinny, so the doctor added in antipsychotics to fix the anxiety and hyperness caused by the stimulants they prescribed. I was shy before the stimulants and the stimulants totally made me hyper and changed my entire personality. Antipsychotics are given out like candy to these kids by doctors for OCD, ADD, generalized anxiety disorder. Some of these doctors get off on prescribing these horrible drugs.