Mad in america

I take Abilify, it really works for me. I started taking it before I saw any ad so I wasn't influenced by that. Also, it's not an anti-depressant really, it's a drug that helps improve the anti-depressant(s) that someone is on.

lady----abilify is an anti-psychotic

JWRT: Wow! I didn't know that Breggin thinks " that people with schizophrenia bring the symptoms on themselves because of “cowardice” or “failure of nerve.”" That's awful!

I also find the argument that people aren't looking for a cure for cancer because they want to make money off it, insulting. Especially as someone who has had cancer. I find that very insulting to my doctors/nurses/etc who save my life.

did breggin say in the 1980 book (psychology of freedom)----"that people with schizophrenia bring the symptoms on themselves because of cowardice or failure of nerve"....is that an actual quote from the book..can anyone help out with this...someone with the book....I need to know...

I am sure someone will answer you. I stopped after I read him on Ritalin - you should see what he says there. And before anyone accuses me of being 'hateful' or 'bashing' the man, I am not. I simply do not agree with him. I am within my rights to seek out information and look at the evidence, it is nothing personal.

I just want to know what he said....it is important...to know the facts...
I also would like to know how much time psychiatrists are taking with each patient....my psychiatrist sees me every three months for 45 minutes...

How can you possibly back up such assertions?


The point of having investigative journalists like Whitaker is that he has the time, the access, the skills to analyze data and talk directly to sources. Doesn't mean I accept what he says without critical thinking. But I read the book. It presents a compelling case. To dismiss it out of hand, as you are doing, adds nothing to the discussion.

As for Breggin, I wonder who in the entire mental health world has as much credibility? See below. I believe he has almost 50 years of private practice clinical psychiatry to draw from. So yea, he is relying on experience. He's also a recognized expert on drug liability and harm and is frequently used as a court appointed medical expert and has testified before Congress.

-----------------
"Dr. Breggin's background includes Harvard College, Case Western Reserve Medical School, a one-year internship and a three-year residency in psychiatry, including a teaching fellowship at Harvard Medical School. After his training, he accepted a two-year staff appointment at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). He has taught at several universities, including a faculty appointment to the Johns Hopkins University Department of Counseling.

Since 1964 Dr. Breggin has been publishing peer-reviewed articles and medical books in his subspecialty of clinical psychopharmacology. He is the author of dozens of scientific articles and more than twenty professional books, many dealing with psychiatric medication, the FDA and drug approval processes, the evaluation of clinical trials, and standards of care in psychiatry."

did breggin say in the 1980 book (psychology of freedom)----"that people with schizophrenia bring the symptoms on themselves because of cowardice or failure of nerve"....is that an actual quote from the book..can anyone help out with this...someone with the book....I need to know...

Here is another MH Site which uses this very quote:

Schizophrenia as a brain disease: Studies of individuals who have never been treated - Backgrounder - Treatment Advocacy Center

Seems to be his published opinion.

Dave.

Peer review by people that have dedicated their lives to research and clinical practice and to improving the wellbeing of people suffering mental illness is the best approach to examining credibility. And the people within the profession have better skills and are in a better position than a journalist to analyse data.

Being in practice in any profession for a long time is not any kind of evidence itself as to how credible someone is.

I don't buy the assertion that all diagnosis in the DSM are made up by the psychiatric community to serve pharma. You can't convince me that in my case MDD/ Anxiety/ Bi Polar II is made up or that in my case does not have a very large genetic component.

In other areas of mainstream medicine seems that a Dr would not dare make a diagnosis unless they had a definitive result from a blood test, urine test, imaging or scope test, etc.

This is really not true at all. There are MANY medical diagnoses that can only be made based on symptoms because there is no definitive test. Often, medical diagnosis is a process of elimination, observation, and a checklist of symptomology because there simply is no definitive test. Some examples: Parkinson's Disease, Kawasaki's Disease, Fibromyalgia, Crohn's Disease, Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (these are just a few I can think of off the top of my head). Are you saying "these 'diagnoses' are nothing more than descriptions of [symptoms], and rarely identify root cause, and as such are not diagnoses at all." I would guess the patients suffering from these diseases, their families, and the medical specialists who treat them would disagree.

The whole pharma-based drug model seems to stay afloat based on the notion of peer-reviewed research and rigorously conducted clinical trials. Always the concepts of "evidence" and 'science" are invoked, as if the industry practices some sort of pure science that is beyond reproach.

Total insanity and absurdity. There are mountains of evidence that published research -- this very linchpin of the whole biz -- is corrupt to the core. Data falsification, omission, distortion, bias, pharma ghost writing, pharma subsidization, on and on. Some have compared it to organized crime.

I dont understand this compulsion to trust the system that has the track record for doing the most harm, being the most corrupt, the most duplicitous, and the most greedy… and then attacking all other forms of healthcare with abandon.

What could possibly be superior in terms of empirical evidence than 40+ years of working directly with people with mental health conditions?

In other areas of mainstream medicine seems that a Dr would not dare make a diagnosis unless they had a definitive result from a blood test, urine test, imaging or scope test, etc.

But with mental disorders, nobody seems to mind that science has been abandoned and the basis is merely an arbitrary set of diagnostic criteria that cannot be validated. And these "diagnoses" are nothing more than descriptions of behavior, and rarely identify root cause, and as such are not diagnoses at all.

Chemical imbalance, chemical imbalance… where is the lab test?

Here is another MH Site which uses this very quote:

Schizophrenia as a brain disease: Studies of individuals who have never been treated - Backgrounder - Treatment Advocacy Center

Seems to be his published opinion.

Dave.

Diagnosing a mental disorder does not seem to involve anything other than grouping of behaviors under some manufactured label.

I had never heard the term chemical imbalance before I joined a forum. ... I can find plenty of reference to neurotransmitters in science books and papers, but researchers don't use the term. 'chemical imbalance'.

I treated patients with schizophrenia.....

Little turtle, I don't mean to offend you, but why is it so important for you to present yourself as a doctor?