|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.201.70.172
In Reply to: RE: Very well put.. posted by slapshot on May 09, 2015 at 10:18:03
Obviously, in most cases good science will prevail. Electrical engineering is a great example.
"I mean, we don't really do trephening or prefrontal lobotomies anymore." Wrong about lobotomies. The only difference is that we now do them chemically rather than surgically. Been there, done that.
"Many academic scientists are now questioning and exploring what effects different pharmaceuticals actually have." Thank God, that's why I love you guys!!! Europe is a great example. All their trials, say for SSRIs, were done by academic scientists, not paid corporate pharma scientists. That's why that class of drugs has not been approved in most of Europe. But they are handing them out like candy in the US and Russia and destroying countless lives. Especially horrifying to me is what we are doing to our children.
"Time will decide what remains as true science." That hasn't happened yet with mental health science, for several centuries (with one interesting exception that has nothing to do with science) to this very minute.
"Where we are now in pharmaceuticals is different from where we will be 200 years from now, and that future destination will be the result of science over time, including overcoming numerous theories that fell by the wayside along the way." Yeah, based on the trends from several hundred years to the present, that really scares me. Brave New World anyone...
Follow Ups:
Mental health science, and the field of neuroscience as a whole are very young. The Society for Neuroscience, for example, has only been around since 1969. And the brain is a rather complex thing to investigate--it's going to take a long while to try to figure out exactly how it works. We have come a long way, especially in the last 50 years, but there is a long way to go. And this is what makes neuroscience an interesting field of study.
Lobotomies (leucotomies) are surgical procedures, and were irreversible. Pharmacological treatment, of course, is not a surgical procedure, and is, for the most part reversible.
First paragraph: You guys are one of my only hopes in turning this mess around. Please carry on.
"Lobotomies (leucotomies) are surgical procedures, and were irreversible. Pharmacological treatment, of course, is not a surgical procedure, and is, for the most part reversible." Wrong. You are making the same mistake I made earlier regarding elephant intelligence; wrong assumptions without doing the proper research. It happens to the best of us. The neuroleptics and the newer class that suppresses both dopamine and serotonin (even worse), result in a whole host of permanent brain damage, all well documented with fancy scientific names but somewhat suppressed for obvious reasons. Unless you are doing the research yourself, I would strongly advise you to question all "conventional wisdom" on this topic. If you really want to dig in, try tracing any documentation you see back to the source, if it's possible. Almost all of it leads you to one place. If a "respected" physician (psychiatrist) is the author, the article was most likely ghostwritten by a phara and the physician paid a nice fee to put his name on it.
Well, the mistake here, that both of us are making is painting with broad strokes: we have not defined "pharmaceuticals" or "pharmacological treatments". That being said, no pharmaceuticals that I know of severe the corticothalamic and thalamocortical axons between the prefrontal cortex and the dorsomedial thalamus, which is the primary goal of leucotomies.
"Well, the mistake here, that both of us are making is painting with broad strokes: we have not defined "pharmaceuticals" or "pharmacological treatments".Wrong. I was specifically speaking of psychotropics in general and more specifically mainly neuroleptics, all of which I clearly mentioned earlier.
"That being said, no pharmaceuticals that I know of severe the corticothalamic and thalamocortical axons between the prefrontal cortex and the dorsomedial thalamus, which is the primary goal of leucotomies."
Trying to increase your credibility or confuse me with fancy scientific terms won't work. Of course the neuroleptics aren't physically severing anything. But you can achieve the same permanent damage chemically. The good scientists, like you, have in recent years done MRI studies on folks heavily dosed on neuroleoptics showing, over time, permanent shrinkage of the frontal lobes and swelling of the basal ganglia resulting in more psychosis, rather than less. Physical changes to the brain. These changes are permanent. They now have new medical names for the new conditions (permanent damage) caused by these drugs. For example neuroleptic-induced acute dystonia and neuroleptic malignant syndrome. Symptoms include akathisia, parkinsonism and tardive dyskinesia. I believe the last symptom was coined after the side-effects of the first generation neuroleptics were studied. There are other conditions and symptoms but I don't have the time or desire to list them all. And we're just talking about the neuroleptics and atypical anti-psychotics. We could have similar discussions regarding the SRRIs and newer class SRRNIs (anti-depressant class) among others.
Most disturbing to me, based on recent Medicare Part D data, of the top prescribed drugs, number four is Abilify (atypical anti-psychotic) and five is Cymbalta (SRRNI, latest generation anti-depressant). In addition, compare the cost of Abilfy to the surrounding medical drugs; the profits are over twice that of the others.
If you ask most people today to describe a schizophrenic, most will describe a zombie like person: shuffling around, swollen tongue hanging out, drooling, twitching and jerking, etc. Just watch any TV show or movie depicting the severely mentally ill and you'll see this The use of these drugs have been so prevalent in our society since the 1950s, what people are now describing are the effects of neuroleptics and second generation atypical anti-psychotics and have nothing to do with schizophrenia.
For brief time, the mid-80s, neuroleptics went out of favor when writings of Soviet dissidents and political prisoners started to leak out (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is probably the best known). Long story short: the Soviets were using the same drugs to torture their political prisoners that we were using to treat our mentally ill. In many cases we were using the higher dosages.
Also keep in mind that many of the severely mentally ill (many of which were, when they first entered the hospital, just mildly neurotic) got that way from the treatment, not the initial symptoms.
Now you may say that newer, superior, atypical anti-psychotics have now replaced the first generation neuroleptics. Just to save time, I would counter that this newer generation is even worse and will cite other scientific studies to prove my point. Also, it will be helpful to all reading this to understand the main reason most of the newer psychotropics are developed. With all pharmaceuticals, patents eventually expire and so do the obscene profits as the generics take their place. So to keep the shareholders happy, slight or major changes are made (as I stated earlier, the first generation neuroleptics only blocked dopamine, the new generation atypical anti-psychotics block both dopamine and serotonin), new patents are obtained and ka-ching. Helping the mentally ill live better lives is at the bottom of the list of objectives, if there at all. So now they discredit their previous "medical miracle" in order to sell the latest "medical miracle". And so on.
As long as you continue to make false or misleading statements, I will be compelled to call you out on it. I hope you are not as sloppy or biased in your research.
Really, like you suggested earlier, let's give this a rest. Although mentally exhausted, I always enjoy to be challenged intellectually and you have certainly done a good job there unlike a couple of the other respondees. For that I thank you and keep up the good work.
Edits: 05/13/15 05/13/15 05/13/15 05/13/15
"I thought the post would be interesting to most music lovers whether they play or not. Didn't think this would start a pissing contest. But then it is AA."
Yet, you're doing a pretty good job of turning your own thread into an off-topic pissing contest with Slapshot.
First, I consider my discussion with slapshot an intelligent discussion, unlike some of the other sub-threads which I was referring to. Of course, one would have to be intelligent to get that.
Second, no one is forcing anyone to read this. What's your problem? Don't like the content of this sub-thread?
Finally, I stand by what I originally said. I certainly did not start the hypocritical eco criticisms.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: