Thoughts on anti-psychotics

reply to post by randomnumbergenerator

I haven't 'pushed' my son to be smart!
I also have been worried if I did, he might be put under the surveillance of government or something!
I don't want my son as a 'tool'!
I'm thinking of homeschooling him though, to really see where he is at, since I see him in a situation at school to try to 'dumb him down'!
His behavior has always had to do with boredom and lack of intelligent education!

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by randomnumbergenerator

 

I haven't 'pushed' my son to be smart!
I also have been worried if I did, he might be put under the surveillance of government or something!
I don't want my son as a 'tool'!
I'm thinking of homeschooling him though, to really see where he is at, since I see him in a situation at school to try to 'dumb him down'!
His behavior has always had to do with boredom and lack of intelligent education!

I used to read adult fiction from about the age of 9/10.

I used to get in a lot of trouble at school.

For talking. And questioning the established doctrine of the education doctrine.

Constantly in the deputies office for questioning history textbooks or just plain talking.

Told I was bad, horrible, didn't belong there. Things like that.

Asked a girl out once. A teacher overheard, dragged me to the deputies office, where I was called a predator. My father had just died recently. He kept drilling at me, "what would your father think". He did this repeatedly, when I had tears running down my face.

Later attempted to set up an expose of that school and allegations of bullying against students by staff, paedophilia, things like that.

Staff even came out a little while later saying the administration there harass and bully staff.

This is at a government run school for the academically gifted in Australia.

Hidden behind some trees, there is also an education department run building there (this school is on vast acreage, it is a working farm, so they say). It is very secluded, not talked about (this other building).

reply to post by randomnumbergenerator


Good Grannies!
I'm glad I went to a dumb public school, I guess.
My son was ALWAYS getting in trouble for reading during class(high school media)
or talking too long about a subject!
He's learned how not to delve on any subject too long (According to the curricula)
and stay with the other students. Which is why I'm considering home schooling!

The way I see it is that it's too much work to help a crazy.

If they don't function, they give them a pill. That said, they may help some people but then again...

reply to post by FRIGHTENER


If you are going to give medical advice it is incumbent upon you to provide your credentials. Where did you receive your MD and where are you licensed to practice medicine or more correctly in this case Psychiatry?

Please also cite all peer reviewed studies corroborating your findings.

Sea salt water cure -- has been effective with many "mental/emotional" disorders.

reply to post by pieman

Thanks for the reply, pieman.

Nope, no extensive studies, just google search, and the example I linked just happened to mention depression, where I was showing it to uncover the lie about the phrase: "chemical imbalance" utilized by the psychiatric health care industry for more & more diagnosis than just depression, and continue deceiving people who just agree, or comply with the doctor, without questioning. That particular deception relating to psychiatry sickens me. I prefer to think for myself, I guess.

Was away, now back. Idiotic advice? You mean something like:

now go away and come back with idiotic advice

As you advised? Sorry, but I'm not as condescending to fellow ATS members as you are. Perhaps your interpretation of civility & decorum doesn't include courtesy.

Finally, in regards to your last paragraph, depression (not derailing the thread, just responding) has been an indirect factor in my life, through family & friends; maybe I don't understand it, and have not suffered from it personally, but to me it's sort of like that saying: 'guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people';;;'Depression doesn't kill people, people with depression kill THEMSELVES'...unfortunate as it is, and I'm not making fun, I have compassion & sympathy for most victims of suicide, (not all) and am entitled to my opinion.






[edit on 3/19/2009 by FRIGHTENER]

reply to post by Blaine91555

Hello Blaine, thanks for the reply.

I'm not a doctor. I would have said so. And I think you are smart enough to see that, from what I wrote. But I take your point seriously, having seen you on the boards here, so my apologies, and I'll be careful how I give my opinions in the future, so as not to confuse.

Lesson learned. Star for you!

being in love is a mental illness, since it's a chemical imbalance in the brain.

2nd.

OK, I can see you appear agitated by my choice to take a step back from the discussion. So I will reply and hope you will try and see clearly. I am not on anyside. I am not jaded as an end user or consumer. I do not endorse the prescriptions of many of the drugs that are recommended for ADHD etc.
I no longer have anything to do with nursing and my interactions with mentally ill homelss individuals in my city, that I mentioned in a previous post, is purely from a voluntary commitment to my city and my community that I hope benefits from my experience, my compassion and my time.

Originally posted by randomnumbergenerator
You claim to be a mental health worker, someone who obviously (in appearance, at least) cares about mental health issues.

It was not a claim. I do care, it is not appearance.

I have been a consumer of mental health 'care'.

I know.

Why are you leaving this discussion? Why are you deflecting the questions?

Some of you responses appeared irrational IMHO and You have failed to answer the many questions I have asked you in my responses. You appear to favour conspiracy over the proper understanding of the topic. Whilst this is the Flavour of the site, you fail to show anything concrete to support your beliefs and further more fail to understand the true nature of the key componants you are attacking.

I wrote that the drugs are neurotoxic. You wrote you agree. These drugs go to work in the brain. These drugs, by your own admission, are damaging to the cells of the brain. These drugs cause brain damage.

This is a perfect example of why I chose to leave the discussion last night. Please show me where I explain neurotoxins as being brain damaging by merely being neurotoxins. Neurotoxins will cause damage, but its a matter of dosage of periods of time, as I explained before by giving examples of Meth, marijuana and alcohol. You fail to understand this and seem to believe the mere prescence of a nurotoxin will cause irreversable and permanant damage that will require neuroleptics. This is not true.
By your reasoning, say if a person comes into a constant low dosage of BEER(ethanol neurotoxin) over a long period of time they will require neuroleptics.
Do we observe this? No.
On the other hand if we observe an abuse of this BEER(neurotoxin ethanol) mental health issues may result that require neuroleptics. Do we observe this. Yes.
The mere prescence of a neurotoxin in small doses over regular periods of time does not automatically result in brain damage that will require neuroleptics. Do we observe this. Yes.

Don't deflect. You can't deny it.

Deflect what? You failure to comprehend the complexities of pharmacology from a mental health perspective. Deny what exactly!

These drugs are harmful for the people taking them. It has even been documented in official literature. You even admitted it.

Most drugs will be harmful if they are abused. Neurotoxins appear in nature and when abused they result in damage. It is the same with any other substance. These drugs are in doses, they are not given to individual to cause damage, but to treat a PRE-EXISTING condition. As a consumer you would know this. Where you treated for nothing?
Treating a mentally ill person is not abuse.
Treating severe psychosis is not abuse.
Liberating individuals from the confines of delusions, paranoia, fear, and a false reality is not a harmful side effect. If you want to see it that way then so be it.
Are these drugs perfect, no. As I have said before.

Now.

Were these drugs originally designed to treat amphetamine related psychosis? Are these drugs frequently prescribed by doctors for sleep?

No.

Are traits of the highly gifted evidenced in people (mis)diagnosed ADD/ADHD?

There is always that possibility. If you are infering that this is normal, I will argue NO.
The prevalence of children on ADHD medication in gifted schools is worth looking at to prove your case. Good Luck.

You did not write they cause brain damage in those words. You wrote that they are drugs which go to work in the brain, which are neurotoxic. That would imply these drugs are toxic within the brain. Correct?

Incorrect. A neurotoxin works on NERVES. NERVES are everywhere in your body.

Do antipsychotic medications harm cells with in the brain? Are antipsychotic medications toxic to cells within the brain? Do antipsychotic medications damage cells within the brain?

Yes but Does schizophrenia render people incapable of functioning, present a danger to themselves and possibly others. Do people experiencing severe psychosis deserve to be treated instead of locked up, do the mentally ill deserve the chance to live normal lives and experience the joys of being able to communicate, intergrate and evolve in every possible aspect of life? Because there is that side of the story you seem to be avoiding.

Big pharma has A LOT to answer for.

Yes they have. Millions of people around the world can now function alot better. The detection, prevention and treatment of mental illness is improving all the time thanks to "big pharma".
Like everyother aspect of society, there are questionable practices and methods. It is up to ALL of us to be vigilant and pro-active by participating as members of our communities in highlighting these issues. Does this mean that your "claim that big pharma has cooked up neuroleptics, amphetamines etc to destroy brains of gifted children is true"?
I will argue that this is not true.
But if you have any other evidence, besides your own poor interpretaion of what these terms mean and your own experiences as a mental health patient, I would gladly take that into consideration.

I think this is personal for you, or perhaps business.

What I meant by saying that this is personal for you is that from your posts I concluded that you have recieved mental health treatment and care, hence it was a personal issue. You confirmed this in a later post. Whilst I have personal experience relevant to the topic it is not a personal issue and I feel this aids my understanding and perspective. However, I am inclined to feel your personal experiences have left you in no position to be impartial about your assessments of Neurotoxins, neuroleptics, Doctors, Pharmaceutical Manufactures and Governments.

You constantly deflect and avoid the questions put to you by coming up with medical jargon, which whilst perfectly acceptable in context, is not answering the questions. You are avoiding the issue at hand. You are presenting irrelevant information.

I think it is relevant that you understand exactly what you are talking about. Because you don't.

This is how it looks, by your own admission:

NO. This is how YOU WANT IT TO LOOK.

Anti-psychotic medications are toxic to cells within the brain and are widely prescribed for issues that aren't even related to psychosis.

Once again your understanding of anti-psychotics is flawed. They are not widely perscribed. Please prove this claim.

Amphetamines are widely prescribed and also damage the brain.

Yes it is perscribed.
Abusing amphetamines in large doses will cause damage. I disagree with medications relating to ADHD.

Antipsychotics were originally developed to combat amphetamine related psychosis, which, conveniently, was introduced by the government (amphetamines).

Wrong. You know it.

The pharmaceutical companies which developed these drugs did so under top secret military projects, which had vast tracts of evidence destroyed, using complicit psychiatrists who had no problem with human experimentation.

Yes with David Ike and Bigfoot. John Leer has photos of the Moon base where the experiments where carrried out. You are onto them. LOL.

These medications are needed. You know this. Take it.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by atlasastro]

Click here for more information.

reply to post by atlasastro

Some of you responses appeared irrational IMHO and You have failed to answer the many questions I have asked you in my responses. You appear to favour conspiracy over the proper understanding of the topic. Whilst this is the Flavour of the site, you fail to show anything concrete to support your beliefs and further more fail to understand the true nature of the key componants you are attacking.

What's irrational about them? I respond to what you claim to be fact with what I claim to be fact. You change subjects and go off on a tangent, and then get personal. Stick with the topic please.

Please show me where I explain neurotoxins as being brain damaging by merely being neurotoxins.

If you fail to understand how a neurotoxic substance which is designed to work within the brain, is going to be toxic to braincells, and therefore to the brain, I don't know how I am going to be able to continue to have a rational discussion with you.

Neurotoxins will cause damage, but its a matter of dosage of periods of time, as I explained before by giving examples of Meth, marijuana and alcohol. You fail to understand this and seem to believe the mere prescence of a nurotoxin will cause irreversable and permanant damage that will require neuroleptics. This is not true.

In regards to previous quote, here you write that neurotoxins are going to cause damage by merely being neurotoxins, where you wrote previously that they won't. Also, with experience in the mental health field, and presenting yourself as having a wide understanding, how come you aren't familiar with the French studies that find THC to be neuroprotective? I did not write that the mere presence of amphetamines will cause irreversible damage that will require neuroleptics, I wrote about the prolonged, continued use. Do you not recall or are you trying to verbal me? Amphetamines are neurotoxic. Fact. Neuroleptics are neurotoxic. Fact. Both are widely and commonly prescribed for the most insane of reasons. What does that say about people working in the field? The lunatics are running the asylum?

Deflect what? You failure to comprehend the complexities of pharmacology from a mental health perspective. Deny what exactly!

You fail to address the points raised, and deflect the issue and rattle off unrelated jargon.

Most drugs will be harmful if they are abused. Neurotoxins appear in nature and when abused they result in damage.

Yes you have raised this. You also raised the point about botox not harming the brain. This is MAYBE because a lot of neurotoxins do not reach the brain? These drugs are designed to reach the brain. And they are neurotoxic. They cause brain damage.

These drugs are in doses, they are not given to individual to cause damage, but to treat a PRE-EXISTING condition.

These drugs work up a tolerance. These drugs can cause conditions which never existed to surface. These drugs cause brain damage.

Treating a mentally ill person is not abuse. Treating severe psychosis is not abuse.

Giving someone drugs against their will is abuse. Giving someone drugs of which their exact method of action is unknown, whilst knowing it causes damage to the organ attempting to be treated is abuse. Giving someone a drug of addiction against their will is abuse. It all seems like human experimentation. It is a crime against humanity.

Liberating individuals from the confines of delusions, paranoia, fear, and a false reality is not a harmful side effect. If you want to see it that way then so be it.

Giving a doctor the power to detain someone against their will for personal reasons is abuse. Calling somebody mentally unwell, and attaching stigma to silence an individual is abuse. It's inhumane. The profession has to be overhauled.

reply to post by atlasastro

Incorrect. A neurotoxin works on NERVES. NERVES are everywhere in your body.

These drugs damage brain cells. Fact.

Yes but Does schizophrenia render people incapable of functioning, present a danger to themselves and possibly others. Do people experiencing severe psychosis deserve to be treated instead of locked up, do the mentally ill deserve the chance to live normal lives and experience the joys of being able to communicate, intergrate and evolve in every possible aspect of life? Because there is that side of the story you seem to be avoiding.

This discussion is not about schizophrenia. This discussion is about antipsychotic medication being toxic to the brain. Which it is, by your own admission.

In regards to leading a normal life, and experiencing joys... I will tell you that even on a tiny dose, I cannot lead a normal life. I cannot experience emotion. I cannot think with clarity or a moderate degree of speed. I lack altertness, motivation, drive, and gain weight. That is irrespective of the issue.

Treatment is fine. The type of treatment is the issue. Mentally ill people are routinely held against their will in facilities. I have heard a story of someone in the ED making a slight disturbance and having a psychiatrist appear, saying that "We will schedule you if you don't shutup." That is an abuse of power. That is crazy. Threatening to hold someone against their will in a mental health facility for making noise? What if they are screaming in agony? The person has already brought themselves to a hospital. Why on earth should they be held against their will?

The profession is a crock. Are psychiatrists the most underpaid specialists there are? Is biological psychiatry experimental in the sense doctors do not know how the medication works, only what it does? Yes on both counts. Why do people choose this route? Because they want to help? How is checking a list off in a book and giving someone a 'diagnosis' that has no scientific testing and then getting rid of them with a pill helping? How is seeing a patient for 15 minutes every six weeks helping? If they wanted to help, why don't they become psychologists? They actually take an interest in the well being of the patient, rather than looking through a book and giving an experimental medication. Too many psychiatrists do not want to help. They want to have the power to detain and force people to take medication. They also get paid a pittance... What draws people to this profession? Biological psychiatry in many forms is a crime against humanity. They experiment on people and it has to stop.

Yes they have. Millions of people around the world can now function alot better. The detection, prevention and treatment of mental illness is improving all the time thanks to "big pharma". Like everyother aspect of society, there are questionable practices and methods. It is up to ALL of us to be vigilant and pro-active by participating as members of our communities in highlighting these issues. Does this mean that your "claim that big pharma has cooked up neuroleptics, amphetamines etc to destroy brains of gifted children is true"? I will argue that this is not true.

Detection? There is no test for the psychotic illnesses apart from a questionnaire and reported symptoms. It is guesswork. Biological psychiatry is a sham. Too many lazy doctors decide to work there. It is underpaid, easy (it's not hard to fill out a checklist) and using humans as test subjects, or perhaps even for their own amusement.

Questionable practices? How much worse can it get than knowingly damaging human minds? There is not much worse than that. Electroshock therapy causes brain damage. It was developed to slaughter livestock! Amphetamines cause brain damage. Neuroleptics cause brain damage. How are these people helping? They aren't.

What I meant by saying that this is personal for you is that from your posts I concluded that you have recieved mental health treatment and care, hence it was a personal issue. You confirmed this in a later post. Whilst I have personal experience relevant to the topic it is not a personal issue and I feel this aids my understanding and perspective. However, I am inclined to feel your personal experiences have left you in no position to be impartial about your assessments of Neurotoxins, neuroleptics, Doctors, Pharmaceutical Manufactures and Governments.

This is about helping people who aren't just myself. Of course it is personal in the sense that I wish to take care of my brain. What is wrong with taking a personal interest in my own health care?

What aids your understanding and perspective? You, working in the field, unless you have done no research at all in regards to it, would know that biological psychiatry is largely experimental.

Medications are widely prescribed that are known to cause brain damage. Common treatments such as electroshock are known to cause brain damage.

What do you mean impartial? These are the facts. These drugs and procedures cause brain damage. These drugs have been documented to be tested on people in highly experimental ways and mind control research, with co-operation from psychiatrists, big pharma and clandestine government projects.

If these weren't the facts I wouldn't raise them. What do you want me to write? These drugs cause brain damage, but I can't say if that is good or bad? How can that possibly be good?

It's like saying, well the Nazis experimented on the Jews, but I can't say that's bad, because it made medical breakthroughs.

Of course it was bad. Of course it is bad.

Biological psychiatry in many forms cannot be justified as helping society. How can damaging human minds benefit society at all? A short term fix, which will get worse, and require differing treatment is not helping. Treatment doesn't help the patient. Cure does. Treatment helps the company manufacturing the drug.

I think it is relevant that you understand exactly what you are talking about. Because you don't.

I know what I am talking about. These drugs cause brain damage. Fact. The doctors claim to not know how these drugs work, just that they do. Fact. This is human experimentation. Fact. Calling someone mentally unwell is a thought a good way to discredit them. Fact.

Here's a great link for you, proving that one:

www.telegraph.co.uk...

NO. This is how YOU WANT IT TO LOOK.

You can't deny the facts.

Once again your understanding of anti-psychotics is flawed. They are not widely perscribed. Please prove this claim.

Antipsychotics are prescribed for sleep issues. They are prescribed for anxiety. They are prescribed for undiagnosed issues, on a hunch. A GP can prescribe them. You do not have to be a psychiatrist to write a prescription for antipsychotics. That is conclusive proof they are overprescribed. If a GP can prescribe them, what does that tell you? You can go to your GP and just ask for them, without them knowing your mental health background, and they will write it out (I know this for a fact). Why is this? They are drugs of addiction, damaging to the brain, experimental and quite expensive.

Yes it is perscribed. Abusing amphetamines in large doses will cause damage. I disagree with medications relating to ADHD.

Children are given these amphetamines, when their brains are still developing. They can be on them for years, well in to adulthood. These drugs are neurotoxic. An amphetamine based medication is neurotoxic. It is causing brain damage. Fact.

Wrong. You know it.

The literature I have come across has had written that they were developed to counter amphetamine related mental health issues.

Yes with David Ike and Bigfoot. John Leer has photos of the Moon base where the experiments where carrried out. You are onto them. LOL. These medications are needed. You know this. Take it.

What are you on about now? It is proven that the psychiatric profession, clandestine government projects, and big pharma have colluded in the past in regards to human medical experimentation without consent and mind control experiments. Having worked in the field you should be aware of this.

These medications are needed why? I need to take it why? Are you aware of my current medical situation? Why are you providing unsolicited medical advice over the internet? You are not a doctor. You admitted that you are a nurse.

Originally posted by randomnumbergenerator
reply to post by atlasastro

 

Incorrect. A neurotoxin works on NERVES. NERVES are everywhere in your body.

These drugs damage brain cells. Fact.

Taken in large enough doses over a long enough period they damage nerve tissue, is how I understand atlasastro's point. Surely you can understand that the effects of substances are related to the amount ingested and the period of exposure?

This discussion is not about schizophrenia. This discussion is about antipsychotic medication being toxic to the brain. Which it is, by your own admission.

This discussion seemed to be about the ethics of prescribing antipsychotic medication, which surely includes looking at the diseases for which it is prescribed.

As a comparison, it would be unethical to prescribe a chemotherapy regimen to someone with gallstones; it is ethical to prescribe such a regimen to someone with cancer.

In regards to leading a normal life, and experiencing joys... I will tell you that even on a tiny dose, I cannot lead a normal life. I cannot experience emotion. I cannot think with clarity or a moderate degree of speed. I lack altertness, motivation, drive, and gain weight. That is irrespective of the issue.

But I think maybe it's not separate from the issue; I think maybe this is exactly why you haven't been able to discuss this objectively and rationally. Why you're struggling so hard to maintain control over the direction the conversation takes. You accused atlasastro of personal attacks; what was the very first thing you said in response to my reply? You accused me of being a disinfo agent for big pharma.

I've known people on anti-psychotics, and I know that the results are very far from perfect. I hope that you can find a really good psychopharmacologist who can work with you over the long term to find the best balance of medication and/or other sorts of treatment and support for you. I've had to do that for my own mental/emotional issues, and it's not an easy path: it's an immensely frustrating one.

I have also had friends go off their anti-psychotics. I "adopted" one of my two cats when a good friend, who had been detiorating for weeks, finally ended up in the ER because of her paranoia and delusions. She went off meds because she felt they were interfering with her clarity of thought and with her artistic vision. Perhaps that was true, I don't know. I know that she had stopped functioning in any way by the time she went to the hospital; she certainly wasn't producing art.

Treatment is fine. The type of treatment is the issue. Mentally ill people are routinely held against their will in facilities.

I think you're probably quite right that the system is sometimes abusive. But it is also incredibly hard for anyone outside the sick person's perspective to tell when they are a danger to themselves. And sometimes a person really does have to be held briefly against their will for their own best interest and protection.

The profession is a crock.

There are bad psychiatrists. And there are excellent ones. Just like any profession.

Too many psychiatrists do not want to help. They want to have the power to detain and force people to take medication. They also get paid a pittance... What draws people to this profession? Biological psychiatry in many forms is a crime against humanity. They experiment on people and it has to stop.

I think you are mistaken about the motivation of the vast majority of psychiatrists.

I also think you have very little understanding of what it means to be an experimental drug, and very little understanding of what psychiatrists and neurochemists actually do know about how psychotropics work. That's fine, nothing wrong with not knowing something. But throughout this thread you have indicated a complete unwillingness to try to learn about it, even at such a basic level as learning about nerve cells and their functioning.

Detection? There is no test for the psychotic illnesses apart from a questionnaire and reported symptoms. It is guesswork. Biological psychiatry is a sham. Too many lazy doctors decide to work there. It is underpaid, easy (it's not hard to fill out a checklist) and using humans as test subjects, or perhaps even for their own amusement.

Like I said earlier in the thread, MKUltra is one of the historical conspiracies that really interest me. I know that psychological experimentation involving both electricity and chemical intervention has occurred in the U.S. without appropriate informed consent.

That does not mean it's common. If you think you have been used as a test subject against your will, and can substantiate that, you should most definitely report it. There are laws now (partly thanks to the MKUltra scandal) protecting patients.

As for diagnosis; maybe there is not absolute test -- that doesn't mean that the illness is not real and should not be treated!

Questionable practices? How much worse can it get than knowingly damaging human minds? There is not much worse than that.

Schizophrenia, from what I've read, damages human minds. It causes actual decrease in the amount of brain matter in some specific part (looked it up yesterday, don't have the link anymore. I can find it if necessary). In one of my posts in this thread, I included a link to a study that compared two anti-psychotic agents in their neurotoxic effects; one seemed to have no significant effect (in rat brain tissue; these were not studies on unwitting humans).

Electroshock therapy causes brain damage. It was developed to slaughter livestock! Amphetamines cause brain damage. Neuroleptics cause brain damage. How are these people helping? They aren't.

I don't know where you're getting your information about ECT (electroconvulsive therapy). The way it's done now is not straight out of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. And it's proving to be very helpful in cases of drug-refractory and drug-resistant depression. I personally know a woman who has voluntarily undergone ECT several times to control her depressions.

reply to post by americandingbat

Taken in large enough doses over a long enough period they damage nerve tissue, is how I understand atlasastro's point. Surely you can understand that the effects of substances are related to the amount ingested and the period of exposure?

These drugs damage the brain from the beginning. This has been established already in this thread. The amount ingested will steadily increase as time goes on, due to tolerance. This has already been established in this thread.

Something you might not know: Psychiatrists will tell you that it may take 10 years to get a proper diagnosis, so that is 10 years of being medicated. The diagnosis can change monthly.

That is a substantial amount of time. Especially considering that people can get worse symptoms when on these medications, tolerance will rise after a few years, symptoms can reappear once the maximum dosage is reached, and medication has to be changed.

This discussion seemed to be about the ethics of prescribing antipsychotic medication, which surely includes looking at the diseases for which it is prescribed.

Here is the point. These drugs are prescribed for people who have been told they have issues with their brains, which are allegedly not functioning properly, according to a paper test of which there is no scientific testing for. These drugs are damaging the organ they are trying to 'treat' or 'fix'. This is causing the companies to keep the patients on the medication, returning a bigger profit to themselves. This is an outrage.

I don't know how much clearer this has to be made.

Government, big pharma, and psychiatrists have a known history of working together in regards to human experimentation.

These drugs are damaging to the human brain.

This is a crime against humanity.

I don't know where you're getting your information about ECT (electroconvulsive therapy). The way it's done now is not straight out of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. And it's proving to be very helpful in cases of drug-refractory and drug-resistant depression. I personally know a woman who has voluntarily undergone ECT several times to control her depressions.

Do you know anyone who has undergone ECT and had to take it a day later, because it wore off? Do you ever wonder why people have to be heavily sedated before receiving ECT?

ECT was developed from ways of slaughtering livestock.

Why do you keep questioning what has already been established as fact.

Too many psychiatrists are vile people. They have to be stopped. Biological psychiatry in many forms should be illegal. Not only is it a form of government sanctioned dealing of drugs of addiction, the ways these medications work are either unknown or undisclosed. It is known they cause brain damage.

This has to stop.

They psychiatric profession needs a massive overhaul. Psychiatrists have to stop with human experimentation.

Like I wrote previously, if you came to me and said you had problems sleeping and a lack of confidence, and I said take alcohol, it would work, no problems.

It would also be highly irresponsible of me to say that. Because it is well known it is addictive and causes brain damage.

Alcohol is a poison, a toxin.

Whilst it changes perception, it is not exactly a drug.

It is like calling a carbohydrate a drug because it changes the way the body works by giving it energy. Carbs are not drugs.

Regardless, lets stay on topic.

Biological psychiatry in many forms is wrong.

Too many dangerous drugs are given out for 'research'. It can be used in an attempt to discredit people.

The profession is aware of this. So are the pharmaceutical companies. So is the government.

This is a crime against humanity.

It has to stop.

These drugs damage the brain from the beginning. This has been established already in this thread.

No, it hasn't been established. You have asserted it but I don't think anyone else has supported your claim. And you have not provided any supporting evidence yourself, or any links to studies that support it.

The amount ingested will steadily increase as time goes on, due to tolerance. This has already been established in this thread.

Yes, tolerance has been dealt with on this thread.

Something you might not know: Psychiatrists will tell you that it may take 10 years to get a proper diagnosis, so that is 10 years of being medicated. The diagnosis can change monthly.

I know that it's not uncommon for it to take years to get a good diagnosis for certain mental disorders, especially when they first surface during or just after adolescence. But that is no reason not to try to alleviate the patient's suffering.

And if you have experienced it, you know that sometimes the suffering of the disease is nearly unbearable.

That is a substantial amount of time. Especially considering that people can get worse symptoms when on these medications, tolerance will rise after a few years, symptoms can reappear once the maximum dosage is reached, and medication has to be changed.

As I said in my last post, I am well aware of how crucial it is to have a really good long-term psychotherapist to work with in these matters. And as I said before, yes the question of tolerance has been addressed on this thread, notably by atlasastro in this post.

Here is the point. These drugs are prescribed for people who have been told they have issues with their brains, which are allegedly not functioning properly, according to a paper test of which there is no scientific testing for. These drugs are damaging the organ they are trying to 'treat' or 'fix'. This is causing the companies to keep the patients on the medication, returning a bigger profit to themselves. This is an outrage.

These drugs are changing the organ(s) they are treating.

Right now, I'm mostly talking about anti-psychotics, because I agree that stimulants are prescribed way too often and at much too young ages for questionable diagnoses of "ADHD". I think there is legitimate use of them in that manner also, but I think an awful lot of it is not beneficial.

But you have not in any way shown that anti-psychotics are being overprescribed. And to say that they are being abused because general practitioners can prescribe them is just silly.

General practitioners should not be prescribing anti-psychotics, unless for example they have a long-term patient who they know to be on medication who has perhaps lost his/her prescription and can't get to see his/her psychiatrist until after the next dose is due. That would be a legitimate time (in my opinion, and I'm not a doctor or medical ethics expert) for a GP to write an anti-narcotics script. If you've been demanding and getting prescriptions from your GP, I think that's inappropriate.

I don't know how much clearer this has to be made.

Oh, your point is perfectly clear. It just isn't logical or reasonable.

Government, big pharma, and psychiatrists have a known history of working together in regards to human experimentation.

Yes, they do. Some psychiatrists anyway; perhaps a handful.

Do you have new evidence about this? Or can you tell me where to find evidence that antipsychotics were developed in MKUltra, which I think is what you're claiming, and which I was not aware of?

These drugs are damaging to the human brain.

Can be, yes.

This is a crime against humanity.

No, it's not. It's an imperfect treatment for a set of particularly problematic disorders.

Do you know anyone who has undergone ECT and had to take it a day later, because it wore off? Do you ever wonder why people have to be heavily sedated before receiving ECT?

ECT was developed from ways of slaughtering livestock.

To the first question, no I don't know anyone who has been in that situation, though the woman I know who has used ECT usually requires multiple treatments per hospitalization.

And the livestock thing is just one of those silly factoids that people throw out to get other people riled up.

First, I'd like to see the proof for it. What, they noticed that sometimes when they tried to kill cows with electricity but didn't quite succeed, those cows turned out more complacent than beforehand

Second, I do know some of the history of mental health treatment in the U.S. and I do know that the use of electro-shock therapy was appalling before the health care ethics reforms of the mid-1970s.

Third, have you read the recent studies about implanted electrodes showing promise for alleviating depression? They're being performed by looking at a subset of epileptics who have had electrodes implanted to control their seizures. As someone who is looking at a lifetime of expensive antidepressants with unpleasant side effects (not as bad as anti-psychotics, but not a lot of fun either), I would welcome a single, safe procedure that could prevent depressive relapses.

Do you know anything about electrophysiology, for that matter? Or are you just harping on ECT because it scares people?

Why do you keep questioning what has already been established as fact.

Where have I done this? I have asked for explanation or evidence for some of your assertions, or even just a source. But until you give those, or otherwise persuade people, they have not been established as fact.

Too many psychiatrists are vile people.

Too many people are vile people, period. The psychiatrists I've dealt with have been mostly better than the average person, but not perfect.

They have to be stopped.

For making life possible for so many of us?

Biological psychiatry in many forms should be illegal. Not only is it a form of government sanctioned dealing of drugs of addiction, the ways these medications work are either unknown or undisclosed. It is known they cause brain damage.

Please do your research on this. Some of how they work is well understood, some of how they work is not understood. But they work.

I have never heard anti-psychotics called "drugs of addiction" before, by the way. My impression has always been that it's hard for people to keep taking them, not hard to quit them.

At therapeutic doses I don't think they should cause brain damage, although atlasastro probably knows more on that topic than me.

This has to stop.

The abuse of the system, yes. Prescribing psychoactive pharmacological agents to people who are suffering, no.

They psychiatric profession needs a massive overhaul. Psychiatrists have to stop with human experimentation.

They are required to get informed consent for all human experimentation; what more do you want?

Like I wrote previously, if you came to me and said you had problems sleeping and a lack of confidence, and I said take alcohol, it would work, no problems.

Yup. I did so for many many years in fact, until it stopped working

But no doctor ever told me it was a good idea, because it was known that the dangers outweighed the advantages both long and short term, and that many of the perceived advantages were illusory especially near the end of my active addiction.

It would also be highly irresponsible of me to say that. Because it is well known it is addictive and causes brain damage.

No, it would be highly irresponsible of you to say that for the reasons listed above, and because there are other better solutions to sleeplessness and lack of confidence than alcohol.

Alcohol is a poison, a toxin.

Yes.

Whilst it changes perception, it is not exactly a drug.

I don't know why you don't think it's a drug, but it's not important really.

It is like calling a carbohydrate a drug because it changes the way the body works by giving it energy. Carbs are not drugs.

Carbs are not a single chemical substance either. Alcohol (ethyl alcohol or ethanol, the kind that gets us drunk) is a single chemical substance: CH3CH2OH I believe.

Regardless, lets stay on topic.

Biological psychiatry in many forms is wrong.

But most of the time it's better than nothing.

Too many dangerous drugs are given out for 'research'. It can be used in an attempt to discredit people.

Huh? Where did this come from? And what do you mean "are given out for research"?

The profession is aware of this. So are the pharmaceutical companies. So is the government.

This is a crime against humanity.

It has to stop.

I'm not even exactly sure anymore what you're implying that they're aware of.

But the use of anti-psychotics to treat disorders with psychotic or delusional symptoms has been of enormous benefit to many people who have been through terrible suffering. It may need more oversight, a lot of people do need more training in understanding and treating mental illness, but stopping treatments is not the right answer.

[edit on 3/20/2009 by americandingbat]

reply to post by americandingbat

No, it hasn't been established. You have asserted it but I don't think anyone else has supported your claim. And you have not provided any supporting evidence yourself, or any links to studies that support it.

Someone working in the mental health profession, has written, that the drugs are neurotoxic. These drugs work in the brain. They are obviously damaging brain tissue.

Let's just say it was an assertion, for the time being, in order to stop you going back to that point.

How is it, that, people can get worse symptoms after taking these drugs?

Why is it that patients are told that the medical profession does not know why the work, only that they do what they want?

What is being hidden? Why are experimental drugs being used in the brains of people who are in need of mental health care?

Why are the mentally ill being experimented on?

When is this going to stop?

The simple fact is, patients are not told why they work. This information is either being withheld intentionally, which raises some flags, or this information is unknown, which raises some flags.

Either this medications is harmful to the brain, or it is experimental.

The pharmaceutical companies are therefore either intentionally harming the minds of the mentally ill, or they are experimenting on them.

This has to stop.

It is clearly a crime against humanity.

These drugs are changing the organ(s) they are treating. Right now, I'm mostly talking about anti-psychotics, because I agree that stimulants are prescribed way too often and at much too young ages for questionable diagnoses of "ADHD". I think there is legitimate use of them in that manner also, but I think an awful lot of it is not beneficial. But you have not in any way shown that anti-psychotics are being overprescribed. And to say that they are being abused because general practitioners can prescribe them is just silly.

Changing the organs are they? You are saying this now as fact.

Ok, if they are changing the organs, and a higher dose is required as tolerance develops, and the treatment eventually stops working quite clearly this is damaging the brain.

Is developing a tolerance for alcohol good for your body?

They are being over prescribed in the sense that they are either dangerous or experimental or both.

This has to stop.

This is clearly a crime against humanity.

Generally speaking, I can attest to the fact that some anti-psychotic medication do actually work. I know a person whom has bipolar disorder, olanzapine(zyprexa) is the medication, and it seems to work wonders for this person. Side effects are the big problem though, significant weight-gain being in the case of olanzapine. But I think that it is the only good anti-psychotic IMO.

Persons whom hallucinate sounds and see things after taking a particular medication; should discontinue usage of the particular drug immediately. And go to a different psychiatrist. Just my two pennies worth..

Peace