Posted by SLS on August 1, 2016, at 19:01:35
In reply to Re: mercola, posted by Hello321 on August 1, 2016, at 16:53:23
> > Mercola has been around peddling his charlatanry for a long time. I'm glad that someone had the insight and energy to expose him in a civil manner.
> >
> > What is your motivation for rejecting psychopharmacology?
> >
> > Why did you choose Mercola in particular?> Scott, ive posted on this board a couple of years now and every few months you act thoroughly surprised about any negative view i have of psychiatry or its treatments.
What makes you think that I am surprised? Well, I guess I am, but growing less so. We might have something in common, though. I think each of us wants to help people and prevent harm.
> But i will sum it up for you. I suppose my view of treatments for any condition can be described as libertarian
What is this? Politics? Regarding treatments for illness, I am all for novel treatments, whether it be synthesized in a lab or extracted from a botanical. It might be reasonable, though, that science should be applied to drugs and devices to demonstrate efficacy and establish a safety profile.
> Just because ive realized the benefits of natural healing,
Okay. What is it that needed healing? What natural healing has brought you to remission? Is it something you learned from Mercola?
> What specific things written about on Mercola do you object to?
Every third word.
Seriously, I think Tabitha did a great job of giving some examples. They are good enough for me, anyway.
> Any of it proven 100 percent false?
It is first the responsibility of someone to prove something as being true.
> Such as things that arent up for debate.
Everything is always up for examination and reexamination
> You might see some things you find a bit sketchy
Very.
> but you also can say the promotion that a chemical imbalance is the cause of psychiatric disorders.
I don't even know what a chemical imbalance is. This is a primitive conceptualization that has served well to educate the public in the 1980s and 1990s. Few, if any, neuroscientists adhere to such a simple explanation.
Chemical imbalance -> not a sufficient model
Biological dysfunction -> supported by scientific evidenceI am sorry if you have been hurt by doctors and their drugs. I am sure you have already described your experiences in detail. You must be tired of repeating yourself. I hope you have gained the health that you formerly lacked.
- ScottSome see things as they are and ask why.
I dream of things that never were and ask why not.- George Bernard Shaw
poster:SLS
thread:1090994
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20160713/msgs/1091059.html