![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Martin Johnson on September 8, 2002, at 1:31:55
The Washington Post recently reported the findings of a Stanford University study on the effects of antidepressant drugs like Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft. The study proved that these drugs have no greater effect on depression than sugar pills, a common placebo used in clinical trials. According to the article by Post writer Shankar Vedantam, the new study is not the first to expose the questionable effectiveness of popular anti-depressants.
"The new research may shed light on findings such as those from a trial last month that compared the herbal remedy St. John's wort against Zoloft. St. John's wort fully cured 24 percent of the depressed people who received it, and Zoloft cured 25 percent — but the placebo fully cured 32 percent," Vedantam writes.
So what has been the result of these earth-shattering reports? Have Pfizer or Eli Lily stocks plummeted? Has the FDA ordered the drugs taken off the market? Has the American public reacted in outrage? No. The clinical findings have passed with relative disregard. No one seems to care.
Imagine the upheaval such a dramatic finding would cause in any other line of business. Imagine that a scientific study disproved the need for oil in car engines. The result? Jiffy Lube goes bankrupt, people stop buying Quaker State, and as Ricky Ricardo used to say, engine manufacturers have some "splainin´ to do." Of course this scenario would never happen, because the internal combustion engine can be taken apart, studied, and examined to determine not only its need for oil, but how much oil and what type.
This method of simple logical science has no place in the world of big pharmaceuticals. The FDA requirements for approving the development of new drugs are lax to say the least. According to Vedantam, "companies have had to conduct numerous trials to get two that show a positive result, which is the Food and Drug Administration's minimum for approval."
Apparently the FDA is content to approve worthless drugs based on the results of two statistically irrelevant tests regardless of the fact that the drugs have failed an exponentially greater number of tests. Try this with any other scientific experiment. Take missile defense for example. Let´s imagine the Defense Department conducts a series of 20 missile defense tests. At no time during the course of these 20 tests are any modifications made to the system. The system fails 18 of the 20 tests. The Defense Department´s findings? The missile defense system is a great success!?
The fact is that no area of science or medicine is so unapologetically based on fabricated evidence and baseless theories than the field of Psychology. So-called "mental illness" can be defined as anything from being sad on a rainy day to hearing voices in one´s head. The treatments are as varied as the alleged diseases, and no two Psychiatrists agree on the correct way to treat a patient.
In 1992 the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment assembled a panel of experts to examine the clinical evidence of mental disorders. When the panel released its findings, it concluded: "Many questions remain about the biology of mental disorders. In fact, research has yet to identify specific biological causes for any of these disorders. ... Mental disorders are classified on the basis of symptoms because there are as yet no biological markers or laboratory tests for them" (The Biology of Mental Disorders, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992, pp. 13-14, 46-47).
How then can an effective medical treatment be developed to treat a disorder that cannot be defined medically? In a book entitled The New Psychiatry, a Columbia University psychiatry professor, Jerrold S. Maxmen, M.D., said "It is generally unrecognized that psychiatrists are the only medical specialists who treat disorders that, by definition, have no definitively known causes or cures. ... A diagnosis should indicate the cause of a mental disorder, but as discussed later, since the etiologies of most mental disorders are unknown, current diagnostic systems can't reflect them" (Mentor, 1985, pp. 19 & 36 - emphasis in original).
Mental illnesses including clinical depression cannot be proved by Psychology or Psychiatrists to be anything other than a collection of symptoms. These symptoms cannot be proved to have any medical or biological root cause whatsoever. Yet, big pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lily and Pfizer continue to rake in billions of dollars from the sale of FDA approved anti-depressants. And Psychiatrists are all too willing to lend a helping hand by continuing to prescribe these so-called remedies to their troubled clients.
Some in the field of Psychiatry would argue that mental illnesses are a result of "chemical imbalances" or brain malfunctions. If this is the case, then would not these disorders fall into the category of medical conditions rather than "mental illness?" If a chemical imbalance exists, then which chemical, and how much is it out of balance? These are logical scientific questions that Psychiatrists cannot answer. Why? Because the diagnosis is bogus.
Most psychiatric drugs including anti-depressants are neurotoxic, meaning they produce a degree of general neurological disability. In other words, anti-depressants interfere with the normal functioning of the brain and thereby disable it from registering feelings of unhappiness or "depression." The drugs in essence create physical "highs" that offer temporary distractions from the symptoms of a deeper problem. Calling this type of drug therapy a "cure" for depression is absurd. And it is equally absurd to conclude from the neurotoxic effects of anti-depressants that depression is somehow a "biological" phenomenon. So if mental disorders cannot be said to be rooted in biology or medicine, then what are they? Surely no one can dispute the existence of serious psychological illnesses such as Schizophrenia and Bi-polar Disorder, can they? And what about more common "mental illnesses" such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)? Surely there is a case to be made for the existence of such disorders.
Can we conclude that these disorders are somehow diseases of the "mind" rather than diseases of the body? Perhaps the correct treatment is found not in drugs but in psychotherapy, hypnotism or some other form of intellectual "voodoo." In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) found an even more effective cure for a common mental disorder. They simply defined it away.
In 1968, the DSM-II: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2nd Edition) defined homosexuality as one of the "sexual deviations" (page 44). As you might imagine, this did not sit well with gay rights proponents and "forward thinking" Psychiatrists. So in 1973, the APA voted to remove homosexuality from its official diagnostic categories of mental illness. When the third edition of the DSM was published in 1980 it stated, "homosexuality itself is not considered a mental disorder" (p. 282).
The effect was instantaneous. All over the world, thousands of helpless victims of mental illness were instantly cured of their disorders. Gay men and women were suddenly free to live their alternate lifestyle free of the label "mentally ill." No drugs were administered. There was no psychotherapy, no hypnosis, no art therapy or any other form of treatment. Homosexual men and women were simply cured because the APA "said so."
A scientific discipline that is not dependent on clinical evidence or statistical proof is baseless. Likewise, a bureaucracy that is free to remove a mental illness from its list of disorders for no discernable scientific reason is equally free to add or define a mental disorder without providing clinical evidence of its existence. If these disorders were really "illnesses", the idea of removing homosexuality or anything else from the list of "mental illnesses" through a vote would be as ridiculous as the American Medical Association getting together and voting that Cancer can no longer be labeled a "disease."
What would happen if tomorrow the APA decided that ADHD was no longer a mental illness but simply an alternative lifestyle choice for children? After all, who are we to say that children should sit still and listen in class? Perhaps the educational system should simply change its approach to fit the needs of fidgety disrespectful children with two-minute attention spans.
Now I am not arguing that homosexuality or ADHD should be listed among the mental illnesses in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). To the contrary, I am suggesting that the DSM should not even exist. If the list is determined by no more scientific means than a majority vote in the APA, then it is worthless.
It´s time for Americans, and all citizens of this Earth for that matter, to wake up and see Psychology for what it really is – a collection of excuses and distractions from the true definition of "sinful" behavior. There is no such thing as a "mental illness." How can an intangible entity like the "mind" be said to be "ill?" Harmful or abnormal behavior is the result of either a medical disorder, in which case medical treatment is necessary, or sin, in which spiritual treatment is necessary.
It is true that certain sinful "learned behaviors" can be unlearned through the mental gymnastics of psychotherapy. But just as the neurotoxic effects of Prozac do not prove the biological nature of depression, so the psychotherapeutic treatment of learned behaviors does not prove the "mental" nature of disorders such as Schizophrenia or ADHD.
Psychology by and large is the invention of man to cover the shame of his own sinful behavior. If a disorderly child can be said to be "ill" with ADHD, then he cannot be held responsible for his actions. After all, can a person with Alzheimer´s be blamed for contracting his disease?
Certainly there are many individuals suffering from so-called "mental illness" who have no control over their condition. These individuals cannot and should not be blamed for their "physical" illness. But the treatment offered should be based on medical fact, not psychological fiction. If there is no medical proof of the patient´s condition, then we must conclude that the symptoms do not imply an "illness" but a behavioral problem – a sinful condition.
Until we are willing to recognize the true sinful nature of man, Psychology will continue to define our morality, and big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer will continue to get rich through marketing worthless drugs under the watchful eye of the FDA.
But don´t expect Americans to complain about this injustice. We like the charade. It makes us feel better about ourselves.
Posted by Dinah on September 8, 2002, at 2:43:45
In reply to Some inside info, posted by Martin Johnson on September 8, 2002, at 1:31:55
Hello Martin Johnson.
Here is a link to the civility guidelines of this site.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>If there is no medical proof of the patient´s condition, then we must conclude that the symptoms do not imply an "illness" but a behavioral problem – a sinful condition.
>
Please don't jump to conclusions about others or their experiences. See the FAQ section of the civility guidelines.
>> But don´t expect Americans to complain about this injustice. We like the charade. It makes us feel better about ourselves.
>
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, exaggerate, or overgeneralize.I've asked you before to follow site guidelines. So now I'm afraid I will have to block you for one week. If you wish, you may appeal this by email (see the bottom of this page) to Dr. Bob who will be back Sunday or Monday.
I want to add that the guidelines also say that different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged.... However, based on the below statements, the crux of your post seems to be on the nature of sin and the need for spiritual treatment. If I am understanding this correctly, I would think that the spiritual board on this site, Psycho-Babble Faith, might be the proper place to post the discussion, after of course carefully reviewing the wording to comply with the civility guidelines of the site.
> It´s time for Americans, and all citizens of this Earth for that matter, to wake up and see Psychology for what it really is – a collection of excuses and distractions from the true definition of "sinful" behavior. There is no such thing as a "mental illness." How can an intangible entity like the "mind" be said to be "ill?" Harmful or abnormal behavior is the result of either a medical disorder, in which case medical treatment is necessary, or sin, in which spiritual treatment is necessary.
>
> It is true that certain sinful "learned behaviors" can be unlearned through the mental gymnastics of psychotherapy.
>
> Psychology by and large is the invention of man to cover the shame of his own sinful behavior.
>
> Until we are willing to recognize the true sinful nature of man, Psychology will continue to define our morality, and big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer will continue to get rich through marketing worthless drugs under the watchful eye of the FDA.
Posted by beardedlady on September 8, 2002, at 6:29:01
In reply to Some inside info, posted by Martin Johnson on September 8, 2002, at 1:31:55
The post was plagiarized from http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/mcallister/20020519-fss.htm
Quoting anyone verbatim without giving him credit is not merely uncivil; it's unethical and illegal.
beardy
Posted by linkadge on September 8, 2002, at 8:49:15
In reply to Some inside info, posted by Martin Johnson on September 8, 2002, at 1:31:55
When researching findings such as these
it is necessary to look at the majority of
the trials, not simply one.It is increasingly obvious to anyone who
studies the field, that a study can be
prepared to show almost any outcome.
This study does not negate the thousands of
positive drug trials out there.Another thing to keep in mind is the power
of the placebo effect, and relapse times.
This study obviously did not take into
account the relapse times of the placebo
group vs. the AD group. The placebo effect
can be very strong, because it has the power
to completely redirect a patient's attention
and hope. Unfortunatly time and time again
have proven that the placebo effect, while
initially strong, often leaves a patient
in a worse scenario, after the emotional
high has worn off.One other thing to keep in mind, is the lenght
of the trial. THe placebo effect kicks in
immediatly and starts to wear off in less
than two weeks. On the other hand, an AD
drug is initally depressing (because of burdensome
side effects) and then starts to work over
the next few weeks.
Linkadge
[xxx]
Posted by audrey on September 8, 2002, at 8:50:15
In reply to Some inside info, posted by Martin Johnson on September 8, 2002, at 1:31:55
I think the fact that these medications have thus far kept me from killing myself, and have enable me to lead a slightly normal life is enough evidence to me that I both have a medical illness and that they work. OK, maybe there is a placebo effect, but I really don't care, as long as I'm alive. But I don't think that is the case simply for the fact that I have tried certain medications (Paxil and Effexor to name two) that did not help at all, and in some ways exacerbated my symptoms. Only when a correct diagnosis was finally made did the medication prescribed help me.
You quote Dr Maxim as recognizing "that psychiatrists are the only medical specialists who treat disorders that, by definition, have no definitively known causes or cures" Well, for a while, no one knew what was "definitively" causing AIDS, and we certainly don't have a cure for that disease yet. I'm glad doctors at the time didn't wash their hands of those victims and send them on their way telling them it was because they were "sinners" (though there were plenty of others saying that).
In a previous post to you I said you were lucky because you've found a way to deal with your mental illness without drugs. Well, I'm wondering whether you have really dealth with your mental illness. Posting hostile posts on this message board to people who depend on these medications indicates that you have some kind of issue. Perhaps instead of antagonizing the people who use this message board, you could use your hostility more productively by going after the drug companies, lobbying your congresspeople, etc.
I feel guilty criticizing you when you have been banned from responding, but I feel I must comment on the things you said. Implying that one's mental illness is merely a result of their sins is akin to the point you made about the homosexuality diagnosis in the DSM-II.
Audrey
Posted by Dinah on September 8, 2002, at 9:27:47
In reply to Re: Some inside info » Martin Johnson, posted by audrey on September 8, 2002, at 8:50:15
Hi Audrey,
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you to follow the civility guidelines of the site. Your post would have been fine except for the following statement.
> Well, I'm wondering whether you have really dealth with your mental illness. Posting hostile posts on this message board to people who depend on these medications indicates that you have some kind of issue.
Please don't jump to conclusions about others or their experiences, or post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. Please be sensitive to their feelings even if they hurt yours.
> I feel guilty criticizing you when you have been banned from responding, but I feel I must comment on the things you said.
This is usually a good indicator that it might be time to do some breathing exercises or take a quick walk, and definitely to review your post to make sure that it falls within the civility guidelines. :)
Here is a link to the civility FAQs that give more hints for dealing with this type of situation.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Thanks,
DinahP.S. Follow ups to posting policies or administrative issues should be redirected to the Admin board. Follow the links at the top of the page.
Posted by Dinah on September 8, 2002, at 9:32:39
In reply to Re: Please be civil » audrey, posted by Dinah on September 8, 2002, at 9:27:47
I realize that this thread is likely to elicit strong emotions in some people, so I am reminding you to review your posts to make sure they comply with the civility guidelines. Here is a link.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Just a reminder...
Thanks for your discretion.
Dinah
Posted by utopizen on September 8, 2002, at 19:45:46
In reply to Some inside info, posted by Martin Johnson on September 8, 2002, at 1:31:55
Again, and this is not to say anything but to repeat what the originator of this post has already said, the originator of this post initially said "keep truckin'".
Yup. Keep truckin.
Posted by JonW on September 8, 2002, at 20:44:37
In reply to Plagiarism » Martin Johnson, posted by beardedlady on September 8, 2002, at 6:29:01
> The post was plagiarized from http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/mcallister/20020519-fss.htm
>
> Quoting anyone verbatim without giving him credit is not merely uncivil; it's unethical and illegal.I think it's a sin too...
Posted by Jackd on September 8, 2002, at 21:44:43
In reply to Some inside info, posted by Martin Johnson on September 8, 2002, at 1:31:55
NOTE: This is NOT a flame.
You shouldn't believe everything you read. Like linkadge said, you can bend "facts" and reports to meet a desired outcome.
One might as well go on about how evolution is just a "theory", and how traveling to the moon was really a staged government conspiracy (people honestly hold these positions, and i can list some websites to prove it). Mind you, these bogus stories often have traces of real evidence. Take facts out of context, correlate others, and you have yourself a conspiracy theory.
I don't understand how any educated person could come to a conclusion that psychiatry is some sort of hokey religion. This article claims there is no biological connection between psychological symptoms and biology, although there is overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. Even supposing it was, it still makes people happy; why burst their bubble? So to Mr.Johnson: what benefit could sharing that borrowed "insight" possibly have?
I'm sure this was just a newsgroup jokester, trolling for replies, but I just couldn't help but to respond.
Posted by Vince on September 10, 2002, at 12:56:15
In reply to Some inside info, posted by Martin Johnson on September 8, 2002, at 1:31:55
> It´s time for Americans, and all citizens of this Earth for that matter, to wake up and see Psychology for what it really is – a collection of excuses and distractions from the true definition of "sinful" behavior. There is no such thing as a "mental illness." How can an intangible entity like the "mind" be said to be "ill?" Harmful or abnormal behavior is the result of either a medical disorder, in which case medical treatment is necessary, or sin, in which spiritual treatment is necessary.
>I've always wondered how the sin theory of depression handles cyclical depression - say rapid cycling depression.
"Now I'm a sinner, now I'm not, now I'm a sinner, now I'm not."
Vince
Posted by JonW on September 10, 2002, at 17:37:51
In reply to Re: Some inside info - into sin » Martin Johnson, posted by Vince on September 10, 2002, at 12:56:15
> I've always wondered how the sin theory of depression handles cyclical depression - say rapid cycling depression.
>
> "Now I'm a sinner, now I'm not, now I'm a sinner, now I'm not."Or a mixed state... "I'm a sinner and a saint!" How can that be?
Jon
Posted by shar on September 12, 2002, at 0:02:40
In reply to Re: Some inside info - into sin, posted by JonW on September 10, 2002, at 17:37:51
This was hilarious to me, thank you both. Shar
> > I've always wondered how the sin theory of depression handles cyclical depression - say rapid cycling depression.
> >
> > "Now I'm a sinner, now I'm not, now I'm a sinner, now I'm not."
>
> Or a mixed state... "I'm a sinner and a saint!" How can that be?
>
> Jon
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.