Anti-psychiatry Forum I need to pick this apart and ..

It is about them answering these questions:

Hunger Strikers Request or Questions:

1. Evidence That Clearly Establishes the validity of "schizophrenia", "depression", or any other "major mental Illnesses" as biologically-based brain diseases.

I've read a lot about this, I'm not even a psychologist I'm a biochemist. As a psychologist you know that the brain does not have localized pathways for a specific function. I agree these functions cannot be traced properly, but it is wrong to say there is no biological basis to this because there are certain neurons that tend to fire more on average with an average frequency there is a change in comprehension between a person that experiences schizophrenia compared to most of the population. Therefore there must be a change in the neural connections. We can never say, "there it is it's that" we have to work with statistics because the body is very sensitive to conditions as is all chemistry so you might not get the same response every time.

Schizophrenia can even be adaptive in some conditions maybe, under those conditions it does not impair functioning therefore it can go untreated.

2. Evidence For A Physical Diagnostic Exam such as a scan or test of the brain, blood, urine, genes, etc that can reliably distinguish individuals with these diagnoses (prior to treatment with psychiatric drugs), from individuals without these diagnoses.

For psychiatric illnesses one can say that certain neural pathways are not functioning with the right frequency. I agree that may not always be the case as the brain is ridicilously complex but we can agree that with this much advancement it's the best that science can offer. So instead of dismissing these foundations I think it makes more sense to build on them.

3. Evidence For a Base-line Standard of a neurochemically balanced "normal" personality, against which a neurochemical "imbalance" can be measured and corrected by pharmaceutical means.

I can give you a normal personality right of the bet. It would be a person who's functioning is adaptive under our conditions.

4. Evidence That Any Psychotropic Drug can correct a "chemical imbalance" attributed to a psychiatric diagnoses, and is any thing more than a non-specific alterer of physiology.

I think you should seriously step into the shoes of a scientist, these questions demand that we pull rabbits out of our hats. You gotta understand that scientists are scientists not magicians and the best we can do is make intuitive guesses. We can't show you the reactions taking place. It's your right to dismiss medications, but in my personal opinion it might not do everyone good to do so.

5. Evidence That Any Psychotropic Drug can reliably decrease the likelihood of violence or suicide.

Give me evidence that by eating cereal every morning you are more likely to drive a car to work as opposed to take a bus. And I will likewise provide the above evidence.

6. Evidence That Psychotropic Drugs do not in fact increase the overall likelihood of violence and suicide.

Same as above.

Please do. I'd be happy if you can apply a sprinkle of magic to science.

Give me a chance, I have other things that I have to do this evening, you have not given any science all you have said is that you are a chemist anyone can say that and you may be, but the truth will set us all free. There must be "valid and reliable" scientific "evidence", any decent scientist or doctor that is worth our time will give that to you, they will have integrity and honesty and it will be important to them. So I am not debating medication, I am debating scientific facts and they and you have none, if you do then cite them for this group and I will pick those apart too.

What do you want me to cite, specific receptors, reaction methods and pathways? You think I have time to go pull out a million books from the library to cite you evidence that you will dismiss? Of course it's easy to dismiss anyone can claim that it's only "theory." Anyone can claim there is not enough evidence.

Please tell me what you know.

Lets start with the neurological functioning of the brain and statistical calculations of firing patterns that correlate with perceptions which disproves your first argument about "no biological evidence for depression or schizophrenia."

I am not citing you the facts I am citing you the mechanics now. Please provide an alternative to the mechanics described above.

Alas my friends, I told you that I would come back and answer this and soooo here I am. Glad to see that we have a couple of new people.

(It is about them answering these questions:) Indeed this is what that hunger strike was about, I can't tell you what my experience meant to me getting to be involved in this fine act of history making or how much some of the people that were involved in this meant to me over the last three years. I got in on the tale end of this of this strike. There are many people that did so much more of the work involved in all of this, I met these people through Mindfreedom an international organization, that has much complicity and conflicts of interest going on now. Kind of like NAMI because NAMI takes drug company funding so well if at least if not more of your budget comes from the drug companies then we have a conflict of interest going on and it may truly not speak for all they say they do and they may be speaking instead for their funders?

All good things start some place and some how end up not really being all that they could be or what they are actually suppose to be either so maybe it is better not to try to grow too big sometimes because then we don't have to take the dollars from others that dictate what we are suppose to be doing, what our real aims are. I don't really know, but I wanted to give you some lead in as to how this got started and now I have. You can read the hunger strike paper that I wrote or go to Mindfreedom or PsychRights if you want more information or have any questions that I am not answering for you.

My role in this is not that important, my role has only came over the past three years as I have been trying to educate people about this hunger strike and what they found out and asking those in the positions to take a look and do something about the truth and to be able to tell the people the truth and I am not sure how much headway I have made, but I keep trying. In fact I have given many long hard hours to this. The first thing that I did was give paper copies of the strike as I had written it up to all of my legislators and to the mental health people in my state.

I have been an advocate for 20 years now, trying to figure out what to do to make changes in all of this so it wasn't actually hurting more people then it was "helping" and the hunger strike kind of brought it home for me what is actually going on. I had to get away from the complicity that I was involved in before I could see the truth. I liked that feeling of importance and being patted on my head even if no one was really listening to me. I didn't realize that I was actually being no more then a puppet in the scheme of things. I was spitting out exactly what the system wanted me too if that was actually beneficial or true or not. So I had to stop that and the hunger strike gave me the tool to understanding what was really going on. So this brings us to the hunger strike and these questions that I have asked everyone that anyone has ever told me would be able to answer them or be able to use them to make any real changes.

When I served on my states disabilities coalition board of directors and the H.B. 843 regional committee and even before that on other committees I unfortunately did not have this information yet or perhaps I could have made some things different then. So for me this was a great peice of the puzzle. Have you ever had one of those moments when you just go eureka, well this was one of those moments for me. So now I will speak to what I have here and hopefully be able to make you understand some things?

Hunger Strikers Request or Questions:

1. Evidence That Clearly Establishes the validity of "schizophrenia", "depression", or any other "major mental Illnesses" as biologically-based brain diseases.

"I've read a lot about this, I'm not even a psychologist I'm a biochemist."

It is my understanding that a biochemist knows about chemical names and properties and that is all well and good, they are good at measuring these chemicals that they have in front of them, and sometimes finds and determines new chemical compounds or mixes them up and so forth, and that is all well and good and scientific after all one must measure and describe exactly what one has done here.

Since I am not a chemist at all I am kind of a cook I will try to break this down using cooking as an example of my understanding of this. Say for instance you wanted to find out what different ingredients did you might add one teaspoon of cooking oil to one cup of water and then you would look and see how the oil affected that water as you would probably note what you would see is that it would seperate, then again you might want to add a half of cup of dry milk to one seperate cup of water and stir it up and look at it then what you would see is that the milk would disolve in the water and not seperate this has to do with solubility. Then you might take and mix that together and see that the oil would still be seperated, but the milk would still mix up. Now you might also want to take a half of cup of sugar and add it to the mixture and see that the sugar disolves also. Then you could add a couple of eggs and what you would probably see is that for the most part the eggs would mix in quite well with the rest of it if you stirred it with a fork. Then you might add a teaspoon or so of cornstarch, but depending how you did it this might or might not mix so well. You see you need to melt the cornstarch with just a small amount of water like a teaspoon or so before you pour it into the rest of the mixture if it is to disolve. For some reason if you don't it just clumps up, that has to do with the chemical compounds and how they interact with the rest of it. This is just a simple mixture and you can add to this or take away from it, but this is the basic ingredients and you might want to write this down exactly as you go along experimenting with it to see what works best.

If you want to change this mixture you can put it on heat and that will change the composition of it or the way that it all works together. Then you could let people taste it and see how they liked it and if you wanted to change it around. You could keep track of the comments and what you seen and stuff like that, this is what scientist do. They keep very strict records of what they mix together and how and what they find. These are called the variables the different things that are mixed together.

In order to get the same product over and over we must use the same exact thing every time and the same exact amount and in the same way and that is called reliability. If you do the same things each time you get the same exact results. Scientist want and need to be lots more accurate then what I have been here, because the fact is that they can mix any compounds together, but the results of what they mix can kill people, heal-cure-prevent diseases, or do nothing at all.

Now we will talk about a self fullfilling prophecy, that is this we think we believe that something should be a certain way and so our subconscious can lead us to believe it is and our actions can make it so. What we look for we can find if we really want to, good scientist try not to do things this way and call them false when this is happening. We can also acquire a taste for something which means to learn to like it, I can remember the first time I tried an avocado and said yuck and now I like it. So at one point when I first tasted it I would have said that is bad I hate it and don't give that to me again.

As I tried it again and again I acquired a taste for it and now I will say that it is good, some people never acquire a taste for it no matter how many times they taste it and so will not say it taste good, and yet if they were really starving might eat it and say it tasted great, and some people will like it the first time they try it and never say it taste bad at all so that is not a reliable measure of whether it taste good or not, that is merely an oppinion and scientist try not to do that if they are ethical.

"As a psychologist you know that the brain does not have localized pathways for a specific function."

I do not want to be misrepresented or misrepresent myself any at all here. I am not a psychologist, I am an educator an advocate an activist and a policymaker, I have a Bachelors degree in Psychology and a Masters degree in Education. I don't know how the brain works I am not a neurologist and neurologist are the ones that are suppose to be responsible for knowing that, that is their legitimate job after all we don't want them to operate on our brains and not know what they are doing now do we. However, the brain is different then the mind, the mind is the psych is suppose to be the mind of an individual for lack of any better known words to use here. If I lie to you all about what I know and what I don't know then I am a liar same as anyone else that does that and that would be unethical of me. I might be in a position to point you in the direction of other people if you ask me something and I don't know, and if I can't then I would be ethically responsible for telling you that.

"I agree these functions cannot be traced properly, but it is wrong to say there is no biological basis to this because there are certain neurons that tend to fire more on average with an average frequency there is a change in comprehension between a person that experiences schizophrenia compared to most of the population."

I am not aware of this and you would have to cite the sources that you are using to say this and then I might possibly have to ask someone with more knowledge them me to explain what you are actually saying, I would ask for your evidence of this? However, what I do know is that no one has found any mechanism to measure how this is controlled for response exactly and that even in brain damage the brain can miraculously get back function that even specialist in the field of the brain doubt possible at times. One can not measure for accuracy of comprehension in different people, over time, and in different situations so that is not a reliable measure.

"Therefore there must be a change in the neural connections. We can never say, "there it is it's that" we have to work with statistics because the body is very sensitive to conditions as is all chemistry so you might not get the same response every time."

This is true so that is why it is not accurate nor an accurate measurement to describe schizophrenia as a disease. Statistics change over time and can be manipulated to show anything anyone wants them to show, so observational evidence is not accurate to describe what is actually going on and does not serve to fix the actual problems or issues in many people, it is flawed.

"Schizophrenia can even be adaptive in some conditions maybe, under those conditions it does not impair functioning therefore it can go untreated."

The treatment can actually cause one to appear to be schizophrenic or have these so called symptoms, it has been shown over time to worsen much of what is being called schizophrenia.

2. Evidence For A Physical Diagnostic Exam such as a scan or test of the brain, blood, urine, genes, etc that can reliably distinguish individuals with these diagnoses (prior to treatment with psychiatric drugs), from individuals without these diagnoses.

"For psychiatric illnesses one can say that certain neural pathways are not functioning with the right frequency."

One can say anything hypothesis is not the same as valid and reliable scientific evidence it is just a speculation of what is what and that varies from person to person that is describing it, it is based on perception. So it is not accurate or reliable science.

"I agree that may not always be the case as the brain is ridicilously complex but we can agree that with this much advancement it's the best that science can offer."

If I told you that I wanted to operate on your brain and I had no actual scientific knowledge or evidence what would you say to me, okay if that is the best we have then go ahead? You can operate and then we can go from there? I don't think so do you?

"So instead of dismissing these foundations I think it makes more sense to build on them."

I think that I am not dismissing them, I think that what we are doing is actually asking for these questions to be answered and to be answered now and if they can not do that then they should admit that to the public. Since there are all kinds of hypothesis and this is variable from psychiatrist to psychiatrist, from person to person, from situation to situation, then it is not enough to build on. I think we have a valid and reliable and legitimate right to ask for these questions to be answered and the public has a right to know the answers if there are any. Otherwise this is public corruption of the worst kind, because this is not only affecting bad adults this is affecting our future generations because it is being done to children that have no right to decide what they want or need or what is actually helping them or not. It is not being done with truly informed consent in many cases.

With the scientific and governmental community telling me / us that there are 1,000s of articles to choose from that are contradictary and are not conclusive and contradict each other that none of this can be found to be conclusive and so it is not good enough.

There is a difference in dismissing something and asking for answers to something, there is a lot of difference in that. There is no other diagnoses or form of treatment that a person would be expected to take it for granted without being told that they have the right to ask for a second and even third oppinion for them self and then decide which treatment is actually best for them and with all the medical malpractice that goes on one never knows what is best, but they get to choose and must sign papers saying that they agree to it and have taken that risk. No one is willing to accept the responsibility when this treatment goes wrong and it does more times then it does not.

The difference between dismissing something and asking for truth and honesty is where you ignore the facts or ignore the truth of the actual problems and the other is where you seek true and valid and legitimate evidence. In a court of law one must should have valid evidence, you would not want to be convicted to serve a life sentence on "he said" - "she said" information if they were not telling the truth or would you? Which is another point if we are using this by the courts as an alternative to punishment let's not call it "treatment" let's call it what it is an alternative form of punishment. It has not been shown to actually cure or correct any of the real issues or problems over time other things have been done that have worked and could work without any of the so called treatment.

3. Evidence For a Base-line Standard of a neurochemically balanced "normal" personality, against which a neurochemical "imbalance" can be measured and corrected by pharmaceutical means.

"I can give you a normal personality right of the bet. It would be a person who's functioning is adaptive under our conditions."

Although that sounds good that is speculative and based on perceptions, not valid and reliable scientific fact not on situations or needs or different ideas of what is meant by functioning and adaptive.

Functioning=performing or able to perform its regular function, so who is to determine what your function is? Are we machines and robots?

Adaptive=to change, to comply, to accept, to live with, but who is to say what one needs to adapt to? Who is to say that one persons way of adapting is better then the others?

Hitler thought that those that he was harming were to adapt to his ideas ways of doing things and now we consider that bizarre.

Our=that again is a group as a whole if you speak to our, we are not speaking here of a whole we are speaking of individuals and their own rights to thoughts, ideas, needs, oppinions, emotions, expressions, and behaviors. If we want to think in terms of a society that is the place of the legal system to decide what we find as acceptable as in such things as muder, abortion, marriage, divorce, child rearing, education, and such things as these.

So we make laws and I think that some of that is based on groups of people who have political mass or power or needs and positions and that all of that is not always correct or the best thing for our society, but that makes me no more right then the next person who thinks differently about these things then what I do. It is based on perceptions and not facts, and perceptions change over time.

Conditions=a particular mode of being of a person or thing; existing state; situation with respect to circumstances, state of health, fitness, social position, a circumstance, a circumstance indispensable to some result; prerequisite on which something else is contingent, existing, something demanded as an essential part of an agreement; provision; stipulation, a change consequent on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a stated event, a requirement imposed on a person who fails to reach the prescribed standard which may or may not be fullfilled over time, to accustom, to form or determine, limit, or restrict, to subject to particular conditions or circumstances, to impose, to test, stipulate, to establish a conditioned response so do you think that war is a condition that we should accustom our selfs too, how about robbery, how about murder, how about natural and man made disasters, and riots are these conditions which we should accept if the largest part of our society eventually agree that we all think it might be best? Is that what you consider a normal person?

To me our whole society is dysfunctional under these terms or not normal. This must take into fact social, economic, and political considerations, and those are not individual those are of a people as a whole a group and can change over time. So are we going to drug or treat our whole population for a disease for these reasons is that the goal?

4. Evidence That Any Psychotropic Drug can correct a "chemical imbalance" attributed to a psychiatric diagnoses, and is any thing more than a non-specific alterer of physiology.

"I think you should seriously step into the shoes of a scientist, these questions demand that we pull rabbits out of our hats. You gotta understand that scientists are scientists not magicians and the best we can do is make intuitive guesses."

No it is not, the truth is that ethical and respectable scientist expect more from themselves and their peers then this. They expect facts and get them and if they are wrong they easily admit it and try again and again until they get it right, but they don't stop and say this is the way and the truth and the light and let us use it because we don't want the truth we don't want to know the facts and all of the facts. They continually question even them selves as I do.

I never stop asking myself if what I am doing and saying is the right things to be doing and saying and if it is right and good and best for my fellow mankind. I never stop, that is why I reach out and keep seeking the truth and face even my toughest opponents. I am willing to reach out to search to ask to question and keep questioning. If I wasn't I would not be willing to do this with you.

I am not afraid of the truth and I am not afraid of being wrong, I have been wrong before and when I find out that I am I am willing to readily admit it and rescind anything that I have said that was wrong, that is based on my own integrity which even in my own silliness at times is very important to me, I am an honest person and often much more honest then I should be.

"We can't show you the reactions taking place. It's your right to dismiss medications, but in my personal opinion it might not do everyone good to do so."

This is not about medications and lets not call them medications let's call them what they are they are mind altering addictive drugs same as any other and used the same as others all the time. Let's see how many of us know what the actual side effects of them are according to the FDA which does not itself hold to what it says, but says no one tells them of the adverse side effects or the problems with these so called medications, but who would if in fact they might go to jail for it or have their supply cut off because of it? However people are not stupid. Yet, people do believe that because it is a doctor that is prescribing this as treatment that it is somehow different then so called illegal drugs. Which is another point if we are going to legalize some drug use why don't we just put them over the counter and or legalize all drug use? That is if they are not dangerous and addictive drugs?

Let me give you the side effects: Drug induced stuttering, Weight gain, Dizziness, Sleeplessness, Restlessness, Anxiety, Diabetes, Racing heart, Heart disorders, Suicide risk in children and adults, Increased risk of pregnancy while changing from old to newer drugs and increased risk of birth defects, White Blood Cell Disorders, Convulsions and Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome, Life threatening inflammation of the Pancreas, Glaucoma, Harmful food and drug interactions, Synergistic and Anti synergistic affects, Unnatural and dangerous serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, Dyskyntonia, Sudden Deaths, Drug overdoses, Drug induced psychiatric symptoms, Prescribing wrongfully, Illegal sales on the street, Illegal creation of drugs, Illegal experimentation and addiction to drugs


5. Evidence That Any Psychotropic Drug can reliably decrease the likelihood of violence or suicide.

"Give me evidence that by eating cereal every morning you are more likely to drive a car to work as opposed to take a bus. And I will likewise provide the above evidence."

That is correct you can not provide this, because there is no evidence to say that it decreases violence or suicide.

6. Evidence That Psychotropic Drugs do not in fact increase the overall likelihood of violence and suicide.

"Same as above."

That is correct there is actually a tendency to increase violence and suicide while a person is on drugs, and depending on the use of them, because some people do attempt to use them how they are prescribed and then still do not know how they will affect them, there is a tendency for people to do things that they might not do while on them. Not all people will do the same things on them or off of them some will never do a thing and some will, but if the tendency is for it to increase the likelihood why take that risk?

So if you have any thing that you think I have not spoken to then please bring it up and I will do my best to speak to it as well. It's just wrong it has to stop so that things can change in a better direction, but that is going to take a lot of grassroots coming together and arguing, not threatening, to make any kind of real changes to find out what actually needs to be made different and what needs to be done to make these things different? Until it stops, until the truth is admitted to this is not a possibility and it is hurting people, these drugs can cause permanent and serious issues and brain damage to occur.

Quote:


Even in such actual brain diseases as epilepsy and parkinsons and alzheimers, they do not know this. If they did they would be working on mechanisms of prevention. I do not say that there are not some real and actual brain diseases, tumors, epilepsy, viral menengitis, are diseases they have reliable markers they can be seen I wish they knew more about them.

Without any citations, your statements cannot be supported, qualified, or rejected. The APA admits to the absence of 'discernible pathological lesions or genetic abnormalities' in mental disorders. This contradicts their statement of 'reproducible abnormalities'. Without evidence no basis exist to call emotional distress, disturbing behavior, or unusual thoughts or perceptions 'neurobiological disorders'. This negates the sufferer's distress as reaction, protest, or adaptation to his/her position in the personally relevant social context.

A person is understood in terms of personal history and social circumstances. A neurobiological disorder is understood differently. The choice of labels is of great consequence... blushing, an obviously physical reaction, is not biologically caused. Its effective cause is acute embarrassment. Just as in other emotions that we have such as sadness and nervousness at times.

Biological processes make blushing possible, but they do not cause blushing. Even total congruenc= agreeing and following through, between biological processes and psychological events does not show that the former causes the latter. Psychiatric research is far from showing any reliable connections between mental disorders and biological measurement, much less the nature of mental disorders

Psychiatry is the sole medical specialty that treats only disorders with no biological markers. A symptom of a physical disease shows physical markers and can lead to other more serious symptoms and even death. People diagnosed with schizophrenia or major depressive disorder often are physically healthy, unless their social circumstances and neglect interfere negatively, they may live long lives and die of the same physical causes as other people.

Please explain how sociological concepts which easily define conditions such as poverty, discrimination, or war-substantiate the existence of 'neurobiological disorders'. The research only involves counting cases of schizophrenia and depression (diagnosed according to behavioral criteria and clinical judgment) and testing the probability that such cases would occur in certain samples. They are plagued by untenable theoretical assumptions and serious methodological problems.

See here is the problem. You are comparing science to the court of law. And I am sad to inform you that you can't prove most of chemistry in a court of law. That's why it is really simple to disregard it as theory. But the theory has proven to be reliable. I can react an alcohol and a carboxylic acid and smell a ester. That is the only reliable evidence that can be provided along with tools for imagining like IR and NMR. And theories are never definite. There may not be a marking in the brain for depression. But think of how drastic alzheimers is when compared to depression. Depression can be a serious problem but it can also be a very mild problem manifested very commonly. I go through periods of depression, but it's not a serious imbalance in me. People who feel it more severely by correlation must have active neural discharge or a very inactive one.

Not for a second have I mentioned that our current society is in a state of adaptive well being. We are rapidly going to set an inferno, to the entire planet. So what we are doing is in no way adaptive and what is truly adaptive is hard to decipher. It goes into philosophy and theology even.

Have you read Erich Fromm's To Have or To Be, it compares modern society to a very sick society and he is a psychoanalyst.

[quote=Budimir Zdravkovic]See here is the problem. You are comparing science to the court of law. And I am sad to inform you that you can't prove most of chemistry in a court of law.

(janie) I am not sure what kind of a chemist you are, but chemistry in most cases is one of the more exact sciences there is, you can pretty much tell what will happen when you start mixing and changing chemicals or find out shortly, but I was not comaparing this exactly. I said that what is being called mental illness is mostly social constructs and perceptions based on social laws (not chemistry) and that is saying a different thing then what you are saying that I am saying.

No one can compare chemistry with a court of law, but one can compare laws of chemistry to laws of the court in that they are both a set of hardened rules, where as one has meaning and exactness in measurement which is the chemistry a court of law doesn't it has meaning, but the perceptions of the rules and evidence can be changed so the rules or laws can be used discriminantly and changed over time.

"That's why it is really simple to disregard it as theory. But the theory has proven to be reliable."

No it isn't easy to disregard anything, and no the theories have not been proven to be reliable at all, especially the theory of a persons chemicals because although we all have chemicals they can not be reliably measured for validity or exactness as in how they affect a human beings emotions those are controlled by other things besides our chemicals we are made mostly by water. Even when we are drugged we will still react differently to different stimulus and that can not be measured for or controlled. Our body chemistry actually is pretty much the same all the time unless we introduce other chemicals into it or deplete from it by depleting nutrients, our emotions on the other hand change they are not controlled by our natural chemicals at all and that can not be proven nor has it been nor will it ever be possible. If you want to call hormones a chemical then maybe they do influence some of our behaviors, these drugs are not controlling the hormones though that is not what their purposes are and basically hormones adjust themselves over time.

"I can react an alcohol and a carboxylic acid and smell a ester. That is the only reliable evidence that can be provided"

(janie) Yes, once we introduce outside chemicals into our body then things in our body changes and that can be of a physiological nature and harmful to us. Would you suggest that a person take the spray paint can and inhale that as a treatment it is toxic poisons? How about ingesting cocain that is the same thing as the other so called treatments it is a chemical compound introduced from outside of us.

"along with tools for imagining like IR and NMR."

(janie) Even professional people that take these pictures will tell you that they can show the same things in a person that has not been labeled as one that has been labeled and different things in the same person over time, and it is only after a person has been treated with chemicals over a long period of time that some brain shrinkage might show up. These are not reliable unless there is actually a growth or tumor or disfigurement and then they can see that with these pictures in some cases and may even miss them in some, as far as anything else that is light years away and they know this they will tell you.

And theories are never definite.

(janie) That is just it, with some diseases there are reliable and valid indicators and they are not just theories, they are scientific diseases that need treatments to cure or prevent them. It was a theory that a vacine could prevent a disease until they came up with the right vacine to cure small pox and such although some people will argue with you over the use of vaccines and they can cause grave harm to different individuals. Even they can not prevent all diseases and sometimes there are variables that will affect even these type things.

If we admit that it is just "theories" and there are so many out there at this point in time then that theory is just an "oppinion" a persons "idea" and even psychiatrist will fight amongts themselves over which theory is most correct, but none of this is a scientifically valid and reliable fact, that is what shows that they don't know and they don't. So it is speculation, and I may not want a poker player playing with my mind? Even though one of them may think they have the best set of cards on the table at that time. So when we say it is a medical treatment and then we give a court of law the permission to impose it on people in the general public because it is a medical thing that is when it is wrong. That is what I was saying.

"There may not be a marking in the brain for depression. But think of how drastic alzheimers is when compared to depression. Depression can be a serious problem but it can also be a very mild problem manifested very commonly. I go through periods of depression, but it's not a serious imbalance in me. People who feel it more severely by correlation must have active neural discharge or a very inactive one."

(Janie) Not a marking in the brain either, like a seizure has a physical sign like the tounge swallowing and turning blue or different things, as in polio the gaited walk, as in congestive heart failure where the persons lungs become full. It is not so that there are different degrees and types of depression this is a misconception, those people may have more problems or different ways of dealing with their thoughts and emotions then you do that just goes to show that we are all humans and all different because even when we call it serious none of those people manifest the same set of exact "symptoms" on a continous basis and situations and circumstances can change even their expressions of their symptoms from hour to hour, day to day. Also none of the drugs can control for this, none of them. The correlation is not between body chemistry and amount of depression it is between what is going on in a persons life, a persons physical health, and how a person is emotionally reacting to that and that can be seen as normal for the situation and variable at times.

Also the observer brings different perceptions of their own into these determinations and different ways of writing things down and reading can be variable from person to person you can read something more then once and get more out of it and not see it exactly the same way you did the first time, and the observer can not get into another persons mind to know what is actually happening, there is no way. So that is bias.

No you can't predict everything, chemistry is not exact. It's conditional, there are constant modifications under conditions. Especially in understanding a human organism. Some things you wrote above were taken completely out of context so I will stick to talking about the human body.

Firstly I agree that there is more to the human mind than just neural connections. Descartes, gave a really good case on that in his essays on metaphysics. But that is not to say that there is no link between the brain and the mind. That much we are certain about and that much is not shrouded in mystery. A change in the brain results with a change in the mind. If I feel depressed, do you claim that the processes which are responsible for my depression are radically different then that of a person suffering from more severe depression?

It could be, anything is probable, but lets use scientific induction. If my heart pumps just as yours do you assume that both function by a radically different mechanism?

A depressive person might cut herself in an attempt to relieve pain. The organism, her perception has adapted a method to relieve stress. It would be bias to say that I can sympathize with this person because I could never be this person. But something connects me to this person. I see her and recognize her as more than a mere object. There is a kinship between me and another living person, I can recognize when this person is in pain. If I could not then I would be risking solipsism, why would I even believe that there are other minds but my own if I could not understand other minds. So ultimately, no I do not have this person's perception but by her behavior I can tell some things about this person. I am not trying to enforce mind control and label her with some illness. I am trying to help the person out. The fact that the process happens to be really bureocratic and it labels illness in such a way cannot be blamed on psychiatry alone. It's a way that makes it easier for most to manage illnesses, We live ina global community with cities spanning in the millions. There is an abundance of patients each day and they have to be managed.

And one thing I'd also like to add. We may in the span of our lives end up being more than just chemicals, but in the beginning we sprung from nothing but chemicals otherwise you could end up having memories before you came into existence and that's absurd.

As for the theories. They are reliable under simple conditions, but they are not always reliable under complex conditions because other factors come into play. It doesn't mean that the theory is intrinsically false it just means that something else came into play.

[quote=Budimir Zdravkovic]

Firstly I agree that there is more to the human mind than just neural connections. Descartes, gave a really good case on that in his essays on metaphysics. But that is not to say that there is no link between the brain and the mind. That much we are certain about and that much is not shrouded in mystery. A change in the brain results with a change in the mind.

(janie) I heard a really great theory the other day on tv that said that the stomach and the genitals have a brain too, or at least control our behaviors and that is so true isn't it? I would say more true then anything that the brain itself does. If I am hungry or want physical attention I may indeed be a different person then I would be if that was not true. If I was starving my kids were starving, what do you think that I might be capable of and I am talking about actually starving? I think I or anyone else might be capable of doing anything in the world that we wouldn't do under any other circumstances. And with sex doesn't circumstances and situation have more to do with what we will or won't do or say sexually most of the time? It may even cause us to adapt the way that we look at things so that we can say them in a way that others might accept better?

A depressive person might cut herself in an attempt to relieve pain.

(janie) This would be a choice she was making even if it was a wrong choice. Still as long as she wasn't hurting anyone but herself then that is her choice just as we want our own choices to be respected. You might want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet I might think that is wrong and could possibly cause you grave harm if you got in an accident without it on. Because there are tons of motorcyclist that don't want to wear helmets they ban together and do grassroots lobbying and don't have to do so.

There is a kinship between me and another living person, I can recognize when this person is in pain.

(janie) Yes there is pain in the world and lots of it, but I have no right to force my happiness or anything else on anyone else and just because I don't like someone else pain does not mean that I have a right to choose otherwise for them. Sometimes it is in the going all the way down that makes us recognize that we have to get ourselves back up. It gives us the push, the fight to struggle to get back up and go on. My mom use to say this to me and maybe it helped me some to become who I am, she would say don't feel sorry for yourself get up and do something and that helped me. I have had all kinds of different kinds of people in my life and I have learned from and admired all of them. I come from strong parents, my dad was probably stronger then my mom. It was a traditional family. Don't think that I don't know what pain is and that I have not had to learn how to deal with it and over come it. It's not worth the drug addiction to me to not feel that pain, even though I may react differently to it then some one else?

by her behavior I can tell some things about this person.

(janie) behaviors are just one part of a person and they change daily and over time with all of us if we take the so called treatments or not, I suppose that my own behavior changes from situation to situation person to person that I am dealing with and that is normal, I don't always have bright shining moments that I am proud of, but I have many.

I am trying to help the person out.

(janie) My dad use to tell me this to be weary of people that wanted to help people out because for the most part when you want to help another out it is really you that you are helping out or wanting to help out, especially if you are getting paid for it that is complicity and co-optation.

The fact that the process happens to be really bureocratic and it labels illness in such a way cannot be blamed on psychiatry alone.

(janie) yes it can because it really is not an illness there is no illness there it is a way of thinking that may lead to the wrong behavior that needs to be changed or a person may not be getting their real needs met, if I need my yard cut then I need it cut and if I am unable for whatever reason to do that I can either learn to live with it, get someone that can do it for me, or do it for myself and the way that I look at that will make a difference in how I feel about that, my expectations, that is not a disease, and they may be different then yours

It's a way that makes it easier for most to manage illnesses

(janie) there is no illness, there is situations, circumstances, issues and problems and those can be dealt with differently then seeing them as a disease I am not trying to say that they do not exist and that people don't sometimes need some real and serious assistance, but it has to be their choice and what they say that they need.

There is an abundance of patients each day and they have to be managed.

(janie) Managed??? You make them sound like nothing more then cows out in a feild, I have went through too many cattle lines of life and gotten tired of it I try not to go through those any more, but I had a lot of good people that were not trying to manage me that were there to help me and to do what I needed and asked them to do and impart their wisdom and knowledge on me and I have been really really lucky and smart over time

[quote=Budimir Zdravkovic]And one thing I'd also like to add. We may in the span of our lives end up being more than just chemicals, but in the beginning we sprung from nothing but chemicals otherwise you could end up having memories before you came into existence and that's absurd.

(janie) no baby, this is not so yes it is all chemicals, the sperm and the egg are chemicals, and that is all we will ever be is chemicals, but what I am saying is there is no way that they can measure these chemicals or show how or that they even cause any certain behaviors, behaviors are caused from reactions to things outside of us that we take in and then think about them and then we may have one or another or no emotion depending on lots of things, not chemicals, emotions in a way are a choice they are a response that we choose, they may not always be the right ones.

As for the theories. They are reliable under simple conditions,

(janie) there is never any simple condition they are playing mind games with you making you believe this, I know that you believe it too, I can believe anything that I want to and try to make you believe it and if I can show it to you once that does not make it so

but they are not always reliable under complex conditions because other factors come into play.

(janie) that is right other conditions and variables always come into play things change that is the only real certainty in life and death.

It doesn't mean that the theory is intrinsically false it just means that something else came into play.

(janie) this is partially right it doesn't mean that it must be wrong if we believe something then there may be some correctness to it, but it is not always the same from person to person over time because things change every thing changes all the time