Call Out: PsychOUT: A Conference for Organizing Resistance Against Psychiatry

315 posts / 0 new
Last post
Goggles Pissano

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Just to throw in a complete diversion, when I saw this revived thread my first question was whether this was some scientology thing, given their dogmatic anti-psychiatry stance.

Dr. Hoffer was a psychiatrist.  He was Jewish.

(edit)

I don't believe in Scientology, nor endorse it, but they do have a fantastic anti-psychiatry video called The Marketing of Madness. I do recommend that people watch it. It is an eye-opener.

Dr. Bonnie Burstow and Don Weitz are  two leaders from Toronto behind this anti-psychiatry movement.  Dr. Burstow does not endorse Dr. Hoffer, nor any of his teachings, which I think is unfortunate.  He used water therapy and ECT, and dangerous surgeries early on in his research.  Also, he is a psychiatrist who does prescribe medications, which she would find intolerable.

Anti-psychiatry is a real bottom-up movement, and there are a lot of horror stories out there.

Bacchus

Timebandit is female actually

 

There are jewish scientologists

 

And we dont normally ascribe motives to other babblers, especially when they have a negative connotation and are just designed to insult someone while trying not to get banned, again

jas

Thanks for this, Goggles. Very interesting information. Not really all that scary.

I think if I was on medication and only able to operate at 50 or 60 percent of my normal capacity, I too would be looking at a better alternative. Who wouldn't? What harm would it do to try something else?

Goggles Pissano

Bacchus wrote:

Timebandit is female actually

 

There are jewish scientologists

 

And we dont normally ascribe motives to other babblers, especially when they have a negative connotation and are just designed to insult someone while trying not to get banned, again

I did not know that TB was a female, and I am sorry if I hurt her.

Ryan seemed very upset. and I was merely trying to help Ryan get through the frustration of dealing with TB's viewpoints on this thread, and nothing more.

Goggles Pissano

jas wrote:

Thanks for this, Goggles. Very interesting information. Not really all that scary.

I think if I was on medication and only able to operate at 50 or 60 percent of my normal capacity, I too would be looking at a better alternative. Who wouldn't? What harm would it do to try something else?

Thank you Jas.  You are correct, it is not scary.  It is also not 'alternative' either. As Ryan mentioned earlier, that 50 or 60% carries a lot of toxic side effects, and long term irreversabile neurological damage.

I just wish that mainstream doctors would come on board.  We have lost 65 years of finding real cures for very serious diseases that people suffer from, and I don't understand all the hostility, the toxicity threats, or anything.

Again, thank you.

MegB

Serious thread drift here - not to mention continued personal attacks, insinuations, etc.

For those of you who wish to discuss alternative medicine vs traditional, either find an existing thread about it or start a new one.

This thread was initially a notice about a conference (long since over), but the conversation about psychiatric survivors and abuse in the mental healthcare system is an important one, and we do a disservice to survivors and others who may identify differently by ignoring the issues and pursuing our own agendas.

I want to see a topically relevant discussion that is sensitive and respectful of people's experiences and opinions. For those who have no personal experience and/or knowledge of the issues, I would ask that you listen well and ask sensitive questions. Please be aware that some people may have triggers and those engaging in the discussion need to be aware of that.

If the thread degenerates again into an off-topic pissing contest, I'll have to close it.  If you simply want to go off-topic, open another thread.

Thank you.

Caissa

I don't think Timebandit is the problem in this thread, Ryanw. Scientifically unsabstantiated quackery is being advocated in this thread and timebandit is labeling as exactly what it is.

P.S. Soggles, Timebandit is a she not a he.

ryanw

I wouldn't expect you to 'be sure' Caissa given your silencing "are you okay?" in the other thread

and I don't have Goggles patience to freely give of themself in educating others as to why what was said is hurtful, in the same moment they and their community are being assaulted

I maintain there was never any thread drift

Caissa

It wasn't a silencing okay, Ryan. I was genuinely concerned about the individual based on the individual's pattern of posting. You can choose to believe what you will. Not all opinions are equal Ryan nor do all claims stand up to scientific scrutiny. Not all ideas are equal either, some can be quite harmful.

jas

Caissa can't possibly not have seen post #256, so he's probably working to get the thread shut down, which he's done on 9/11 threads as well. Again, the people who are havinig a respectful discussion suffer for the actions of a few.

Rebecca, I would urge you, rather than shut  the thread down, to recognize who are the primary antagonists in this thread and shut them down instead,

Caissa

I read #256, jas. I'm glad to see you did so as well. My opinions are based on my experience with psychiatrists and the mental health care profession. I think I am as entitled to argue them as vigorously as who hold a different set of opinions.

jas

Caissa wrote:

I read #256, jas. I'm glad to see you did so as well. My opinions are based on my experience with psychiatrists and the mental health care profession.

As someone diagnozed with a psychiatric problem?

Quote:
I think I am as entitled to argue them as vigorously as who hold a different set of opinions.

Not in this thread, you're not. Indeed, I believe Rebecca was suggesting that nobody, not even Goggles, should continue to proselytize for or against any particular form of therapy.

Caissa

I'm certainly not going to answer that question, jas, since with all due respect, it is none of your business. Where did I or I use the word "proselytize"? Do you equate that with "vigorously arguing an opinion"?

MegB

jas, I'm not going to single people out in this thread as antagonists - that isn't productive.  And while I don't want to speak for Caissa, there is a difference between expressing a different opinion or relating a different experience, and assuming all opinions that diverge from one's own are wrong.  We see a lot of this kind of "I'm right and you're wrong" kind of discourse on babble, and I think it not only shuts down discussion or forces it to conform to one particular view, it usually degenerates into hostility.

So, if we can get back to the issue - survivors of psychiatric abuse. I won't encourage anyone to share particulars, unless you want to to illustrate a point, but I get the sense that the stigma of mental health is weakening, however slightly, which may lead to better support and care. Opinions?

MegB

Will do jas.

ETA: yes, I get your point. Yes, I would say that perhaps the language Caissa used language that wasn't as sensitive as it could be, but (and I'm not only flirting with hypocrisy, but embracing it as a long lost cousin) we can't possibly deal with absolutes here. Jeez, I've posted some whoppers in my 11 years at rabble.ca .  

As a moderator, I should have a more nuanced understanding of when and how a thread becomes destructive to its aims. Won't speak for Catchfire, but I've blundered many a time and expect other non-Mod contributors to do the same. When the "blunder" becomes a consistent pattern that affects others in a negative way, ramps up belligerance and intolerance, then I have to consider if any kind of action is needed. Sometimes i have to step away from the computer for a few (or several minutes) before I respond.

I expect and encourage disagreement here - both in this thread and babble in general. I expect to be called on my own bullshit. I would not put myself in the position of being, what I've been called, "the language police".  No one expresses themselves in a perfect way (whatever that may be) all the time. Everyone has the freedom to blow their stack and take no prisoners every once in a while. Everyone has the freedom to be an asshole (no particular reference to anyone) every once in a while. In fact, I think everyone is someone else's asshole at some point.

Let's try not to be so judgemental. If we fail, let's try again. (Holy crap, I'm starting to sound like a self-help book - save me someone!).

 

 

 

Caissa

I think some of the stigma is disappearing although I don't think all things in the DSM are treated equally. There is very little understanding of most mental health "disorders" and when something senstational happens in the news we take two steps bacwards in societal understanding. I'm off to speak to a nursing class on an unrelated topic.

6079_Smith_W

Rebecca West wrote:

 I get the sense that the stigma of mental health is weakening, however slightly, which may lead to better support and care. Opinions?

One would hope. Unfortunately I think our federal government is using mental illness as a scapegoat in its law and order agenda.

And I remember a few years ago the Manitoba government bent to a media frenzy and overruled the decision of psychiatrists who were trying to get their high-profile patient some fresh air and outdoor time.

And I am sure people here have been paying some attention to the Ashley Smith inquest. Yesterday the one guard who was sympathetic testified that on the day she wound up dead she asked him "you are going to stop me, right?"

And an inmate died just this weekend of a heart attack in the facility here in Saskatoon. She called for help for hours, and guards turned off her alarm buzzer.

So no, I think all it takes is waving the worst case scenario like a red flag for the many in the public to jump back to old, reflexive prejudices.

But I'm guessing that is a subject for another thread.

jas

I'm a little speechless right now, so maybe I'll stay that way for now.

I would simply ask Rebecca to look at your post at #256, and then look at Caissa's post immediately following at #257.

I'll quote the relevant passages here in case you don't get to it right away:

Rebecca West wrote:
For those of you who wish to discuss alternative medicine vs traditional, either find an existing thread about it or start a new one.

... we do a disservice to survivors and others who may identify differently by ignoring the issues and pursuing our own agendas.

I want to see a topically relevant discussion that is sensitive and respectful of people's experiences and opinions. For those who have no personal experience and/or knowledge of the issues, I would ask that you listen well and ask sensitive questions.

Immediately following this:

Caissa wrote:
Scientifically unsubstantiated quackery is being advocated in this thread and timebandit is labeling as exactly what it is.

jas

Caissa wrote:

I'm certainly not going to answer that question, jas, since with all due respect, it is none of your business. 

Actually, I would challenge this as well. If you're going to call someone else's success with a mental health treatment "quackery" in a thread for survivors of psychiatric abuse, then, yes, you do need to explain what your personal experience with psychiatry is.

[/bicker - as long as those attitudes and terms don't continue to crop up here.]

Bacchus

You mean attitudes and terms like the person that said "But you know what, the "scientific" ones are the "quacks"?

Caissa

With all do respect, I don't need to explain my personal experience with psychiatry, jas. Suffice it to say that i have personal experience with psychiatry, and we will leave it at that.

ETA: Would it make you feel better if I withdrew the word "quackery"?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

.

jas

Caissa, if you're going to claim that you too should have a voice here because you've had experience as a psychiatric consumer then I believe you do need to divulge this, as others here have done.

But you're right in that whatever your experience has been does not legitmize your judgments of other therapies and other people's experience with those.

It doesn't matter to me if you don't want to share this information. Just stop labeling other therapies if you've had no experience with them.

jas

When I resurrected this thread from three years ago, I was quite taken with the article I had linked in the OP. Very relevant for our discussion here.

Quote:
This was the startling result of three large international studies carried out by the World Health Organization over the course of 30 years, starting in the early 1970s. The research showed that patients outside the United States and Europe had significantly lower relapse rates — as much as two-thirds lower in one follow-up study. These findings have been widely discussed and debated in part because of their obvious incongruity: The regions of the world with the most resources to devote to the illness - the best technology, the cutting-edge medicines and the best-financed academic and private-research institutions - had the most troubled and socially marginalized patients.

So far the only people to comment on it, then or now, have been remind and Revolution Please. Not sure if it's because Ethan Watters also co-authored a book supposedly debunking recovered memory therapies.

 

kropotkin1951

I thought the article was very interesting and its ideas resonated with me.  I think from reading this thread that two important parts of any effective strategy for dealing with mental illness are good nutrition and a strong community.  I also suspect that if those two were readily available the need for drugs would be greatly reduced.

6079_Smith_W

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 I think from reading this thread that two important parts of any effective strategy for dealing with mental illness are good nutrition and a strong community.

I agree with that completely, and I'd add that the worst part of the pathological behaviour is on the part of the rest of us - not those labelled as mentally  ill.

That said, I recognize the evidence which says that some conditions are most effectively treated with drugs.

 

jas

Thanks, Krop. Another point this article makes, which touches on some points Rebecca was making:

Quote:
Cross-cultural psychiatrists have pointed out that the mental health ideas we export to the world are rarely unadulterated scientific facts and never culturally neutral. “Western mental-health discourse introduces core components of Western culture, including a theory of human nature, a definition of personhood, a sense of time and memory and a source of moral authority. None of this is universal..  ...The problem is the overall thrust that comes from being at the heart of the one globalizing culture. It is as if one version of human nature is being presented as definitive..."

Aristotleded24

jas wrote:
Thanks, Krop. Another point this article makes, which touches on some points Rebecca was making:

Quote:
Cross-cultural psychiatrists have pointed out that the mental health ideas we export to the world are rarely unadulterated scientific facts and never culturally neutral. “Western mental-health discourse introduces core components of Western culture, including a theory of human nature, a definition of personhood, a sense of time and memory and a source of moral authority. None of this is universal..  ...The problem is the overall thrust that comes from being at the heart of the one globalizing culture. It is as if one version of human nature is being presented as definitive..."

To give you an example, someone in this culture who says they hear voices will be called a schizophrenic and placed on medication. Someone from a different culture who reports the same thing will be asked, "who were the voices and what did they say?"

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

jas wrote:
Caissa, if you're going to claim that you too should have a voice here because you've had experience as a psychiatric consumer then I believe you do need to divulge this, as others here have done.

This is absolutely not true. Demands or deploying guilt to contrive confessions out of people to share their experiences with psychiatry or other mental health workers, on either side of the couch, so to speak, are unequivocally against babble policy. I take them very seriously. jas, please stop that line of argument now. 

jas

Catchfire wrote:
This is absolutely not true. Demands or deploying guilt to contrive confessions out of people to share their experiences with psychiatry or other mental health workers, on either side of the couch, so to speak, are unequivocally against babble policy. I take them very seriously. jas, please stop that line of argument now.  

If Caissa is going to make blanket declarations about treatments that others have found success with, we need to know which side of the couch he's coming from:

wrote:
My opinions are based on my experience with psychiatrists and the mental health care profession. I think I am as entitled to argue them as vigorously as who hold a different set of opinions.

Except Caissa isn't arguing his "experiences". He's declaring something to be "quackery", which is essentially accusing a poster in this thread of the same thing. Based on what experience of his? He doesn't say. This is what should be against Babble policy. Sorry that the mods are having such a difficult time with this. I can't really imagine why.

jas

Anyway, as I said in the very same post you've quoted:

jas wrote:
It doesn't matter to me if you don't want to share this information. Just stop labeling other therapies if you've had no experience with them.

And isn't that the moderating request that Rebecca had JUST GIVEN??

Goggles Pissano

Catchfire wrote:

jas wrote:
Caissa, if you're going to claim that you too should have a voice here because you've had experience as a psychiatric consumer then I believe you do need to divulge this, as others here have done.

This is absolutely not true. Demands or deploying guilt to contrive confessions out of people to share their experiences with psychiatry or other mental health workers, on either side of the couch, so to speak, are unequivocally against babble policy. I take them very seriously. jas, please stop that line of argument now. 

I agree with Jas.  I honestly feel that the mods are trying to re-define what is allowable for psychiatric survivors to discuss.  I feel that there is a pro-western based medicine bias by the mods who are allowing those who quite possibly work within the medical system to have their anti-alternative, or anti-old school mainstream medicine attitudes not only allowed but for them to take over the discussion.  I feel that the mods are playing the namby tamby middle of the road role that extreme opinions on boths sides are unwelcome and that doctors and psychiatrists with their meds have a valid and legitimate scientific basis to do theri jobs as they see fit.  That is exactly opposite of what the nature of this thread is about.

I feel that if you work within the system and want to discuss pro psychiatric discussions, then set up your own thread.  If you have had little to no history of psychiatric diagnosis or medicalization, and you want to say that you believe that psychiatric meds have their place in medicine. then explain why you think so based on your own personal experience, or go elsewhere, and if your reason is because your neighbor's best friends' nephew's cousin had mild depression and didn't feel well and medication made him feel better, then go elsewhere, because people who have had depression of any magniture and have taken anti-depressants at some point in their lives are not the people who this thread represents.

This thread is also NOT about 'your GP has more of a human touch and can dispense the same drugs more humanely which will make you feel better" kind of thread either.

This thread is for people whose lives have been ravaged by mainstream psychiatry and an entire medical system and society that doesn't want to hear about the harsh realities of the drugs and other treatments, and would rather silence these horrors and play the middle road than to take these issues seriously, and mods included.

(edit.)

That means also that the  'yes nutrition is very valid to talk about as long as it is within the limits of what is acceptable to mainstream medicine that people get their nutritional needs met simply by eating a healthy diet alone' argument is as far as psychiatric survivors can go to discuss proper health care reform for people with severe psychiatric illnesses. People who don't know, have never read anything on the subject, and don't ever intend to read anything on the subject are playing the expert role on this to discredit healthy and wise alternatives to the existing treaments which are shoddy at best and leave people with very toxic consequences.

Goggles Pissano

jas wrote:
Except Caissa isn't arguing his "experiences". He's declaring something to be "quackery", which is essentially accusing a poster in this thread of the same thing. Based on what experience of his? He doesn't say. This is what should be against Babble policy. Sorry that the mods are having such a difficult time with this. I can't really imagine why.

I do think that Caissa mentioned in an earlier post that he had to go and give a lecture seminar to nurses for something unrelated to this discussion thread, implying that he works within the system.

Goggles Pissano

6079_Smith_W wrote:
That said, I recognize the evidence which says that some conditions are most effectively treated with drugs.

Oh really??? What evidence?

FYI, MAOI's a type of antidepressant, means...MONO AMINE OXIDASE INHIBITOR.  Mono means single.  AMINE means any compound produced within the body which has an amine ending on this chemical chain. Dopamine is an amine.  Epinephrene is an amine. Epinephrine is a stress hormone produced by the adrenal glands.  OXIDASE INHIBITOR.  Vitamin C is a powerful anti-oxident. Medical doctors discovered in the early 50s that when epinephrine mixes with oxygen, it produces hallucinogenic compounds, and that high levels of vitamin C and B3 can counteract this chain reaction and that the two nutrients combined also has powerful antidepressant qualities.

My question is, did the drug companies actually take this research seriously, and produced a compound with a similar chemical structure, but different enough for them to patent, and then work to discredit this hypothesis?

The only difference between the two is that MAOI's being unnatural to the body with the patentable compounds have toxic side effects, and that the former are completely natural to the body and are safe.

I usually find that the people who support mainstream medicine's evidence based style usually do not comb beneath the surface to find out exactly what it is they are supporting and defending.

(edit.)

They are also implying that despite the severe toxicities which cause harm and mediocre benefits of these psychiatric medications, that there are no valid alternatives out there which can effectively compete with these dangerous drugs, alternatives which are safer, more effective, and cheaper than anti-depressants and major tranquillizers.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Goggles Pissano wrote:
 I honestly feel that the mods are trying to re-define what is allowable for psychiatric survivors to discuss.  I feel that there is a pro-western based medicine bias by the mods who are allowing those who quite possibly work within the medical system to have their anti-alternative, or anti-old school mainstream medicine attitudes not only allowed but for them to take over the discussion.  I feel that the mods are playing the namby tamby middle of the road role that extreme opinions on boths sides are unwelcome and that doctors and psychiatrists with their meds have a valid and legitimate scientific basis to do theri jobs as they see fit.  That is exactly opposite of what the nature of this thread is about.

Hi Goggles. You have no idea what my views on psychiatry are. You have got them wrong, fyi. I'm sorry that you feel "the mods" are trying to force some kind of view on the discussion, or close the dimensions, but you'll notice that the only time I have posted in this thread of some 300 posts or so is to ensure that no one demands that babblers' personal experiences with mental health be made public, or that anyone should feel forced to make such an declaration. Furthermore, I'm sure that Timebandit and Sineed will find it kind of humourous, given our histories, that I am made out to be the hired muscle behind their perspective. I'd also like to point out that your posts in this thread have been fulsome and prodigious, and no moderator has done anything to curtail their length or quantity.

Our policy so far has been to allow this conversation to take its own turns, but to keep the participants safe. Personal attacks have been made by several here, which is natural given the personal nature of the discussion. They've been called out, but only minorly. Other than that, the discussion has been happening apace. I'm sorry if you disagree with how we've handled this heady discussion, but I think you've had the opportunity to make your position abundantly clear, and have received a great deal of support from other babblers. The only thing you won't receive is some kind of official endorsement of your position. No such endorsement, for any position, will be forthcoming.

Goggles Pissano

Catchfire wrote:
I'd also like to point out that your posts in this thread have been fulsome and prodigious, and no moderator has done anything to curtail their length or quantity.

Our policy so far has been to allow this conversation to take its own turns, but to keep the participants safe. Personal attacks have been made by several here, which is natural given the personal nature of the discussion. They've been called out, but only minorly. Other than that, the discussion has been happening apace. I'm sorry if you disagree with how we've handled this heady discussion, but I think you've had the opportunity to make your position abundantly clear, and have received a great deal of support from other babblers. The only thing you won't receive is some kind of official endorsement of your position. No such endorsement, for any position, will be forthcoming.

I have never asked for an official endorsement of my position from anyone.  There are many people who have had their lives ravaged by psychiatry. I feel that I am a survivor of psychiatry.  I feel that I have found a way around the drugs that is safe, effective and affordable, but that because we are dealing with interests much bigger than ourselves, these effective alternatives are not being allowed an opportunity to be taken seriously.

If I am lengthy and pushy, and yes, I have been dominant, it is because I have researched this for close to 15 years. I have tried it myself. and I have had to read extensively over the years try to make sense of all these issues to find out why it all happened to me.

 

Goggles Pissano

Rebecca West wrote:

For those of you who wish to discuss alternative medicine vs traditional, either find an existing thread about it or start a new one.

This thread was initially a notice about a conference (long since over), but the conversation about psychiatric survivors and abuse in the mental healthcare system is an important one, and we do a disservice to survivors and others who may identify differently by ignoring the issues and pursuing our own agendas.

...

If the thread degenerates again into an off-topic pissing contest, I'll have to close it.  If you simply want to go off-topic, open another thread.

Thank you.

If this is not a muzzle on Orthomolecular medicine, I don't know what is. You cannot get any clearer than this, and the fact that it was started and researched by teams of medical doctors, leaders in their fields of study, to be called 'alternative', is a slur to discredit it's merits and contributions to medicine.

So, if it is a legitimate alternative to the way psychiatry is practiced today, how does one get access to it without medical doctors (who don't know about it, understand it, nor wish to cooperate with it) sabotaging people from succeeding on the program? If mainstream medical doctors are the only ones who are publicly funded, then what do people on low incomes do if they want to get well and off drugs? And, if governments want to save money, if orthomolecular medicine is as good as I say it is, then by investing in subsidizing vitamins up front for people on low incomes, could they not be saving huge sums of money by getting these people completely well, people who WANT to be completely well themselves rather than chemically lobotomized?

I think that these are very serious issues and questions, and that they are more than relevant to this thread. But I have just been muzzled.

(edit)

And if what I am saying is true, then maybe it is the medical system itself, from the medical researchers putting down alternative ideas, right through to the doctors who prescribe these toxic drugs and refuse to budge on alternative ideas, who are in direct violation of the hypocratic oath.

6079_Smith_W

Goggles Pissano wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

That said, I recognize the evidence which says that some conditions are most effectively treated with drugs.

Oh really??? What evidence?

Goggles, I have not said anything criticizing your position or your choice of treatment.

I was talking to kropotkin (and agreeing with him), and I felt it necessary to qualify that with my opinion that there are times when drugs are the best treatment.

But I will not get into that discussion with you because I see it as going around the same counterproductive mulberry bush we are trying to avoid. And frankly, I have no interest in going there. I am trying to be supportive of you. Please let me do that while holding my own opinion.

ryanw

 

Goggles Pissano wrote:

Oh really??? What evidence?

now now, we don't want to treat others like we ourselves are treated :P

Goggles Pissano

OK Ryan, I'll try to be nice to others.  I'll put on a happy face, and try to be congenial. Nobody will even be able to recognize me, I'll be that nice. Smile

ryanw

one mod says "theres thread drift and we'll have to close it down" (we share equal responsibility for the closing by having expressed our pain while under attack, it was wrong for us to do that; albeit we are getting better at taking a pummeling in silence)

the other says "the conversation has been going just fine! and there is no need to remove disruptive persons, and that they are sorry that we feel that way" (who here's glad that this one only showed up now, and not 10 pages earlier? )

Safety.... we has it! /catphoto

I wanted to extend an apology to one member, who has experienced this maltreatment before. Necro'ing this thread has been useful for me and at little cost; that's not to say everyone has had an identical result.

I'm sorry for the lack of change, I'm saddened by the lack of restraint by others, I'm sorry this is not the place we needed it to be.

There is hope. Seeing that there is at least one person from the larger group with the right attitude. Maybe some time in the future they'll intervene, that's a personal decision. but it gives others hope seeing the capacity.  

 

jas

ryanw wrote:
I'm saddened by the lack of restraint by others,  

I do think this is a problem not just in greater society but here on Rabble/Babble. 

Not to pick on Catchfire or to drag on about mod issues in this thread, but it is somewhat relevant to this topic. He commented that the mods' job is to allow this discussion while keeping people safe. But how is he doing that when he's allowing others, who won't declare whether they have any personal experience on the receiving end of psychiatric treatment, to come into this thread and tell someone who does have that experience that what she is talking about is "quackery" or is "unsubstantiated", when she's not only speaking from a position of personal success with it but has also gone to considerable lengths to show substantiation? 

How is that keeping people safe here?

It's true that the thread is not actually about orthomolecular medicine, so there's no need to spend great tracts of text defending it or trying to tear it down. I wonder if Goggles has gone on at length about it partly because she feels the need to defend it here? I don't know. But we see this dynamic over and over here, where people who claim to speak for "science" come in and try to shut discussion down using labels like "quack" and "tinfoil hat". This, quite plainly, is bullying. And it's usually only when the recipients of these comments quite naturally respond in kind that the mods then step in, admonishing everyone and/or threatening to shut the thread down. Instead of asking the clear antagonists to politely zip it, as would be done in any other thread, such as in the feminism forum.

 

Bacchus

You plainly ignore the fact, jas, that both sides have used the quackery and fraud labels in this thread, as I quoted from a previous post

6079_Smith_W

From January 25th's NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/opinion/sunday/schizophrenic-not-stupi...

As far as I see it this is one person's position, not negating anyone else's . 

I'm sure there is plenty to agree and disagree with nevertheless.

 

Goggles Pissano

jas wrote:

I wonder if Goggles has gone on at length about it partly because she feels the need to defend it here?

Yep.

I believed that my word at the beginning should have spoken for itself, and that if people wanted to explore this option, I provided a list of resources for people to look at.  The most important issue is barriers to access for safe alternatives to existing treatments, especially for low income people who want to get well, and the problems and limitations of mainstream medicne and how it is failing people who want to get well.

That's all. I'll be good...really.

Goggles Pissano

Here is a video on a natural approach to mental health.  It is a rabble podcast video, so be careful, it is very subversive in nature and might be offensive to some viewers.  Viewer discretion is advised.

Also take note that the person being interviewed is 89 years of age...I hope that I can be that alert when I am 89. 

Natural approach to psychiatry.

jas

Bacchus wrote:

You plainly ignore the fact, jas, that both sides have used the quackery and fraud labels in this thread, as I quoted from a previous post

Look at posts #51 - 59 (where this conversation began) and see who uses the term first, and most, along with other words such as "debunked" (also an inflammatory term in this context) and "crank". Goggles uses it once as a pejorative, and only after several posts of being provoked.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

gp

..in the 70's i knew the system was sick/broken/controlling and i think the same today. txs for this airing.

Goggles Pissano

Someone mentioned earlier that some viewpoints are more equal than others, implying that their viewpoints are more valid.  I cannot remember who wrote that viewpoint, but I believe that this perception stems from the disproportionate amount of investment that has been made to create that perception.  Here is an article which covers this disparity...

Sineed

GP wrote:
Someone mentioned earlier that some viewpoints are more equal than others, implying that their viewpoints are more valid.

If you believe that all knowledge is relative, and reality a matter of opinion, then all viewpoints would be equal. And in such a world, if you took enough vitamins, you could fly. After all, in a world of equivalent opinions, wishful thinking is a fact, and gravity is only a theory.

I was looking for an article I read a while ago about the compelling nature of anecdotes and why we are swayed by them, and found it here. It's kinda long, so I selected the salient points:

Quote:

While attending a lecture by a naturopath at my institution I had the opportunity to ask the following question: given the extreme scientific implausibility of homeopathy, and the overall negative clinical evidence, why do you continue to prescribe homeopathic remedies? The answer, as much as my question, exposed a core difference between scientific and sectarian health care providers. She said, “Because I have seen it work in my practice.”

There it is. She and many other practitioners of dubious modalities are compelled by anecdotal experience while I am not.

An anecdote is a story – in the context of medicine it often relates to an individual’s experience with their disease or symptoms and their efforts to treat it. People generally find anecdotes highly compelling, while scientists are deeply suspicious of anecdotes. We are fond of saying that the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data. Why is this?

 

Humans are social storytelling animals – we instinctively learn by the experience of others. 

(snip - lengthy explanation for the weaknesses of anecdotal evidence)

It is interesting to note that the scientific community has long ago made up its collective mind about the weaknesses and role of anecdotes. Logic and the lessons of history speak very clearly on this issue. But there are forces at work today that want to turn back the clock on scientific progress – they want to bring back anecdotes as a reliable source of medical evidence, essentially returning to the pre-scientific era of medicine. In some cases this is done out of frustration – that controlled scientific data has not validated a prior strongly held belief. In other cases it seems to be a calculated attempt to lower the bar of evidence to admit treatments that have not been validated by solid scientific evidence. In either case, this is not in the best interest of the health of the public.

Pages

Topic locked