Jump to content

Psychiatric drugs


Maximus

Recommended Posts

Interesting case against Eli Lilly that set them back a cool $1.4 billion

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_iXApBeT5s

 

So these drugs were known to be extremely powerful and dangerous and even induced diabetes and heart attacks yet doctors were handing them out to kids and the elderly. Not only did the drug have serious side effects, it has no proven benefits to either group. Strangely, despite the questionable long term safety of Zyprexa, it is deemed suitable for people with mental illness, as the FDA approved it as a treatment for Schizophrenia.

 

Corrupt muthasuckas! :saddam:

 

I know there are a few of JKBers who believe strongly in pyschiatric treatment, what do you make of this then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Commander Harris

I imagine these people who "believe strongly" in psychiatric treatment think that medication should be used responsibly for the correct conditions. ( i can only speak for me!)

 

I've not watched this video as I don't have the facility on the machine I'm currently using (I'll have a watch later) but if it shows anti-psychotic drugs being used as a behavioural aid for children or as some kind of easy way out in the care of the elderly then I think that's completely inapropriate. That does not negate the fact that this drug can be a lifesaver for those with Schizophrenia or those experiencing an acute manic episode.

 

you need to find some balance in your attitude to this, yes there are huge problems with the psychiatric system in this country, yes there is over-diagnosis and misuse of drugs but there are some very serious conditions for which psychiatric drugs are an essential part of treatment and to ignore/deny this is wrong.

Edited by Commander Harris
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no solid proof that psychiatric treatments achieve what they claim to, there is however MOUNTAINS of eveidence that they cause serious physical damage. In the case of SSRIs and schitzophrenia treatments with long term use they actually lower dopamine and seratonin levels. This is what creates the zombification effect I have previously talked about. Is this really about controlling symptoms or the actual person? That is the dilemma.

 

Mania, confusion, depression, anxiety, malaise are all symptoms that can be attributed to 'psychiatric disorders', they are also recognised as symptoms of various vitamin and mineral deficiencies and/or secondary symptoms of serious physical health problems but in the field of psychiatry they are labled as mental disorders and treated as such with little or no regard to the route causes.

 

Around the same time as the launch of Prozac, the FDA moved to ban the supplement L-Tryptophan. This is an essential amino acid found in certain foods but they deemed it dangerous while Prozac was some sort of perfectly safe miracle cure (which it definitely is not). Low levels of seratonin have been linked to depression, so why do SSRIs (like Prozac) actually lower Seratonin levels (after a short inital rise)? Tryptophan increases seratonin, low levels of tryptophan and various disorders that lower levels in the blood, have proven links with depression. This is a widely accepted scientific fact, now there ain't many of those in mainstream psychiatry!

 

Psychosis (which is commonly attributed to Schizophrenia dx) is another condition that has proven links with nutrient deficiencies (B12 and B1), yet I don't think many psychiatrists bother asking a patient about their diet and I'm doubtful that in mental institutions dietary needs would be high on the priority list.

 

Psychosis also has links to a host of physical medical problems such as hypoglycemia, hypocalcaemia and even Lyme disease. Why then, is psychosis treated as a symptom of mental illness, insanity? This modern methodology is a perfect example of what I get accused of, gross oversimplification.

 

Why not get to the medical (and if required, psychological and emotional) route of the symptoms instead of prescribing drugs that can only boast dubious safety records, multiple side effects and have virtually no scientific evidence behind them? This is where we encounter another contradiction within psychiatry. The use of psychoactive drugs (shrooms, cannabis etc) has been shown to actually cause many of these mental conditions, including psychosis, right? But what are the so called treatments offered for these things? Psychoactive drugs of course. SSRIs and antipsychotics also act on various operations of the brain (that science does not yet fully understand) and they also produce unpredictable results.

 

The drug producers are virtually unable to pinpoint what exactly the long term benefits or effects of their drugs are, the drugs still get approved though. They can't honestly proclaim that the drugs have any benefits at all (because there is no physical proof) but they do have to legally provide a list of possible side effects and the list is usually very long.

 

So patients are basically used as human guinea pigs.

 

The brain is not something to be messed with, chemical balance (supposedly the ultimate aim of psychiatry) is best achieved by balancing the chemicals the brain requires in the first place. Adding new, foreign ones only perpetuates the imbalance and creates dependancy.

 

:sunny:

Edited by Maximus
Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no solid proof that psychiatric treatments achieve what they claim to, there is however MOUNTAINS of eveidence that they cause serious physical damage. In the case of SSRIs and schitzophrenia treatments with long term use they actually lower dopamine and seratonin levels. This is what creates the zombification effect I have previously talked about. Is this really about controlling symptoms or the actual person? That is the dilemma.

 

Mania, confusion, depression, anxiety, malaise are all symptoms that can be attributed to 'psychiatric disorders', they are also recognised as symptoms of various vitamin and mineral deficiencies and/or secondary symptoms of serious physical health problems but in the field of psychiatry they are labled as mental disorders and treated as such with little or no regard to the route causes.

 

Around the same time as the launch of Prozac, the FDA moved to ban the supplement L-Tryptophan. This is an essential amino acid found in certain foods but they deemed it dangerous while Prozac was some sort of perfectly safe miracle cure (which it definitely is not). Low levels of seratonin have been linked to depression, so why do SSRIs (like Prozac) actually lower Seratonin levels (after a short inital rise)? Tryptophan increases seratonin, low levels of tryptophan and various disorders that lower levels in the blood, have proven links with depression. This is a widely accepted scientific fact, now there ain't many of those in mainstream psychiatry!

 

Psychosis (which is commonly attributed to Schizophrenia dx) is another condition that has proven links with nutrient deficiencies (B12 and B1), yet I don't think many psychiatrists bother asking a patient about their diet and I'm doubtful that in mental institutions dietary needs would be high on the priority list.

 

Psychosis also has links to a host of physical medical problems such as hypoglycemia, hypocalcaemia and even Lyme disease. Why then, is psychosis treated as a symptom of mental illness, insanity? This modern methodology is a perfect example of what I get accused of, gross oversimplification.

 

Why not get to the medical (and if required, psychological and emotional) route of the symptoms instead of prescribing drugs that can only boast dubious safety records, multiple side effects and have virtually no scientific evidence behind them? This is where we encounter another contradiction within psychiatry. The use of psychoactive drugs (shrooms, cannabis etc) has been shown to actually cause many of these mental conditions, including psychosis, right? But what are the so called treatments offered for these things? Psychoactive drugs of course. SSRIs and antipsychotics also act on various operations of the brain (that science does not yet fully understand) and they also produce unpredictable results.

 

The drug producers are virtually unable to pinpoint what exactly the long term benefits or effects of their drugs are, the drugs still get approved though. They can't honestly proclaim that the drugs have any benefits at all (because there is no physical proof) but they do have to legally provide a list of possible side effects and the list is usually very long.

 

So patients are basically used as human guinea pigs.

 

The brain is not something to be messed with, chemical balance (supposedly the ultimate aim of psychiatry) is best achieved by balancing the chemicals the brain requires in the first place. Adding new, foreign ones only perpetuates the imbalance and creates dependancy.

 

:sunny:

 

Agree totally with your scepticism. The whole world of medicine revolves around a small number of drug companies who push chemical concoctions at overly trusting patients through GP's who are rewarded for the number of prescriptions that they write.

 

No right-minded CEO of a drug company would fund research into a cure for any disease when a "treatment drug" can be administered on a 3 times daily basis for the rest of the patients miserable life. What would be in it for them to recommend a diet change or a course of exercise?

 

There is no way that medicine and development of medicines should be in the hands of profiteering capitalists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Too right MJ. Science has done a great deal of good for mankind but in the last century or so it has gone way too far, it has become a powerful weapon that is there to be misused and turned on the very people those who have commandeered it claim to be helping.

 

Taking control and responsibility of your own health and wellbeing is a form of self empowerment, that is why the medical establishment and higher powers are absolutely determined you don't. They will try their hardest to ensure and convince you that only they hold the answers and solutions. Knowledge is power. There is no form of control or source of income for the medical est. if too many people are healthy. So it is not exactly a great leap in logic to link the rapid rise in preventable illnessess and the now 'epidemic' levels of so called mental illness with those who profit from them.

 

Doctor knows best has become a bit of a myth, while there are still many good people working in health care it has increasingly become overrun with professional drug pushers. These people, from the doctors signing the prescriptions right to those at the top of the pharmecutical industry, have been entrusted (to far too great an extent) with our welfare and they abuse this trust on a routine basis, for personal gain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ArmiyaRomanova

It's a sad day when you can't trust the medical profession any more than you would the banking or legal professions. Unfortunately, that day is here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
maroonlegions

conspiracy

FDA Approves 18 Drugs from Pharma Company Accused of Conspiracy, Fraud

Monday, February 02, 2009 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer

Key concepts: Conspiracy, The FDA and Natural health

Bookmark and Share Email this article to a friend Printable Version FREE Email Newsletter

 

Articles Related to This Article:

? The AMA Conspiracy to Contain and Eliminate the Practice of Chiropractic

 

? Mercury Fillings Shattered! FDA, ADA Conspiracy to Poison Children with Toxic Mercury Fillings Exposed in Groundbreaking Lawsuit

 

? Coca-cola workers convicted in conspiracy plot to sell formula secrets to Pepsi:biglaugh:

 

 

 

Sign the Health Revolution Petition

Join the call for genuine health freedom in America. End FDA tyranny and Big Pharma corruption. Watch the video and sign the petition here.

(NaturalNews) The FDA has approved 18 products for market from generic drug manufacturer Ranbaxy Laboratories, even though the company is currently being investigated by Congress for making substandard products and conspiring to fraudulently cover it up.:qqb010:

 

"Allegations from reliable sources and supporting documents indicate a pattern of systemic fraudulent conduct, including submissions by Ranbaxy to the FDA that contain false and fabricated information," the Department of Justice said.

 

The Department of Justice is investigating claims that Ranbaxy, India's largest drug manufacturer, produced HIV medication that contained insufficient active ingredients or was adulterated with other ingredients. These drugs were then used to treat patients in Africa.

 

Other drugs are also suspected of containing active ingredients in concentrations that are either too low or too high. The company also stands accused of attempting to conceal manufacturing procedures that do not meet FDA standards and of forging documents relating to U.S. government investigations of its practices.

 

Finally, Ranbaxy is being investigated for falsifying data suggest that its generic drugs are absorbed into the body in a similar fashion to brand-name products. This proof is an essential part of the process of gaining FDA approval for a generic drug without going through large clinical trials.

 

In July, Congress also began a probe into why the FDA had not taken action against Ranbaxy, even though it had known for months of allegations against the company. As part of this probe, the FDA was asked to provide information on every FDA-approved Ranbaxy product and the approval process that it went through.

 

Former FDA Deputy Commissioner Mary Pendergast has criticized the FDA's failure to take action against Ranbaxy and its products.

 

Because the FDA "wouldn't be confident of the accuracy and reliability of the information in the applications," Pendergast said, "they might be approving a product that ought not be approved.":qqb009:

 

Sources for this story include: http://www.newsinferno.com.

 

 

For me and what i have read about these big drug companies there is one thing they will not give up and that is the billions of dollars they make.Every mental illness cannot be solved by swallowing a pill every time.They might look to control the system of the problems but not the causes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[url=

][/url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73SRn1gdAdM

 

Does anyone actually disagree that the use of these drugs on children should be stopped outright immediately?

 

They are gateway drugs. In fact SSRIs are comparable to speed and cocaine as they are all reuptake inhibitors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
maroonlegions

What Happens to Your Body Within an Hour of Drinking a Coke

 

soda, soda pop, coca cola, coke, soft drinks, physical effects of drinking coke .Do you want to be healthy? Drinking soda is bad for your health in so many ways; science can?t even state all the consequences. Here?s what happens in your body when you assault it with a Coke:

 

Within the first 10 minutes, 10 teaspoons of sugar hit your system.:boat: This is 100 percent of your recommended daily intake, and the only reason you don?t vomit as a result of the overwhelming sweetness is because phosphoric acid cuts the flavour.:nuke:

 

Within 20 minutes, your blood sugar spikes, and your liver responds to the resulting insulin burst by turning massive amounts of sugar into fat.

 

Within 40 minutes, caffeine absorption is complete; your pupils dilate, your blood pressure rises, and your livers dumps more sugar into your bloodstream.

 

Around 45 minutes, your body increases dopamine production, which stimulates the pleasure centers of your brain ? a physically identical response to that of heroin, by the way.(coke addict):7:

 

After 60 minutes, you?ll start to have a sugar crash.:arghh:

 

Sources:

 

Nutrition Research Center October 24, 2007

 

Dr. Mercola''s Comments Dr. Mercola's Comments:

 

How many sodas have you had today? How about your kids? As of 2005, white bread was dethroned as the number one source of calories in the American diet, being replaced by soft drinks.

 

The average American drinks more than 60 gallons of soft drinks each year, but before you grab that next can of soda, consider this: one can of soda has about 10 teaspoons of sugar, 150 calories, 30 to 55 mg of caffeine, and is loaded with artificial food colors and sulphites. Not to mention the fact that it?s also your largest source of dangerous high-fructose modified corn syrup.

 

Let?s take a look at some of the other major components of a can of soda:

 

* Phosphoric Acid: Which can interfere with the body's ability to use calcium, leading to osteoporosis or softening of the teeth and bones.

* Sugar: It is a proven fact that sugar increases insulin levels, which can lead to high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes, weight gain, premature ageing and many more negative side effects. Most sodas include over 100 percent of the RDA of sugar. Sugar is so bad for your health in so many ways, I even created an entire list outlining 100-Plus Ways in Which Sugar Can Damage Your Health

* Aspartame: This chemical is used as a sugar substitute in diet soda. There are over 92 different health side effects associated with aspartame consumption including brain tumours, birth defects, diabetes, emotional disorders and epilepsy/seizures.

* Caffeine: Caffeinated drinks cause jitters, insomnia, high blood pressure, irregular heartbeat, elevated blood cholesterol levels, vitamin and mineral depletion, breast lumps, birth defects, and perhaps some forms of cancer.

* Tap Water: I recommend that everyone avoid drinking tap water because it can carry any number of chemicals including chlorine, trihalomethanes, lead, cadmium, and various organic pollutants. Tap water is the main ingredient in bottled soft drinks. :7:

 

Clearly, the over-consumption of sodas and sweet drinks is one of the leading causes fuelling the world-wide obesity epidemic.

 

One independent, peer-reviewed study published in the British medical journal The Lancet demonstrated a strong link between soda consumption and childhood obesity. They found that 12-year-olds who drank soft drinks regularly were more likely to be overweight than those who didn't. In fact, for each additional daily serving of sugar-sweetened soft drink consumed during the nearly two-year study, the risk of obesity jumped by 60 percent.

 

Here?s another sobering fact if you?re struggling with weight issues: Just one extra can of soda per day can add as much as 15 pounds to your weight over the course of a single year!

 

Other statistics on the health dangers of soft drinks include:

 

*

One soda per day increases your risk of diabetes by 85 percent

*

Soda drinkers have higher cancer risk. While the federal limit for benzene in drinking water is 5 parts per billion (ppb), researchers have found benzene levels as high as 79 ppb in some soft drinks, and of the 100 brands tested, most had at least some detectable level of benzene present

*

Soda has been shown to cause DNA damage ? courtesy of sodium benzoate, a common preservative found in many soft drinks, which has the ability to switch off vital parts of your DNA. This could eventually lead to diseases such as cirrhosis of the liver and Parkinson's.

 

 

I do like a coke and have nothing against people who like me partake in the odd can but when it is put like that above?It sure makes coke look like a whole lot different when seeing what it really does to ones body.:yes2:

Link to post
Share on other sites
maroonlegions
[url=
][/url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73SRn1gdAdM

 

Does anyone actually disagree that the use of these drugs on children should be stopped outright immediately?

 

They are gateway drugs. In fact SSRIs are comparable to speed and cocaine as they are all reuptake inhibitors.

 

 

 

Stopped immediately and the b****** responsible fined heavily and banned from working in the drug industry.:yes2:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stopped immediately and the b****** responsible fined heavily and banned from working in the drug industry.:yes2:
Not likely when it is basically state sponsered :rolleyes:

 

Like I said on the other thread, the world portrayed in the film Equilibrium is starting to look less sci-fi and more sci-fact by the day.

 

The day when they start putting prozac in the tap water is not far off IMO, oh wait it already gets in the water (along with about a million other chemicals) via contamination. :saddam:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Role of nutrients in mental health.

 

I'm surprised those who previously defended psychiatry have not attempted to justify root causes for mental illness being overlooked by psychiatrists. Why the hell are people who they claim have schizophrenia and bipolar not being screened for underlying health problems or tested for vitamin and mineral deficiencies? Why are psychoactive drugs put forward as solutions despite the fact they poison the brain and have actually been suggested as causes for so called mental illnessess? Would you prescribe cannabis or cocaine for a cold? If not then why would you prescribe Ritalin (a stimulant btw) for a restless child or Prozac to someone with depression or Zyprexa to someone with Schizophrenia? If the root cause is ignored how can it be solved? How can you cure something witch you can not even

, never mind properly identify in an actual person, with drugs that cause physical damage?

 

That is the paradox involved with psychiatry as well as medicine as a whole. That the medicines can actually create more illness. This is especially important with regards to drugging children, as they are still developing, who knows the damage is legally being done to them through these drugging campaigns in a supposed effort to 'cure' them (of what I do not know, childhood? Childhood is a mental disorder).

 

It is another accepted and documented medical fact that with long term use many medicines deplete the body's essential nutrients, the basic things the body and brain needs to operate, thrive and maintain the immune system. There is even a handbook that lists the drugs that deplete the essential nutrients in the body. Would this not make medicinal 'treatment' of people with psychiatric illness not only extremely counter productive but a form of abuse? Would it not make the 'treatment' of HEALTHY children (ADHD is a FRAUD) with psychiatric drugs a form of child abuse?!

Edited by Maximus
Link to post
Share on other sites
Commander Harris

maxi, while of course the food people eat will affect them that is not to say that all mental illness is as a result of this. like I said in my first response, you need to find a more balanced approach that recognises that there are other factors at play.

 

the very first video you posted, you were happy to use as evidence that psychiatric medications were being misused but at the same time ignore the content in the video that affirms the use of these drugs in patients with Schizophrenia and those experiencing an acute manic episode.

 

you post things and expect everyone to accept it as fact.

"There is no solid proof that psychiatric treatments achieve what they claim to, there is however MOUNTAINS of eveidence that they cause serious physical damage."

 

the above is simply not true, there is a mountain of evidence to show the effectiveness of lithium in bipolar patients for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this evidence? I'm genuinely interested BTW.

 

The main problem with proving anything of the sort is that psychiatric diagnoses and therfore the 'success' of treatment is entirely subjective - Because the psychiatric field have not produced the evidence to back their claims that mental illnessess are illnessess in their own right rather than the result of an unrelated, undiagnosed condition. On the other hand the correlation between medical conditions (and/or nutrient depletion/deficency) and the very symptoms that are described in psychiatric diagnoses (such as mania, psychosis, confusion) is a fact, science has proven these links but for some mysterious reason this is ignored by mainstream psychiatry. Lithium and psychoactive drugs mask symptoms so by their nature they can be clamed to work simply if the symptoms disapate or change but it does not indicate cure (because they don't cure), which surely is the aim of medication? This masking is achieved with Lithium because it works on the central nervous system and interacts with neurotransmiters to basically achieve a sedative effect or 'mood stabalisation'. It does not cure though. To cure would require looking for a root cause and healing it. One of the main symptoms Lithium works upon is mania. Mania is linked with various nutrient deficiencies (read the link in my above post) and the secondary effects Lithium has, upon seratonin levels, can be acheived naturally with Tryptophan.

 

There is also evidence that taking Lithium has long term health implications and the real damage of prolonged drug use of this sort (and Lithium requires at least a month course to even kick in) is that it perpetuates underlying problems by the effect it has on the body. Prolonged use of Lithium adversley effects kidney function (might explain why the most common side effect is thirst), and the kidneys play one of the most important roles within the body in terms of balancing toxins and mineral levels and as I have said there is raw scientific proof of the vital role of vitamins and minerals in proper mental functioning and also proof that medical conditions related to the liver and kidneys can manifest in symptoms like psychosis, not to mention the fact that too many toxins in the system cause malfunction of all the vital organs. So how is damaging this system going to help long term? This is not new age pish that I am making up, it's biology.

Edited by Maximus
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my mates has been sectioned 4 times due to severe cannabis pshychosis. If he stops taking his meds, he starts to deteriorate quickly until he does something crazy and gets sectioned again. The only way that this guy can live anything that even slightly resembles a normal life is with anti-psychotic medication.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The People's Chimp
One of my mates has been sectioned 4 times due to severe cannabis pshychosis. If he stops taking his meds, he starts to deteriorate quickly until he does something crazy and gets sectioned again. The only way that this guy can live anything that even slightly resembles a normal life is with anti-psychotic medication.

 

Exactly. The notion that he just needs to eat five a day and get some exercise and he'll be fine is idiotic, and frankly, offensive.

 

A friend at University took his life after suffering terrible pyschosis and diet played no role in that.

 

Maximus, I take on board your points about the multinational firms, but like many you lose so much credibility by failing to admit even any positives on the other side, and come out with spurious claims about diet when faced with what is concrete fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
this_is_my_story
One of my mates has been sectioned 4 times due to severe cannabis pshychosis. If he stops taking his meds, he starts to deteriorate quickly until he does something crazy and gets sectioned again. The only way that this guy can live anything that even slightly resembles a normal life is with anti-psychotic medication.

 

Just wondering, has research proved that there is actually such a thing as 'cannabis psychosis'? I'm pretty sure I remember reading that research had shown it to be (if indeed the condition was linked to/brought on by cannabis use) a fairly short-lived condition, diminishing quite quickly once the user stops using the drug?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The People's Chimp
Just wondering, has research proved that there is actually such a thing as 'cannabis psychosis'? I'm pretty sure I remember reading that research had shown it to be (if indeed the condition was linked to/brought on by cannabis use) a fairly short-lived condition, diminishing quite quickly once the user stops using the drug?

 

If you had seen it then I'm sure you wouldn't 'wonder.'

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just wondering, has research proved that there is actually such a thing as 'cannabis psychosis'? I'm pretty sure I remember reading that research had shown it to be (if indeed the condition was linked to/brought on by cannabis use) a fairly short-lived condition, diminishing quite quickly once the user stops using the drug?

 

As far as I'm aware, it is likely that the threshold for cannabis use actually causing the development of psychosis is 16 years old.

 

After that it is unlikely to actually cause psychosis, although it may trigger an episode if the person has any history of the condition, or if they are genetically/socially/environmentally likely to develop it.

 

Although that is most probably very much an over-simplification of the whole matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
this_is_my_story
If you had seen it then I'm sure you wouldn't 'wonder.'

 

Didn't mean to belittle it or anything like that, not at all mate. When you refer to 'it' do you mean psychosis in general, or specifically, cannabis psychosis?

 

A brief googling of the term throws up a few results suggesting that there could be a link. Again, sorry if you got the impression that I was dismissing the whole idea, especially given the circumstances regarding what you've witnessed happening to a friend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend had problems as a kid and then took to smoking weed like the proverbial duck to water. He smoked more than Bob Marley and the Wailers and their families put together so had to deal to support his ridiculous habit.

He eventually made enough cash to quit his job and just sat about getting high all day. After years of this, he just got worse and worse until he broke down. Like I said, he already had problems, but they were manageable and didn't really impact on his life, but when he started rocking the ganj like a maniac - he just lost it.

 

It's very real and he'll probably never lead a non-medicated, normal life again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
this_is_my_story
As far as I'm aware, it is likely that the threshold for cannabis use actually causing the development of psychosis is 16 years old.

 

After that it is unlikely to actually cause psychosis, although it may trigger an episode if the person has any history of the condition, or if they are genetically/socially/environmentally likely to develop it.

 

Although that is most probably very much an over-simplification of the whole matter.

 

I suppose it could well be, but that's an interesting post nonetheless. For what it's worth, I used to be a fairly regular smoker a good few years back, but hardly ever take a toke now. It's either that my tolerance levels dropped due to not smoking for ages, or that the stuff being grown/sold now is a hell of a lot stronger - because it knocked me for six, and it wasn't really the type of 'stone' that I'd care for!

Link to post
Share on other sites
One of my mates has been sectioned 4 times due to severe cannabis pshychosis. If he stops taking his meds, he starts to deteriorate quickly until he does something crazy and gets sectioned again. The only way that this guy can live anything that even slightly resembles a normal life is with anti-psychotic medication.
So the psychosis was induced by drugs, all drugs have side effects and all psychoactive drugs produce damage with prolonged use. Yet the treatment is the same family of drugs, the treatment is simply continuing the damage the cannacis created.

 

You get a high from cocaine - you repeat this to get the same high again. It becomes a cycle, every time you . You take a medication to stop a behaviour that causes distress, you repeat this to continue the effect, it is the same cycle and does not address the underlying cause.

 

In your friend's case one psychoactive drug has been used and caused a problem that has led him onto another psychoactive drug to manage the symptoms created by first, this just creates a new dependancy, it does not heal the damage, it perpetuates it. The other pitfall is that not only is there a chance it will stop what is causing the distress but it will supress a whole host of other areas of the brain and produce new side effects. That is the control issue, the person is no longer in control. That is what drug dependancy is and it is a continuous cycle. Once it begins there is a good chance they will be shifted from one drug to the next or put on higher doses. By the same token it is not hard to see why mood stabalisers and stimulants act as gateway drugs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So the psychosis was induced by drugs, all drugs have side effects and all psychoactive drugs produce damage with prolonged use. Yet the treatment is the same family of drugs, the treatment is simply continuing the damage the cannacis created.

 

You get a high from cocaine - you repeat this to get the same high again. It becomes a cycle, every time you . You take a medication to stop a behaviour that causes distress, you repeat this to continue the effect, it is the same cycle and does not address the underlying cause.

 

In your friend's case one psychoactive drug has been used and caused a problem that has led him onto another psychoactive drug to manage the symptoms created by first, this just creates a new dependancy, it does not heal the damage, it perpetuates it. The other pitfall is that not only is there a chance it will stop what is causing the distress but it will supress a whole host of other areas of the brain and produce new side effects. That is the control issue, the person is no longer in control. That is what drug dependancy is and it is a continuous cycle. Once it begins there is a good chance they will be shifted from one drug to the next or put on higher doses. By the same token it is not hard to see why mood stabalisers and stimulants act as gateway drugs.

 

I think your post is reasonable but i disagree with the bit in bold. I don't think it heals or perpetuates it, it merely nullifies it so that he can live a normal life. He's impossible without the medication Maxi. I'd rather still know him in his medicated, oddball state than have him do himself in while in a non-medicated, psychotic fit of self-loathing. Without the meds he's unpredictable and has behaved in ways that have endangered him and others.

 

Like all treatments, they are not gauranteed to work forever but his doctor will look to the best combination of drugs and therapy so as to give the guy some quality of life. He has no quality of life without his meds as he's not even himself any more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. The notion that he just needs to eat five a day and get some exercise and he'll be fine is idiotic, and frankly, offensive.

 

A friend at University took his life after suffering terrible pyschosis and diet played no role in that.

Maximus, I take on board your points about the multinational firms, but like many you lose so much credibility by failing to admit even any positives on the other side, and come out with spurious claims about diet when faced with what is concrete fact.

What concrete fact? Where are the concrete facts in psychiatry because they are not very self evident.

 

What type of psychosis was it your friend suffered from? Was it drug induced?

 

Did I say it is as simple as taking 'five a day'? No.

 

I stated that psychosis has proven links to medical conditions, drug abuse and nutrient deficiencies. Taking psychoactive drugs to treat it is comparable to papering over the cracks, if not worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
this_is_my_story
So the psychosis was induced by drugs, all drugs have side effects and all psychoactive drugs produce damage with prolonged use. Yet the treatment is the same family of drugs, the treatment is simply continuing the damage the cannacis created.

 

You get a high from cocaine - you repeat this to get the same high again. It becomes a cycle, every time you . You take a medication to stop a behaviour that causes distress, you repeat this to continue the effect, it is the same cycle and does not address the underlying cause.

 

In your friend's case one psychoactive drug has been used and caused a problem that has led him onto another psychoactive drug to manage the symptoms created by first, this just creates a new dependancy, it does not heal the damage, it perpetuates it. The other pitfall is that not only is there a chance it will stop what is causing the distress but it will supress a whole host of other areas of the brain and produce new side effects. That is the control issue, the person is no longer in control. That is what drug dependancy is and it is a continuous cycle. Once it begins there is a good chance they will be shifted from one drug to the next or put on higher doses. By the same token it is not hard to see why mood stabalisers and stimulants act as gateway drugs.

 

But there's a difference between psychoactive drugs and psychiatric drugs, is there not? It's all very well for you to be spouting off like you know the ins & outs of the case of cosanostra's friend, but by the sounds of what cosanostra has said, his friend wouldn't be able to function with any degree of normality without his medication.

 

If you had a condition with your heart/lungs or whatever else, and you had to take 3 pills a day to counter that condition, you'd do it wouldn't you? So, why should it be any different when it's the brain that's affected?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think your post is reasonable but i disagree with the bit in bold. I don't think it heals or perpetuates it, it merely nullifies it so that he can live a normal life. He's impossible without the medication Maxi. I'd rather still know him in his medicated, oddball state than have him do himself in while in a non-medicated, psychotic fit of self-loathing. Without the meds he's unpredictable and has behaved in ways that have endangered him and others.

 

Like all treatments, they are not gauranteed to work forever but his doctor will look to the best combination of drugs and therapy so as to give the guy some quality of life. He has no quality of life without his meds as he's not even himself any more.

I don't know what drug(s) is/are involved in his treatment but the chances are there are a long list of health implications that go hand in hand with it. It is those health implications/side effects that perpetuate the damage by altering the functions of the body and brain and the longer you are on them....
Link to post
Share on other sites
The People's Chimp
What concrete fact? Where are the concrete facts in psychiatry because they are not very self evident.

 

What type of psychosis was it your friend suffered from? Was it drug induced?

 

Did I say it is as simple as taking 'five a day'? No.

 

I stated that psychosis has proven links to medical conditions, drug abuse and nutrient deficiencies. Taking psychoactive drugs to treat it is comparable to papering over the cracks, if not worse.

So would you suggest nothing is done to paper over the cracks? The concrete fact is that some people would damage themselves or others were it not for medication, yet you want to deny them this on some sort of misplaced crusade!

 

You also singularly fail to engage with the point that you deflect attention every time a positive for medication is thrown your way. Nobody on here is denying many of the negatives with the drug companies, but your disingenous arguments, yet again, don't do you any favours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But there's a difference between psychoactive drugs and psychiatric drugs, is there not? It's all very well for you to be spouting off like you know the ins & outs of the case of cosanostra's friend, but by the sounds of what cosanostra has said, his friend wouldn't be able to function with any degree of normality without his medication.

 

If you had a condition with your heart/lungs or whatever else, and you had to take 3 pills a day to counter that condition, you'd do it wouldn't you? So, why should it be any different when it's the brain that's affected?

The condition could be very accurately diagnosed if it was my heart/lungs for a start and the treatment could be decided accordingly. One of the points I was making is that psychiatry is not interested in finding medical causes for syptoms involved even though there is scientific evidence that links symptoms of mental distress with medical conditions and nutrient deficiencies. Psychiatry basically treats a mental illness as a disease in itself, not something that is the result of underlying prblem.

 

The vast majority of drugs used in psychiatry are psychoactive (Lithium is a mood stabaliser or used to augment other drugs), the whole point being they act on the functions of the brain and they all have major side effects with prolonged use that cause new sets of problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what drug(s) is/are involved in his treatment but the chances are there are a long list of health implications that go hand in hand with it. It is those health implications/side effects that perpetuate the damage by altering the functions of the body and brain and the longer you are on them....

 

Maxi, his brain is already damaged and like all nerve cells, it's not going to get better.

 

He'll need medication and therapy for the rest of life. There will be side effects which will be managed like with any long term medication treatment.

 

Like I said though, he's not himself when he stops taking the anti-psychotics and he's never going to be the guy we used to know again - he knows that and so do his friends and family. All anyone can do is trust the docs to get the combination right so that he gets the best quality of life available to him.

 

When he takes his meds, things are not too bad for him. When he stops, he gets dangerous and gets locked up again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
this_is_my_story
The condition could be very accurately diagnosed if it was my heart/lungs for a start and the treatment could be decided accordingly. One of the points I was making is that psychiatry is not interested in finding medical causes for syptoms involved even though there is scientific evidence that links symptoms of mental distress with medical conditions and nutrient deficiencies. Psychiatry basically treats a mental illness as a disease in itself, not something that is the result of underlying prblem.

 

The vast majority of drugs used in psychiatry are psychoactive (Lithium is a mood stabaliser or used to augment other drugs), the whole point being they act on the functions of the brain and they all have major side effects with prolonged use that cause new sets of problems.

 

Not entirely true - what of psychiatric nurses and the like who offer counselling & therapy to sufferers of mental illnesses, without the involvement of any drugs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So would you suggest nothing is done to paper over the cracks? The concrete fact is that some people would damage themselves or others were it not for medication, yet you want to deny them this on some sort of misplaced crusade!

 

You also singularly fail to engage with the point that you deflect attention every time a positive for medication is thrown your way. Nobody on here is denying many of the negatives with the drug companies, but your disingenous arguments, yet again, don't do you any favours.

Not if the papaering over the cracks ignores what is causing the problem.

 

What positives - they reduce symptoms. I have acknowledged that.

 

You dodged my questions.

 

Where is the concrete evidence to back psychiatry both in terms of diagnosis and treatments?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not entirely true - what of psychiatric nurses and the like who offer counselling & therapy to sufferers of mental illnesses, without the involvement of any drugs?
I have no problem with the use of Psychotherapy/Psychology especially when used in conjunctionwith dietary/lifestyle alterations. The sad fact is that this is usually not the case. Mainstream psychiatry has become more and more drug orientated. Largely (if not entirely) for economic reasons.
Link to post
Share on other sites
this_is_my_story
I have no problem with the use of Psychotherapy/Psychology especially when used in conjunctionwith dietary/lifestyle alterations. The sad fact is that this is usually not the case. Mainstream psychiatry has become more and more drug orientated. Largely (if not entirely) for economic reasons.

 

That's a mixture of your opinion and conjecture, no 'facts' whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an article recently about the over-prescription and reliance on prozac as a cure-all, wonder-drug in developed countries. It's a massively profitable drug and is used for the treatment of depression. I can see Maxi's point (I think this is what he means) that docs are too quick to prescribe something like prozac rather than look at what's actually causing the depression in the first place. We've supposed to have moved away from the traditional biomedical model onto the biospsychosocial model of medicine, but when it comes to mental illness, maybe that area of practice is lagging behind somewhat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mainstream psychiatry has become more and more drug orientated.

 

If you say so, although your opinion does seem to be skewed, to say the least. Who is prescribing psychotropic drugs? I reckon it's GPs, not psychiatrists. And there has been a growth in the last 20 years in the number of therapists who offer alternatives to the "mental illness" frame of reference. You might agree or disagree with their standpoint - but they do not advocate or promote drugs, and in many cases they don't advocate the likes of cognitive therapies either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you say so, although your opinion does seem to be skewed, to say the least. Who is prescribing psychotropic drugs? I reckon it's GPs, not psychiatrists. And there has been a growth in the last 20 years in the number of therapists who offer alternatives to the "mental illness" frame of reference. You might agree or disagree with their standpoint - but they do not advocate or promote drugs, and in many cases they don't advocate the likes of cognitive therapies either.
Doctors and Psychiatrists. It's far too easy to hand them out full stop, there are too many drug pushers with letters and titles.

 

What alternatives are you talking about? Psychotherapy, Orthomolecular medicine?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no problem with the use of Psychotherapy/Psychology especially when used in conjunctionwith dietary/lifestyle alterations. The sad fact is that this is usually not the case. Mainstream psychiatry has become more and more drug orientated. Largely (if not entirely) for economic reasons.

 

 

I don't agree. Maybe it did for a while, but I don't believe that to be the case anymore.

 

It has been recently proven that the best treatment for a moderate to severe psychotic illness is through a combination of cognitive-behavioural-therapy and antipsychotics/lithium/ECT (electro-convulsant therapy).

Neither therapy is as effective on its own.

 

If you want me to supply the evidence then I'll find it for you on Saturday (I don't have time to find the exact paper right now).

 

I don't think anyone would disagree that its hardly a perfect solution that we have right now. It would be fantastic if simply taking people off of their medication and asking them to change their diet worked, but it doesn't. It would certainly be much cheaper for the NHS!

 

There is currently a lot of research going on into new therapeutic approaches, including new kinds of drugs amongst other things.

 

If it was that simple to find a cure for these conditions, or to work out what exactly causes them in the first place, do you not think someone would have made their millions from it by now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maxi, his brain is already damaged and like all nerve cells, it's not going to get better.
Sorry to hear that, not so good...

 

I'm not suggesting you can apply it in his case but there is plenty of material out there that demonstrates that the positive effects of the drugs that manage problems like the aggression, mood swings, depression etc can be achieved with alternatives like tryptophan, B12, Thiamin. They can also help prevent further damage to the brain, so might be worth exploring as an additional treatment at least. For example Thiamin is prescribed to alcoholics because the alcohol abuse depletes the body of essential vitamins and minerals and this is a factor in alcohol induced brain damage, the thiamin is used to help prevent further damage to their brain and vital organs as well as maintain some semblance of control over mental functioning.

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CXH/is_2_27/ai_n6125560

Edited by Maximus
Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was that simple to find a cure for these conditions, or to work out what exactly causes them in the first place, do you not think someone would have made their millions from it by now?

Well they would basically have to put a multi-billion dollar industry out of existance overnight to do so. So, even if the will and the way is there it would be a superhuman feat to actually pull it off with any great degree of success with so much resistance (like one of the most powerful industries going) standing in their way.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What is your opinion on the prescribing of psychiatric drugs for children with ADD/ADHD Medico?

 

To be honest, it's not something I know an awful lot about and for that reason I don't feel that I can praise it or condemn it to any great extent.

 

All I'll say is that I don't believe drugs should ever be prescribed without good reason.

 

If the condition can be controlled adequately with dietary or lifestyle changes then obviously that is the best course of action. In Schizophrenia and psychosis I don't believe it always can and that's why I support the prescription of certain drugs in some cases.

 

ADD/ADHD is of course very different and has varying severities, as with anything else. If it is having a damaging effect on the child despite these interventions, be it on their education or whatever, then maybe other approaches do need to be considered.

 

I can assure you though that when I graduate I would much prefer to tell a child to eat certain things or get more exercise, than to tell them to take a pill to make them 'normal'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to hear that, not so good...

 

I'm not suggesting you can apply it in his case but there is plenty of material out there that demonstrates that the positive effects of the drugs that manage problems like the aggression, mood swings, depression etc can be achieved with alternatives like tryptophan, B12, Thiamin. They can also help prevent further damage to the brain, so might be worth exploring as an additional treatment at least. For example Thiamin is prescribed to alcoholics because the alcohol abuse depletes the body of essential vitamins and minerals and this is a factor in alcohol induced brain damage, the thiamin is used to help prevent further damage to their brain and vital organs as well as maintain some semblance of control over mental functioning.

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CXH/is_2_27/ai_n6125560

 

Yeah it's sad.

 

I guess some people can drink, take drugs, gamble etc and it doesn't really affect them in any way wheras some people are just destined for self destruct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And the thing is, you probably genuinely believe that!
And why not? Do some research on psychiatry, diagnostic criteria in particular. Read the critiques, there are plenty to choose from (some of them from within psychiatry itself), and you will soon discover that is to a great extent based on theory, conjecture and opinion and pretty devoid of hard evidence or objectivity, which makes it pretty unique in mainstream medicine.

 

If the use of psychiatric drugs for mental disorders was an 'alternative' field of medicine those promoting it would likely be branded charlatans or quacks but because they are bankrolled by a multi-billion dollar behemoth (the pharma industry) pretty much anything they claim is swallowed as fact (usually because it's rammed down pretty hard by extensive promotion), even if they can't actually provide any proof! It has now got so out of control that doctors/psychs are able to push this BS on children and have them labeled mentally ill by the time they start School. ADHD, where the feck did it come from? From the minds of a group of psychiatrists, that's where. They can't even accurately explain what it actually is but that has not stopped them mass medicating children diagnosed with this 'serious condition' that just appeared out of nowhere one fine day.

 

This form of psychiatry is not exactly that old, in fact only about 60 years ago it consisted of a handful of diagnoses, that was before some smart cookies seen the dollar signs. It's roots are pretty entangled with eugenics (and yes, there are papers that cover this), which was partly how it managed to 'escape from the asylums' so to speak. The quest to link mental illness with genetics has been a key driving force behind it for a long long time, in most other areas of life you put the horse before the cart but that is simply not applicable to psychiatry. The key thing is that the actual science behind it has hardly developed at all since those days but just look how far it's sphere of influence has expanded. In America in particular, the power of psychiatry is being abused plain and simple, in order to supress any sort of behaviour considered 'abnormal' in the eyes of the powers that be. Through this process it has created a whole new group of vunreble people to exploit through drug dependancy.

Edited by Maximus
Link to post
Share on other sites
What alternatives are you talking about? Psychotherapy, Orthomolecular medicine?

 

I'm wary of applying a catch all label, but broadly speaking I mean the various theories and interventions that don't belong to the medical model. They are (mainly) classified as humanistic forms of therapy, and include gestalt therapy, coherence therapy, somatic psychology, object relations theory, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, and the various types of relaxation techniques training systems.

 

The more sophisticated schools of thought combine many of these approaches, and the most sophisticated is probably IBP (integrative body psychotherapy).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...