DSM a fraud? Interesting documentary....

Post Reply New Topic

What strikes me is that much of the stuff said in the first post in this thread (I haven't watched the video) is, well, pretty much just restating the basic known facts as if they are some secret. Just with a wording based on their particular spin. So, to the extent that any of those claims are true, there's no fraud about it.

My understanding is that SSRI's are effective for 10% of those who take them . . . 90% are not benifiting for these drugs but because it is so much cheaper to try a prescription than to takle the hard issues in life that lead to situational depression they go for the drugs first.

SSRI's made me halucinate
Valium had "adverse psychogenic effects" translate I had to stay at the hospital untill they wore off - the doctors all appologised profusly for what I had to go through

it was when they realised that these drugs responded very differently in my body that they started to wonder if I was "wired differently" (autistic)

since being diagnosed with aspergers many things have changed
I am no longer subject to the pressures to work (and fail)
I have more understanding for my quirks and get less flack for it
I understand that it's okay to be different like me

I am no longer depressed

trail by ordeal? maybe.

I found the last couple of sentences in your response disturbing. I almost felt like you were blaming the victims of mental health problems for requiring the support of mental health professionals. Fair enough - everybody should take care of themselves. That's obvious, However, just like how some people are born with predispositions to physical illnesses, many people are predisposed to mental health problems and cannot be held responsible for their mental health. Some people don't have much free will when it comes to mental illness which is why sectioning was invented- so that they are not a danger to themselves or other people. Also, you speak as if psychiatrists are not experts. So, I guess you don't think a medical doctor is an expert. While we're at it, I suppose you don't trust them sneaky architects and their nonsense about how buildings should be structured. And how about them engineers? Scum - all of them! (of course, I'm using sarcasm to make a point).

I am aware that Keyworth promotes "alternative" remedies (which is another way of saying "psuedoscience"). My concern is this; psychiatry does not make promises and does not act like they are Jesus Christ. Good people working in the psychiatric services do not pretend to have all the answers. All they do is facilitate an environment condusive to healing, There are no miracle cures. They work with you to see what might work for you and they provide a network of support that, for many people, is the difference between living and hanging themselves. It's the anti-psychiatry crowd that outright lie and create a strawman of what the psychiatric community and what neuroscience are actually like. Worst of all, they have the audacity to act like psychiatry is some kind of snakeoil salesman or false excorcist when in actual fact, that is what anti-psychiatry is doing. Furthermore, the people who made the documentary are related to Scientology, which is the biggest snakeoil saleman in the world. This woman has no expertise in an actual form of medicine and yet somehow I'm meant to take her opinions over a trained psychiatrist. No thanks - I'll stick with the truth.

People have got to remember that psychiatry is just another branch of medicine. Yes, it needs to be severely scrutinsed as with any science and I don't doubt that many people have been harmed by it (just as people have been harmed by other types of legitimate medicine). Does that means the doctors had malicious intentions? Does that mean that we get rid of it? Of course not! Besides, a lot of people who have actually been harmed by the psychiatric services have not been harmed by the science - they've been harmed by how their government allocates such healthcare and it's own protocol for mental health. Every anti-psychiatry story that I've heard (that pertained to actual victims) concerned these kinds of stories. Of course, that's just anecdotal evidence, but perhaps this is more about your government than neuroscience.

With all that being said, it's very true that psychiatry might have to correct a lot of what they thought they already knew. Well, that's how science works; you add onto the information that you already have and if something contradicts what once seemed to be true (given the evidence) then you correct it. There's nothing shady about it.

Honestly guys, take off the tinfoil hat for a moment.

If you want to rip on the DSM, take on specifics. Don't make broad generalizations otherwise it's to easy to show evidence you are wrong.

For example, if you want to rip on the DSM look up Shift Work Sleep Disorder (SWSD). It's basically a sleep disorder that is caused by working strange times and rotating shifts. You can get a doctor to legally prescribe you stimulants to cope with your schedule. That right folks, legally prescribed speed just for having to do shift work. SWSD is a real problem as anyone who has had family members killed by a trucker that fell asleep at the wheel or someone who had a medical error at a hospital ER by a half asleep doctor will let you know. But it's not caused by a problem with your body or mind, it's caused by having a crappy job. I think employers establishing more regular work schedules would be a better solution that handing out speed to otherwise healthy people.

So I would agree that in very certain limited areas the DSM has gone a bit too far and feels like a way to push drugs.

You misread my intent. What I mean is that even if psychiatrists are experts, it is up to me and me alone to find my way through my issues. The expert's role is for guidance and support, as is the role of those with whom I have a personal relationship. I am responsible for being aware of the limitations and problems of mental health services just as I am responsible for knowing what those services can provide that can be of value. If a person expects the professional to "fix" them, then they give too much power to them and are setting themselves up for failure.

Just as there are good engineers and bad engineers, there are good and bad mental health professionals. It is my responsibility to vett a provider of such services. Unless I am mentally incompetent, no one else should be doing it for me.

Your statistics about SSRIs are very false. For example, 40-60% of people with OCD alone are helped by SSRIs. And this doesn't include people taking them for depression. Yes, SSRIs aren't perfect. I have OCD, and I struggled for my first 21 years to get my OCD under control until I found the tricyclic anti-depressant Anafranil. And yes, SSRIs can cause many undiagnosed bipolar people to become manic/hypomanic. However, that doesn't mean that the SSRIs haven't helped a large group of people who would be helpless and/or suicidal without them, my mother for one.

Also, saying that it is easier to take medication over "tackling" hard issues/depression is a very unfair and judgmental statement. Studies upon studies have shown that depression and all other neuropsychological disorders are caused by brain chemical/structural abnormalities. The stigma of medication that exists today is because of claims that people like myself who take medication are opting for the "easy way out." We're not. We're opting to help get our brain chemistry back in order. Let's face it- therapy doesn't work for severe problems. Try to treat schizophrenia with therapy alone, and you'll see how tackling their psychosis is near impossible without medication.


The drug companies have flaws, yes, but I do not believe the profession is "making up" disorders. Yes, there is blatant overdiagnosis of certain disorders (such as ADHD), and yes, PCPs who don't know anything about psychiatry overprescribe SSRIs and other psychiatric medications, but pretty much every disorder that is in the DSM is a valid disorder that members of the population are suffering from. Lots of people think Asperger's doesn't exist and is just an excuse for children's "bad" behavior, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Same with Dissociative Identity Disorder, another disorder often thought of as "fake." The main disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, have been around for hundreds of years. The DSM finally put a label to these problems and made people realize that they are not "crazy" and are not alone.
-OddDuckNash99-

Well yeah, I'm not saying serotonin has nothing to do with it, but (as you would know) there are people for whom SSRI's don't work, and other points that show that it's not as simple as just that. I read someplace that there is the hypothesis that some of the 'dirtiness' of tricyclics may actually play a role in their antidepressant effects. And Tianeptine -- as a lay person it's hard to know what to make of that, in regards to depression.

As far as research, there are obviously good reasons to study SSRI's and serotonin, but is there no aspect of "looking for lost keys at night only under the street lights" to it? In an alternate universe, where the SXRI's were discovered to help with depression instead of SSRI's, wouldn't there be a ton of research on neurotransmitter X's contribution to depression. The results of the research are of course valuable, but I'm not sure the volume and intensity of research interest in it can be used to infer the importance of that aspect's contribution to the phenomenon (of depression).

On a personal note: I suspect it was my doctors' being a bit too hyped by the advertising that SSRI's, and perhaps also by a lack of critical reflection SSRI's are not "just like tricyclics, but with fewer side effects (because they're selective & serotonin is all that matters)" that lead me to having to waste years and a lot of money trying nearly every SSRI on the market, before other classes were tried. (Turns out tricyclics work for me and are tolerable, whereas SSRI's aren't.)

I saw this a few days ago (not trying to beat the point into the ground; the subject is just starting to interest me, thought this might be interesting):

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ssion.html

If they try to give you meds remember one word.

Homoeostasis.

SSRIs make you less self conscious. so may help if the problem is your too self conscious.

With the risk, of not caring about yourself any more (and topping yourself or going manic)
or being more conscious of others. (anxiety or possibly being controlled by others? etc...)
or having 'psudohallucintions'

then the reverse when you stop taking them. and you can get 'psudohallucintions' when you stop because you've become overly sensitive to yourself (too self conscious)

There are other ways of doing that, and other things that work faster and don't affect homoeostasis. They can be combined.

unfortunately their isn't a diagnosis of too self conscious, only some 'catchall' of depression, which could be all manner of things.

I have seen similar documentaries before. This one was good though. Watched most of it.

I think the pharmaceutical industry is taking advantage of mental illness. More specifically they are taking advantage of the fact that we do not yet know, in a scientific sense, how or why mental illness develops in people. So of course they can classify various symtoms into "disorders" and recommend their drugs for it. They put huge pressure on psyciatrists to prescribe their drugs. So psyciatrists have become middle men for them. However, in my experience, a psyciatrits will back down on the issueing of drugs if you tell them you don't want them (unless you are sectioned).

I think it is disgusting that children are being given these drugs and not enough research is being done to find out why or if kids are acting abnormally.

But this all goes very well with our consumerist society. Something wrong upstairs? Take a pill. Unfortunately the pills being issued are not very good and have too many side effects (I presume the side effects are put in on purpose to prevent abuse of the drugs).

I also think it is very interesting that the modern anti-depressants were developed around the same time as MDMA was first synthesised in the US. They both work in a very similar way (MDMA works more intensely though).

If recreational drugs are ever legalised who do you think will be producing them?

My first ever experience with a psyciatrist went like this:

I was having suicidal ideas and was very depressed for a while. Then met a psyciatrist and told her my life story.

She said I have depression and a personality disorder (she couldn't be more specific than that). She then said I need pills and prescribed some tryciclic anti-d. For two weeks I took 3 a day at high dose and was zombied and sedated all the time.

When I told her this two weeks later she changed them to SSRI's and I took for three weeks. I became totally hyperactive and could not sit down for more than a few seconds. It was horrible and all the side affects irritated me.

When I told her all this a few weeks later she changed them to anti-psycotics. These sedated me again but gave me lots of scary and freaky moments. I went back and told her and she gave me a different anti-phsycotic. This was worse.

I went back and told her and so she changed them again back to the first tryciclic anti-d she had prescribed me.

I gave up taking the pills and seeing this woman and got better myself.

She didn't even have a clue what to give me and was just taking stabs in the dark. Since then I have only taken anti-d sparingly for the sedating side effect.

And I also hate the way they tell us that anti-d's take 2-3 weeks or months to work. I suspect this is an assumption that the pills are working. Depression generally does not persist at a constant severity in people. So I suspect that the patient on anti-d's who starts to feel better, has gotten better naturally. The depression has just run its course. So they jump to the conclusion that the anti-d's did the job.

Of course I realize that some depressions can last for a long time and need medication. But I would say most of the time this is not the case.

ASD are routinely removed from co-morbid clinical trials.

So, in otherwords.

people with ASD respond to a-typically to meds that they don't even include them in the trials and as such there are no trials for people with ASD on a perticular med.

everything is says on the packet, well that's for NT only.

Well, I never said that mental issues were not your responsibility and I never implied that a psychiatrist can just fix you. I have no clue where you would get such an idea from. The NHS always provides information and ways that a person can be proactive about their mental health. In fact, they are currently working with local libraries in order to provide self help reading material for those who can make those personal steps. The psychologists and other mental health professionals that I've ever had or known always established that they were not magicians and I always knew that. It's not an issue of giving them too much power - it's an issue of how mental health services work. Even psychologists say that there isn't much they can do for patients (depending on the illnes, of course) if they refuse to cooperate.

Now, I know that other countires are different and I am aware that these problem can still occur in universal healthcare. My point is that, yes, maintaining your mental health is just as much your responsibility as maintaining your physical health and psychiatrists don't deny that. In fact, they endorse it.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. You earlier said "I found the last couple of sentences in your response disturbing.". So I clarified my position. Note the word MY. It is what I feel is necessary to successfully navigate the mental health system. It is my observation that the best outcomes are found by those that treat the mental health system as resource, not a form of salvation. It is not the responsibility f the system to make me better. It is my responsibility,

I don't know what you're getting at either. I already established that I agree with you and so does the psychiatric community. Psychiatry couldn't work if it wasn't for the cooperation of the pateint. Your proposal for how psychiatry should work is already being used. Unless we're talking about quack doctors Like Claudia Keyworth, this "surrender to me" model of support does not exist in psychiatry.

The only reason that I felt disturbed by your message was because I thought that you were victim blaming. Now I know that I miscontrued what you meant and that you believe that we should be proactive about our mental health. I agree with you. So does my psychiatric nurse. So does my doctor. Psychiatry DOES empower people and my point is that your point is as irellevent as saying "we should wear warm clothing in the winter". Well, duh!

LOL. Oh. OK. So we're just 'arguing' back and forth because that's what we do. I hate it when that happens.