5 ms·

I don't understand the purpose of this comment, but it seems vaguely as though it is to suggest that "depression" is not a sufficient name for his condition and

by eavc 16y ago

I don't understand the purpose of this comment, but it seems vaguely as though it is to suggest that "depression" is not a sufficient name for his condition and that its treatment through anti-depressants not a sufficient answer. I appreciate and support efforts to get people to continue to investigate their condition and to explore treatment options, but I bristle when it seems to stem from a kind of prejudice against psychology and psychiatry as it appears to here. (As an aside: Hypomania is on the opposite end of the emotional disorder spectrum from depression. Mentioning it here is akin to telling someone complaining of constipation that they may want to speak with their doctor about diarrhea.)

Alex3917 16y ago
"I bristle when it seems to stem from a kind of prejudice against [] psychiatry as it appears to here." Why? The majority, of the research used to approve the most popular psychiatric drugs is outright fraudulent. And it's not like this is some undocumented fringe claim, there are literally dozens of books about this; the maker of the lexapro, drug the author is advocating, has racked up over 300 million dollars in fines this year alone for ethics violations related to the science of the drug in question. If you don't have a prejudice against psychiatry then you need to read more books.
- eavc 16y ago
  Psychiatry is a branch of medicine based on the science of clinical psychology. The actions of a given pharmaceutical company hardly invalidate the discipline as a whole. Furthermore, a prejudice is never a good thing to have.
  - Alex3917 16y ago
    "The actions of a given pharmaceutical company hardly invalidate the discipline as a whole." It's not just one pharmaceutical company, it's the entire industry. The pharmaceutical industry now tops not only the defense industry, but all other industries in the total amount of fraud payments for actions against the federal government under the False Claims Act.[1] And the psychiatric drugs are, drug for drug, by far the worst offenders. And even for the drugs that haven't racked up massive fines, their scientific support is somewhere between terrible and non-existent. [1] http://www.citizen.org/hrg1924 http://www.citizen.org/hrg1924
    - eavc 16y ago
      So you're telling me that psychotropic drugs have essentially zero scientific support as treatment for psychopathology?
      - Alex3917 16y ago
        Yes, of course. Read Anatomy of an Epidemic, The Emperor's New Drugs, etc. Robert Whitaker's blog is also really great, although you wouldn't necessarily have all the information you'd need to read it unless you've already read the book.
        eavc 16y ago
        It's important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The enterprise of psychology and its application is a worthwhile and fruitful one despite errant ideas and applications in the past or in some of its member practitioners. To even dispute the efficacy of some aspect of psychology requires the practice of psychology. I grant that there are dangerous abuses and manipulations of the approvals process and public opinion, but it is also important to note that many psychotropics have a place in the treatment of dysfunction. I applaud that you are trying to spread the word about those abuses, but I encourage you to measure what you say so as not to group the nostrums and charlatans with the valid medications and practitioners of which many do exist.
  - krakensden 16y ago
    Prejudice isn't a one way street- you could be described as prejudiced in favor of the Psychology/Psychiatry establishment. Furthermore, there is a long history of criticism of Psychology, none of which you addressed. Clinical Psychology has very little data in its favor, and while biology-based approaches have had some success in certain areas, they aren't the same field, and I'm not sure that validates Clinical Pyschology. The canonical references for this general strand of argument are Feynman's 'Cargo Cult Science' and Paul Lutus' 'Is Psychology Science?'.
    - eavc 16y ago
      I am not prejudiced because I am educated on the subject. I am therefore biased, at worst. >Clinical Psychology has very little data in its favor. This is borderline nonsense. Clinical psychology is the study of psychological pathology. It generates data, it doesn't require data in support of it. >while biology-based approaches have had some success in certain areas, they aren't the same field, and I'm not sure that validates Clinical Pyschology. They most certainly are in the same field. You clearly don't know what you're talking about on this point. For the record, Lutus's essay, being fraught with half-truths and strawmen, is entirely unimpressive. If you are sincerely interested in understanding the value of psychology as a science, I suggest taking a closer look at its current state rather than a highly selective sampling of the most embarrassing examples that claim the title.

by eavc 16y ago

Alex3917 16y ago

"I bristle when it seems to stem from a kind of prejudice against [] psychiatry as it appears to here." Why? The majority, of the research used to approve the most popular psychiatric drugs is outright fraudulent. And it's not like this is some undocumented fringe claim, there are literally dozens of books about this; the maker of the lexapro, drug the author is advocating, has racked up over 300 million dollars in fines this year alone for ethics violations related to the science of the drug in question. If you don't have a prejudice against psychiatry then you need to read more books.

eavc 16y ago
Psychiatry is a branch of medicine based on the science of clinical psychology. The actions of a given pharmaceutical company hardly invalidate the discipline as a whole. Furthermore, a prejudice is never a good thing to have.
- Alex3917 16y ago
  "The actions of a given pharmaceutical company hardly invalidate the discipline as a whole." It's not just one pharmaceutical company, it's the entire industry. The pharmaceutical industry now tops not only the defense industry, but all other industries in the total amount of fraud payments for actions against the federal government under the False Claims Act.[1] And the psychiatric drugs are, drug for drug, by far the worst offenders. And even for the drugs that haven't racked up massive fines, their scientific support is somewhere between terrible and non-existent. [1] http://www.citizen.org/hrg1924 http://www.citizen.org/hrg1924
  - eavc 16y ago
    So you're telling me that psychotropic drugs have essentially zero scientific support as treatment for psychopathology?
    - Alex3917 16y ago
      Yes, of course. Read Anatomy of an Epidemic, The Emperor's New Drugs, etc. Robert Whitaker's blog is also really great, although you wouldn't necessarily have all the information you'd need to read it unless you've already read the book.
      - eavc 16y ago
        It's important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The enterprise of psychology and its application is a worthwhile and fruitful one despite errant ideas and applications in the past or in some of its member practitioners. To even dispute the efficacy of some aspect of psychology requires the practice of psychology. I grant that there are dangerous abuses and manipulations of the approvals process and public opinion, but it is also important to note that many psychotropics have a place in the treatment of dysfunction. I applaud that you are trying to spread the word about those abuses, but I encourage you to measure what you say so as not to group the nostrums and charlatans with the valid medications and practitioners of which many do exist.
- krakensden 16y ago
  Prejudice isn't a one way street- you could be described as prejudiced in favor of the Psychology/Psychiatry establishment. Furthermore, there is a long history of criticism of Psychology, none of which you addressed. Clinical Psychology has very little data in its favor, and while biology-based approaches have had some success in certain areas, they aren't the same field, and I'm not sure that validates Clinical Pyschology. The canonical references for this general strand of argument are Feynman's 'Cargo Cult Science' and Paul Lutus' 'Is Psychology Science?'.
  - eavc 16y ago
    I am not prejudiced because I am educated on the subject. I am therefore biased, at worst. >Clinical Psychology has very little data in its favor. This is borderline nonsense. Clinical psychology is the study of psychological pathology. It generates data, it doesn't require data in support of it. >while biology-based approaches have had some success in certain areas, they aren't the same field, and I'm not sure that validates Clinical Pyschology. They most certainly are in the same field. You clearly don't know what you're talking about on this point. For the record, Lutus's essay, being fraught with half-truths and strawmen, is entirely unimpressive. If you are sincerely interested in understanding the value of psychology as a science, I suggest taking a closer look at its current state rather than a highly selective sampling of the most embarrassing examples that claim the title.