4 ms·

And I have close, personal, and intimate relationships with mental illness and its medication myself and if you do know so much as you claim you would know that

by Dahoon 6y ago

And I have close, personal, and intimate relationships with mental illness and its medication myself and if you do know so much as you claim you would know that many (as in likely most) physicians today think the future will see our current medications on par with lobotomies. Anti-psychotic medicine especially is seen as chemical lobotomies. On top of that when 1/3 of the US population is on antidepressants these medications clearly doesn't work either. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201603/chemical-lobotomy https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201... You might have "skin in the game" but then it is depressing you do not know that almost all mentally ill people would in the long run be healthier without these pills. They mostly only work short-term and absolutely destroy ones health long term. You should be advocating for people to get short-term medically help and long term medicine-free therapeutic help if you really care.

stjohnswarts 6y ago
This is a terrible sentiment. You aren't a mental health expert. I have seen more than a couple of people come back from the edge because of medications. We use pills for other issues like heart disease, diabetes, etc and people live a relatively normal life. The brain is just an organ. Sure some people would be better off without medication, but lots more would be dead or locked up in a mental institution. Lots of people have chemical imbalances and no matter how much "lie back and tell me your problems" they get they will never be well. Are medications over-prescribed I'm sure that's true in some cases as well.
- Negitivefrags 6y ago
  I would be much more willing to believe the chemical imbalance concept if someone could actually explain which chemicals, and what the correct balance is. Serotonin you may say? Okay, how much is the correct amount of serotonin then? Can you just give me a test to see if I have the right amount? What’s going on here is not quantifiable science. It’s throw something at the wall and see what sticks.
  - matz1 6y ago
    I think the best the pill can do right now is to at least making some disturbance to change the balance and hoping it produce desirable outcome. Yes basically throw something at the wall and hoping it stick.
  - knowingwedont 6y ago
    You might be surprised at the number of medications which are effective for specific conditions or symptoms but for which we don't know the mechanism that achieves the effect. Yes, modern medicine has a large component of throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks. If it sticks, and it passes all the usual clinical trials to prove it does more good than harm, it's approved, even if we don't understand exactly why it works.
  - lazyasciiart 6y ago
    Try looking deeply into almost any specific condition - let's take heart disease. Cholesterol, for instance - is it bad? Is it necessary? Do you need a certain amount or does the amount not matter so long as you have the correct ratio of fats? Why are some people perfectly healthy with cholesterol numbers off the roof, and others can have atherosclerosis with cholesterol numbers off the charts low? Will reducing cholesterol for that second person help them? Hurt them? For the record, the treatment plan my cardiologist put me on was explained as "all these things seem correlated with not having heart attacks so we'll just do them all and hope it helps you".
- noctua 6y ago
  Is the chemical imbalance theory accepted by all the experts? I remember seeing an article that questioned it. It also pointed to a study which showed that a lot of the antidepressant effect can be attributed to just placebo. I personally don't know much about the subject though so I don't know what sources to trust.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    It's not, but it's something that has been lobbied and astroturfed into being offensive to disagree with, and is about 2 years from being censored on twitter and facebook (if it isn't already.) There are millions of people who, in the middle of severe episodes, were given particular drugs. They eventually recovered from these episodes (or they didn't, but we don't hear from those people.) They've been told that they they will quickly end up back in the middle of the despair they were in if they cease taking them (lots do while continuing to take them, but we don't hear from those people.) Now you're questioning (and implicitly threatening) their lifeline. These people are fighting for their lives, and are taken advantage of by an industry. It also doesn't help that plenty of antipsychotics are crucial for people to take, but that's because those are drugs that actually make it difficult to think for people whose thoughts get out of control. They don't claim to be eradicating the chemicals or deficiencies of chemicals that cause all psychosis. The tactic of pharmaceutical companies creating patients' groups to get sufferers together and lobby "on their behalf" has been going on since the 80s. It's bulletproof, and impossible to attack. In the case of antidepressants, they've also guided them into defending these drugs as a class, rather than on an individual basis. Funded patients' groups also played a huge part in the prescription opiate epidemic; it doesn't matter how much science says that long-term opiates aren't helping chronic pain, you have to be heartless to dismiss someone with a known painful condition or injury when they're pleading for opiates. Even though you know that people who had nothing wrong with them before going on opiates would plead just as intensely.
    - profile53 6y ago
      I am in agreement with a fair amount of what you said about overprescription, the lack of scientific backing for the chemical imbalance theory, and the less than stellar effectiveness of antipsychotics. But the way you're presenting it makes it sound like a conspiracy theory and truthfully comes off somewhat illogical and paranoid. That takes a lot away from your argument. Maybe there is a conspiracy, but if there is, then you need to back it up with proof or sources. On another note, there is one thing you are absolutely incorrect about: antipsychotics are not ineffective managing many mental health disorders. Large clinical trials are done before these drugs are even approved for the sole purpose of proving they are better than no treatment.
- profile53 6y ago
  I have worked directly and indirectly in inpatient mental health settings intermittently. The parent poster's view is correct with regards to my experience. Yes, for some people antipsychotics, antidepressants, etc. are a godsend and the difference between living a mostly normal and productive life vs. jumping off a bridge, dying in a homeless encampment because they cannot feed themselves, or committing violent acts against others. To clarify, none of these are hyperbole or exaggeration -- those are two extremes on outcome with mental health issues and antipsychotics can be the difference between the two. That being said, many, if not most, physicians I have worked with agree with the parent comment. For many patients these medications are not effective and are used as chemical restraints [0] rather than with the goal of normalizing their mental health. Eventually the logic becomes "we'll never fix them, but we can sedate them so much they won't hurt themselves or others" so dosages progressively increase until the patient becomes more sedated and somewhat zombie like. This isn't hospital specific; I have seen it across 3-4 different hospitals in different states. Neuroscience and psychiatry is a very young field and the truth is that we do not know what causes mental health issues or how to deal with them. The chemical imbalance theory is just that, a theory, and more importantly, one with very little scientific proof and backing [1]. [0] https://www.medicinenet.com/what_is_an_example_of_chemical_restraint/article.htm https://www.medicinenet.com/what_is_an_example_of_chemical_r... [1] https://www.healthline.com/health/chemical-imbalance-in-the-brain https://www.healthline.com/health/chemical-imbalance-in-the-...

by Dahoon 6y ago

stjohnswarts 6y ago

This is a terrible sentiment. You aren't a mental health expert. I have seen more than a couple of people come back from the edge because of medications. We use pills for other issues like heart disease, diabetes, etc and people live a relatively normal life. The brain is just an organ. Sure some people would be better off without medication, but lots more would be dead or locked up in a mental institution. Lots of people have chemical imbalances and no matter how much "lie back and tell me your problems" they get they will never be well. Are medications over-prescribed I'm sure that's true in some cases as well.

Negitivefrags 6y ago
I would be much more willing to believe the chemical imbalance concept if someone could actually explain which chemicals, and what the correct balance is. Serotonin you may say? Okay, how much is the correct amount of serotonin then? Can you just give me a test to see if I have the right amount? What’s going on here is not quantifiable science. It’s throw something at the wall and see what sticks.
- matz1 6y ago
  I think the best the pill can do right now is to at least making some disturbance to change the balance and hoping it produce desirable outcome. Yes basically throw something at the wall and hoping it stick.
- knowingwedont 6y ago
  You might be surprised at the number of medications which are effective for specific conditions or symptoms but for which we don't know the mechanism that achieves the effect. Yes, modern medicine has a large component of throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks. If it sticks, and it passes all the usual clinical trials to prove it does more good than harm, it's approved, even if we don't understand exactly why it works.
- lazyasciiart 6y ago
  Try looking deeply into almost any specific condition - let's take heart disease. Cholesterol, for instance - is it bad? Is it necessary? Do you need a certain amount or does the amount not matter so long as you have the correct ratio of fats? Why are some people perfectly healthy with cholesterol numbers off the roof, and others can have atherosclerosis with cholesterol numbers off the charts low? Will reducing cholesterol for that second person help them? Hurt them? For the record, the treatment plan my cardiologist put me on was explained as "all these things seem correlated with not having heart attacks so we'll just do them all and hope it helps you".
noctua 6y ago
Is the chemical imbalance theory accepted by all the experts? I remember seeing an article that questioned it. It also pointed to a study which showed that a lot of the antidepressant effect can be attributed to just placebo. I personally don't know much about the subject though so I don't know what sources to trust.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  It's not, but it's something that has been lobbied and astroturfed into being offensive to disagree with, and is about 2 years from being censored on twitter and facebook (if it isn't already.) There are millions of people who, in the middle of severe episodes, were given particular drugs. They eventually recovered from these episodes (or they didn't, but we don't hear from those people.) They've been told that they they will quickly end up back in the middle of the despair they were in if they cease taking them (lots do while continuing to take them, but we don't hear from those people.) Now you're questioning (and implicitly threatening) their lifeline. These people are fighting for their lives, and are taken advantage of by an industry. It also doesn't help that plenty of antipsychotics are crucial for people to take, but that's because those are drugs that actually make it difficult to think for people whose thoughts get out of control. They don't claim to be eradicating the chemicals or deficiencies of chemicals that cause all psychosis. The tactic of pharmaceutical companies creating patients' groups to get sufferers together and lobby "on their behalf" has been going on since the 80s. It's bulletproof, and impossible to attack. In the case of antidepressants, they've also guided them into defending these drugs as a class, rather than on an individual basis. Funded patients' groups also played a huge part in the prescription opiate epidemic; it doesn't matter how much science says that long-term opiates aren't helping chronic pain, you have to be heartless to dismiss someone with a known painful condition or injury when they're pleading for opiates. Even though you know that people who had nothing wrong with them before going on opiates would plead just as intensely.
  - profile53 6y ago
    I am in agreement with a fair amount of what you said about overprescription, the lack of scientific backing for the chemical imbalance theory, and the less than stellar effectiveness of antipsychotics. But the way you're presenting it makes it sound like a conspiracy theory and truthfully comes off somewhat illogical and paranoid. That takes a lot away from your argument. Maybe there is a conspiracy, but if there is, then you need to back it up with proof or sources. On another note, there is one thing you are absolutely incorrect about: antipsychotics are not ineffective managing many mental health disorders. Large clinical trials are done before these drugs are even approved for the sole purpose of proving they are better than no treatment.
profile53 6y ago
I have worked directly and indirectly in inpatient mental health settings intermittently. The parent poster's view is correct with regards to my experience. Yes, for some people antipsychotics, antidepressants, etc. are a godsend and the difference between living a mostly normal and productive life vs. jumping off a bridge, dying in a homeless encampment because they cannot feed themselves, or committing violent acts against others. To clarify, none of these are hyperbole or exaggeration -- those are two extremes on outcome with mental health issues and antipsychotics can be the difference between the two. That being said, many, if not most, physicians I have worked with agree with the parent comment. For many patients these medications are not effective and are used as chemical restraints [0] rather than with the goal of normalizing their mental health. Eventually the logic becomes "we'll never fix them, but we can sedate them so much they won't hurt themselves or others" so dosages progressively increase until the patient becomes more sedated and somewhat zombie like. This isn't hospital specific; I have seen it across 3-4 different hospitals in different states. Neuroscience and psychiatry is a very young field and the truth is that we do not know what causes mental health issues or how to deal with them. The chemical imbalance theory is just that, a theory, and more importantly, one with very little scientific proof and backing [1]. [0] https://www.medicinenet.com/what_is_an_example_of_chemical_restraint/article.htm https://www.medicinenet.com/what_is_an_example_of_chemical_r... [1] https://www.healthline.com/health/chemical-imbalance-in-the-brain https://www.healthline.com/health/chemical-imbalance-in-the-...