[Marxism] People Say I'm Crazy
davidquarter at sympatico.ca
Wed May 5 22:51:44 MDT 2004
Date sent: Wed, 5 May 2004 14:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Adam Levenstein <cleon42 at yahoo.com>
--- Rachel Mendoza <aka at cts.com> wrote:
> These ailments are real because doctors make behavior judgments. The
> doctors that carry around a clip board with a advertisement for mind
> altering drugs which have shown overwhelmingly to increase the risk
> suicide. There is NO evidence that "mood" ailments have a biological
ADAM:<<<Whoa whoa whoa...Are you actually saying that there's no such
biological depression? Yeah, there's a "mood" version, but there IS
such a thing as biological depression. >>>>
What's "biological depression", Adam? Are you suggesting that there is
such as a thing as a depression gene?
> (I recommend Breggin as he has shown again and again the false
> reporting of
> research to benefit the "new pill")
ADAM: Breggin has "shown" this without any use of scientific study
DAVID: I don't know what the "new pill" is, but I do know that Breggin's
credentials speak for themselves and that he is definitely a lot more
credible than the majority of his psychiatric critics, most of whom are
heavily invested in the drug industry.
Read Breggin's credentials here: http://www.breggin.com/
ADAM:<<<< the guy isn't even certified by the ABPN, for crying out
loud.More info on Breggin's "research" methods can be found here:
DAVID: Did you just decide to do a google search on Breggin to pull out
Have you even read any of Breggin's articles, including the ones published
in peer reviewed journals?
FYI, people from the psy./drug establishment and their followers have been
going after Breggin for the longest while. The fact is that he dispells many
of the myths peddled by the psy/drug establishment concerning the safety
for drug treatment and cures for mental illness, which really annoys the
APA reps and their drug companies backers.
Just to provide an example, the crock who you cited that smears Breggin
"The prevailing scientific viewpoint is that ADHD should be regarded as a
neuropsychiatric disorder, that it differs from simply rambunctious behavior,
and that medication has been thoroughly studied and found to be helpful in
managing the problem."
Of course, if the crock means by "prevailing scientific viewpoint" all of the
main psychiatric bodies heavily invested in the drug industry, he is right to
make this statement. On the other hand, if he broadens "the prevailing
scientific viewpoint" to include all of the hard scientific bodies, for example,
those for cancer, diabetes, neurology, etc, I'm sure he'd be able to locate
quite a few detractors.
I would also add that if the ADD was seen as "neurological" disorder
(which is what is actually meant by "neuropsychiatric") then ADD would be
better handled by someone actually trained in the treatment of neurological
disorders -- i.e., neurologists. But the fact of the matter is that neurologists
don't "treat" ADD -- they wouldn't waste their time with the "disorder" -- for
the simple reason that they aim to cure identifiable problems in the body,
not made up ones.
Here's a an excerpt from an article written by a neurologist (if it matters, a
member of the American Academy of Neurology), discussing the historical
differences between the two disciplines:
"When I graduated medical school, there was no such thing as a
psychiatric disease. There was conjecture, as through the ages, that
schizophrenia might be an organic brain disease, but that was conjecture
onlymembers of the NYU (my alma mater), Department of Psychiatry did
not represent to us that any psychiatric diagnosis was an actual disease,
due to a brain abnormality, nor were any encountered during the teaching of
pathologythe study of all diseases of the brain and body that took up
most of our second year of medical school. Nor was their anything but the
indelible organic vs. functional divide between neurology, the specialty I was
soon to elect, and train in, and psychiatry, which, having no hard science
basis, held no particular appeal for me. In fact, then, as now, the most
fundamental part of psychiatric diagnosis was to rule out, that is, be certain
that no organic disease existed in patients being referred to a psychiatrists.
Not only was this the duty of the non-psychiatric physician doing the
referring, it was the duty of the psychiatrist accepting such patients in
referral to be sure that sufficient care and consultation had been undertaken
to confidently rule out all possibilities of organic disease. And this had to be
assured by all involved for the simple reason, stated above, (1) that no
psychiatric diagnosis, then or now is known to be an organic disease of the
brain or body, and (2) that psychiatrists do not undertake organic diagnosis
as do all other physicians, and, as is the medico-legal duty of all other
physicians. Rather, assured upon referral that all of their patients have had
organic disease ruled out, psychiatrists set about performing psychiatric
diagnosis which consists of nothing more or less than the arbitrary
classification of subjective symptoms, which consisting of nothing but
symptoms, never of physical signs/abnormalities/diseases, is unlike all
else in medicine. The only organic diseases psychiatrists
encounterrecognized or not-- are those that have been missed (gone
unrecognized) by non-psychiatric diagnosticians, and, of course, by the
psychiatrist, as well, or those induced by, the physical treatments
employed by the psychiatristsdrugs, ECT, psychosurgery, etc. Again,
there is no such thing as psychiatric diseases. All brain symptoms found to
have an organic basis are found in the literature and textbooks of neurology.
As a neurologist it is my duty, first and foremost, to determine and know
when organic disease is present and when it is not. In particular it is my
duty and that of all neurologists (and this is known by the AAN and by all in
the leadership of academic neurology) to know when organic disease of the
brain/nervous system is present and when it is not. It is common
knowledge that psychiatry long ago sold out to the pharmaceutical industry
and that they, long agonot as science, but as a marketing ploy, began to
call all emotional and behavioral symptoms disorders/
diseases/chemical imbalances of the brainall, needing a chemical
balancer, a pill."
> Yes, labels are great. Who does one label a criminal? It helps to
> how to punish an offender, yes. "Requires anti-biotics" is an absurd
> statement as it suggests that without modern medicine there would be
> outbreak of disease. Do you believe this?
ADAM: Honest to god, that's the biggest logical disconnect I've ever seen. It
suggests no such thing. What it DOES suggest--and I'll say it outright,
even--is that without modern medicine many diseases would not be cured
and many people would be dead.>>>>
DAVID: Labels can be helpful. But, labels given to actual diseases like
cancer aren't the same of those given for "mental illness".
As I've alluded to, modern medicine isn't the same as modern psychiatry.
Psychiatrists are a type of white collar drug pusher. Most medications
prescribed by doctors actually cure an ailment.
What are psychiatrists curing? Physical diseases? No.
Because there is no substantive evidence demonstrating a biological basis
for mental illness.
Psychiatrists pretend that they are curing a biologically routed brain
disorders. That's why you will hear most refer to medications as 'correcting'
chemical imbalances in the brain. In fact, there is no evidence that people
diagnosed with mental disorder suffer from a chemical imbalance that can
distinguish them from so-called normal people. Whatever changes might
occur to the brain chemistry of persons with the so-called mental illnesses
have been shown to occur as well in the brains of so-called normals.
Without being on medications, there is no identifiable differences, say, with
the brains schitzos and the brains of mentally fit Rhode scholars.
You would see a fews isolated studies floating around the net purporting to
demonstrate the chemical imbalance theory, yet they are simply that:
isolated studies. Never replicated, and cited only for propaganda purposes.
> It's easy to throw someone
> prison for doing "illegal" drugs just like it is easy to throw pills
> someone when their behavior is not "normative." But who's judging?
ADAM :These sound like the words of someone who simply doesn't deal
DAVID: I don't know what your point is here, Adam. The fact of the matter
is that once someone is labeled with a mental illness, a person can be
forced to take 'drug therapy' against their will. The label "mental illness"
implies being incapacitated mentally, and therefore unable to act rationally --
a problem which the state, by way of psychiatry, then takes it upon
themselves to correct.
You have more rights being incarcerated in jail than you do being kept
against your will in a mental institution since someone in jail is considered
rational, where someone in a mental institution, no matter their cognitive
capacity, is invariably considered insane.
More information about the Marxism