XPost: alt.psychology
From: Barking@The.Moon
"Chris" wrote in message
news:cgDGb.131176$%h4.43050@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Critter" wrote in message
> news:lWBGb.134217$8y1.412128@attbi_s52...
> > The Fast for Freedom in Mental Health wrote on 28 July 2003:
> >
> > "WE ASK THAT YOU PRODUCE scientifically-valid evidence for the
> > following, or that you publicly admit to media, government officials
> > and the general public that you are unable to do so:
They must be required to produce this evidence, and if they are not liars
they will do so.
> > "1. EVIDENCE THAT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES the validity of 'schizophrenia,'
> > 'depression' or other 'major mental illnesses' as biologically-based
> > brain diseases.
>
> The APA clearly could have produced the criteria for diagnosing such
> conditions, as they are long-established as documented mental illness.
> There should be written criteria circulated inter-practice to back up
> individual diagnoses. I fail to see how the APA could fail to
> satisfactorily respond to this question.
>
> Depression and Schitzophrenia are "textbook" conditions which can clearly
be
> provided diagnosis criteria, even in some college-level textbooks.
The APA can produce no such proof because such proof, like their illnesses,
does not exist.
> > "2. EVIDENCE FOR A PHYSICAL DIAGNOSTIC EXAM -- such as a scan or
> > test of the brain, blood, urine, genes, etc. -- that can reliably
> > distinguish individuals with these diagnoses (prior to treatment
> > with psychiatric drugs), from individuals without these diagnoses."
>
> There is NO physical diagnosis which can give you an accurate
determination
> of mental illness. Such diagnoses require sessions with a psychologist or
> psychiatrist, often multiple sessions, and require research into family
> histories, environmental concerns, etc..
>
> The APA would have been perfectly accurate in not providing such evidence
> for item #2.
Then I claim that there are 10 Suns, and they all circle the Earth. Should I
be expected to prove my claim ? Or can I simply apply to the federal
government for grant money to study my "10 undiscovered Suns" ?
If there is no proof, then there is no medicine. And if there is no
medicine, then why the hell is there psychology ?
> > The APA Statement's fourth paragraph states:
> >
> > "Research has shown that neurobiological disorders like schizophrenia
> > reveal reproducible abnormalities of brain structure..." Without
> > any citations, these statements cannot be supported, qualified, or
> > rejected.
>
> Scientifically, research without citation is merely a theory, until it is
> proven scientifically as fact. By the APA's own admission, this has not
> been done, therefore the research is irrelevant.
Research on imaginary figments of the imagination, dreamt up while someone
was stoned on mescaline. That is the content of psychology today. Their
findings have been written into the law. Do you suppose there is any hope
for any of us, or would you not also conclude that we are all therefore
doomed ?
> > However, in the fifth, sixth, and eighth paragraphs, the APA Statement
> > admits to the absence of "discernible pathological lesions or genetic
> > abnormalities" in mental disorders. This admission contradicts the
> > previous assertion of "reproducible abnormalities."
>
> No it doesn't. "Reproducible" doesn't mean what the author believes it to
> mean. It refers to the discovery of like symptoms or conditions in like
> patients. Generally, such are held to be unrelated to the issue unless
> proven otherwise, and thus are called "reproducible abnormalities". They
> don't belong there, they show up quite often, but we don't know for sure
> what causes them, so there you are.
And what exactly is a "disorder" ? Do "disorders" even exist ? Can you prove
this ? I dont believe in disorders. If people are mad, then that is NATURE,
and something to be ACCEPTED.
> > Without evidence of brain pathology no basis exists to call emotional
> > distress, disturbing behavior, or unusual thoughts or perceptions
> > "neurobiological disorders." This and similar terms negate the
> > sufferer's distress as reaction, protest, or adaptation to his/her
> > position in the personally relevant social context. A person is
> > understood in terms of personal history and social circumstances.
> > A neurobiological disorder is understood differently. The choice
> > of labels is of great consequence.
>
> Not entirely accurate. While true that without evidence there is no basis
> for a conclusion, it is not true that without pathological evidence
> something cannot have a biological element to it's roots. Microbial
> concerns, much too small and intricate for us to see, might be at work
here.
> However, the whole of the APA's statement wasn't given here, so we can't
see
> what they said, only what the poster wants us to see.
>
> Without evidence to back it up, nothing is fact, merely theory.
Psychology is a concocted crock of shit.
> > Moreover, finding reliable biological markers would be only a first
> > step toward concluding that mental disorders are essentially
> > neurobiological. For example, blushing, an obviously physical
> > reaction, is not biologically caused. Its effective cause is acute
> > embarrassment. Biological processes make blushing possible but they
> > do not cause blushing.
>
> Finding "reliable" biological markers would presumably make a mental
illness
> into a "neurobiological disorder". Although it is a first step, it's a
very
> telling first step.
Jesus - what a flimsy house of cards. I'm glad that they dont use
psychologists to build bridges or skyscrapers - we'd all be dead.
> > Even total congruence between biological processes and psychological
> > events does not show that the former cause the latter. Psychiatric
> > research is far from showing any reliable connections between mental
> > disorders and biological measurements, much less revealing anything
> > definitive about the nature of mental disorders.
>
> So says the author. Also without evidence to support his or her claims, I
> might add.
> However, congruence implies pattern, and pattern implies form. It can
> successfully be argued as evidence that one causes the other.
Proof Chris - where's the proof -
> > Aware of this shortcoming, the APA cites migraine headache and
> > hypertension to illustrate that the lack of biological markers (and
> > thus of physical diagnostic tests) is not unique to mental and
> > behavioral disorders. It is true that medicine has yet to find the
> > biological cause for these two disorders, though it has developed
> > a very reliable physical measurement for blood pressure.
>
> The author's point is what exactly? Migraines are an excellent
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
