The Saddest Calvin and Hobbes Sketch Ever by 6ixStringJack

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Hoo boy...... I hate Scientologists, but I hope we get a few in office that will start regulating this irresponsible drug abuse.

Irony

In order to prevent a potential future where drugs are used to brainwash people, you would put people in charge of us whose main purpose in life is to...brainwash us...

I can only to 3 possible conclusions.

1: You were joking
2: You don't have enough information about Scientology
3: You are a dangerous lunatic

The fourth conclusion would be that you are stupid, but I don't think that is the case, for all your faults you haven't shown yourself to be actually stupid...please tell me you were joking.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 23, 2007 9:31 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I wanted to expound on something from earlier.

The good news and the bad news about these drugs is that they wear off. That's why people have to take them every day, sometimes several times a day - whether they have seizures, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, rages, depression, ADHD or whatever. It's not as if the person taking the drugs never gets to experience their 'true' undrugged state. For kids on Ritalin, all you have to do is wait 4 - 6 hours and you have your Ritalin-free kid. For other drugs the washout time is longer - but it's there.

So people can and do experience their 'natural' selves.

I also think 6-string has a problem with asking the kids what do they prefer? Because what if they prefer the medication ? Then there is no potential outrage over kids being forced to take medication at the hands of a system.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 23, 2007 10:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

And who the hell is Sigmanunki anyways?

Someone who's been a member here several years longer than you. Someone who knows this thing called tact (most of the time).

Nice try trying to discard my opinion b/c "I'm new" though. Too bad it doesn't fit reality.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

I will not censor myself and I will not back off. If you can't take the heat...... you know the rest.

This isn't about censorship. It's about being respectful and keeping things civil. From what I've read of your recent posts (at least as I remember the tone of some of your older ones), you don't do this. Don't bitch because someone called you on it.

Basically, if you would have kept a civil tongue, we wouldn't be having this conversation, nor would TWG have left. Have some integrity and take responsibility for your actions.

@FREMDFIRMA:

I do the note pad thing b/c of my... non-linear thoughts. When I post something, it typically goes through several revisions taking definitely over 10 mins. In fact, I've spent over an hour on some.

But, I'm going to have to disagree about the math thing as I have a Math degree. Given time and energy (as long as one is willing to spend it), one can thunk the brain into that way of thinking. Not that "people like us" are the only ones that have to. It just takes more time/energy.

"""
STOP BEIN MEAN TO EACH OTHER
*whew*
Had to get that out... ain't no cause nor reason for it.
"""

Spot on.

@JLIN13:

Yah, that was hi-larious.

@Rue:

I have an issue asking kids if they want to take the meds or not and abiding by that decision. After all, they are kids and by definition they have no clue about consequences, etc. Sometimes, the parents must make the decision regardless of what the child thinks for there benefit. Of course I'm talking about pre-teens. But, mostly similarly for teens as well.

Other than that, as long as someone isn't a risk to the public, do what yah wanna do.

@All:

To add to this conversation, my wife has actually asked me point blank if I've ever been to someone to get diagnosed.

Basically, I've never been because for the most part, I'm functional and contribute positively to society. That combined with the possibility that I could loose the ability to do what I love to do, it isn't worth it.

So, I've never been.

That being said, I have found that over the past couple year, if even just because of the massive amounts of stress I've been put under, I'm getting worse. Perhaps it's temporary, perhaps not. But, if there comes a time in which I have to use meds to be able to continue contributing (or not a complete nutter), then so be it.

There's also the issue of medicating when it's not necessary that has been brought up. But honestly, when has this _not_ been the case. There has always been a "one size fits all" disorder and this isn't limited to the mind.

IMO, the only way to mitigate this is if a child is "diagnosed" with such a disorder, the parents have to become informed and ask *a lot* of questions, get another doctor to look at the child (without even mentioning that they're the second guy), etc.

At any rate, I've been writing this for 45 mins - 1 hr and I've got things to do. So, this post will have to end here.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 23, 2007 11:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think I understand where 6string is coming from... I think... If individuals don't "fit" society, do you change society or do you change the individual? In Victorian society- and later- many disorders were blamed on the "id" and repressed sexual urges. Despite the fact that many of Freud's patients really were molested as children and that the whole society was based on rigid class, sex, and race roles- as well as completely hung up about sex- it was so much easier to "blame the victim".

In in ANY society when stress goes up so does drug use, whether alcohol, valium, weed, or SSRIs. The fact is that it is easier (and more profitable) to blame the victim- to chemically adjust people to society than to adjust the society to people... especially since societies are run by the those who resist any meaningful transfer of power. The fact that very effective psychotropic drugs are available makes it so much easier to do exactly that, without globally considering whether there is something wrong with a society where 25% of the population needs antidepressants just to function. Or maybe our expectations are skewed. Perhaps our manic ethos - you can do anything if you just try hard enough- is very, very wrong. Studies have shown that people who are classified as "moderately depressed" are actually MORE realistic and make better decisions that people who are considered "normal".

OTOH- there ARE people who benefit greatly from drugs- even drugs that are "forced" on them as children.

The only way to statisfy both concerns is to set a drug use threshold which causes us to look at our society as a whole and asy "what gives?"

6String- have you considered owning your own business? That's the one place where ADHD people really do well.

Sigma- I can guarantee you that no matter how hard we push our daughter the damage done to her right brain makes math and mapping a terrible struggle.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 23, 2007 11:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think I understand where 6string is coming from... I think... If individuals don't "fit" society, do you change society or do you change the individual?

Given the enormous implications and work load that adjusting society to a small percentage of people would bring I think the choice is fairly obvious.

Quote:
without globally considering whether there is something wrong with a society where 25% of the population needs antidepressants just to function

I have to ask where you got that number from, I know a lot of people and almost none of them use anti-deps, the only one that I can think of who does...well he's really f'ed up (or was I don't hang out with him anymore), even 6ix would approve of loading him up on drugs.

Quote:
Or maybe our expectations are skewed. Perhaps our manic ethos - you can do anything if you just try hard enough- is very, very wrong.

Absolutely.

Quote:
Studies have shown that people who are classified as "moderately depressed" are actually MORE realistic and make better decisions that people who are considered "normal".

Indeed we do

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 23, 2007 11:43 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
What do you think of letting the child have a say? Kind of like getting glasses - which way this better, this way, or this? There are children who go on medication who are relieved to be on it. Not b/c they're making their parents happy but b/c they're more capable and they feel better.

Well, see, that's an enormous can of worms for me, no one asks them, about anything.

Children in our society are generally regarded as something less than people, their legal and social status amongst the adult community is closer to pets, beloved property, but property all the same, and the law does us no favors in respect to it either.

You can get in more trouble, in fact, for mistreating your pet, than your child, and if you *own* the child, even the very worst abuse is considered little more than property damage by the law.
(See Also: Incest Exception)

No one listens to a kid, and when adults talk to them, that's what they do, talk TO them, down AT them, in a patronizing and insulting fashion, rather than speaking WITH them.

I hated that bullshit when I was on the recieving end, and I most certainly do *not* engage in such behavior myself, one of the reasons "Uncle Frem" is the confidant of my social circles kids, and general problem solver, because to treat them with respect, to speak to them and listen just like they are another person, instead of like a puppy they just peed on the floor, is the basic key that most adults these days lack.

To have a child's respect is a very, very important part of working with them, and that MUST be earned, and you must set an example yourself if you wish them to engage in and/or avoid certain behaviors, or you needn't bother.

Case Example: I have a friend who's daughter flat will not listen to her, frankly because there's little love lost and even less respect in either direction, she can threaten, cajole, and order all she wants, but that kid is stubborn as a rock, and the nastier she gets about it, the more stubborn the kid gets about it, wanting naught more than to be treated like a person.

Middle of this soon-to-be-brawl, I turn and ask politely, as if I am talkin to any other person.. "Marie, would you put the trash out, please ?" and she goes "Ok." and goes and does it.

Her mother doesn't comprehend WHY this works because her first instinct, as taught by morons and psychos like Dobson and Esso, is to attack anything but meek subservience and "break" the child to her will, but she's a strong willed woman with a strong willed child, and all she's breakin is her family.

As far as discipline goes, earned respect makes a tremendous difference - in the above case, often no amount of physical or other threat will make any difference regarding her behavior, but one stern and dissapproving look from me would stop her in her tracks.. as she said "Don't look at meee like that, I feel an inch tall!".

"Well, don't act like that then, she is right you know, it's not a place to be wearing that, and it's not really age appropriate anyhow.. wear something nicer and you might impress some folk, they might pay a mind to you for once."

"But you dress like a bum!"

"Yeah, but if I wanted to impress someone, I'd wear a suit anyway, it's about giving them the respect of a professional appearance to show you take them seriously, and so they take you seriously - you want people to take you serious, you have to show that you take them serious too."

"Oh!...ok."

That works a hell of a lot better than "Because I said so!" or "Do it or else!"
If folks can be bothered with basic communication, then they shouldn't have bothered having kids in the first damned place.

I don't think Six has as much a problem with asking kids what they prefer, as he has with no one asking them before forcing pills upon them.

Besides, what if you asked them and they said "No!", while the school is threatening to expel them and make trouble with child protective services if you don't medicate ?

What do you do then ?

And while we're on the topic, when my niece comes to me with those big, tear filled blue eyes cause the school tells her she's a bad person for asking questions and wanting to be treated like a person instead of meekly obeying every whim... and they they are bringin in a shrink to "find out what's wrong with her" so they can fix that problem... and she asks you why....
(And you KNOW this is an attempt to eject her from said school via psychological frameup, as is a common tactic with this school in particular)

What the fuck do you tell her ?
.....
....
...
..
.

I did what I had to do - I came down to one knee, looked her eye to eye, and I TOLD HER THE TRUTH, flat levelled with her about it, what they were up to, and why.

Things are probably going to get ugly in that respect now, but I couldn't lie to her - I told her that this was an attempt to railroad, and she should just clam up silent and not give them anything to use against her.
"You know in them cop shows.. you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you ?.. yeah, kiddo, give em NOTHING."
Not much I can do beyond that.

She's not my daughter, and I can't see such an adversarial relationship with that school, and that school system, helping her education any, so i've invested in the proper study books for the GED test, and we'll find out - I am *hoping* that she doesn't come out of this seeing all of human society as the enemy, as I did, cause it takes a damned long time to get over that.

The way we treat kids is a boomerang, we do unto them and they spend the rest of their lives getting even - is this really any way to run a society ?

Fredgiblet -
In truth, we know the why, we known it since 1978 - they just don't care to solve the underlying problem when it's cheaper, faster and easier to medicate the symptoms.

Khyron-
Heh, I was waitin for that... no, I wouldn't, I saw some pretty extreme misuse of psychotropics and behavioral control in my time*, and due to that, generally regard such things as juggling with sweaty dynamite.
For me it honestly seems that the savant-level processing is directly and indelibly linked to the screwed up sequencing, so lose one, lose both, and to hell with that, imma take advantage of it and profit from it!

SIGMANUNKI-
Those last two paragraphs you wrote, are exactly how it SHOULD be, but ain't, and I think the whole little mess in this thread has been unneccessary cause folks just ain't gettin each other.

There's how it SHOULD be.
and then there's how it IS.

Some folks gotta problem with how it IS - but misunderstanding and general slagging took precedence over communication, as it often does here... the slaggin doesn't bother me in and of itself, but when the discussion is lost in it, well...

-Frem

Linkage (so you know why)
http://www.isaccorp.org/
http://www.nospank.net/boot.htm
http://www.teenliberty.org/An_American_GULAG.htm

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 23, 2007 12:23 PM

@SignyM:

Ok, I realize now that my statement implied that /everyone/ could do Math given enough time. Didn't mean that. I thought that context took care of it, but I was apparently mistaken.

In fact, I openly criticize the mentality the "everyone can do anything" attitude that schools currently have. I believe that it is the core cause of the dumbing down of schools. I think that the Simpsons summarized/criticised this best with:

"All I know is that no-one is better than anyone else and everyone is the best at everything."
- Assistant Grounds Keeper Skinner

To /attempt/ to be more specific, when it comes to Math, I believe that people with some (or possible a lot) of mental fog can overcome and be able to do higher Mathematics. IMO, people don't do it because of the instant fix mentality that is so pervasive in society today. IMO, the same is true for most, if not all, areas of life.

But again, this is all assuming the the person doesn't have any "serious" problems.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 23, 2007 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Children in our society are generally regarded as something less than people, their legal and social status amongst the adult community is closer to pets, beloved property, but property all the same, and the law does us no favors in respect to it either.

...snip...

I understand that you have experience with this being true. But, there are still places in this world where such things are still found unacceptable; the war isn't lost yet.

I also wouldn't go as far as to say the property thing.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

SIGMANUNKI-
Those last two paragraphs you wrote, are exactly how it SHOULD be, but ain't,

Thank you

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

and I think the whole little mess in this thread has been unneccessary cause folks just ain't gettin each other.

Or don't want to get each-other (one or both of them).

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

There's how it SHOULD be.
and then there's how it IS.

Agreed. But, if no-one says how it should be, the people who don't realize how it should be, will never even be exposed to the idea.

Now, the people here tend to be quite intelligent and well informed. But, I know that I haven't realized some obvious things, so perhaps saying it has done some good. Maybe next time a M.D. writes a script, people will start to ask why. Just like I've re-evaluated many things b/c of discussions here.

This was one that got me thinking. As an example, a girl I knew got sent to a Psychiatrist and a Psychologist. The psychiatrist started off by saying that he was going to start her off on drug X and if that doesn't work then they'll cycle through the list until they find one that works. She then asked if there was any indication that her brain chemistry was off. He said no. She replied that since there was no indication that she needed these drugs and the fact that they have some serious side-effects, she wouldn't take them. Looked quite good in front of the Psychologist.

It's this sort of thinking that we need to shift to.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Some folks gotta problem with how it IS - but misunderstanding and general slagging took precedence over communication, as it often does here... the slaggin doesn't bother me in and of itself, but when the discussion is lost in it, well...

The exact reason why I don't regularly participate on these forums, RWD or otherwise.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 23, 2007 1:15 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Ultimately adults DO have 'control' of 'their' children. But it would be a fool of a doctor, or a parent, to 'treat' a child and not ASK them how they think it's going. Now if you have a child that's raging, breaking walls and so on, and no reason-based approach works; or if they're having seizures; or hallucinating or whatever is very far out of the norm; then you do need to do something, whether they like it or not.

But for the in-between-ers - Why NOT ask? Is it better this way ??? Or this way ??? Who would know better than the child?

As for 'fixing' society - I'm ALL for that. If 10% of your population is on mood 'scrips at any one time, your society is seriously effed up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 23, 2007 7:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ultimately adults DO have 'control' of 'their' children. But it would be a fool of a doctor, or a parent, to 'treat' a child and not ASK them how they think it's going. Now if you have a child that's raging, breaking walls and so on, and no reason-based approach works; or if they're having seizures; or hallucinating or whatever is very far out of the norm; then you do need to do something, whether they like it or not.

But for the in-between-ers - Why NOT ask? Is it better this way ??? Or this way ??? Who would know better than the child?

Agreed. But, I'd limit asking the in-betweeners for the purposes of finding the correct treatment, not whether they are treated or not.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

As for 'fixing' society - I'm ALL for that. If 10% of your population is on mood 'scrips at any one time, your society is seriously effed up.

Very true.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 24, 2007 4:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Given the enormous implications and work load that adjusting society to a small percentage of people would bring I think the choice is fairly obvious... I have to ask where you got that number from, I know a lot of people and almost none of them use anti-deps, the only one that I can think of who does...well he's really f'ed up (or was I don't hang out with him anymore), even 6ix would approve of loading him up on drugs.

I pulled the number out of my *ss. But depression is not a limited to "a small number of people". The real numbers are:

major depression: 9% of adult population in any one year
dysthymia: another 8% in any one year

Depression has a major impact on productivity, parenting, overall health, drug use, crime, and -of course- suicide and accident rates. And it's not just something endogenously wrong with a small subset of people because it varies by nation, class, sex, head injury etc. so it's clearly linked to external factors

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uid
s=11980797&dopt=Abstract When unemployment goes up, so does depression. When stress goes up, so does depression. BTW- the USA is one of two developed nations with VERY high levels of stress.

In fact, it's almost exactly like obesity and diabetes, both of which are predicted to have major impacts on the economy. A subset of people may be more vulnerable to developing diabetes, but in a mileu that virtually guarantees obesity (time stress, dangerous/ unwalkable environment, physically undemanding jobs and entertainment, junk food) those thresholds will be exceeded. It's funny, because I hear so much about the genes involved in obesity and diabetes, but genes don't explain why people have SUDDENLY become so much more obese in the last 30 years. Our genes didn't change overnight! But, like depression and other psychological ills, it's SOOOO much more profitable to develop a pill to help functional people cope in a dysfunctional society rather than change society.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 24, 2007 4:59 AM

6ix,

Don't take offense at these folks. They simply have a different mindset.

There are solutions and there are solutions. People who have no problems being dependent on medication ultimately have trust and faith in "the system" created by govt and the pharm industry. They trust the solution provided by this system, and see nothing wrong with dependence on it anymore than a child would see anything wrong with dependence on a parent.

Then there are people like us, who see meds as a bandaid solution forcing us to become dependent on a system we have no faith in. Because we do not trust govt or corporation, we find their solutions limiting and suspect. We look for alternative, more permanent solutions.

This is something I have learned long ago. You can't convince someone who believes NOT to believe. They will not become disillusioned unless they suffer injury or death because of the system themselves, and even then, they are likely to make excuses for it. It is the nature of faith.

We are like medical/government atheists. We can state our lack of faith in medicine and government, but we'll never be understood by those who do believe. They will always attack us. We just have to agree to disagree.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 24, 2007 6:23 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

6ix, CTS- Your level of skepticism is high. That's fine. But if your skepticism is unbridgeable by ANY level of evidence then you're delusional. So- are you such committed "do-it-yourselfers" that you refuse ALL intervention? Antibiotics? Blood transfusions? "Natural" supplements? Appendectomy? Dentistry? Glasses? Or is your skepticism limited to vaccines (CTS) and psychotropic drugs (6ix)? If you accept some intervention ( example- natural supplements produced and sold by corporations with little government regulation) but not others, where do you draw the line and for what reason?

EDIT: I understand your skepticism. I think I made a pretty good argument for changing society instead of changing people. I think acceptance of "the way things are" is way too high. But I don't believe in people struggling individually in a society that whips people forward and hobbles them at the same time.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 24, 2007 8:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

There are solutions and there are solutions. People who have no problems being dependent on medication ultimately have trust and faith in "the system" created by govt and the pharm industry. They trust the solution provided by this system, and see nothing wrong with dependence on it anymore than a child would see anything wrong with dependence on a parent.

only slightly true, it is true that the mentally ill don't know they are mentally ill. Your forgone assumption is that every one of them is innocently following whatever "feels good". Most medications (besides ritalin) don't make you feel good. They just get you back up to how most people are when they are not mentally ill. Except for 6string, to get where he is you'd have to take a cranky pill.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky: Then there are people like us, who see meds as a bandaid solution forcing us to become dependent on a system we have no faith in. Because we do not trust govt or corporation, we find their solutions limiting and suspect. We look for alternative, more permanent solutions.

Ya know what...I don't know you, but if you feel that way, you're probably not mentally ill, and don't know much about the daily struggles someone like that faces. I suggest to become enlightened, go down to the pediatric ward at your local mental hospital. After that you'd probably sing a different tune about zero psychaitric for kids, also you're not a doctor... are you?.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky: This is something I have learned long ago. You can't convince someone who believes NOT to believe. They will not become disillusioned unless they suffer injury or death because of the system themselves, and even then, they are likely to make excuses for it. It is the nature of faith.

I have a sister who is bi-polar. Off her drugs she acts like River. On her drugs she is a productive happy, functioning person. They get her back to square one, AND she needs them, as a result she is dependant, but it's a hell of alot better than KRAZY WHOO HOO.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky: We are like medical/government atheists. We can state our lack of faith in medicine and government, but we'll never be understood by those who do believe. They will always attack us. We just have to agree to disagree.

Nobody is attacking you...and I DO understand all that you say...I just don't agree with it. There is a common delusion amongst schizophrenics, the delusion that they are right, everyone else is wrong, and the government is out to get them. You know what...stay just the way you are...I hope you will never understand mental illness, because that would mean you or someone you know will become ill, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone

"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 24, 2007 8:19 AM

@CantTakeSky:

I honestly think that you haven't really read what people have written here. No-one here is say drugs, Drugs, DRUGS!!! They are the answer!

What I (we?) are saying is that when people need them to function then they are the way to go (or at least a very very good idea) i.e. some people have chemical imbalances that require correction through meds.

This is rather a middle ground. This is what I (we?) are talking about.

What you and 6 seem to be saying is that under no circumstances should anyone enter "the system" and become a "slave to the pharmaceutical companies". That drugs are an abomination!

This is a very extreme view.

Please note that just because someone buys something from a company or even requires it, it does NOT mean that they are slaves nor does it mean that they are mindless. As someone has suggested, perhaps you should actually talk to someone who is mentally ill. And actually take what they say at face value instead of dismissing it. Which, if you've actually read what we've written here, is exactly what you're currently doing.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 24, 2007 9:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Given the enormous implications and work load that adjusting society to a small percentage of people would bring I think the choice is fairly obvious... I have to ask where you got that number from, I know a lot of people and almost none of them use anti-deps, the only one that I can think of who does...well he's really f'ed up (or was I don't hang out with him anymore), even 6ix would approve of loading him up on drugs.
I pulled the number out of my *ss. But depression is not a limited to "a small number of people".

Um, I thought we were still talking about ADD\ADHD, depression is a bit of a different animal. Depression is definitely (for a lot of people) a social issue that we can and should address.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 24, 2007 9:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I honestly think that you haven't really read what people have written here. No-one here is say drugs, Drugs, DRUGS!!! They are the answer!

What I (we?) are saying is that when people need them to function then they are the way to go (or at least a very very good idea) i.e. some people have chemical imbalances that require correction through meds.

This is rather a middle ground. This is what I (we?) are talking about.

This is exactly what I've been saying for the last couple threads. NO ONE has said that drugs should be given to everyone, just the people for whom there is a need and a significant benefit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 24, 2007 9:26 AM

Fremd:

I'm curious, how old is your friends daughter?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 24, 2007 9:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Um, I thought we were still talking about ADD\ADHD, depression is a bit of a different animal. Depression is definitely (for a lot of people) a social issue that we can and should address.

I think 6ix's argument was/ is more generic than ADHD. In any case, the prevalence of diagnosed ADHD in children is about on-par with the prevalance of depression in adults, prolly averaging around 8%. The arguments could be similar: whereas depression can be caused by a combination of neurochemical vulnerability and stressful environment, ADHD might be caused by a combination of dietary deficiencies, neurochemical susceptibility and too much TV (for example).

www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/adhdprevalence.htm

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 24, 2007 1:59 PM

FREMDFIRMA

(Ok... this started as a reply and wound up something else, yeah, but it's worth the reading..)

Fred..

You mean little miss defiance ? I've known here since she was about 10, but she's 16 now, and it's prettymuch too late for that family - the son's run off to somewhere and is laying low, trying to overcome his problems and run something resembling a normal life, been tryin to get him into college but he's still struggling with the damage to his psyche of decades of emotional beatdown.. he's coming along and I have hope for him yet, but not a great deal of it given how badly he's coping at this time.

Lil miss defiance ran off to hang out with the friends most hated by her parents without thinking or caring they might have some real and valid reasons to dislike them, and the endless party circuit will probably absorb her, chew her up and spit the remains out, because there's no authority figure she respects at all other than me, and I simply cannot ride herd over her cause she's not my kid, and one can't run other peoples lives for them and still run their own.

I hate watching this garbage, the life-destroying fallout from what I refer to as adversarial parenting of the type taught by folk like Dobson and Esso, where the child is treated as an opponent or enemy to be crushed and defeated rather than loved and nutured, but beyond being a voice of concern and wisdom there's not very bloody much I can do about it when the parents won't listen to reason... I know it's not really "my problem" and all that, but once these damaged-goods kids make it into society, as often as not pitched out the door by the now-frustrated parents, too early, with no proper life skills, no decent contacts or prospects and inadequate employment, and mostly fall into the slow self-destruction of working multiple bottom end jobs right into unrecoverable debt, drug use and criminal activity... followed soon by death from suicide, overdose or violence.

At some point, I think that's everyones problem, one of the root causes of the general social malady that is so destructive emotionally to one and all.

Watching it happen over and over again, it grates on me, what we do to our youth in the name of parenting and education is often so horrific the scars last forever, and having shiny things and a nice house and a family they will eventually destroy in the same fashion just puts a pretty gloss over the nightmare.

I have seen the enemy, and he is us.

Those parents, teachers, and bystanders who step up and try to love and nurture instead of crush and destroy are the real heros of our society, and all they usually get for it is scorned and ridiculed.

It's not just one thing, but the medication issue ties into all the rest, as one of the roots that feed this tree of evil, which is why I am so passionate about it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 24, 2007 1:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
some people have chemical imbalances that require correction through meds.

I would say some people have chemical imbalances that CAN be corrected by meds. Meds is only one of several possible solutions. My position is that medication is not necessarily the BEST of those several possible solutions simply because medical and govt authorities say it is.

Quote:
What you and 6 seem to be saying is that under no circumstances should anyone enter "the system" and become a "slave to the pharmaceutical companies". That drugs are an abomination!

To clarify, I do not make that judgment for anyone else but myself and my family. *I* would not want to become dependent on medication, when there are quite a number of other alternatives, but that is ME. Everyone needs to make this choice for him or herself. THAT is my view.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 24, 2007 2:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malbadinlatin:
After that you'd probably sing a different tune about zero psychaitric for kids, also you're not a doctor... are you?.

You must have misunderstood me. I never said zero psychiatry for kids. And btw, I have worked in mental hospitals so I am quite familiar with serious mental illness, both as a professional and as a family member of someone who has paranoid schizophrenia.

Quote:
They get her back to square one, AND she needs them, as a result she is dependant, but it's a hell of alot better than KRAZY WHOO HOO.

And that is her choice to make. If it were me, or my sister, I would look for non-dependency inducing alternatives. But that's me.

Psychiatry is one solution of several possible solutions. But our medical and govt authorities tell us that psychiatry is the ONLY and BEST solution to serious, organic mental illness. That is what I don't buy. That is what everyone else believes. That is where we disagree.

And it's ok that we disagree. I have no wish to force my views on anyone else. I hope that clarifies where I stand.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 24, 2007 2:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But if your skepticism is unbridgeable by ANY level of evidence then you're delusional. So- are you such committed "do-it-yourselfers" that you refuse ALL intervention?

There are no guarantees in life. Every choice is ultimately a gamble of risk vs. benefit.

To calculate the odds, we rely on "evidence." Here is where the debate starts, I believe. What evidence, and whose evidence? And how do we weigh each piece of evidence? For many people, the fact that the CDC, FDA, and AMA say something is so is evidence enough. And it is their prerogative to think so if they choose.

For me, endorsements or denouncements by medical and govt authorities carry no weight. I need to look at the original published research, and decide for myself if their conclusions are supported by the actual data. Many times, I have found that their studies are so flawed that their conclusions are unsupported. I then look at arguments against those conclusions, and read their data. I usually arrive at very different conclusions than those of authorities.

I don't accept or reject anything categorically. Not even vaccines. Every solution proposed by authorities is indeed a solution, including vaccines. I have just concluded, more times than not, that those solutions are usually not the BEST solutions, let alone the only solutions. There are alternatives to vaccination, for example, that I believe are safer and more effective in preventing disease. So I calculate the odds, weigh the risks vs. benefits for each product, and make my choice. It is not an ideological demonization of all things endorsed by medicine or government, or a blind embrace of all things rejected by medicine/govt.

Sometimes antibiotics are the best option (as in lowest risk for highest benefit), and sometimes they aren't. Sometimes pain killers are the best option, sometimes they aren't. When it is the best option (as I decide, not as the doctor decides since his authority carries no weight with me), I use it. That's how it works. For the most part, I tend to find emergency and trauma medicine useful (benefits worth the risk), and the rest of modern medicine not worth the risks. That doesn't mean I never take Benadryl or Aspirin.

I tend to favor solutions that don't include lifelong dependence, be it mainstream or alternative. I once used a chiropractor who believed people should get continuously realigned weekly for the rest of their lives. I stopped going immediately. People who preach dependence on any product, be it mainstream or alternative, don't sit well with me. I once bought a supplement called Noni juice from a salesperson who said she had never known anyone to quit buying Noni juice. I never bought from her again, and rarely tried Noni juice after that.

When it comes to psychotropic meds, I think MOST times they aren't the best option. Psychoactive drugs have a tendency to create dependence, either psychological or physical or both. To me, that is a risk/cost that outweighs the benefits.

The thing is though, I don't force my evaluation of the evidence on anyone else. My conclusions are for me and my family alone. I think that is my right to think for myself and decide for myself.

Everyone else can act on his/her own assumptions and values. As you know, I am pro-choice on everything.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 25, 2007 4:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
At some point, I think that's everyones problem, one of the root causes of the general social malady that is so destructive emotionally to one and all.

I think you and 6ix have a point here.

However, I think medical treatment choices are very complicated, and sometimes, people simply don't have the emotional or financial resources to swim against the current to seek better, but more difficult alternatives.

For me, the solution is not asking parents not to drug their kids, but to encourage the use of alternatives. If those alternatives are accessible and effective, more people will use them on their own.

Alternative medicine is now a rapidly growing industry, despite the heavy propaganda from the establishment. I think it is because more and more people are becoming more and more disenchanted and are exploring taking care of themselves. If we can deregulate medicine to open a true free market, I believe the better solutions will become more accessible and less people will rely on drug dependence.

In other words, I tend to blame the state-supported medical/pharmaceutical monopoly rather than the folks who give in to the brainwashing. Most times, they are suffering and are just trying to stay afloat the best they know how with the lifesavers thrown to them. They don't know that they can learn to swim, and swim to shore. I don't think that is their fault, really, when they've been told there is no other way out from birth.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 25, 2007 6:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS- I think Frem was talking about non-abusive, non-authoritian parenting as being "the problem".

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 25, 2007 8:44 AM

Thanks for the correction, SignyM.

I thought this kid was drugged by the parents. But upon closer reading, Frem is objecting to their authoritarian parenting style. So, uh, my comments don't apply to the problem Frem was describing. Sorry Frem.

They do apply to 6ix's overall objections of the overuse of drugs, though. (I think.)

Actually, this does tie in somewhat with the ADHD overdiagnosis problem. When kids don't meet parental expectations, many parents see it as "the kid's problem." So the solution they seek is to "fix the kid." They drag the kid to the doctor's office like bringing a car to the mechanic. They look for a "disorder" for what's "wrong" with the kid, which absolves them of any fault or hard work to change themselves.

I have a kid who is very emotionally high maintenance, and who acts like a distracted tornado. She meets all criteria for a dx of ADHD. I could VERY easily slap a label on her and put her on drugs. Fix "her" problem, just like that.

I have, instead, chosen to use occupational therapy, gymnastics and as much physical activity as I can squeeze in, a flexible learning environment tailored just for her through homeschooling, and using the label "spirited" instead of "hyperactive." I think it is important for her to know there is nothing wrong with her, that she is different, but not defective. She has to find ways to accommodate her differences, but that doesn't mean she has to suppress her energy level.

It's a different perspective, and one that other parents are embracing as well. Just because one is statistically uncommon, and doesn't fit well in society, doesn't mean you have a "disorder."

Homosexuality used to be a psychiatric disorder, but is now accepted as a statistically uncommon, but normal human condition. Being profoundly gifted usually makes one ill-fitted in society, but profound intelligence is not seen as a "disorder." There are many people in the deaf community who believe deafness is not a "disorder" or disability. They feel like foreigners in the hearing world, speaking their own language--but in their "home" country of the deaf community, they are not impaired at all.

There is something to be said for not rushing to "fix the kid," but adapting one's own habits and lifestyle to accommodate a child's individuality.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 25, 2007 11:19 AM

CITIZEN

at the danger of getting into the same argument we did over vaccinations can I make a suggestion that you're going to get over medication while medication is a source of revenue?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
at the danger of getting into the same argument we did over vaccinations can I make a suggestion that you're going to get over medication while medication is a source of revenue?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:25 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
at the danger of getting into the same argument we did over vaccinations can I make a suggestion that you're going to get over medication while medication is a source of revenue?
I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

I'm asking if you think making public health a buisness is responcible for the uniquely American dependence on mass medication?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:53 PM

REGINAROADIE

First off, that isn't a real CALVIN AND HOBBES cartoon. I should know. I have every single one of the strips and don't recognize that one.

That being said, even without the pills, the cartoon does touch on that inevitable point when all of us transition from that innocence of childhood to the somewhat maturity of young adulthood. It actually reminds me of another kids lit classic that touches on this. In the last WINNIE THE POOH books (the original A.A. Milne books, not the Disney franchise prostitutes), the series ends with Christopher Robin growing up and leaving Pooh behind because he doesn't need him anymore. And it's considered one of the saddest pieces of literature ever written. In that context, the strip is just very well done fan art.

In regards to kids taking pills, I think that theres the opportunity for good use and abuse in situations like that. As a boy whose had his fair share of pills in his system, sometimes pills like that help. But in some cases, excessive medication would hurt rather than help a child out. GARDEN STATE is a great film that examines the effect pills like that can have on a child.

**************************************************
"Have you ever fired two guns whilst jumping through the air?"
"No."
"Have you ever fired ONE gun whilst jumping through the air?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 25, 2007 3:09 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS

"I need to look at the original published research". If I may be so bold as to point out you never did find the original polio research or indeed original research on several other items.

Going past that though, what do YOU recommend for your paranoid schizophrenic family member? Herbs? Foods? Meditation? And as a treatment do you recommend these for life, the same way medication would be recommended for life? Or do you think there is an actual and natural 'cure' for that illness?

The reason why I ask is b/c I've had ADD/ADHD ever since I can remember, heading on six decades. I'd like to think I'm reasonably intelligent and self-aware. And it's something Ive been dealing with all this time. From the negative emotional fallout (why can't I do what other kids do, why am I always screwing up ??) to the ceaseless and stressful internal noise to the difficulties doing things like getting through college+. I have tried elimination diets, fish oil, meditation, neural programming, vitamins - whatever you can bring up, I've probably been there. And NOTHING works quite as well as Ritalin. If there were answers out there, I'd recommend people should try the most innocuous first before going onto the heavy duty stuff.

But I see that there AREN'T answers out there - not for autism, seizures, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or even ADD/ ADHD. And to deny treatment to a child suffering from a disorder is cruel. That's why I think they should be included in their treatment plan when ever possible. These problems do cause physiological stress - because the neurological gears are grinding all the time. And effective treatment does reduce stress, making life better for the child.

Whenever possible the child needs to be asked - which way is better?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 25, 2007 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm asking if you think making public health a buisness is responcible for the uniquely American dependence on mass medication?

Yes, definitely. I believe profit and greed are undoubtedly part of the problem.

I am not sure though, that government-controlled public health would be that much better. I don't know that overdependence on pharmaceutical products is unique to America. I still see it in other countries, just not as severe as here.

Just my opinion.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 25, 2007 11:33 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I am not sure though, that government-controlled public health would be that much better. I don't know that overdependence on pharmaceutical products is unique to America. I still see it in other countries, just not as severe as here.

Private Health has two drives, profit and health care because health care gives them profit. They want people to be ill so they can charge them for treating them. Public health wants people to be well. When someone is treated on a public health scheme they don't make any money out of treating sick people, so they obviously want to stop treating them as soon as they are well, because any superfluous treat makes the public health trust out of pocket. It's a fundamental difference, private health wants you to be ill ALL the time because that's how they make money, public health wants you to be well all the time, because that way they don't lose money.

I've not seen anything like the American desire to be on drugs anywhere in the world outside of a University Dorm. The most comparable situation I can think of here is how so many people demand Antibiotics to cure they're cold because the halfwits don't realise Antibiotics do bugger all to Viruses, and most of the time getting angry at the GP for not giving it too them.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 26, 2007 7:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Psychiatry is one solution of several possible solutions. But our medical and govt authorities tell us that psychiatry is the ONLY and BEST solution to serious, organic mental illness. That is what I don't buy. That is what everyone else believes. That is where we disagree.

And it's ok that we disagree. I have no wish to force my views on anyone else. I hope that clarifies where I stand.

Actualy I don't disagree with the above quote. We've only scratched the surface when it comes to less evasive treatments for lots of conditions. Your tone in that post to 6 string seemed a little conscending that's all.

"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 26, 2007 7:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Psychiatry is one solution of several possible solutions. But our medical and govt authorities tell us that psychiatry is the ONLY and BEST solution to serious, organic mental illness. That is what I don't buy. That is what everyone else believes. That is where we disagree.

And it's ok that we disagree. I have no wish to force my views on anyone else. I hope that clarifies where I stand.

Actualy I don't disagree with the above quote. We've only scratched the surface when it comes to less evasive treatments for lots of conditions. Your tone in that post to 6 string seemed a little condescending that's all.

"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 26, 2007 12:30 PM

@canttakesky:

You keep saying there are alternatives yet you aren't providing us with this knowledge. How about providing an alternative to a med. Say, Lithium or Prozac. Or an alternative treatment to to say, Schizophrenia.

Oh, and keep in mind that just because something is natural (herb or otherwise), does in no way shape or form mean that it isn't as dangerous or addictive (or more so) as conventional meds. After all, the studies for most of this stuff is still pending.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 26, 2007 3:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
How about providing an alternative to a med. Say, Lithium or Prozac. Or an alternative treatment to to say, Schizophrenia.

There are any number of alternatives to lifelong dependence on psychoactive medication. It is a matter of trial and error to see if which combination works best, if any at all. Here are some alternatives that have worked for some people.

1. Behavioral modification, psychotherapy, occupational therapy. For some high-functioning people, sometimes lifestyle accommodations is all that is needed. For example, one professional with schizophrenia has a few bad weeks about 2x a year. He can feel the breakdown coming on, and he takes off for those weeks. When they're over, he goes back to work--without meds. Some people with schizophrenia improve their functioning significantly when they learn certain social skills, how not to "act crazy," to compensate for their illness. They learn not to speak of certain topics and find other outlets (such as diaries) for their delusions. Patient education is often used with or without meds in mental hospitals, so this supplemental approach is very mainstream.

2. Orthomolecular medicine, including high doses of vitamin C and/or diet changes.
http://www.orthomed.org/pauling2.html
http://www.4optimallife.com/Alternative-Medicines-Cures-For-Schizophre
nia-Mental-Illness.html

3. Antibiotics and more specific and accurate diagnosis. Too often, anyone who presents with chronic florid psychosis is diagnosed with mental illness with there is another underlying pathology occurring. At one conference, I heard a story about a psychiatrist who brought her son for specific testing after all neuroleptics had failed to work. It turned out he had a severe infection of chlamydia, which was cured by antibiotics. His psychosis disappeared.
http://aetiology.blogspot.com/2005/09/study-reinforces-link-between.ht
ml
http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-05/features/behavior/

4. Homeopathy. Homeopathy has a 200 year old record of working very well with mental illness.

There are more options, but if you are seriously interested, you can google them as well as I can. This gives you the basic idea.

This site has a bunch of testimonials of people who have successfully tried alternatives.

http://www.alternativementalhealth.com/testimonials/default.htm

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 26, 2007 4:34 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Some of it's cureable by fixing the source of the problem rather than the symptoms.

Case example: Alan.

Alan was considered neurotic and paranoid, and possibly agoraphobic... wouldn't go outside, was somewhat fearful of everything, but most especially other people.

Would go mute, clam up, wouldn't talk to folk.

Some kindhearted friend of the family took him for a picnic outing, and had a long talk with him.

The next day said kindhearted friend ambushed the thing that was MAKING Alan neurotic and dragged it's ringleader to the local police station and filed charges.

And again, the next day, when they decided to escalate and retaliate.

And again, till the message got across to the parents, who were going to be held responsible if there was ever a next time past that.

Alan's in college now, working on his MBA, and will probably graduate summa cum laude.

That's a rather, erm... "polite" summary of events, mind you, i'm sure you can figure the details yourself.

THIS is the kind of problem that is often medicated, a real-world problem with a real-world cause that needs to be addressed, but no one will bother or dare.

And no, I don't care if said punks are 1/4 of my size either, anymore than I care about crushing a poisonous viper while it's still defenseless in it's shell.

Some of em grow out of it, and become decent folk, and some of em grow into it, and become monsters... and we let it happen.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 26, 2007 6:09 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS,

You seem to be more interested in the purity of your ideology than in health, even the health of your children.

Your links are AT BEST anecdotal rarities and hypothetical speculations. AT WORST they are frauds perpetrated by the greedy on people looking for hope. But then, you were the one who said the cancer-striken boy would be cured in Mexico. And it didn't matter to you one whit his tumor was growing under said 'treatment'.

As I said above, it's always good to start with the most innocuous treatment (unless it's an emergency). But to rule out ANY medication as you have done is patently delusional. No wonder you have such a grotch against the 'fascist' CPS. You probably spend a lot of time looking over your shoulder.

BTW I think you don't have the guts to try your daughter on meds. Because it MIGHT improve the quality of her life. And she'd a happy camper, but then where would you be?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 26, 2007 6:58 PM

MARINA

I don't want to get involved in this discussion, but I did want to ask a question of those who are staunchly against medication:

What is your opinion on homeopathic treatments (for things like depression, ADD/ADHD, etc), which are not addictive, carry no side effects, do not perpetuate the pharmaceutical industry, etc. but DO have an effect on the physiology/biology/chemistry causing the "problem?" Towards a remedy which could help the body and cause it to re-align its regulation of brain chemicals like seratonin? It isn't a false chemical, it doesn't dull or alter any characteristics or personality traits, but it does prompt the body to fix itself to the most beneficial (and least harmful) processes.

Just wondering WHAT, exactly, the problem is - if it is the nature of drugs themselves, wouldn't this be a potential alternative?

Don't make faces.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 1:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by marina:
What is your opinion on homeopathic treatments

My family and I have been using homeopathic remedies for the last 2 years with varying levels of success. Sometimes, it's been quite impressive, such as stopping my gall bladder attack after it's started!

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to try much homeopathy on my daughter (who meets criteria for an ADHD dx). My daughter is 6 years old, but is doing 6th grade math (and algebra too) and reading. When I first tried homeopathy, I noticed she was able to focus and sit still more, but she also seemed less "bright" at the same time. So my hub and I discussed it, and we decided we'd rather she be brilliant and distracted than duller and calmer. Maybe she doesn't need to be "treated." We decided to hold back "treatments" for a while to see what would happen.

We did more research and found out that it is possible to find the right remedy that would keep her brilliant AND focused at the same time. By the time we decided to try homeopathy on her again, our homeopath had a waiting list. So whenever he has room to take a new client again, we'll see if this is possible.

I have heard the same sort of complaints from intellectually gifted bi-polar friends and colleagues. They don't take their medications because they say meds dull their brains. They'd rather deal with their disease and be able to think brilliantly some times, than be more stable but unable to think like themselves at all.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 1:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
THIS is the kind of problem that is often medicated, a real-world problem with a real-world cause that needs to be addressed, but no one will bother or dare.

Yup. And sometimes, people are drugged to be kept under control. That is, sometimes the "misdiagnosis" has nothing to do with genuine medical error but is caused by social reasons.

I had a friend who was a bit of rebel. He had a lot of problems, but psychosis wasn't one of them. He made some homemade pipe bombs and lit one off somewhere in a trash can 20 years ago. Now this was WAY before 9/11 so people weren't as paranoid back then about such things. He should have just gotten a jail sentence for whatever befits this sort of crime and served it out.

No, instead he got drugged with neuroleptics. They dxed him with schizoaffective disorder (bulls**t!), and haldoled him to kingdom come. Instead of jail, he got involuntary treatments at a mental hospital. Turned out he had inherited a sizable trust fund, and his mother saw this as an opportunity to take over the fund. After a couple of years of neuroleptics, he WAS psychotic. It was heartbreaking to see the change in him.

I think one day people will look back and see involuntary treatment of the mentally ill as one of the most barbaric practices of our civilization.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 6:51 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

John Forbes Nash (A Beautiful Mind) spent decades thinking he was the left small toe of god. And he was down with that - it was a compelling, powerful scenario more believable to him than reality. The trouble is, as intelligent as he was, during that time he did no math except try to find the right combination of numbers that formulated his godhood. He too didn't want treatment because it made him 'dull'. A person I knew (I suspect the most brilliant person I will ever meet in my life) went down the same schizophrenic path - and ended up sleeping in the mud and finally committed suicide.

How one 'feels' isn't always the best indicator of how one 'is'. A paranoid 'feels' aliens are beaming controlling rays into their mind - do we take that as an objective condition? A bi-polar person on a serious upswing 'feels' they can control gravity - do we take that as reality?

At some point when people are clearly unable to take care of themselves society needs to step in and take care of them.

As for 'natural' & 'cures': lithium is completely natural but does come with serious side effects; nothing 'natural' that I've seen is a 'cure' - they are lifelong treatments. When it comes to their history, bipolar disorder, ADD/ ADHD, depression, schizophrenia et al have been around since the dawn of humanity. Given humanity's propensity to fiddle and experiment, if there WAS a 'natural' 'cure', it would have been stumbled across a long time ago. As useful as it would have been, that knowledge would have survived generation to generation. But it isn't there. Sadly, there are no secret cures.

BTW - CTS, I noticed you didn't respond at all to anything I said. Now I know you have a 'policy' not to respond to ad hominem attacks. But you sure do know how to dish them out. You wrote everyone off who had the gall to say medications might be useful as addicts and willing slaves to the pharmaceutical industry. Or perhaps you are so completely one-sided you just can't imagine how that would be an insult. It was, it is, and you owe us an apology.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 7:26 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi FremD

I think it's true that people in bad situations or a bad upbringing can be misdiagnosed (intentionally or otherwise), and then medicated for illness they don't have. And that's always a danger when two things sit side by side - effective medications that CAN control behavior and a government that has authority to act.

But the opposite situation is also true - that not having effective medication and not having authority to act clearly creates fatal situations for the mentally ill. O'Connor v. Donaldson (1975) decided a mentally ill person could refuse treatment if they could survive with the help of others. Ronald Reagan decided to require deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill (the promised system of comprehensive outpatient treatment never happened). The result is that MOST seriously mentally ill people are on the street unable to care for themselves and under the care of no one - not clinics; or family or friends who have their hands legally tied.

As to your specific examples - as much as she took flak for it Hillary Clinton was right when she wrote 'it takes a village'. The aunts, uncles, grandmas and grandpas, cousins, family friends - an entire network of people to help, monitor, and counsel. This society doesn’t have that network anymore. So the government steps in to try to do what the village used to do - which is address the worst situations before someone dies.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS- Rue made an important point that you slid past, and I think it needs to be addressed.

You research "original" studies, but only studies that supoprt your opinion. That is neither objective nor scientific.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 9:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

It is a matter of trial and error to see if which combination works best, if any at all.

And if none work? Are you be willing to try standard meds?

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

1. Behavioral modification, psychotherapy, occupational therapy. For some high-functioning people, sometimes lifestyle accommodations is all that is needed.

But, this is a very specific type of person. I was looking for a general treatment, such as the examples that I gave.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

For example, one professional with schizophrenia has a few bad weeks about 2x a year. He can feel the breakdown coming on, and he takes off for those weeks. When they're over, he goes back to work--without meds.

And how many people are like this? This guy is just lucky enough to that he's in a job what he can do this. What about those that aren't? Again this is a very specific "solution" for very specific people.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Some people with schizophrenia improve their functioning significantly when they learn certain social skills, how not to "act crazy," to compensate for their illness. They learn not to speak of certain topics and find other outlets (such as diaries) for their delusions. Patient education is often used with or without meds in mental hospitals, so this supplemental approach is very mainstream.

But, it isn't supplementary if it is the only thing that is done.

And I really don't see how this would be effective for people that have anything more than mild symptoms.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

2. Orthomolecular medicine, including high doses of vitamin C and/or diet changes.
http://www.orthomed.org/pauling2.html
http://www.4optimallife.com/Alternative-Medicines-Cures-For-Schizophre
nia-Mental-Illness.html

Of course symptoms might be able to be reduced by diet, etc changes. But again, I really don't see this as a solution for anything but mild symptoms.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

3. Antibiotics and more specific and accurate diagnosis. Too often, anyone who presents with chronic florid psychosis is diagnosed with mental illness with there is another underlying pathology occurring. At one conference, I heard a story about a psychiatrist who brought her son for specific testing after all neuroleptics had failed to work. It turned out he had a severe infection of chlamydia, which was cured by antibiotics. His psychosis disappeared.
http://aetiology.blogspot.com/2005/09/study-reinforces-link-between.ht
ml
http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-05/features/behavior/

Yes people are being misdiagnosed and have better quality controls would probably be better for everyone. Then again, in a system where medicine is a business, this isn't exactly likely.

But, I'm really going to have to question the number of people that are being misdiagnosed. I mean, people will err, that is trivial. But, what's the actual percentage of failure?

Because, I'm inclined to believe that if there were a significant problem with diagnosis, we'd have far more red flags put up, not only in the North America, but world wide.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

4. Homeopathy. Homeopathy has a 200 year old record of working very well with mental illness.

Well, the AMA, UK National Health Service and National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine don't exactly agree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Medical_organizations.27_attit
udes_towards_homeopathy

Only the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Welfare agrees. But, and not to look down on India, they aren't exactly a country in which I'll trust there results. Especially considering that the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine has stated that "controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory".

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

There are more options, but if you are seriously interested, you can google them as well as I can. This gives you the basic idea.

If google is your quality control, then why should I listen to you? Any crackpot can publish something on the net. Any crackpot can /say/ (s)he's a PhD, researcher, etc. This doesn't make it true. It is this reason why I don't really trust things that are on the net, especially testimonials.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

This site has a bunch of testimonials of people who have successfully tried alternatives.

http://www.alternativementalhealth.com/testimonials/default.htm

And? Who's to say that these people actually tried alternative treatment, or they aren't paid by companies that produce said treatments?

But, even if we assume that they are real, who's to say that it was the treatment that worked? To recount an ancient example, Malaria was first thought to be "bad air" coming off of the swamps at night. So, the solution was to close the window shutters, etc at night. This "solved" the problem because people didn't breath the "bad air". But, we now know that it was the prevention of mosquitos entering the house that mitigated the spread of the disease.

I'll also note that it seems to me that you are pointing at exceptions to prove your rule. I'm after general treatments for a general case.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I'm after general treatments for a general case.

I didn't say alternative treatments were for everyone, in all situations. I said *I* would try them first before resorting to lifetime dependence on psychactive drugs. For me, chronic dependence on either drugs or alternative treatments has GOT to be a last resort.

You're welcome to try whatever YOU want first.

Alternative treatments usually don't have a lot of money behind it to do the kind of clinical trial that is needed to prove anything scientifically. So no, usually there are no data out there besides anecdotal. Whoever tries alternative methods has to be willing to accept those risks. If YOU aren't willing to take those risks, that's fine by me. *I* am not willing to take the risks of taking psychoactive meds for a long period of time. That's me.

And no, there are not a lot of cases of people who were cured by alternatives. But how many people have actually tried alternatives to begin with? Straight comparison of effectiveness rates can be misleading. Alternative methods usually work in indirect ways, and are therefore more sensitive to environmental obstacles. One requires more persistence and patience for alternative methods than meds. It is like resolving a conflict with a shotgun or diplomacy--which is more effective? A shotgun is more "effective" if you are willing to pay the price. With diplomacy, a lot of things can go wrong and you need a lot of persistence and patience. But you aren't willing to pay the price of a "shotgun" method, then you wait and you persist and you find a solution through diplomacy. It is a hard comparison to make at face value. It comes down to what you prefer, and how fast you prefer it.

So far, what I have tried outside of conventional medicine has worked. I'm happy with it. I want the right to keep trying it. I don't much care what YOU want to do. That's your choice.

I do feel sad for people who automatically assume they have to be dependent on meds for the rest of their lives without having first tried alternative cures. But then, you probably feel sad for me for not being on meds. So that just comes with our personal values.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS- Rue made an important point that you slid past, and I think it needs to be addressed.

You research "original" studies, but only studies that supoprt your opinion. That is neither objective nor scientific.

Just FYI, I no longer respond to Rue. Period. He habitually miscontrues or just outright lies about what I say and what I support, and there is absolutely no point in my talking to him. Moreover, his relentless aspersions on my character is just mean-spirited. I don't really even read what he writes anymore. Sort of just skim it/skip it, like the posts PirateNews makes. (PN never was hateful to me though, so if PN asks me a direct question I will answer.)

So, no, I am not sliding past anything. If you think he made a good point, you can bring it up and I'll address it.

My research of original studies is not comprehensive, and I never claimed it was. I research as I have time, and I tend to read what is more easily accessible. That is why, when I remember, I try to qualify my statements with, "to date, I have seen..." or "to my knowledge, I have seen...." I am open to correction. However, I HAVE read a lot of medical studies, and I haven't seen one that is well designed YET, so I am not hopeful that this one will be the one to prove me wrong. Still, one never knows. I have a number of studies that is on my list to look up next time I go to the medical library, esp the older studies. I haven't had time in months to tell the truth.

You assumed that I have only read studies that support my opinion. Maybe my opinion was formed because I read the studies I read.

My positions and opinions are always subject to change upon receipt of new evidence. And I have to see a lot of evidence before taking a position. People just tend to assume that I must be ignorant of the evidence that has THEM convinced. They don't usually consider that maybe I am not ignorant of it, but simply interpret the same evidence differently than they do.

I don't claim that my interpretation is absolutely right, or right for everyone else. I only claim the right to interpret things as *I* see fit, to think for myself, and decide for myself. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 12:04 PM