The Anti-Psychotic Myth Exposed?

own up to your motivations

Since when does a person's motives for looking for the truth reveal something about the truth in itself? You don't mean to tell me you are some idealist philosopher type, who thinks the world conforms to a person's thoughts and motives? Even if I had the worst intentions, and I do not, the facts remain the facts. My intentions or motivations cannot change the facts; they are irrelevant to the matter at hand. That you refuse to engage me on the merits of the facts, says all that needs to be said; it demonstrates unequivocably that you have no argument--and no counter-factual claims based on empirical evidence--to counter the facts I have presented. If I am wrong, then show me the facts that counter my factual claims.

Do you have evidence that anti-psychotic drugs are effective in the long-term for treatment of psychosis, as compared to a no-treatment group? Do you have evidence that schizophrenia, per DSM-IV diagnosis, is a reliable and valid categorical description? Do you have evidence that this diagnostic category can be reliably and consistently linked to underlying brain abnormalities that cannot be explained by the effects of psychiatric medication? I don't think you can produce it, nor do I think you are capable of mounting a rational, empirically-based argument to defend any of these claims.

You cannot, apparently--so you aimlessly attack my character or the rhetorical style of my posts -- all classic diversionary tactics. All you've got is fallacious rhetoric. Case closed, I guess.

you posted a schlock article, pinged me to it. When I pointed out the utter garbage in the article, you either disavowed it or parsed the clear intent. I had no intention of taking you up on the matters you cite. I think it’s oddly presumptuous of you to think that I would. Enjoy some time with your family and the Super Bowl.

I do not see the article as "schlock" because I believe it raises important questions, the same ones that I posed to you, which are again as follows:

Do you have evidence that anti-psychotic drugs are effective in the long-term for treatment of psychosis, as compared to a no-treatment group? Do you have evidence that schizophrenia, per DSM-IV diagnosis, is a reliable and valid categorical description? Do you have evidence that this diagnostic category can be reliably and consistently linked to underlying brain abnormalities that cannot be explained by the effects of psychiatric medication? I don't think you can produce it, nor do I think you are capable of mounting a rational, empirically-based argument to defend any of these claims.

I do not expect you to answer them, and you certainly need not do so. The article's concerns with regard to these issues are, I believe, factually correct in that they raise questions about the lack of evidence on the underlying neurological basis for psychosis, the validity of the diagnosis, and, even just by implication of the last two points, the general shot in the dark that most pharmacology of psychosis amounts to -- most of which is based on garbage science and driven by the socio-economics of the pharmaceutical industry.

I believe physicians are well-intentioned in most cases, but often ill-informed and lacking the resources to combat the constant bombardment of propaganda by Big Pharma. There is such a bombardment, and the tactics are so effective, that reasonable questions, such as those above, sound to people like you as if they are "schlock," when in fact they are basic questions any intelligent person would ask, when faced with the current state of psychiatry, in my humble opinion.

Hope you enjoyed the Super Bowl. Steelers delivered. I'm happy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.