Posted on 05/17/2002 4:53:29 PM PDT by Starmaker
I´ve come to the conclusion that Americans simply don´t want to know the truth.
Just as archeological finds which corroborate biblical teachings are often ignored by short-sighted historians, clinical findings which disprove commonly held medical views are often summarily discarded by the intellectual elite. This problem is compounded by the fact that the unthinking public is more than willing to take the word of so-called "experts" at face value with little or no interest in examining the facts.
The Washington Post recently reported the findings of a Stanford University study on the effects of antidepressant drugs like Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft. The study proved that these drugs have no greater effect on depression than sugar pills, a common placebo used in clinical trials. According to the article by Post writer Shankar Vedantam, the new study is not the first to expose the questionable effectiveness of popular anti-depressants.
"The new research may shed light on findings such as those from a trial last month that compared the herbal remedy St. John's wort against Zoloft. St. John's wort fully cured 24 percent of the depressed people who received it, and Zoloft cured 25 percent — but the placebo fully cured 32 percent," Vedantam writes.
So what has been the result of these earth-shattering reports? Have Pfizer or Eli Lily stocks plummeted? Has the FDA ordered the drugs taken off the market? Has the American public reacted in outrage? No. The clinical findings have passed with relative disregard. No one seems to care.
Imagine the upheaval such a dramatic finding would cause in any other line of business. Imagine that a scientific study disproved the need for oil in car engines. The result? Jiffy Lube goes bankrupt, people stop buying Quaker State, and as Ricky Ricardo used to say, engine manufacturers have some "splainin´ to do." Of course this scenario would never happen, because the internal combustion engine can be taken apart, studied, and examined to determine not only its need for oil, but how much oil and what type.
This method of simple logical science has no place in the world of big pharmaceuticals. The FDA requirements for approving the development of new drugs are lax to say the least. According to Vedantam, "companies have had to conduct numerous trials to get two that show a positive result, which is the Food and Drug Administration's minimum for approval."
Apparently the FDA is content to approve worthless drugs based on the results of two statistically irrelevant tests regardless of the fact that the drugs have failed an exponentially greater number of tests. Try this with any other scientific experiment. Take missile defense for example. Let´s imagine the Defense Department conducts a series of 20 missile defense tests. At no time during the course of these 20 tests are any modifications made to the system. The system fails 18 of the 20 tests. The Defense Department´s findings? The missile defense system is a great success!?
The fact is that no area of science or medicine is so unapologetically based on fabricated evidence and baseless theories than the field of Psychology. So-called "mental illness" can be defined as anything from being sad on a rainy day to hearing voices in one´s head. The treatments are as varied as the alleged diseases, and no two Psychiatrists agree on the correct way to treat a patient.
In 1992 the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment assembled a panel of experts to examine the clinical evidence of mental disorders. When the panel released its findings, it concluded: "Many questions remain about the biology of mental disorders. In fact, research has yet to identify specific biological causes for any of these disorders. ... Mental disorders are classified on the basis of symptoms because there are as yet no biological markers or laboratory tests for them" (The Biology of Mental Disorders, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992, pp. 13-14, 46-47).
How then can an effective medical treatment be developed to treat a disorder that cannot be defined medically? In a book entitled The New Psychiatry, a Columbia University psychiatry professor, Jerrold S. Maxmen, M.D., said "It is generally unrecognized that psychiatrists are the only medical specialists who treat disorders that, by definition, have no definitively known causes or cures. ... A diagnosis should indicate the cause of a mental disorder, but as discussed later, since the etiologies of most mental disorders are unknown, current diagnostic systems can't reflect them" (Mentor, 1985, pp. 19 & 36 - emphasis in original).
Mental illnesses including clinical depression cannot be proved by Psychology or Psychiatrists to be anything other than a collection of symptoms. These symptoms cannot be proved to have any medical or biological root cause whatsoever. Yet, big pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lily and Pfizer continue to rake in billions of dollars from the sale of FDA approved anti-depressants. And Psychiatrists are all too willing to lend a helping hand by continuing to prescribe these so-called remedies to their troubled clients.
Some in the field of Psychiatry would argue that mental illnesses are a result of "chemical imbalances" or brain malfunctions. If this is the case, then would not these disorders fall into the category of medical conditions rather than "mental illness?" If a chemical imbalance exists, then which chemical, and how much is it out of balance? These are logical scientific questions that Psychiatrists cannot answer. Why? Because the diagnosis is bogus.
Most psychiatric drugs including anti-depressants are neurotoxic, meaning they produce a degree of general neurological disability. In other words, anti-depressants interfere with the normal functioning of the brain and thereby disable it from registering feelings of unhappiness or "depression." The drugs in essence create physical "highs" that offer temporary distractions from the symptoms of a deeper problem. Calling this type of drug therapy a "cure" for depression is absurd. And it is equally absurd to conclude from the neurotoxic effects of anti-depressants that depression is somehow a "biological" phenomenon. So if mental disorders cannot be said to be rooted in biology or medicine, then what are they? Surely no one can dispute the existence of serious psychological illnesses such as Schizophrenia and Bi-polar Disorder, can they? And what about more common "mental illnesses" such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)? Surely there is a case to be made for the existence of such disorders.
Can we conclude that these disorders are somehow diseases of the "mind" rather than diseases of the body? Perhaps the correct treatment is found not in drugs but in psychotherapy, hypnotism or some other form of intellectual "voodoo." In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) found an even more effective cure for a common mental disorder. They simply defined it away.
In 1968, the DSM-II: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2nd Edition) defined homosexuality as one of the "sexual deviations" (page 44). As you might imagine, this did not sit well with gay rights proponents and "forward thinking" Psychiatrists. So in 1973, the APA voted to remove homosexuality from its official diagnostic categories of mental illness. When the third edition of the DSM was published in 1980 it stated, "homosexuality itself is not considered a mental disorder" (p. 282).
The effect was instantaneous. All over the world, thousands of helpless victims of mental illness were instantly cured of their disorders. Gay men and women were suddenly free to live their alternate lifestyle free of the label "mentally ill." No drugs were administered. There was no psychotherapy, no hypnosis, no art therapy or any other form of treatment. Homosexual men and women were simply cured because the APA "said so."
A scientific discipline that is not dependent on clinical evidence or statistical proof is baseless. Likewise, a bureaucracy that is free to remove a mental illness from its list of disorders for no discernable scientific reason is equally free to add or define a mental disorder without providing clinical evidence of its existence. If these disorders were really "illnesses", the idea of removing homosexuality or anything else from the list of "mental illnesses" through a vote would be as ridiculous as the American Medical Association getting together and voting that Cancer can no longer be labeled a "disease."
What would happen if tomorrow the APA decided that ADHD was no longer a mental illness but simply an alternative lifestyle choice for children? After all, who are we to say that children should sit still and listen in class? Perhaps the educational system should simply change its approach to fit the needs of fidgety disrespectful children with two-minute attention spans.
Now I am not arguing that homosexuality or ADHD should be listed among the mental illnesses in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). To the contrary, I am suggesting that the DSM should not even exist. If the list is determined by no more scientific means than a majority vote in the APA, then it is worthless.
It´s time for Americans, and all citizens of this Earth for that matter, to wake up and see Psychology for what it really is – a collection of excuses and distractions from the true definition of "sinful" behavior. There is no such thing as a "mental illness." How can an intangible entity like the "mind" be said to be "ill?" Harmful or abnormal behavior is the result of either a medical disorder, in which case medical treatment is necessary, or sin, in which spiritual treatment is necessary.
It is true that certain sinful "learned behaviors" can be unlearned through the mental gymnastics of psychotherapy. But just as the neurotoxic effects of Prozac do not prove the biological nature of depression, so the psychotherapeutic treatment of learned behaviors does not prove the "mental" nature of disorders such as Schizophrenia or ADHD.
Psychology by and large is the invention of man to cover the shame of his own sinful behavior. If a disorderly child can be said to be "ill" with ADHD, then he cannot be held responsible for his actions. After all, can a person with Alzheimer´s be blamed for contracting his disease?
Certainly there are many individuals suffering from so-called "mental illness" who have no control over their condition. These individuals cannot and should not be blamed for their "physical" illness. But the treatment offered should be based on medical fact, not psychological fiction. If there is no medical proof of the patient´s condition, then we must conclude that the symptoms do not imply an "illness" but a behavioral problem – a sinful condition.
Until we are willing to recognize the true sinful nature of man, Psychology will continue to define our morality, and big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer will continue to get rich through marketing worthless drugs under the watchful eye of the FDA.
But don´t expect Americans to complain about this injustice. We like the charade. It makes us feel better about ourselves.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Scott at msmcall@aol.com .
Better that then having the FDA be so strict that it blocks drugs that do work, or increases the costs of approval that experimental new drugs never make it to the design phase.
Imagine the upheaval such a dramatic finding would cause in any other line of business.Well, they are a bit generous to other lines of business. Management consulting is chock full of charlatans, and global warming is an obvious fraud if you consider the fact that geological and cosmological influences on climate and several orders of magnitude larger than anything you could do with SUVs. But still, isn't the FDA supposed to judge on the basis of safe AND effective? Who OK'ed this crap?
So can just anyone become a 'columnist'? Just what kind of experience or qualifications are required? I've seen many Freepers who are far more intelligent and logical than these so called columnists.
I'm coming to the belief that columnists believe they are magically entitled to render judgement on things they know nothing about. Even worse, they don't even bother to gather information before issuing judgement.
Very effective. Aspirin was used to relieve headaches long before anyone understood the precise mechanisms of headaches *or* just how aspirin combats headaches.
My mother went on interferon to combat her leukemia. There was a huge difference when she was on interferon pre-Zoloft and after Zoloft.
Now you may argue that was a placebo effect, that she only felt better because she thought she was on something that worked. Do you really think I give a hoot whether it was a placebo effect or an actual effect? Her emotional state is much better now (and she's beating the leukemia).
A person that I grew up with -- one of 4 children in a healthy, loving family -- contracted schizophrenia in her early 20s. She disappeared and her parents found her 3 years later living under a bridge in some place like Cleveland or Cincinnati. Medicaiton has helped her immensely. Of course the placebo lover folks had no answer for that. I have also had friends who took antidepressants and literally got their lives restored.
Having a chemistry and chemical engineering background, I would suspect that the study is somehow flawed. If it was limited to people with mild situational depression, then a placebo would be expected to perform about the same as the real drug. If it were limited to people with severe, recalcitrant depression, then it is likely that the drugs would perform significantly better than the placebo. Unfortunately, I believe that the scientific education of those debating against me pretty much ended after the 8th grade.
More or less.
I recall a report concerning "some" of what is mentioned in this article.
However, this article does not represent what I heard/read.
That report was comparing St. John's Wort to sugar pills, not Prozac, Zoloft, etc.
"That" report did not make the same comparisons, nor reach the same conclusion(s).
As someone who actually has acute depression, and "deals with it" without drugs, ( sometimes to the detriment of my life ) these reports make no real difference to me.
I would rather deal with the depression than all the drugs' side effects.
The various treatments she has taken have ranged from harmful to nearly miraculous. She had taken medication for years which did little to help until she was diagnosed as being bipolar as opposed to depressed and given a different treatment. A placebo would have worked no matter what the diagnosis.
I'm sure many FReepers would be shocked to learn that the most effective treatment she has received has been Electroconvulsive Therapy. Yet it saved her life at a time when I did not think it would be possible.
Psychology is a fraud, founded in the lie that is secular humanism.
:) ttt
The same people who convince the gullible that the human brain and soul somehow sprung from just the right mix of the right elements, temps, distance from the sun, gravity, and millions of other requirements, over a gazillion years, all from primordial scum, and then these gullible come here on FR and call us people whose idea of science has moved past the 19th century idiots and other names. That's the kind of people who ok'd this crap. Next question?
More precisely, a theory that does not make falsifiable predictions does not belong in the science category. Psychology may have benefits to people, as does literature, art, music, and religion, but it doesn't belong in medical science.
I agree. Lets not confuse a metaphor with reality.
Harmful or abnormal behavior is the result of either a medical disorder, in which case medical treatment is necessary, or sin, in which spiritual treatment is necessary.
Or the result of causes we'll never uncover. An eccentric may enjoy memorizing expired bus schedules - hard to classify this abnormal behavior as a medical condition or a sin.
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.