Topic on Talk:Psychiatry

Thank you for attempting to respond to me. I have a suggestion, however: Read the full comment I made before creating a reply.

I did read your full comment. How would you even know this?

This entire comment you made is almost totally filled with firstly, you misunderstanding a point I made, and going on to reaffirm the same conspiracy theory, uneducated claim, or Anti-scientific fabrication you promoted in the past, simply because you failed to read further, when I clearifed said point. Secondly, you purposefully removing the context from what I said (for example, partitioning a paragraph into a number of separate parts), and than going on to make a "strawman" out of what I am saying, or thirdly, you regurgitating the false and uninformed Anti-science arguments you have, and/or feigning ignorance- asking a question which is otherwise immediately explanatory via context exclusively.

You are just attacking my character, not my arguments; you call my arguments conspiracy theories (technically some of my points are conspiracy theories, but you are not using the original definition of the term) and other pejorative terms to make me look bad, and not to criticize them.

This situation is similar to when you called Alice Margatroid revisionist for them stating that your revisionist claims about Mao Zedong and the People's Republic of China are incorrect.^[1][2]

"Secondly, you purposefully removing the context from what I said (for example, partitioning a paragraph into a number of separate parts),"

I didn't remove the context. I did this to clarify which points my arguments respond to; if you want, I can just block quote the paragraphs and keep them unpartitioned.

"and than going on to make a "strawman" out of what I am saying,"

I do not make a strawman of your arguments. Cite the points where you think I am.

"or thirdly, you regurgitating the false and uninformed Anti-science arguments you have, and/or feigning ignorance- asking a question which is otherwise immediately explanatory via context exclusively."

How are my arguments "anti-science"?

I'm not feigning ignorance; I'm trying to understand your viewpoint. I ask you for sources, because if you can't back them up with good evidence; then your claims are just false. (It's on you to prove your claims, not me; it's the burden of proof.)

Lastly, before I directly adress what you said, I would like to apologise for failing to adress some of your arguments in past comments - I had to attend to personal matters, and did not have the time. I shall adress them here.

Apology accepted.

"[mental disorders are directly tested] Any proof for this? Because mental disorders are currently based in subjective analysis; so they cannot be directly tested (to be disproved).

Have mental disorders been attempted to be disproved? I don't think so, but feel free to post any arguments to the contrary.b

What are the causes for mental disorders? As I tried searching, there seems to be no consistent testable cause for mental disorders, which is neccessary to be able to falsify it."

As I have said before, mental disorders of based on consistent results over a long span of time, scientific methodology, and so forth. They are directly tested, and in regards to their development and classification, they often see a large amont of discourse among specialists over their particularities. I am unsure what particularly you mean by "subjective", as they are based off the research of a countless number of professionals over years. [source]

"As I have said before, mental disorders of based on consistent results over a long span of time, scientific methodology, and so forth."

Mental disorders are not based on scientific methodology; mental disorders cannot and do not require or use objective testing; therefore mental disorders cannot be falsified. Science requires that explanations can be objectively falsified (and tested); so therefore mental disorders are not scientific. (I should have stated objective testing; as science is a vulgar materialist philosophy. I apologize for that.)

So what scientific methodology is used there?

"They are directly tested, and in regards to their development and classification, they often see a large amont of discourse among specialists over their particularities."

I did not talk about the discourse; I asked for proof of testing.

Also, any evidence to back up that claim?

"I am unsure what particularly you mean by "subjective", as they are based off the research of a countless number of professionals over years."

Subjective, as in, they do not require any objective tools; they can not be objectively falsified; and they can not be objectively tested (to be disproved).

Also, what research? because most of the supposed "research" hasn't been able to find a biological test for these "mental disorders".

"who is doing the research; who is doing the testing; who is doing the review? In the case of research on Psychiatric drugs; most of those are done by pharmaceutical companies, which conveniently control studies that get published." This is self-explanatory. As with other scientific fields, the research within physiatry is done by people who possess a education in that field, particularly people who hold a doctorate. Such research is commonly done in a Hospital or other medical institution, in a manner similar to research done in other fields.[source]

(Do you mean psychiatry? that's a typo.)

"the research within physiatry is done by people who possess a education in that field, particularly people who hold a doctorate."

Ok, but there is a potential conflict of interest. What about studies that are not done by psychiatrists?

"Such research is commonly done in a Hospital or other medical institution, in a manner similar to research done in other fields."

ok.

In the case of the medication which is utilised by psychiatrists, in is much more context than that. Firstly, I require proof that medical studies are controlled by pharmaceutical companies, as in this case, you are indirectly asserting that drugs themselves are ineffective or harmful, which is clearly a massive claim. Secondly, do keep in mind that many of the drugs that are used in psychiatry are similarly used in other fields, often those that are medical or psychological.

"Firstly, I require proof that medical studies are controlled by pharmaceutical companies, as in this case, you are indirectly asserting that drugs themselves are ineffective or harmful, which is clearly a massive claim."

(I am referring to psychiatric drugs to clarify.) Here ya go:

General

1. Drug companies only publish studies (on their psychiatric drugs) that align with their goals.^[3][4][5]
2. Pro-psychiatric-drug studies tend to have issues with the active placebo bias.^[6]

Antidepressants

• Antidepressants are no different from placebo.^[7][8]
• Antidepressants are associated with an increased suicide risk.^[9]
• Antidepressants worsen outcomes for users of antidepressants.^[10]
• Antidepressants can just make someone more depressed.^[11]

Stimulants

• Stimulants have the same effect as placebo.^[13] (Surprise, surprise, a drug made to supposedly "cure" a disorder that lacks objective testing is equivalent to placebo.)

"I don't know man; disorders in the DSM were built on expert consensus, not the scientific method." You are partially correct. While the classification by the DSM is based on experts' view, you must note that such as view must be based off decades worth of studies, testing, research, ect. While they themselves do not directly use the scientific method, everything that influences them is largely based on it.

Can you cite those "decades worth of studies…"? I can't find any instance where mental disorders have attempted to be disproved through objective testing.

"[If you disagree with that, then by those standards, the entirety of other fields such as psychology must be "non-science" as well.] Nah, I agree with that." I invite you to better make you argument clear. By your standards, everything in psychology must be "subjective" as you can not see what a brain is doing directly, can you not?

It can be argued actually. As we cannot directly observe the concious, psychology's tests.

"This was the original definition of 'mental disorder'. The term got perverted into mental illness; and the fact that "mental disorder" has such a lose definition is suspicious for a field that supposedly deems itself "scientific"." You are making a very large generalisation of this complex matter, even if you were to be correct, we, in the context of this discussion, are talking about psyiatry as it exists in the present. The definition is agreed upon in the present by most in that field, and outside the field. The definition of now-commonly used scientific terms has changed greatly in the past anyways.

Yes, you are right; I also shouldn't have just usede my own definition (though that was the original definition). However, the fact that the term 'mental disorder' has an unclear definition is alarming.

"What is a common action?"

"What are the causes for mental disorders?"

"Are mental disorders falsifiable?"

A common action is a common and repeated trend. There are a number of causes, and some of which are debated by people who work in that field. Many result from genetic anomalies or birth defects, and things such as that.

Yes, the classification of what constitutes a mental disorder is often debated within the field.

1. Ok.
2. Any sources, especially for that genetics claim? Because those supposed mental disorders do not require any objective testing in diagnostic manuals. If some of these mental disorders were "genetic", then why do they lack requirements for genetic testing?
3. How are mental disorders falsified then? (You just claim that mental disorders can be falsified without elaborating on the method of falsification.)

Furthermore, to adress your (commonly-repeated) claim that "psychiatric drugs are placebos", that is largely false. While certain examples of drugs may show harmful effects, the vast majority of drugs have been proven to be atleast helpful againist major mental disorders. The common way this is done is by limiting certain neurochemical effects (often, the cause of a certain mental anomaly or disorder, such as anxiety, is in brief, the result of certain chemicals which result in stress and such being created in to great an excess, resulting in somebody having many common social fuctions, like social interaction between others, being greatly impeded) in the brain, which results in the negative aspects of a mental disorder being reduced or even removed entirely. I am not claiming that there do not exist issues in this system, or abuses, but in general, most drugs that are used in this context have a positive effect. [source]

"Furthermore, to adress your (commonly-repeated) claim that "psychiatric drugs are placebos", that is largely false. While certain examples of drugs may show harmful effects, the vast majority of drugs have been proven to be atleast helpful againist major mental disorders."

This claim is just incorrect; psychiatric drugs are placebos and they have been proven to be so.^[14][15][16] (This is not surprising, considering that mental disorders cannot be objectively falsified or tested.)

And what are your sources to the contrary?

"The common way this is done is by limiting certain neurochemical effects (often, the cause of a certain mental anomaly or disorder, such as anxiety, is in brief, the result of certain chemicals which result in stress and such being created in to great an excess, resulting in somebody having many common social fuctions, like social interaction between others, being greatly impeded) in the brain, which results in the negative aspects of a mental disorder being reduced or even removed entirely."

Can you elaborate on these "neurochemical effects"?

"It does not matter if the topic is "scientific"; people must understand science in order to be (good) scientists; otherwise they will fail to properly enforce and utilize the principles of science (falsifiability, testing, experimental data, etc.)."

"Again, it does not matter if the topic relates to science; the learner must understand science and it's principles in order to properly apply and utilize science."

Don't you think that by participating in a nearly-decade long education in a scientific topic, done by a professional institution such as a college or university, you perhaps will learn *something* that relates to science? You are ignoring the obvious, people who study to become a psychiatrist understand both science and the means in which science expands meaningfully, unless, of course, you present to me a new conspiracy theory that all physiatrists are brainless robots or FBI agents sent to drug homeless people are something to that nature.

This is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. It does not matter if the topic is related to science; the learner must understand science to apply it properly.

Also, psychiatrists study to be psychiatrists, not be scientists.

"So what makes this any different from, say, criticizing CIA collaborators who work in the field of military intelligence (where not everyone is working in the favour of the bourgeoisie?" Please explain how a [psychiatrist] is similar to a CIA collaborator? Are you being satirical? I am unsure of how the people who attempt to alleviate mental health disorders are just as bad as CIA agents,

Strawman. I never tried to say that psychiatrists are similar to CIA collaborators. I was trying to elaborate on how attacking psychiatrists are any different from attacking the bouregoisie.

"I disagreeably argue that Psychiatrists extract wealth from workers for an imaginary solution that inevitably does not work. I view the relationship this way, as psychiatric disorders have been proven to be practically meaningless." Is this another attempt at being comedic? You could argue that paying for a psychiatrists is a waste of money and time, even if I do not agree with you largely, but most people who work in that field do not own the means of production, nor hire and exploit labour. Most psychiatrists are paid in wage labour anyways, and even with the very few self-employed ones that exist, the economic relationship is much more petite-bourgeois, certainly not like being a Capitalist.

Ad hominem; and also Psychiatrists do extract wealth from the labourer, whether in value or money.

"How is proving that the drug industry opposes anti-psychiatry "anti-science"? The field of vaccines contains anti-scientific ideas; but they are peddled by anti-vaccine advocates, who do not neccessary study vaccines?." You are totally distorting what I said. In the comment that you are responding to, I noted that you did not adress the fact that I said most specialists in that field disagree with your ideas, but instead omited what I said totally and vaugely talked about the "drug industry", which implied that you thought that this science was false and merely just propaganda by a "big-pharma" conspiracy.

"That's what I think, yes. The drug industry aided in the bouregois subversion of science and medicine; and it still does today." I thank you for not attempting to omit the fact that you are an Anti-science conspiracy promoter. Of course, you can simply ignore all the many decades of research, debate, and testing by people who are actually educated in this topic by shouting "BIG-PHARMA!". This is what Climate-change deniers do as well, they will ignore all the decades of research in pollution and such, largely to confirm their dogmatically-held Anti-science position, and merely talk about how all the scientists are universally false because of a conspiracy theory they made up. Marxism is a science-based philosophy, and what you are promoting is directly against that.

Great, a strawman. You call me anti-science when I argue that the drug industry subverts science to peddle their domination of capital.

I am not arguing against psychiatry solely because of bias; I argue against psychiatry being a science; because the material reality points to Psychiatry being unscientific. (Mental disorders have been disproven several times, yet they are propped up as scientific.) Then why is psychiatry still practiced to this day? If mental disorders have been "disproven several times", why does the scientific community, including those in other fields, still heed the ideas of mental disorders? Who is "propping up" psychiatry as science? If you care to reply to me here, present to me something other than a Anti-intellectual conspiracy theory, or a fringe and discredited source.

(There is a possibility of survivorship bias; so we must acknowledge that scientists who understand science likely do not engage with Psychiatry.)

It's likely possible that most scientists who engage in Psychiatry have been bribed by the capitalist.

Psychiatry is likely practice because it forms a useful political tool for oppression; it has manage to permeate the majority populations as a psuedoscientfic field under scientific appearances.

"If you care to reply to me here, present to me something other than a Anti-intellectual conspiracy theory, or a fringe and discredited source."

What is an "anti-intellectual" conspiracy theory? What would be a "fringe and discredited source" to you?

Lastly, to adress the claims you made about autism being "scientism" and a "fact of culture", I wish to inform you that it has been widely confirmed by researchers to autism develops likely at birth, and almost certainly from a genetic-related issue. Perhaps you should consider doing research into these matters before spreading harmful misinformation? [source]

Again, I did not use the term scientism; and if you can't show me comments where I used that term; then I have no reason to believe you.

"I wish to inform you that it has been widely confirmed by researchers to autism develops likely at birth,"

Can you cite me sources for this claim? Which genes? This is too vague to be useful.

"Perhaps you should consider doing research into these matters before spreading harmful misinformation?"

I do.

Also, your only source is the mayo clinic, which itself does not cite any sources for the "autism is genetic!" claims.