The Saddest Calvin and Hobbes Sketch Ever
POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Saturday, March 3, 2007 14:12
VIEWED: 22603
PAGE 10 of 16
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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!
Originally posted by marina:
What is your opinion on homeopathic treatments
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 contradic
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I'm after general treatments for a general case.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.)
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
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.
Hows it going Canttakesky? You've definitly gotten some air time on this post? Keep up the good work
"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME