[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/sci/ - Science & Math


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: v1.png (87 KB, 350x228)
87 KB
87 KB PNG
imagine thinking psychiatry is medicine or science
>>
It is the most valid field as it is the only one where hypotheses can be discussed and vigorously debated without >SOURCE SOURCCESEE UHHHHH DUDE I NEED A SOURCE, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOURE TRYING TO SAY. EITHER YOU HAVE A SOURCE OR YOUR WRONG.
>>
retarded of you to suggest that. just because a field is in infancy doesn't invalidate it as a science. all scientific fields had to start somewhere.
>>
>>11855450
Pharmacology isn't science. It's not biological and it's a threat to humans
>>
>>11855581
Uhmm no. If it cannot be reproduced or predicted by a mathematical model then it isn't science
>>
>>11855450
The fuck are you guys even trynna prove. Science is just a word for a complex conctruct of knowledge in one specific field. Doesn't matter if you can prove it with muuh maths.
>>
>>11855627
Psychology uses statistical models, that's math
>>
>>11855584
What, then all those clinical trials that showed benefits were rigged?
>>
>>11855628
Yes, I didn't even think about that.
>>
>>11855630
They can show benefits according to certain measures, but that doesn't mean the individual is improved/benefited overall. The only way to comprehensively know that is to do a longitudinal study on the overall health and happiness of people taking each medicine, as well as possibly investigating whether there are reproductive issues. But they don't do that.
>>
>>11855646
The clinical trails for blood pressure meds were widespread, and had thousands of precipitants, most were stopped early because certain drugs showed significant decreases in mortality compared to others. Also most had very little side effects considering there benefits. (ie not struggling to breath every second after taking a diuretic). True you could argue that people would be happier dead, but come on.
>>
>>11855656
Statistically people may be happier dead, it just depends on the death rates. Kidding aside, blood pressure meds are something else. I'm more talkin about psych meds.
>>
>>11855662
Not trying to be a jackass, but psych meds were huge too when they first came out. Imagine a schizophrenic person constantly plagued by demons and the devil, gets a shot of haldol then they suddenly go away. Also more commonly, a person with depression starts to feel a little better after taking a pill. It's true they don't always work as planned, and some doctors are quacks that misuse them, but I can only imagine being the mom of the person in the first example seeing her kid become healthy and being released from the institution after years of hell.
>>
>>11855689
The fact that most people feel better after taking a pill is no reason to disregard the measures I mentioned >>11855646
>>
>>11855694
FDA approved drugs are studied extensively for harm to pregnant and lactating women. Also doctors rarely prescribe them unless the benefits clearly outweigh the risk. A widespread study would be nice, but a regular longitude observation study wouldn't cut it. There would be far too many false/positive correlations. (hence, these types of studies are rarely given grants) They would have to be way more rigorous with it, and would probably need a double blind placebo group to be convincing, and hence, it's not really to feasible or safe to do. It's the OTC drugs that worry me more. Since most are considered a "food" they are held to a far less rigorous standard.
>>
>>11855745
If the necessary studies are not feasible or safe to do, then why should we ignore that the drugs aren't studied? Do we ignore their effects on health and happiness?
>>
>>11855750
But the drugs are studied though? You can check the FDA website for the pregnancy test and lactation tests that must be done before a drug is approved. It's a lot I think, however, if you feel that there should be more, it's something you could consider lobbying for in the future. As far as happiness goes, in the clinical trials to approve drugs, it would be noted if a person taking the drug developed depression (as with any side effect), and that would be compared to the controlled group to determine a correlation. A good clinical trial done this way with a few hundred people would be considered far more convincing then a general retrospective observation study, btw. With that said, a lot of drugs do have depression listed as a side effect, so that is again considered when starting a drug. The FDA also requires doctors to report serious side effects to them if the doctors think the issue could have been caused by the drug. In this way, drugs can be taken off the market if we at some point don't think they are safe. (see avandia for example)
>>
>>11855782
You said they're studied on pregnant women. That's not comprehensive. A study on the health effects has to include the long term health effects on individuals, not just pregnancies and pregnant women.
>>
>>11855782
Also, why would you take a drug that has depression as a side effect? If the people who take a drug are less happy than the people who don't, then the drug shouldn't be taken. Dead obvious.
>>
>>11855797
To your first point, People in the FDA trials are usually observed long term even the trial has been published. Of course, no approval process is 100% comprehensive, we could get into a long discussion about biostats, but I'll just say briefly, that the studies aims to have enough people in it to be sure that it accurately reflects the general population represented in the study. For the people not in the study, again, the doctors and pharmacies are required to report All serious side effects to the FDA. To your second point, depression medications themselves often have depression as a side effect. In these cases it remains difficult to prove if the depression is caused by the drug itself or the underling condition, however, significantly more people that receive the drug benefit from having their depression relieved then don't, hence the drug gets approved. Also, people are observed closely by their doctor afterwards, so if their depression were the worsen, then the doctor would take them off the med before serious harm is done. I'm not trying to convince you we have taken every possible step to ensure saftey, and that everyone should be on drugs. I'm just trying to argue that the country does take huge measures to ensure drug safety. If you look at the legal history of drug safety in the US, it has constantly improved over the last hundred years, and any serious drug event that has caused harm to people, is usually placed under huge scrutiny and often results in near immediate changes in practice. No, the process isn't perfect, but yes to the fact that it's constantly evolving to ensure patient safety.
>>
>>11855835
They won't do longitudinal studies because there's much money to be made in pharmaceuticals. They don't want to wait 20 or 30 years because they would be old before they could make a profit.

If they did longitudinal studies on the measures I proposed, it would be shown that most drugs overall negatively effect health and happiness more than they help. And you can't really argue otherwise, because the studies haven't been done. If they haven't been done, they're just playing with everyone's health.
>>
>>11855848
Well I don't really want to repeat myself here, but if you are still deeply concerned with the matter, I would suggest taking a course or reading a book on biostats. I myself find it to be an extremely interesting subject from a /sci/ point of view.
>>
>>11855646
Why not do longitudinal studies to identify all factors involved for those who are identified as sick, and not sick? It seems to be a methodological flaw to only look at medication, as if that is the only factor.
>>
>>11855797
>Why would you take a drug that had depression as a side effect?
It is not 1:1 that taking a drug will cause depression. And beyond that, it may be beneficial to suffer depression in pursuit of some other goal.

Interferons generally contribute to depression. Immune modulation after hepatic transplant also is likely to cause depression. Chemotherapy, glucocorticoids, antiepileptic medications, so on.
>>
Psychiatry is as real as modern medicine, which is basically meme tier if you know how new medicines/devices are developed.
The Elizabeth scandal should be pretty telling but you mtfk keeps falling for it.
>>
>>11855931
What would you sacrifice happiness for? Only your life.
>>
>>11855917
If you do it as an experiment you don't need to investigate other causes. The relationship is already causal
>>
>>11855972
This seems to exclude the possibility of confounding factors. It also reduces internal validity.
>>
>>11855975
There could be confounding factors but all you need is a statistically significant difference. Confounding factors don't matter with random selection and big sample size
>>
>>11855977
How is overall happiness and wellbeing measured, in order to determine statistical significance?

There are countries whose governments are interested in population based interventions for outcomes that are lowest in cost. Many psychotropic medications are generic and cheap, with no proof of superior efficacy in selecting new drugs. So the idea that generics continue to be used and that no one studies if it's worth it is interesting to consider.

Alternatively, patients generally can consider if it's worth it and either not utilize these things, or try it. At that level of decisionmaking, even what you suggest would not foretell if it would be worth it for that person, at that moment in time.
>>
>>11855984
Self report
>>
>>11855992
People who utilize this stuff then may be self reporting that it's worth doing it than not?
>>
>>11855993
Everyone reports how happy they are, you could also measure their job success to see their productivity. The happier healthier group is the one that you want.
>>
>>11855995
That's a curious measure as psychotropic arent intended to produce happiness, ornto somehow make life worth living.

If productivity is what matters, maybe intensified capitalism is warranted? For those who like material things, a prescription of consumerism?
>>
>>11856003
Why would you use a psychotropic if it doesn't make you happy? You would use a drug that makes your life worse?

There's an argument that it could you from killing yourself, but then it shouldn't be classified as an antidepressant, just something that keeps you from killing yourself.
>>
>>11856003
If you don't think happiness is a good measure, how about quality of life
>>
>>11855689
>Imagine a schizophrenic person constantly plagued by demons and the devil, gets a shot of haldol then they suddenly go away.
How could you possibly know, when the person is too drugged to speak?
>Also more commonly, a person with depression starts to feel a little better after taking a pill.
Really? What I heard you need to wait six weeks if it helps, and they try another pill if it doesn't. How do you know the person just doesn't geg better randomly?
>>
>>11856135
And that's how we get to the one absolute dogma that basically creates the whole field of psychiatry...

The. Doctor. Is. Never. Wrong.

And if you question that, well we have pills for this condition as well! Or maybe we could use lobotomy, they even gave us a Nobel prize for that one, you know.
>>
>>11856018
Why wouldn't you use a drug if it doesn't make you happy? That sounds depressing by itself. Having real connections with others, honest communication, being able to live as you are, seem more related to happiness.

Its astonishing that you might expect taking a medicine to make you happy.

>>11856027
Quality of life, perhaps, though how is that also measured?

There can be a difference between having less symptoms of depression, and happiness.

>>11856135
Perhaps you might benefit from meeting people who have reduction of symptoms and can speak?

>six weeks
Six to 8 weeks is a good amount of time to see how much effect there may be from a dose level. If the drug and the person are an effective match, most of the benefit is seen quite soon, 2 weeks perhaps.

>>11856174
>the doctor is never wrong
Itndeoends in what the doctor is saying. Clearly they cant possibly predict the future.

Rather dramatic perspectives /sci/.
>>
>>11855450
>>11853815
>>
>>11855450
There is no difference between astrology and psychology/psychaitry. You can't prove me wrong.
>>
>>11856498
Then fuck it, measure by quality of life. You can measure it through self report
>>
>>11856526
What is the person measuring to self report?
>>
>>11855450
Psychology is just a scam to push new age garbage like meditation. Psychiatry is a literal big Pharma sales force populated by those who couldn't be real doctors.
>>
>>11855745
>Also doctors rarely prescribe them unless the benefits clearly outweigh the risk

Imagine believing this happens in reality. Psych drugs have significant risks and side effects and unknown long term effects that they push on every single patient they have. Do psychiatrists ever see a patient and say, you know what you don't have a mental illness and do not need medication? No. It does not happen. Everyone is crazy and needs to take toxic drugs forever in that field. It is the least scientific, most abusive "specialty" there is. No wonder it has such a deep history and origin as a way to control and institutionalize political dissidents.
>>
>>11856498
Even I would say that I'm better just to eat less of that bullshit.

Also, people would be better after time even without that bullshit they call meds.
>>
>>11855689
the other way around also is possible. 3 months of treatment with off label prescription caused me to drop out of two university degrees and pretty much drop everything else recreational i did. My mother would turn back time if she could to find a different doctor than the one who misdiagnosed me.
>>
>>11855450
Psychiatrist here. It is medicine. It's not science. That would be like saying that engineering is science.
>>
a VERY well working machine could be VERY scientific beyond conjecture. Responsible engineering is science. Medicine does have approximatable solutions for certain problems, and neuroleptics for example dont seem to be very well defined understood deviced and argumented. Also to say that medical conjecture isnt a subset of scientific guessing is also a positivistic argument. To say that there are no real paradigm shifts in the branch of medicine that mainly drives from 3 generations of poorly defined data is vaguely just saying that it isnt able of evolving into a science even if everything was definable as scientific. Psychiatry seems to promote emergent barbarism and still seems very freudian.

And now the problem that i have with this. Everyone will agree that it would be immoral to push antipsychotics on normal people without malignant psychopatology and i feel that that is the only contractual agreement between civilians, psychiatrists and actual cogsci expertise. There should be another argument in place as well probably that transgresses this contract alltogether as antipsychotics are mentally subtractive in nature both empirically and statistically. The psychiatrist that apologized to me twice agrees with me on this and when i tell him that theres only theology or suicide on my horizont he merrily agrees with me watching through a microbrain microscope as if hes observing science in the making or humanity celebrating itself. I dont see how psychiatry shines a light on conscience if youre able to mess it up bad time as a practitioner and dont go to mindjail for it. I dont get it.
>>
>>11857488
Newbie confusion. Engineering is not science, but ok
>>
>>11856609
This is interesting as over met psychiatrists who did not do that.

Why might you need to think that a group of people are shills, forcing everyone they meet onto drugs?
>>
>>11855450
>>>/x/
>>
>>11857866
I don't think that's what you explicitly should read out of his statement. There is a certain set of circumstances under which it is highly likely that these drugs will be misused, to the disfortune of people that are by default not well integrated into a society. A person's psychology should be very well understood in order for neuroleptic drugs to be prescribed.
>>
>>11856585
They self report their quality of life regularly during the experiment. Then obviously the group who had the better quality of life is selected (drug or no drug)
>>
>>11858303
It can be hard to obtain a detailed understanding of someone's psychology. Like within psychotherapy, it can take a long duration of weekly meetings. There is time limited dynamic psychotherapy which is a middle ground.

However, part of the circumstances that lead to misuse may involve factors outside of the physician as well. Such as patient therapeutic resistance.

To be sure, that person made a very black and white description of a group of people. That person is, in a black or white manner, deriding a group of people and stating they are all-bad. It is a good question to ask why that person holds such a singly negative view about a group, accusing them of being bad, because they're derides for being single minded.
>>
>>11858786
Imagine telling the same about cancer.
>>
>>11858786
Therapeutic resistance is a generalization you cant possibly be able to measure or control for with these drugs.

I think the b and w division may stem from the perception that while it is clearly visible that some physicians might be engaged in the well being of their patients, it just wont always commute into a certainty about how therapeutically sound these medications are by themself and the less agency a physician has over the intricacies of someones reason as a certain form of self perception the more likely it is for them to intervene with pharm. At least from a shared pragmatical POV that might be feasible, but that is not always given obviously, and that will translate into the structure of the institutional capabilities as well. A gunshot wound makes me go to the E.R. a problem with eyesight. . . yadda yadda But if i find it reasonable to visit a psychiatrist, and I can trace malpractice chances are 'the treatment was not made for me' and respectively my demographic no matter how small it might be has suffered. And at that point no matter how invested, no knowledge can be obtained through the schematic of drug effect and side effect out of me because not to be too esoteric, the whole Cosmos as a set of properties has lost and also a shared experience has been lost, as the middle ground between MD and patient, and the institutionalized boundaries of psychiatric discussion dont cut it as theyre at most a reform in practise and translatable into moral standards via reform. (not very scientifical)


A persons psychology must be very subtracted already in order for the macroplay of psychiatric medication to work better than a more intricate coping mechanism the person has devised. At least for me that was the case. And i dont know if you still can relate as a practitioner if i say that i lost all agency over a very productive life and am heavily suicidal because of medicine. Also seems Black and white.
>>
>>11859545
cont. as one could generalize the fact that you and me should not have this conversation from a moral point of view as it undermines the control over the outcome that is agreed upon by medical experts and distorts but then your institution at least from the perspective of someone that 'survived' perceived mistreatment kind of 'leaks' into society if youre 'weakminded' and the whole picture becomes a huge suggestion of you wanting to kill yourself. But also critics within psychiatry of pychiatric medication get marginalized as well, as most people wealthy and educated enough are also smart enough to avoid the armenhaus that is social psychiatry, that at least is the picture that is transported to the subverted joe.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.