Is psychopharmacology the scientific fraud of the century?

[ChocolateMoose123]

What is the exact difference between a psychologist and psychiatrist? I know that the latter can prescribe drugs and often has a more medical training but I thought they were just a kind of upgraded, specialised version of the first

A psychiatrist is a medical doctor. They went to medical school (4 years) then got specialized in psychiatry. They can prescribe medication.

A psychologist didn't go to medical school and they cannot prescribe medication. They counsel.

A psychoanalyst does both. They are psychiatrists who also counsel. They can prescribe meds.


Edit: when you go to your psychiatrist he just refills your meds. Asks mainly surface questions, how you are doing, how the side affects are, etc. It is maybe a 20 minute visit.

A psychologist is someone you talk to. What is bothering you. How you react to situations, etc. They go deeper. It is 30-an hour.

 

[á´…eparted]

A psychiatrist is a medical doctor. They went to medical school (4 years) then got specialized in psychiatry. They can prescribe medication.

A psychologist didn't go to medical school and they cannot prescribe medication. They counsel.

A psychoanalyst does both. They are psychiatrists who also counsel. They can prescribe meds.


Edit: when you go to your psychiatrist he just refills your meds. Asks mainly surface questions, how you are doing, how the side affects are, etc. It is maybe a 20 minute visit.

A psychologist is someone you talk to. What is bothering you. How you react to situations, etc. They go deeper. It is 30-an hour.

It does depend on the psychiartist though. The one I used to see would always meet with me for an hour, and would effectively council me, in addition to speaking towards medication related things. They don't have to do that, but the good ones worth their salt, do.

 

[Jaguar]

But wouldn't people with high norepinephrine levels that don't serve a physically useful purpose also show up in their blood?

You can also do a 24-hr urine collection for catecholamines, which includes norepi. (That way you're not taking a mere snapshot in time.) It's an easy collection test.

 

[magpie]

It's not as simple as that.

Neurotransmitters in the body are not equivalent to neurotransmitters in the brain due to the blood brain barrier (they don't readily cross). Neurotransmitters serve multiple roles in the body. As an example, serotonin is responsible for our mood (part of it anyway). It's also responsible for intestional motility, among several other things unrelated to mood. What serotonin does, depends on it's location in the body. Generally, high or low levels in the body might be so in the brain as well, but that's not always the case.

You could test for neurotransmitters in the brain, but for that you'd have to do a spinal tap...

It might also not be the entire picture. It could very readily be receptor count (too high, too low, SNP that results in unusual binding affinity), and that's something that you could not easily test.

What I know is limited to norepinephrine and its effects on the sympathetic nervous system. Weirdly though I have had a spinal tap but I don't remember what it was for. This is interesting info though, thanks.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I would say that this modern lifestyle "pill for everything" is pure nonesense.


Almost all people who got some some kind of mental disease got it because their life and living environment was dangerous, unhealthy and chaotic. Therefore you can treat people as much as you like but if you don't pull them out of such environment you can't trully heal them. However if you pull a person out it is quite questionable how many will still need pills in order to get trully better, I am willing to bet that majority wouldn't need them.


In my opinion the basic premis of psychopharmacology is wrong. (or at least incomplete)

 

[Amargith]

Ime, pills can be useful to take the edge off - one of the main problems with some mental issues related to anxiety disorders, for instance (for me, this is in my work with animal problem behaviour), is that the anxiety levels are so high that people effectively live in fight or flight mode - which also accounts for their terrible decision making skills, for that matter, and looking like an idiot. The problem is that there is a neurotransmitter that gets released (GABA something) at that level of anxiety to induce a flight or fight mode also very much inhibits learning. Learning is a complex process that costs a looot of energy, which you don't have time for when you're in mortal danger.

The pills can reduce the level of anxiety just enough to allow the person to function and actually *learn* from their behaviour and the consequences - aside from providing much needed relief after having been chronically stressed for like forever. It therefore also allows you to recharge and get ready for the battle ahead. But sure, without therapy and changes in the environment, it's pretty much a glorified Band-Aid

 

[jixmixfix]

I think psychiatric drugs are a good thing as many help people but one must be cautious of their long term effects. Also I believe that mental disorders stem from more than environment many of them are biochemical as well.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I would say that this modern lifestyle "pill for everything" is pure nonesense.


Almost all people who got some some kind of mental disease got it because their life and living environment was dangerous, unhealthy and chaotic. Therefore you can treat people as much as you like but if you don't pull them out of such environment you can't trully heal them. However if you pull a person out it is quite questionable how many will still need pills in order to get trully better, I am willing to bet that majority wouldn't need them.


In my opinion the basic premis of psychopharmacology is wrong. (or at least incomplete)

Are you saying there is no real biological chemical imbalances?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Ime, pills can be useful to take the edge off - one of the main problems with some mental issues related to anxiety disorders, for instance (for me, this is in my work with animal problem behaviour), is that the anxiety levels are so high that people effectively live in fight or flight mode - which also accounts for their terrible decision making skills, for that matter, and looking like an idiot. The problem is that there is a neurotransmitter that gets released (GABA something) at that level of anxiety to induce a flight or fight mode also very much inhibits learning. Learning is a complex process that costs a looot of energy, which you don't have time for when you're in mortal danger.

The pills can reduce the level of anxiety just enough to allow the person to function and actually *learn* from their behaviour and the consequences - aside from providing much needed relief after having been chronically stressed for like forever. It therefore also allows you to recharge and get ready for the battle ahead. But sure, without therapy and changes in the environment, it's pretty much a glorified Band-Aid

I believe this was directed at me.



I never said that some people may not need such meds. However I am of opinion that the whole thing is blown out of proportions and that the system is trying to solve real-lifes problem by giving people psychopharmacolcological meds. What is likely to make things only worse on the long run.


Example: I am from environment where about 50% of young people are unemployed and miserable (in the case that there isn't strong emmigration that number would be around 70%) However in the case that all those people start to take meds the odds are that they would still be nowhere since their problems are coming from serious structural problems of the society. Someone needs to stop people from even getting into the position that they need any kind of psychopharmacolcological treatment. For me this is the real solution to the problem. (and for the people are left behind even after this you can develop some kind of serious therapy since these are trully mentally ill people that need such help)

 

[Amargith]

^^Isn't that a controversial topic?

Something about the environment and other circumstances impacting the physical health of the body and causing chemical imbalances? I know that with depression, there is a suspicion in some of the cases that there is a chemical imbalance, but there's also a theory that the imbalance - if it's there - occurs due to the actual downward spiral of apathy, isolation, hiding, closing drapes etc. It basically is self-sustaining so taking them out of that environment could technically kickstart the healing process without pills..

 

[Virtual ghost]

Are you saying there is no real biological chemical imbalances?

I believe my answer to Amargith answered this one.
There are imbalances for sure but I am pretty sure that today many people get all kinds of meds even if they don't really need them.

 

[Virtual ghost]

^^Isn't that a controversial topic?

Something about the environment and other circumstances impacting the physical health of the body and causing chemical imbalances? I know that with depression, there is a suspicion in some of the cases that there is a chemical imbalance, but there's also a theory that the imbalance - if it's there - occurs due to the actual downward spiral of apathy, isolation, hiding, closing drapes etc. It basically is self-sustaining so taking them out of that environment could technically kickstart the healing process without pills..

Well, I am controversial person.


I mean for me this is simply a common sense, I am not expert on the topic but as I said around the forum a number of times "Environment defines psychological state". Years ago I was a person that wasn't in the ideal psychological and social state of mind, however I have attacked my problem pretty directly and changed some environments ... and today I am a normal person. Therefore I am pretty sure that tons of people who get all kinds of diagnosis and meds are simply people who are stuck in their real life problems. Which are then creating all kinds of chemical disbalances and problematic behaviour.


That is at least my personal opinion about the topic.

 

[Amargith]

Well, I am controversial person.


I mean for me this is simply a common sense, I am not expert on the topic but as I said around the forum a number of times "Environment defines psychological state". Years ago I was a person that wasn't in the ideal psychological and social state of mind, however I have attacked my problem pretty directly and changed some environments ... and today I am a normal person. Therefore I am pretty sure that tons of people who get all kinds of diagnosis and meds are simply people who are stuck in their real life problems. Which are then creating all kinds of chemical disbalances and problematic behaviour.


That is at least my personal opinion about the topic.

K, this is my bad - the post was meant for the person above you (hence the ^^); I typed it when they were the last one to respond to the thread, and then you snuck in

I guess I really should use the quote button instead

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I would say that this modern lifestyle "pill for everything" is pure nonesense.


Almost all people who got some some kind of mental disease got it because their life and living environment was dangerous, unhealthy and chaotic. Therefore you can treat people as much as you like but if you don't pull them out of such environment you can't trully heal them. However if you pull a person out it is quite questionable how many will still need pills in order to get trully better, I am willing to bet that majority wouldn't need them.


In my opinion the basic premis of psychopharmacology is wrong. (or at least incomplete)

Ok. What would you do in this situation as a psychiatrist/therapist.

Someone from your neighborhood comes in to your practice. They list their symptoms and complaints. Based on the DSMV, they have clinical depression. What is your course of action?

 

[Kas]

A psychoanalyst does both. They are psychiatrists who also counsel. They can prescribe meds.

If there are no language differences I think it’s a bit different with this one. Psychoanalyst is psychologist who practices psychoanalysis therapy.

It’s getting more and more popular for psychiatrists to study psychotherapy and then provide both. I think it’s a good option and make them see differently patient and understand them better.


I have different question (not very related to the main subject of the thread...) Is it required in US to get some kind of entitlement/right to be able to practice psychotherapy legally? Or can anyone do this?

 

[EcK]

Is psychopharmacology the scientific fraud of the century? 64% of psychology experiments can't be reproduced - NaturalNews.com



See full article here.

I'm sorry. Was anyone taking social sciences seriously until now?

Really? Have you read their methodology. It's ridiculous half of the time and flawed the rest of the time.
Social sciences are, in most cases, science for people without the intellectual capacity or/and impartiality to do science.

 

[EcK]

[MENTION=9627]Xann[/MENTION] appart from how social scientists are generally morons. I think the more interesting point is that of publication bias and what it takes to be an academic (basically giving up your scientific integrity to be published). I find lots of the most interesting studies, to me, are not the ones in the headlines. (which are generally rehearshed things I already knew or are so amateurish that I can guess the flaws just by reading the synopsis) Because these are just the attention whores of the scientific world, mostly. But rather the ones that refine understanding of smaller points, and more obscure domain of knowledge I was interested about at that moment, with much less dramatic effects. Less obvious leading (drawing conclusions that are not necessary by selecting data) etc.

I'd be interested to know what approximate percentage of people you could call innovators whether 'scientific' ones or not could be defined as 'academics'.

My understanding is that alot of what academics do serves to create data that can be used by more original thinkers. You know 'standing on the shoulder of giants'.

Though in general academics are pretty smart, the issue is that a system where someone can be considered as great and promoted to the top without having actually achieved anything concrete in his life is problematic at best.

My sister could be an academic, she's studied crazy math and all of that stuff. Instead she went to help fire freaking rockets to space with that knowledge. That's something TANGIBLE. But people who did nothing concrete in their lives rating the value of what other such people do seems a bit futile to me.

Knowledge is always useful, but it has never been popular. Why make academia into a popularity contest then?
Strictly speaking btw, all the guys whose studies were proven wrong should be fired. It's one of those 'YOU HAD ONE JOB' situations where if they can't get that right they're pretty much useless.

 

[EcK]

BTW I really hope the guys who reproduced these experiments where not social scientists, because then we'd end up in a self referential loop.
Who's right about the other guy being wrong, or wrong about the guy being wrong or.... etc
[MENTION=9627]Xann[/MENTION] "if the conclusions of this study are correct then this study has about (0.32x0.32) 10% chance of being correct in its conclusions" It's fun really.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Ok. What would you do in this situation as a psychiatrist/therapist.

Someone from your neighborhood comes in to your practice. They list their symptoms and complaints. Based on the DSMV, they have clinical depression. What is your course of action?

I don't like your logic since it is reactive. If a destroyed person comes into our office then it is basically too late to do the right and you can only try to scrap the whole situation.


But if I were in this situation I would try to determine what is wrong with the person and try to understand what can this be repaired. If a person is a complete mess I would give some meds in order to make a quick fix form where some progress can be made.

I never said that I completely against meds but I am of impression that western people try to fix too many things purely with drugs even if the actual source of the problem is somewhere else.

 

[tkae.]

"The key caution that an average reader should take away is any one study is not going to be the last word," said lead researcher Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia.

This.

People forget this constantly. We want to believe that ethics keeps number fudging from happening, but it happens. Scientists interpret numbers in a funny way, and it takes ten studies to undo the findings of one. It's like trying to correct misinformation on the internet.

Are we overprescribing psych meds? Yes.

Is that a bad thing? Eh. Before chemical intervention for mental illness there was insulin shock therapy and straight jackets, and those were developed as the humane options. Drugs may not be wonderful, but we have to be very careful taking them on as a tool rather than tweaking the amount they're used.

So no. It's not the fraud of the century. It's just something we rely on too often, like antibiotics. Except without the superbug danger.