|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
 Posted - 01/03/2006 : 00:10:22 [Permalink]
|
Michelle:
Are they oriented in time and reality?
When I "failed" the aforementioned "methamphetamine intoxication" test, which I (reasonably) assume was psychometrically "validated" as "accurate and reliable" by psychological professionals (or at least the police supervisor involved obviously had the utmost confidence in)... I was asked to tell them when "2 minutes were up" and I estimated a 2 minute time lapse- no different than I would at this moment, similarly intoxicated only by caffeine from my coffee, and aspirin... my "time perception" was deemed "altered." I was told my pupils were "abnormal" (whatever that means.) I was asked which exit I had taken when I bought the coffee- I couldn't recall the exit name I had stopped at hours earlier, as I wasn't familiar with the area... I was determined to be "disoriented." Hence, according to the tests, I was clearly "out of touch with reality," and for lack of lab assays to refute such an allegation, surely had I been arrested, a judge would have concurred with the officer's "professional assessment" that I had been "legitimately tested" and determined to have been "on methamphetamine," regardless of how absurdly and monumentally wrong he was in every respect. Would a psychiatrist be similarly influenced by a social worker doing such a write-up on a kid, having similarly given him/her just such a "validated" mental health "screening test" after possibly having a teacher add that the kid was a "pain in the ass," maybe? At minimum, I could easily envision that... in fact, in some cases- I'd say it's quite likely. I might have been thrown in jail, declared a "felon," and endured thousands of dollars in fines resultant to the dangerous inaccuracies of just such a "screening test." A kid might have his life ruined by being declared a "nut," otherwise stigmatized, or inappropriately medicated before they even "got out of the starting blocks." The point- such a program has to be "done right." Can that be deduced from the link? I don't know. I'm not a mental health professional so my opinion is irrelevant or at least not especially pertinent, but I'm skeptical because I've seen various things that "sound good on paper" translate to reality in very poor fashion numerous times in my life... especially when humanitarian concerns are involved, concurrent to ulterior financial interests.
[jokemode]
(It's 2013... thanks to President Robertson- with the help of great influences wielded by recently appointed Supreme Court justices Falwell and Lieberman, and heavy-handed support in the House and Senate- has implemented drastic changes to our social fabric for the benefit of our struggling nation...)
Does the person, for example complain that because of these symptoms they are not able to hold a job?
A common manifestation to the verbal symptoms of Liberalistica Dementia... textbook cases, actually. In fact, there was just such a major outbreak of the disease among schoolteachers and university faculty a couple of years back- had to do with Creationism... unemployment was a common consequence. What a bunch of wackos.
Are they unable to retain relationships?
This is one (cohesive and united) "Nation Under God" now... sounds highly indicative of an untreated Atheistic Psychosis... after all, who wants anything to do with loony tunes like that? They're the main reason we're all trying to learn Chinese, that damn earthquake hit LA in 11' and everything else!
[/jokemode]
|
Ron White |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2006 : 07:30:18 [Permalink]
|
After reading the exchange, I've gotta respond to some of this stuff and ask questions.
The problem that I am seeing is twofold. The responses from both sides sources seem a bit questionable.
First, this screening is being done in schools and evaluated by a computer. Michelle, due to the subjective nature of your business, I do not feel comfortable relying on a computerized test for psychiatric evaluations. There still is substaintial evaluation going on far above the if input1, input2, etc then conditions A,D,E and Z. There are specific nuances to find out if the subject is misrepresenting themselves during a personal interview that are absent in such a mechanical setting. While the questions may be written by a psychiatirc professional, the coding for it and the automatic evaluator is written by someone of my profession. I've worked with some programmers who were willing to bend or dance on ethics in search for the almighty dollar. Dollars which the pharmacutical companies are all too willing to provide.
In Illinois, we have a new funding option for first step but only if the child has autism. As a result, school administrators have been pressuring staff social workers to make such a diagnosis. I saw it when we were seeking developmental speech assistance for our youngest child. The adminstrators were really pushing for the lable autism to be applied to our child. Fortunately, we had the clinical data concerning what caused his speech delay. But still, at every turn, the social worker and the adminstrators kept talking about "slight autism". (The clinical reason for his speech delay was that his ears were plugged with wax. We cleaned his ears and lo, his speech showed a remarkable improvement.)
Secondly, the opposition forwards some pretty hefty numbers which imply much but prove nothing. By stating that 71% of the children tested came back positive for some sort of mental condition and that 90% of all children diagnosed with a mental condition are drugged in some way, it sets up the inference that 90% of the diagnosed children will be drugged. But the numbers and assumptions are based on the children who are getting treatment now. The severity of the current affected students is much greater than the broad net that this test is going for. It is very likely that upon further review, the majority of the evaluated children would not be drugged. I also question whether the children are directly told the results of the test. That just seems hinkey to me.
So my question is, can such a test be reliable? Can such an evaluation be a tool or does it lend itself to other problems such as the spotlight pricipal? (I'm sure this has another name, but I can't think of it right now. It's when a set of workers under scrutiny will be more productive than a set of workers who are not under scrutiny. I question whether this could be a problem with the students overreporting.)
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2006 : 19:02:06 [Permalink]
|
Unfortunately, the text of the CHS, CDS and whatever the third bowl of alphabet soup was aren't to be found online- I guess you've either got to have the right letters after your name or pay money to get in on the secret, but I found something rather interesting in the CHS Guidelines on the Teenscreen Web site:
www.teenscreen.org/cms/images/ stories/chs%20guidelines%2011-19-04.pdf
quote:
TeenScreen uses the answers to certain questions to decide if a teen needs to see a clinician
• If the CHS score is “Positive,” the teen should see a clinician
• Using the TeenScreen scoring rules will yield a screen positive rate of about 30% A CHS score is “Positive” if:
• Youth reports suicidal ideation in the last 3 months (Q. 10) OR
• Youth reports a suicide attempt ever (Q. 11) OR
• Youth rates three emotional problems as “Bad” or “Very Bad” (Qs. 4-8) OR
• Youth reports a need for help with an emotional problem (“Yes” to any “a” Qs. 4a-9a) OR
• Youth reports being “More upset” after completing the questionnaire (Q. 14) OR
• Youth refuses to answer question(s) after screener calls attention to unanswered item(s)
(bolding mine)
So, insisting on your privacy mandates a "positive" result? One wonders how, despite their claim that teens can refuse to take the test irrespective of parental consent, a kid who refuses to participate would be evaluated.
In other words, in shrink-land, refusing to incriminate yourself incriminates you. That isn't just a recipe for enough false positives to sink the test's specificity to the Earth's core, it's fundamentally dishonest and disgusting.
Other obvious questions arise:
Who does the scoring? Who has access to the results? Teachers? The school principal? The local cops? The Federable gummint? What guarantees are there that these tests won't be used to stigmatize and persecute those who don't quite fit into the official model of mental "health"?
Think back about the authority figures you encountered in your high school career. Were they all the kind of people whom you would willingly grant the power to judge you "normal" or not?
The possibilities of using this program in an abusive way ought to be obvious to anyone who has had any experience with the psychiatric industry from the receiving end, or indeed to anyone who survived the public school system. The only way I can see to prevent this screening from becoming yet another tool of the plethora of pissant petty tyrants who infest modern society is very strong oversight.
The whole thing gives off a disturbing odor of make-work for academics and another means of enforcing conformity.
|
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2006 : 20:40:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Valiant Dancer:
First, this screening is being done in schools and evaluated by a computer. Michelle, due to the subjective nature of your business, I do not feel comfortable relying on a computerized test for psychiatric evaluations. There still is substaintial evaluation going on far above the if input1, input2, etc then conditions A,D,E and Z. There are specific nuances to find out if the subject is misrepresenting themselves during a personal interview that are absent in such a mechanical setting.
The computerized part is an initial screening. That is all it is. It is nothing more. The questions are straightforward. No tricks. I suppose it would be possible for a kid to fool the test, but hey, nothings perfect. The next step is a real live clinician… My guess is they do it that way because it would be impossible to have or train enough live clinicians in the first round of screening, given the number of kids being evaluated. Oh well…
This is getting frustrating. Clinicians are subjective in their evaluations says Ron so they are not to be trusted due to a possible bias. Val finds initial testing by computer problematic. (My guess is Ron does too since he finds the whole field of psychiatry problematic.)
Then there is this:
quote:
ktesibios:
In other words, in shrink-land, refusing to incriminate yourself incriminates you.
Incriminates you of what? Of possibly being depressed? Question: Have you considered suicide in the last three months?
Answer: None given.
You cannot see why in “shrink-land” no answer to that question might be a flag? This isn't about guilt or innocence; it's a screening for depression.
quote:
ktesibios:
Who does the scoring? Who has access to the results? Teachers? The school principal? The local cops? The Federable gummint? What guarantees are there that these tests won't be used to stigmatize and persecute those who don't quite fit into the official model of mental "health"?
Which, unless kt hasn't read the parts of the teenScreen site that explain these things, than he assumes they are lying about this:
quote:
From the TeenScreen site:
TeenScreen screens for the risk factors that are associated with depression and other mental illnesses but does not make a formal diagnosis. Parents of youth found to be at possible risk are notified and helped with identifying and connecting to local mental health services where they can obtain a complete evaluation by a qualified mental health professional. The TeenScreen Program does not involve treatment and does not recommend or endorse any particular kind of treatment for the youth who are identified by the screening. The results of the screen are confidential and are not shared with educational staff.
But wait, there's more!
quote:
ktesibios:
The possibilities of using this program in an abusive way ought to be obvious to anyone who has had any experience with the psychiatric industry from the receiving end…
What the hell does |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2006 : 23:35:48 [Permalink]
|
Kil and Michelle:
This will catch-me-up on comments. Keep in mind I have no education at all in medical or life sciences, and I make no claim to rendering other than opinions reflecting anything beyond "a guy off the street" expertise in these matters. This is why I may not express things properly (if I say "tons of serotonin molecules in the right place, at the right time, per cubic mile of brain tissue" and that's not the way doctors say it... please bear with me :)
Kil
Sometimes the knowledge base does permit as efficient a diagnosis and treatment as in other branches of medicine...
Absolutely. There are clear-cut cases of disease... people who hear voices, are suicidally depressed etc. etc. definitely qualify, and treating them legitimately as present technologies/ knowledge base allow are surely meritorious professions. The statistical nature of the field is a "necessary evil," perhaps, and I feel better attention should be paid to its potential misapplication. That's all.
Kil
This is getting frustrating. Clinicians are subjective in their evaluations says Ron so they are not to be trusted due to a possible bias. Val finds initial testing by computer problematic. (My guess is Ron does too since he finds the whole field of psychiatry problematic.)
Nah, it just seems to me there's too much "slush-room" for error in the current state of affairs from what I see of it, as I've previously described. Show me a statistical science with big-money interests involved, and I'll say one better look close because making stats say anything you want isn't especially hard, and "Joe Public" usually doesn't have the ways and means to sort through the data, if they can get their hands on it at all.
Michelle:
Disorders? I thought that you were earlier making the argument that maybe they shouldn't be considered disorders at all. Which is it?
No, that's not at all what I was arguing. As I noted in my comments to Kil, I feel there are psychiatric conditions which without doubt qualify as diseases or disorders, and treating them are necessary and utilitarian endeavors, especially as this applies to children and youth. I find it commendable that these youth issues are being formally addressed, and I feel it's an indication that society is positively evolving in at least some aspects. I think having these services available for youth is a very good thing and likely benefits society as well. I think that includes the "talk therapy" aspects, especially concerning youth, whereas "long-term" talk therapy for adults might help them cope continually, but as for whether it invokes enhancement of coping skills/ abilities in the long-term, that's debatable (maybe depends on how it's conducted... seems to me listening to neurotics perpetually complain about their unreasonable spouses, bosses, etc. might be an emotionally taxing exercise in futility aside from possibly allowing them to "vent steam.") Maybe doing-it-right would involve making some people "unhappy customers." I really don't know.
RE depression drugs. Prozac-like drugs (SSRIs) were mentioned. I read-up a little today, and here are my thoughts based upon what I've read. First, I couldn't immediately find reference to aforementioned serotonin level increases in non-neural tissues- in posts I cite tidbits I've come across in casual reading, and generally I can dig-them-up... apologies in this instance. Maybe I'll dig more later and forward when have more time. RE these drugs, my feelings based upon today's reading are they are excellent, albeit "imperfect" medication as are all others. Physiological- they bind heavily to serum protein (over 94% in the case of fluoxitine, about 98% for sertraline) and in conjunction with a long elimination half-life, has an advantage of inducing high and steady drug levels without rise to toxicity... as long as the liver's functioning normally, there seems e |
Ron White |
|
|
|
spacecadet
New Member
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 20:10:18 [Permalink]
|
Prozac Side Effects = Violence And Depression
Prozac is the antidepressant made by Eli Lilly. It is the most profitable drug in history. The side effects of Prozac include that it makes people violent. Many of the most sensational killing sprees have been committed by drug-crazed people who were made that way by Prozac. Click here for more negative feedback http://www.oralchelation.net/ProzacSideEffects/prozac.htm
You can even read about how Lilly knew that Prozac would cause the side effect of violence, but hid that truth.
Withdrawal from Prozac is harder than withdrawing from heroin! The withdrawal symptoms include trembling and tendencies to either suicide or violence to others.
Here is what Eli Lilly admits to in its official explanation of Prozac side effects:
Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors--There have been reports of serious, sometimes fatal, reactions (including hyperthermia, rigidity, myoclonus, with possible rapid fluctuations of vital signs, and mental status changes that include extreme agitation progressing to delirium and coma) in patients receiving fluoxetine in combination with a monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI), and in patients who have recently discontinued fluoxetine and are then started on an MAOI. Some cases presented with features resembling neuroleptic malignant syndrome. Therefore, Prozac should not be used in combination with an MAOI, or within a minimum of 14 days of discontinuing therapy with an MAOI. Since fluoxetine and its major metabolite have very long elimination half-lives, at least 5 weeks (perhaps longer, especially if fluoxetine has been prescribed chronically and/or at higher doses (See Accumulation and Slow Elimination Under ACTIONS/CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY)) should be allowed after stopping Prozac before starting an MAOI.
Prozac side effects include murder! Prozac withdrawal symptoms include a desire to commit violence. Eli Lilly Prozac is soon to be replaced the same drug with a different name. Prozac antidepressant winds up CAUSING depression.
The initial effect of Prozac seems to be more calm. But, this is the symptom of becoming more like a vegetable. After a period of time on this antidepressant, the Prozac side effects are much more prominent that the intended main effect. This is the point where it is virtually impossible to withdraw from use of the drug, and the point where the person is more and more willing to commit violence, including murder, on others.
Eli Lilly is one of the most evil drug companies on the planet. They knew, many years ago, about the side effects of Prozac. They deliberately hid the truth for the sole purpose of making billions of dollars of profit on this harmful drug.
It is possible to get off Prozac without dreadful withdrawal symptoms -- but doctors never will tell you about the method.
The point of all my professional opinion of the teenage testing you say?
If the teenagers are "tested" for depression, suicide and the like during the formulative years when their hormones alone make them legally insane from around 15 years old until they are around 21 years old, and our dear old system and Uncle Sam decide to "control" them by putting them on prozac to make them the zombies that the government really wants the mindless populace to be, then these teenagers will grow up to be young adults ADDICTED to a mind altering - yes I said mind altering because if you read further you will find that this drug has |
Clevetta |
|
|
|
spacecadet
New Member
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 20:32:16 [Permalink]
|
Prozac Side Effects = Violence And Depression
Prozac is the antidepressant made by Eli Lilly. It is the most profitable drug in history. The side effects of Prozac include that it makes people violent. Many of the most sensational killing sprees have been committed by drug-crazed people who were made that way by Prozac. Click here for a page with many links to material about Prozac.http://www.oralchelation.net/ProzacSideEffects/prozac.htm You can even read about how Lilly knew that Prozac would cause the side effect of violence, but hid that truth.
Withdrawal from Prozac is harder than withdrawing from heroin! The withdrawal symptoms include trembling and tendencies to either suicide or violence to others.
Here is what Eli Lilly admits to in its official explanation of Prozac side effects:
Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors--There have been reports of serious, sometimes fatal, reactions (including hyperthermia, rigidity, myoclonus, with possible rapid fluctuations of vital signs, and mental status changes that include extreme agitation progressing to delirium and coma) in patients receiving fluoxetine in combination with a monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI), and in patients who have recently discontinued fluoxetine and are then started on an MAOI. Some cases presented with features resembling neuroleptic malignant syndrome. Therefore, Prozac should not be used in combination with an MAOI, or within a minimum of 14 days of discontinuing therapy with an MAOI. Since fluoxetine and its major metabolite have very long elimination half-lives, at least 5 weeks (perhaps longer, especially if fluoxetine has been prescribed chronically and/or at higher doses .
Prozac side effects include murder! Prozac withdrawal symptoms include a desire to commit violence. Eli Lilly Prozac is soon to be replaced the same drug with a different name. Prozac antidepressant winds up CAUSING depression.
The initial effect of Prozac seems to be more calm. But, this is the symptom of becoming more like a vegetable. After a period of time on this antidepressant, the Prozac side effects are much more prominent that the intended main effect. This is the point where it is virtually impossible to withdraw from use of the drug, and the point where the person is more and more willing to commit violence, including murder, on others.
Eli Lilly knew many years ago about the side effects of Prozac. They deliberately hid the truth for the sole purpose of making billions of dollars of profit on this harmful drug.
Those who ARE on this drug should SERIOUSLY consider the side effects. It is possible to get off Prozac without dreadful withdrawal symptoms -- but doctors never will tell you about the method.
The point of my professional opinion (finally) you say?
Whew!
If you submit the nations teenagers to a so called depression/suidical questionairre, then there must be a root cause for this.
Let's face it. If you pick most teenagers going through the hormonal changes between 15 and 21, you would find a full range of psychological problems due to just hormonal swings. Not even beginning to include the relationships, problems with sexuality, learning to cope with peers, pressure from parents, gangs, and being deluged with violence on TV.
If you take these so-called depressed teenagers or problem children and put them on Prozac, you will turn them into the Zombies of tomorrow, hopelessly addicted to a drug that is a PERMANENTLY MIND ALTERING DRUG THAT CHANGES NEURAL PATHWAYS WITH LONG TERM USE!!
One again the system will have managed to control the minds of even more future voters with pills and false "happy thoughts"
Americans would rather take a pill than exercise.
Americans would rather take a pill than deal with society's problems.
Parents would rather shove a pill down their kid's throat than correct the lifestyle at home that is causing their child's depression.
Schools would be willing to shove a pill down the teenager's throat than to deal with a opinionated, demonstrative, troublesome teenager.
The pharmaceutical industry will top a new high in sales again this year. Our teenagers are an untapped source of "Fresh Meat" for their monetary gains.I Do not believe for one minute that they are testing these teens purely on a humanitarian basis to keep further depressed teens from suicide. There is a monetary gain involved in the testing somewhere. All you have to do is dig deeper to find out who has a large portion of stock in whatever drug of choice is going to be pushed by the testers who review the results to find out who the "humane" millionaire - er - party is. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 21:25:11 [Permalink]
|
spacecadet
Prozac a "bad drug?"... prior to reading a bit on it the other day, I was led to believe (admittedly as a non-professional) there may have been a few physiological "unknowns" involved, but after looking at the info, I really think I was mistaken as Michelle said, and even that Prozac is "great stuff" as far as that kind of drug go. As far as being relatively "non-toxic" It's hard to find fault with the stuff, unlike some of the other psychotropics. It's effective (I looked at the chart breaking down improvement levels/percentages verses placebo in the double-blind study, and I thought, "Wow, that stuff really works!") Based on what I've read, the suicide hazard is common to any effective medication for depression... it's rare, but of concern nonetheless. Regarding all of the horrible things you mention the drug does, I know you're a nurse so your opinion is more qualified than mine, but seriously- I think you must be joking. I mean, I think the drug companies can be kind of mercenary and greedy... but they're not that bad! |
Ron White |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 21:43:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
spacecadet: On[c]e again the system will have managed to control the minds of even more future voters with pills and false "happy thoughts"
Attention spacecadet…spacecadet attention! Come in please. Earth calling! You are wanted on the planet Earth...!
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
froydnslp
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2006 : 21:48:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you take these so-called depressed teenagers or problem children and put them on Prozac, you will turn them into the Zombies of tomorrow, hopelessly addicted to a drug that is a PERMANENTLY MIND ALTERING DRUG THAT CHANGES NEURAL PATHWAYS WITH LONG TERM USE!!
One again the system will have managed to control the minds of even more future voters with pills and false "happy thoughts"
And what is wrong with that?
-Michelle
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 00:20:49 [Permalink]
|
Okay. Some of this was written days ago. The reply is all Michelle. I did the formatting and editing and believe me, it wasn't easy…
quote:
ronnywhite:
So far as I can tell, I'd still say it's even questionable as to whether there's anything to understand in many cases, because it appears to me that it's just as likely that by grouping a bunch of idiosyncrasies of human behavior together "as we deem fit"... I have no way of knowing whether we've "discovered" a new state of disease/disorder, or whether we've just "created" or "invented" one for our convenience through "definition" (i.e. Is a propensity to pour too much ethanol down our gullets a "disease/disorder"... or is it just an annoying [and very unhealthy] personality quirk?
Michelle: When talking about a disorder, we aren't talking about a quirk. Is the problem Deviant from societal norms? Is it distressing? Is it Dysfunctional? Is it Dangerous? Using the DSM a psychiatrist would use the GAF scale (Global Assessment of Functioning) and look at employment, hygiene, relationships and other things and rate the client.
quote:
ronnywhite:
Are pedophiles "afflicted" with a "disease/disorder"... or are they just people with sociopathic tendencies…
Michelle: What is sociopathic tendencies? And where did you learn of them, if not through the DSM. How would we know about these tendencies without psychiatrists and researchers spending countless hours looking at certain people's “idiosyncracies” and grouping them together?
quote:
ronnywhite:
…which manifest in an especially reprehensible, and destructive manner? Could it be that someone drinking too much alcohol for the sake of their health just needs to stop doing so (if such is within their power) just as a person who drives recklessly would be well-advised to do similarly for their own benefit and that of others? For that matter, why not define a "disease/disorder" for that, too... maybe "vehicular recklessness syndrome"…
Michelle: Vehicular recklessness could be considered a symptom in many disorders. And it is dangerous. But is it deviant, distressing and has it caused the person to have problems in his or her employment, relationships, etc.? And, is this seen in more than one person? And if so, has it been studied and can it be verified by more than one clinician? Is there a seeable pattern? Is there a group of symptoms that can be predicted and reliably found in a group of “reckless drivers?” Are there cultural reasons for this behavior?
quote:
ronnywhite:
…and put it in "the book" as well? After all, that's undeniably a deadly disease, right?
Michelle: Doesn't have to be deadly to be in the DSM. Just has to have a pattern that is definable and recognizable that is causing the distress.
quote:
ronnywhite: Could it be that maybe a pedophile is just a scumbag with sexual tastes of a despicable variety who fails to respect the welfare of children, just as a thief might be a person who has a taste for money and fails to respect what others have earned, and that bot |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 08:41:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by spacecadet
Click here for a page with many links to material about Prozac.http://www.oralchelation.net/ProzacSideEffects/prozac.htm
And the one link you provide is to a site wherein the goal is to make money by misinforming the public with fabricated health scares and bad data about invasive procedures? Chelation advocates aren't doing anything for the good of the country's teens, either, spacecadet. Far from it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2006 : 09:40:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by spacecadet
Click here for a page with many links to material about Prozac.http://www.oralchelation.net/ProzacSideEffects/prozac.htm
And the one link you provide is to a site wherein the goal is to make money by misinforming the public with fabricated health scares and bad data about invasive procedures? Chelation advocates aren't doing anything for the good of the country's teens, either, spacecadet. Far from it.
From the quackwatch site:
Chelation Therapy:
Unproven Claims and Unsound Theories
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2006 : 00:13:59 [Permalink]
|
Kil: ...it wasn't easy...
Thanks, Kil... after this post, I'll repeat three times, "I shall not write diatribes." But since I'll talk about the evils of statistics a little in this one, shall make exception. Allow me to start here:
Spacecadet: ...Prozac Side Effects = Violence And Depression...
RE link, suppose I were in the quackery industry... I could do a lot better than the folks who made that website which includes just a bunch of vague and unsubstantiated claims. How? Statistics! They can be the scammer's best friend! All kinds of ways to do it... consider conveniently mixing up causation and correlation (I love that one) as a simple example. Take the Prozac that was discussed. Suppose the major importer of Chinese "Happy Root" or "Holistic Joe" hated Prozac or the companies that make it (for whatever reasons, however irrational... or maybe it's just "cutting in on their customer base.") He might start a website, and truthfully proclaim- "Prozac and closely related drugs accounted for N billion dollars in sales worldwide last year... a virtual bonanza for drug companies... but here's what they won't tell you. When tested, X% of Prozac users involved in violent incidents, including suicide- a vast majority under the age of 25- were determined to have abnormal numbers of chromosomal breaks in their blood [insert confidence level, other parameters here to make your claim "look" scientific and valid], possibly suggesting this resulted from Prozac inducing [insert terrifying-sounding biological speculation of your choosing here] with our children being especially vulnerable to these deleterious and often lethal side effects. There are effective herbal alternatives to the deadly hazards of Prozac (blah blah)" (I just made that one up... given an incentive, even I could do a lot "better"... imagine what a clever "quack" could do!) Well, I'm not making this up: aspirin causes "chromosomal breaks in the blood"... so do a lot of other common drugs... and nobody knows what significance there is to that- if any at all. Violent crime (depending on how you define it) and murder occur far more frequently below a certain age. So it all could be entirely true. And it all could lead to a conclusion that's pure bullshit at the same time. But never mind mentioning that part to "Joe Public"... and he might say, "Wow! That link even includes a reference to the data- it was collected by a reputable research institution! The greedy bastards don't want us knowing Prozac's a ticking time bomb! I have to send that link to my friend so he can get his kid off that crap before it's too late!"
That's the problem with statistics... more on that following. It's not as coldly quantitative and clear-cut as many people think. Using them to "innocently" lie is easy. What do you want to make an argument for? Prozac is great? Prozac is terrible? Kid's a healthy youth- has a lot of energy as is natural at that age? Kid's a maniac and needs medication otherwise he'll likely land in jail or a rubber room? Given enough data (and maybe a buck, or other incentive) there's an angle to view it from that'll make the numbers say what you want.
Michelle: What is sociopathic tendencies? And where did you learn of them, if not through the DSM...
I may have learned the word "sociopath" in high school vocabulary class, or perhaps from the dictionary after reading it... wherever I learned it, it's used in the common, conventional sense- I'll stick with Webster instead of "jumping ship" and going with Freud- thanks anyway. : )
Michelle: Vehicular recklessness could be considered a symptom in many disorders...
That might make sense, and I suppose it's OK considering the seeming necessity to base these matters on statistics, but regardless of how well they "substantiate" its inclusion with ANOVA, biserial coefficients (blah blah) it's just one |
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 01/06/2006 00:51:15 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2006 : 14:44:45 [Permalink]
|
Ron, here pretty good place to see what kinds of consideration goes into creating the DSM. This is where it begins and, as you can see, it takes years…
http://dsm5.org/index.cfm
DSM-V Prelude Project: Research and Outreach
Follow the links.
It is pointless to get into a general discussion or a debate about the possible pitfalls of using statistics. Any skeptic (or scientist worth their salt) understands that statistics can be manipulated. We also know that they can be very useful, and, in fact, necessary to science. Peer review tends to keep scientists honest, or in some cases, reveals their dishonesty or mistakes in methodology and the like. (Nothing gets into the DSM without sufficient peer review. And the arguments are plentiful). Every double blind study produces a statistical result. Where would we be without them? The DSM is built out of the meta-analysis of all relevant psychological studies, clinical observations, relevant physiological research, including brain scans and pharmacology, and a butt load of debate among its practitioners, clinicians, researchers and statisticians who specialize in the area of mental health. In other words, it's people doing science. It is always ongoing. After the DSM-5 is out they will no doubt start work on the next revision. New and better information will continue to cause some revisions and eventually the publication of the DSM-6, and 7 and etc. Again, that's science for you.
I will give you this. And Michelle and I have argued a bit over it. The brain and its disorders are very complex. When dealing with complex systems, what we haven't considered because we can't see it or have yet to detect it will always dog us to some degree. The more that is known the better the predictions, diagnosis, prognosis and such will be. Psychology is far from being the only pursuit of science where chaos theory plays a roll. Just look over at medical science or ecology or meteorology for other examples of chaos weighing in. And yet all of those areas of science are progressing nicely. Psychology is not the soft science that many think it is. (Or worse, some people are down right hostile toward it as evidenced by some posts in this thread.) It's just the most misunderstood. Ironic, isn't it?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
