Did you just quote U.S sources for China’s position on Ukraine? sigh.

Thank you a lot for those links. Your post has been very interesting and informative, I’ll probably take quite some time to review all of it.

You’re welcome :)

Some of the articles you linked are either peer reviewed by few people or have few citations.

Peer review by few people is not inherently scientific on it’s own; peer reviewed can be performed with biased reviewers.

Peer review is a technique to fix errors not found by the author of the studies.

On the other hand, especially #4 as a review article of several studies was very interesting. It also shows that there’s truth in your statement “Studies from drug companies have publication bias”, which I myself always suspected.

Yeah that’s unfortunate to find out.

Your links “only” show some of the medication isn’t effective or may cause long term harm, not all of them. The claim that “Psychiatric drugs are straight up placebos that cause harm[]” isn’t completely supported by your links. If you’d tone it down to “many psychiatric drugs are equally effective as placebos and most of them cause harm” I would be more inclined to support that claim.

Technically you’re right.

However, psychiatric drugs fundamentally cannot be effective in treating psychiatric disorders. Psychiatric disorders are formed from assertion and lack objective testing for potential disproval. (This is why Psychiatry is not a science.)

This is why I claim that all psychiatric drugs won’t be effective; we can’t test for their effectiveness on psychotic people, because psychosis lacks objective testing.

One example: Antipsychotics like Haloperidol are often used only for a very short time to keep patients from harming themselves or others and to stop the synapses from firing, so to speak.

First problem is

“often used only for a very short time”

Not really. Antipsychotics are used for way longer than “a short time”.

" keep patients from harming themselves or others"

Antipsychotics harm people; and they aren’t that effective.

" and to stop the synapses from firing, so to speak."

Synapses are supposed to fire; neurons pass signals to each other through synapses, so synapses are neccessary for the brain.

There’s some risk-reward tradeoff to be analysed there. If you say that all psychiatric drugs are ineffective, you also say that Haloperidol isn’t effective and giving people placebos would be the proper response in an acute psychosis,

I absolutely would.

which is probably something most clinical doctors in psychiatry wouldn’t agree with.

I disagree. As psychiatric disorders cannot be objectively falsified (through testing); humans cannot potentially disprove the claim that antipsychotics are effective at treating Psychotics.

Re #7: Is ADHD really a mental disorder? Isn’t it classified as developmental disorder or developmental disability? The site’s name is a bit unfortunately chosen, but apart from that their content seems to be at least worth a look.

ADHD is classified as a developmental disorder; but that doesn’t make it a developmental disorder. Otherwise, this would be a etymological fallacy.

1. ADHD lacks any objective testing, it relies on subjective testing; I cannot test for ADHD through objective scan.
2. ADHD does not require and use any objective analysis. For developmental disorders, there would be objective analysis to test for it’s existence in children.

• For example, Down Syndrome is a developmental disorder because it affects the development of a human, through a triplication of chromosome 21. The result is that DS affects the development of people different frrom regular development. As the cause of down syndrome is in chromosome 21, it can therefore be detected through genetic testing.

It’s the same reasoning for why I don’t consider Autism to be a developmental disorder.

I wish there was a simple table or list of all tested (types of) medication with their reported efficacy and a pro/contra list of using them, like the review article about antidepressants, but easier to digest. If you have more links and more information, I appreciate you throwing them my way. Maybe I’ll throw some of them into my own wiki.

Yep. Found some websites.

https://www.antidepressantstatistics.com/ https://rxisk.org/drug-search/

Yeah good point. It wouldn’t even take me much time to setup my own Lemmy instance.

I tried making a website once; then I realized I had to pay.

I don’t believe in chemical imbalance theory though.

I didn’t say that. I was just using the chemical imbalance theory as an example to show the fallacious reasoning in your argument (that evidence is unneccessary for mainstream claims): “I don’t need to give evidence for a claim this mainstream. Look it up yourselves.”

Yep! (I know some references are blog posts, but mad in america makes good summaries; and also I should get to work on compiling sources I used.)

General

• Studies from drug companies have publication bias.^[1]
• Most pro-psych studies cherry picked their samples to be drug addicts.^[2]
• Pro-psych studies did not account for the active placebo bias.

Antipsychotics

• Damage the brain.^[3]

Antidepressants.

• Are only as effective as placebo.^{[4] [5]}
• Chemical imbalance theory (it wasn’t even a theory tbh, it was just a marketed hypothesis) was disproved.^[6]

Stimulants.

• Under reputable clinical trials, stimulants do not have any real efficacy.^[7]
• Holy shit I’m just finding out that psycho-stimulants can cross the blood-brain barrier!^{[8] [9]} (I’m pissed about this one.)

As mental disorders cannot be objectively falsified through testing; it is impossible to discern a control group from people with a “mental disorder”. proper clinical trials unsurprisingly show this through the drugs being as effective as placebo.

I’ll edit this comment if I find flaws.

I don’t need to give evidence for a claim this mainstream.

So if Chiropratics were mainstream, then I wouldn’t need evidence to trust them. Chemical imbalance theory is mainstream in psychiatry, therefore I can just trust it! /s

Argumentum ad populum and also peak “tRuSt Me BrO”.

That’s anecdotal, not substantial, evidence.

Is it real?

Uh, how?

Psychiatric drugs are straight up placebos that cause harms.

Don’t take psychiatric drugs (edit: ever) is the real advice.

Control. It has to be control at this point; there is no other reason why they would do this…

Thanks for clearing up that you don’t understand science, generally. Have a great one!

How do I not understand science?

It really is.

It isn’t.

Psychiatry is a medical practice (one of the neurosciences) which relies heavily on chemical analysis, structural analysis, and comparison to global and individual baseline using tests such as MRI, fMRI, CT, PET, and other scans.

1. Psychiatry is not a neuroscience; they do not study the brain. They focus on treating “mental disorders”, which lack the ability to be objectively falsified.
2. I said that Psychiatry is based on treating mental disorders, which lack a test to objectively falsify them. It does not matter if Psychiatry uses tests; it must be able to objectively falsify mental disorders to be a science. Are those tests used to attempt to disprove mental disorders? If not, then mental disorders can’t be objectively falsified.

• Mental disorders were not tested to be disproven through objective testing and data.
• Mental disorders are literally just formed from assertion.

Where is that chemical analysis and structural analysis in mental disorders then? because they are not used at all in the DSM and ICD. They’re not even used!

Btw:

• MRI scan studies (edit: on the brain) are apprently too unreliable to be useful (edit: for deriving conclusions).^[1][2][3] (I improved the text because it was sending the wrong message.)
• brain scans are misused by Psychiatrists to try and “prove” that mental disorders are real.^[4][5]

Additionally, Psychiatry has an holistic component (hence why practitioners of Psychiatry have medical degrees and licensure, unlike psychological counselors), whereby the rest of the body and the impact that can have on medication, testing, resolution, and practical management of disorders and illnesses.

Degrees are just papers that declare someone as knowledgable. Several psuedoscientific fields have degrees. A degree doesn’t make one knowledgable; learning does.

Also, Psychiatry is still founded on dogma, so it doesn’t even matter what they are teaching. Psychiatry is still a psuedoscience.

I don’t think Psychiatry, a field that regularly ignores socioeconomic factors, is “holistic”.

You’re objectively, and likely willfully, confusing the fields of clinical psychology and Psychiatry. You’re resting all of this on some version of the DSM, which is only used where necessary because even many practitioners take umbrage with much of the DSM (another reason why Psychiatry is not only a better science, but a better practice, is that it doesn’t require reliance on the DSM like much of clinical psychology does).

I’m not confusing them. I’m specifically referring to Psychiatry; I’m not focused on Psychology.

Edit because I forgot to include this: What is your opinion and experience of the ICD codes for diagnostics? Additionally, what is your experience utilizing and experience with the DSM in practice?

I read them. The mental disorders in them literally require no objective analysis to be “diagnosed”.^[6][7]

Experience is just another method of gaining knowledge; but it does not make arguments any more correct. Science demands that all persons be able to test an explanation; a field suppressing critics does not make it scientific.

Here’s a good summary: https://leddit.xyz/r/Antipsychiatry/comments/hkpump/psychiatry_is_a_deeply_flawed_pseudoscience/

Psychiatry is a science, it’s the intersection between cognitive neuroscience and behavioral neuroscience.

It really isn’t. Psychiatry is based on treating mental disorders, which lack a test to objectively falsify them; science requires that explanations can be objectively falsified (through testing); therefore psychiatry is not a science.

1. CPUSA has been infiltrated by liberals.
2. I thought about establishing an Antipsychiatry Marxist party that places an importance on critical thinking.

Victims of Psychiatry are discarded too often by communist parties.

oof.

Wikipedia distorts facts in favor of western bias (in this case the U.S, Britain, etc.); so hearing about the abuse that Stalin did to his second wife, they absolutely would revel in that fact and use it to demonize Stalin.

Their initial support of Israel. They stopped supporting them in the 50s but the damage was already done by that point.

gag. How did he fuck up that badly?

Oh boy. I’mma guess wikipedia is gonna have a field day on that one…

So, what happened?