Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
keithisco

'Mental health is a myth' ...

27 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

keithisco

This is an interesting read, but I recommend reading the whole article because I believe it makes interesting and valid points.
 

Quote

 

“I don’t use the words ‘mental health’. I absolutely wince when I hear them,” says Dr Bonnie Burstow.

My stomach lurches with discomfort when she says this to me.

Burstow is an associate professor at the University of Toronto, where she recently launched the world’s first ‘anti-psychiatry’ scholarship.

In her work as a psychotherapist, Burstow has helped hundreds of “highly suicidal patients,” she tells me. She’s come to believe that conventional psychiatric treatment isn’t in their best interests.

Dr Burstow is a prominent figure in the field of anti-psychiatry, which she describes as "a movement of both psychiatric survivors and professionals saying that we need to abolish psychiatry".

When I first heard about Dr Burstow and the anti-psychiatry movement, I was dismissive – even angry. At a time when the world is finally starting to pay attention to the crippling severity of some mental health issues, the last thing we need, I thought, is a group of mavericks trying to take us three steps backwards.

 

 

Read more:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

THis has been brimming over the Shrink's couch for a while now ... I must say I agree with most of the good Doc's views except maybe the 'abolishing' part ...

Just needs a revamp to take into consideration of the pace and changes that's been happening since the birth of Psychiatry ... the old set of tools isn't quite the right tools for the job anymore ...

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover

 I don't believe that there's an organic component behind every diagnosed mental health issue, but at the same time I regularly see organic causes behind a variety of behaviours. 

I agree that there's a tendency toward over diagnoses and over medication, particularly with regard to ethnicity in the U.K anyway. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

Is she a Scientologist?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

Looks like Scientology is behind pushing for this scholarship.

Called the Bonnie Burstow Scholarship in Antipsychiatry, it is being praised by Scientology.

 

I did say that Scientologists are ecstatic, and they are.

The Canadian chapter of the Citizens Commission of Human Rights (CCHR) announced on their facebook page "some very, very good news" and that Burstow is "a rock star."

CCHR was first established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and Thomas Szasz (The Myth of Mental Illness) to promote its anti-psychiatry agenda.

Another ecstatic supporter of the scholarship is controversial psychiatrist, Dr Peter Breggin. He stated:

As a professional long heralded as the conscience of psychiatry, it is my pleasure to endorse the newly formed Bonnie Burstow Scholarship in Antipsychiatry. Science is demonstrating that psychiatric diagnosis and drugs, electroshock, and involuntary treatment are doing much more harm than good.

 
 

Breggin admits to having worked with Scientology in the early 1970s but states that he left. He did write a lengthy defence of Tom Cruise's anti-psychiatry rant according to a Huffington Post biography of him.

That article points out that Breggin "is not certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, which is the recognized agency for certifying psychiatrists."

Breggin also appears as an expert witness in trials involving medications. In one trial, the judge has this to say of his testimony:

Dr. Breggin's observations are totally without credibility. I can almost declare him, I guess from statements that floor me, to say the he's a fraud or at least approaching that. He has made some outrageous statements and written outrageous books and which he says he has now withdrawn and his thinking is different. He's untrained. He's a member of no hospital staff. He has not since medical school participated in any studies to support his conclusions except maybe one. . . . I can't place any credence or credibility in what he has to recommend in this case.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiE7o6LqpXUAhXlx4MKHTzRCToQFgg_MAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.ca%2Fmarvin-ross%2Fu-of-t-antipsychiatry-scholarship_b_12473034.html&usg=AFQjCNG6EyKuvvX_2Id9WditrKn5xONbew&sig2=BbEcP5j0owei5BisR--Nqw

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

I realize that Dr. Burstow is a feminist. And certainly, in the past, psychiatry has been a way that women have been controlled. She talks about psychiatrists having an incredible amount of power to hold people and have them treated against their will. 

That's true, but when people are a possible danger to themselves or others, a doctor not only has the right...but the obligation to do something about it. Imagine a doc trying to "talk it out" with David Berkowitz or Jeffrey Dahmer. And then of course, they kill people. Don't you think that doctor would have to answer to the families of the victims? 

So now she's the psychiatric equivalent of an anti-vaxxer and trying to push that agenda...and allies are showing up. Her allies are Scientologists. 

When you look around and the crazies are with you, you might want to re-examine your position. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
52 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Looks like Scientology is behind pushing for this scholarship.

Called the Bonnie Burstow Scholarship in Antipsychiatry, it is being praised by Scientology.

 

I did say that Scientologists are ecstatic, and they are.

The Canadian chapter of the Citizens Commission of Human Rights (CCHR) announced on their facebook page "some very, very good news" and that Burstow is "a rock star."

CCHR was first established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and Thomas Szasz (The Myth of Mental Illness) to promote its anti-psychiatry agenda.

 

Scientology is irrelevant to this, antipsychiatry has a long and credible (depending on your viewpoint) history, and does raise some extremely valid questions. If a group of cranks attach themselves to it that has nothing to do with the core of the argument. This is well beyond some silly American fringe movement. 

 

49 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

realize that Dr. Burstow is a feminist. And certainly, in the past, psychiatry has been a way that women have been controlled. She talks about psychiatrists having an incredible amount of power to hold people and have them treated against their will. 

As unlikely as this may sound there's significant evidence it is also used in this country, albeit due to cultural bias rather than overt prejudice, used to hold control of at least one ethnic minority. I'm not going into specifics here because I'm not going to start a riot. But, suffice it to say the diagnoses rates amongst this group is disproportionately high in the UK, but average to slightly below average in the US. 

 

53 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

That's true, but when people are a possible danger to themselves or others, a doctor not only has the right...but the obligation to do something about it. Imagine a doc trying to "talk it out" with David Berkowitz or Jeffrey Dahmer. And then of course, they kill people. Don't you think that doctor would have to answer to the families of the victims? 

Danger and mental illness is greatly overestimated, proportionately, you are much more likely to be harmed by a 'sane' person. And a huge part the treatment of incarcerated offenders like this will be talking based, that's to a large extent because they're so few in number and the institutions they're in will have the resources to cover it.

 

56 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

So now she's the psychiatric equivalent of an anti-vaxxer and trying to push that agenda...and allies are showing up. Her allies are Scientologists. 

When you look around and the crazies are with you, you might want to re-examine your position. 

She has a valid point, she's not the equivalent to an anti vaxxer who's arguments are not based on evidence at all, there are plenty of valid studies which question the application of psychiatric drugs, as well as the subjectivity of many of the diagnosis trends. 

Again, the support of Scientologists are no more of a reason for her or any other valid researcher to reevaluate her position than it was for evolutionary theorists to reevaluate theirs because of the cranks that that flied has attracted in the past. Any person on either side of this debate should be examined alone on what they're saying and how sound their methodology is. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

there are plenty of valid studies which question the application of psychiatric drugs, as well as the subjectivity of many of the diagnosis trends. 

Of course people are going to question the application of psychiatric drugs and diagnosis trends. That's not what you have here, though. What you have is someone against the entirety of psychiatry and literally saying that mental health is a myth. Then that person is promoting a scholarship which is backed by Scientologists to try and dismantle the mental health field from within. 

The same university had a problem with an anti-vaxxer literally on staff. 

U of T was the recipient of a great deal of public outrage recently when it was discovered that a naturopath was teaching anti-vaccination theory at its satellite campus in suburban Scarborough. 

This is an attempt at academic takeover by people with less than scientific agendas.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
1 hour ago, ChaosRose said:

there are plenty of valid studies which question the application of psychiatric drugs, as well as the subjectivity of many of the diagnosis trends. 

Of course people are going to question the application of psychiatric drugs and diagnosis trends. That's not what you have here, though. What you have is someone against the entirety of psychiatry and literally saying that mental health is a myth. Then that person is promoting a scholarship which is backed by Scientologists to try and dismantle the mental health field from within. 

The same university had a problem with an anti-vaxxer literally on staff. 

U of T was the recipient of a great deal of public outrage recently when it was discovered that a naturopath was teaching anti-vaccination theory at its satellite campus in suburban Scarborough. 

This is an attempt at academic takeover by people with less than scientific agendas.

I see, I had no idea that this university had a history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco
1 hour ago, ChaosRose said:

there are plenty of valid studies which question the application of psychiatric drugs, as well as the subjectivity of many of the diagnosis trends. 

Of course people are going to question the application of psychiatric drugs and diagnosis trends. That's not what you have here, though. What you have is someone against the entirety of psychiatry and literally saying that mental health is a myth. Then that person is promoting a scholarship which is backed by Scientologists to try and dismantle the mental health field from within. 

The same university had a problem with an anti-vaxxer literally on staff. 

U of T was the recipient of a great deal of public outrage recently when it was discovered that a naturopath was teaching anti-vaccination theory at its satellite campus in suburban Scarborough. 

This is an attempt at academic takeover by people with less than scientific agendas.

No... you have not understood what she is saying. She is decrying the unproven theory that there is a chemical-imbalance in the brain, or a genetic cause that leads to mental issues. She is only "against" the quick recourse to administering drugs that have no provenance in treating ANY mental disorder.  

Scientology is not "backing" her in any way that suggests she is even remotely swayed by any of their loony beliefs.

It is also disingenuous to try and smear her by any association with any other controversy. The University of Toronto is actually a highly prestigious centre of learning and Research and is ranked at 22nd in the WORLD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

It seems tentatively like a good thing, because exploration of alternative ideas is always a good idea. However, if this "method" is used to negative result, it needs to be quickly discarded. I fear that something like this un-psychiatry could turn into an evidence-bashing form of ideology akin to homeopathy and other such nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
glorybebe
6 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

Is she a Scientologist?

That was my first thought, too.

I do agree too often meds are thrown at people and the causes of their problems aren't really dealt with, but there are good points about psychiatry, too

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
On ‎30‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 3:48 AM, keithisco said:

No... you have not understood what she is saying. She is decrying the unproven theory that there is a chemical-imbalance in the brain, or a genetic cause that leads to mental issues.

Even your link mentions the anti-psychiatry movement dismisses research showing evidence of inherited mental illness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KNash

“Do I believe people have anxiety? Do I believe that people feel compulsions? Of course. But I believe these feelings are a normal human way of experiencing reality.”

I don't agree with this. I understand that someone may be against psychiatry because of the use of medications (which is one of her main points) when other forms of non-pharmacological interventions may be beneficial in treating symptoms, but I don't agree that manic, depressive, and hallucinatory episodes are a "normal" way for someone to experience the world. I agree that normality is subjective as many different cultures define what normal is. For example, some cultures do not recognize some mental illnesses such as depression or schizophrenia. However, we know that symptoms of these disorders cause distress to individuals and affect their daily life which is why a collection of symptoms are classified as a disorder at that point.

"Psychiatry assumes things to be biological that are not. When we say ‘mental health’,” Dr Burstow tells me, “it’s saying that the problems people have are to do with a disease.” In her view, “they’re not”.

There is a lot of evidence of genetics and environmental influences playing a large role in disorder development.

Paola Leon, a practising psychiatrist of 25 years based in Toronto, says, “Life can be difficult. But we’ve started to diagnose certain reactions and behaviours as ‘mental illness’ when, though painful, they are in fact part of the human condition.”

I'd be interested in hearing about Dr. Leon's perspective on this. I can agree that having intense anxiety during times of stress or experiencing depression after the loss of a loved one may not seem too unusual, but those with symptoms of arguably more detrimental disorders (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc) are not experiencing healthy reactions to events. Reactions such as these may develop in response to an event or string of events but that doesn't mean they're normal.

Overall, I appreciate the implication that by diagnosing people with mental health conditions that we may be creating or exacerbating symptoms in individuals because of the stigma attached to a diagnosis, but there are mental health disorders that are very serious and require medication. Supporting the view that all mental health conditions may be normal responses to life events is dangerous and can be harmful to those with some disorders. If a mental health symptom can be treated without medication then that's great! However, some can't and the efficacy of medication and severity of a condition should not be ignored.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

It's a soft science with room for improvement and it's implementation and practitioners of uneven quality and ability. Introducing chemicals into the body often has unforeseen results, both physical and mental. Side effects are often severe, debilitating and counter-productive. On the verge of a nervous breakdown after a particularly distressing event in my early twenties, I was prescribed Loxitane. It had me waking in the middle of the night with the most horrible anxiety attacks--but no reason for them. Needless to say I discontinued taking it and there were no more attacks. Other than that, the counseling I got was quite helpful.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzz_Light_Year

Another sinister side of psychiatry is the medication they prescribe and the effects that it can have on people. A lot of the mass murders have been on SSRI drugs.

https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eugenonegin
30 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Another sinister side of psychiatry is the medication they prescribe and the effects that it can have on people. A lot of the mass murders have been on SSRI drugs.

https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/

Perhaps they were bonkers anyway and so the drugs helped. Perhaps the problem was they were not given enough to treat them adequately?

One major problem is money.

Counselling or psychotherapy costs a lot- the therapist has to be paid a living wage, plus a bit more on top.

Drugs are cheap.

Also, the clinician often feels they have to do something-and writing a prescription is something.

And not everyone wants to engage with treatment, even if they feel they are not "normal". They may feel so angry and alienated that they blame everyone- and drugs, legal or illicit may help, because that is something they can control.

There is a lot wrong with formal psychiatry, but there is a lot more wrong with anti-psychiatry, in my opinion.

 

Edited by eugeneonegin
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clarakore
2 hours ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Another sinister side of psychiatry is the medication they prescribe and the effects that it can have on people. A lot of the mass murders have been on SSRI drugs.

https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/

Perhaps spree or serial killers, the terms I prefer over mass murderers, are not due to SSRIs. I posit that there is certain features and traits they share with the rest of the gen pop treated with SSRIs.

A concern that is on listed as a side effect and caution is suicide ideation for those 24 and under.

Per my preferrence of killer over murderer is the legal and theologoial terms do not address it is a sickness.

More research is needed. The Japanese commentary is a spree or serial kiler was lonely and no one helped. It is a social failure.

Loneliness itself is a disease that affects from 20 to 40% of society.

John Cacciopo stayes it is vontagious and increases the risk of death by 20%

Obesity and smoking does as well by 20%

Either condition with loneliness raises that by 40%

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover

At the risk of sounding like I'm 'sharing'. 

In my twenties I was trying and failing to start my own business, and a few other things, upshot is I was placed on Seroxat. And I did become very strange. I went back to the Dr and she doubled my dose, after which I became pretty much unmanageable. Did a few things I wouldn't usually do to say the least, but didn't hurt anyone physically thankfully.

After one particularly bad night I realised I'd completely lost the plot and stopped taking them. After that I started and continued to get better. I'd never take them again, I really was completely out of control and making absurd decisions. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
21 hours ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Another sinister side of psychiatry is the medication they prescribe and the effects that it can have on people. A lot of the mass murders have been on SSRI drugs.

https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/

Coorelation vs causation. If you're so depressed you need SSRIs there is a higher chance you will go a a murder spree.

This dosent mean SSRIs cause it.

That's lit saying more people on SSRI's comit suicide. It's true but it's just a Coorelation, of course if you're so depressed you need pills thst you are more likely to commit suicide 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, spartan max2 said:

Coorelation vs causation. If you're so depressed you need SSRIs there is a higher chance you will go a a murder spree.

This dosent mean SSRIs cause it.

That's lit saying more people on SSRI's comit suicide. It's true but it's just a Coorelation, of course if you're so depressed you need pills thst you are more likely to commit suicide 

I think where the debate comes in is the "need pills" part. How many people take prescriptions based on a doctor ,or hell a commercial's recommendation when it's really not needed?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

I think where the debate comes in is the "need pills" part. How many people take prescriptions based on a doctor ,or hell a commercial's recommendation when it's really not needed?  

That's a whole diffrent debate. I was just commenting on that it's inaccurate to suggest SSRIS make you a mass shooter lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

So I read the article and agree with the over medication but as for the rest of her thoughts she seems a quak.

She herself says thst she underwent Cognitive behavioral therapy for her OCD for 8 weeks and it "helped her turn a corner with her mental health" but then years later she decides to look back at her therapy excersices and claim they are wrong.

No one denies thst evoluntarily being really anxious probably helped you survive. Traits get passed on if they work.

But to suggest that since it is natural that psychiatry is a sham and that it shouldn't be seen as a problem is ridicoulous.

She also has a unrealistic view on how someone can be committed to a psych ward against their will. It is not an easy process at all. Your family and freind have to vouch you are a danger, a couple professionals and even then it can be fought in court.

"Part of a movment that says we need to abolish psychiatry" if you don't get medication with schizophrenia is progressively gets worse and your brain falls apart

Edited by spartan max2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
On 5/29/2017 at 2:18 PM, keithisco said:

No... you have not understood what she is saying. She is decrying the unproven theory that there is a chemical-imbalance in the brain, or a genetic cause that leads to mental issues. She is only "against" the quick recourse to administering drugs that have no provenance in treating ANY mental disorder.  

Scientology is not "backing" her in any way that suggests she is even remotely swayed by any of their loony beliefs.

It is also disingenuous to try and smear her by any association with any other controversy. The University of Toronto is actually a highly prestigious centre of learning and Research and is ranked at 22nd in the WORLD.

Most psychiatrist don't claim is all a chemical imbalance or all genetic. Everyone knows it's complicated. She is saying nonething new there. 

And yes there are countless reaserch showing drugs help a large amount of people. 

No not everyone because everyone is diffrent. Yes people over medicate and over diagnosis. These are all concerns the mental health community knows about

Reading her article she is holding a much more radical view

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
18 hours ago, Matterundermind said:

Perhaps spree or serial killers, the terms I prefer over mass murderers, are not due to SSRIs. I posit that there is certain features and traits they share with the rest of the gen pop treated with SSRIs.

A concern that is on listed as a side effect and caution is suicide ideation for those 24 and under.

Per my preferrence of killer over murderer is the legal and theologoial terms do not address it is a sickness.

More research is needed. The Japanese commentary is a spree or serial kiler was lonely and no one helped. It is a social failure.

Loneliness itself is a disease that affects from 20 to 40% of society.

John Cacciopo stayes it is vontagious and increases the risk of death by 20%

Obesity and smoking does as well by 20%

Either condition with loneliness raises that by 40%

 

We are social creatures. You have some good insight here.

Loneliness always makes things worse. In some cases Iv seen it seems like loneliness and isolation might even trigger the problems.

But it's hard to tell because of the classic chicken and egg arguments.

Then the loneliness cause the illness or did the illness cause his life to became a way that made him lonely by pushing others away 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.