Re: Szasz's Summary Statement and Manifesto

[Guest guest]

> This is from Szasz's own website. I don't agree with any of this.

> --eric

Scientology couldnt oppose Psyhchiatry more unreasonably. When I read

the ideas advocated by Szasz (and Rand) roundly endorsed, I am

inclined to wonder whether it is the existence of Mental Health rather

than Mental Illness which is a Myth in America. [Joke folks!]

Something also not addressed by Szasz is the increasing evidence of

neuropathology in mental illness, particularly in schizophrenia.

There is his organic disease, right under his nose, but he doesnt seem

to have changed his views. Just like infectious disease was a

complete mystery before the discovery of pathogens, it doesnt seem to

have occurred to Szasz that there might be organic pathology in the

brain of schizophrenics we just hadnt been able to see yet.

As it happens I think mentally ill ppl often suffer because of too

little intervention. They can be totally wacko for years and they

cannot be helped until they break a law or hurt themselves and then

they be committed and often turned around in a few weeks. All those

years when not only their lives may have been miserable but they made

other ppl's lives miserable too, like my wacko neighbour. And of

course sometimes they get no relief at all.

[Guest guest]

Re: Szasz's Summary Statement and Manifesto

>

> > Who's to know whether some degree of what is today called

> >schizophrenia was

> > not the norm a few hundred thousand years ago or less. Maybe

> >hearing voices

> > that weren't really there helped 'wild' homo sapiens with the new

> >tool of

> > 'language'?

> > And staying up for days at a time helped track prey.

> >Maybe offspring with naturally inhibitted seratonin reuptake were the

> >'useless zombies' of that ancient time.

>

> I think your seratonin reference is mistaken. What I think you are

> referring to is the dopamine theory of schizophrenia, that

> schizophrenics have over-active dopamine pathways in the brain.

>

Sorry, your right about that.

> Maybe nothing, absolutely nothing, happens in God's world by mistake

> Dave. (Irony for those who dont realise). You can speculate till the

> cows some home but it doesnt alter the fact is that schizophrenia is a

> usually permanent seat in a Wes Craven movie there is no waking up

> from. Whereas Psychoticism appears to have survival value in certain

> contexts - like in disasters for example, generally it's about as

> maladaptive as can be. Even if it had some value in the olden days it

> much use for the guy who does the phoytocopying at Acme Inc. in 2001.

> In addition, although the course is very variable, rather than

> assisting in language and helping one achieve things, it first tends

> to turn a person's speech into salad and then can make it cease

> altogether, excpept perhpas for reptitive garbage. A chronic

> schizophrenic can share a ward with a guy for 20 years and never talk

> to him, or remain frozen in some bizarre posture for hours or even

> days. These poor guys are much closer to " zombies " than anybody else

> is going to be.

>

I get your point, but I don't fully buy into " que sera sera " and give

psychiatry full reign, and your next statement is evidence why.

> > Maybe today we can't see the forest

> >for the trees in how psychiatry is leading society by the nose (or

> >some other body part) down the road of progress.

>

> And maybe Bill was on to something. (Irony again). For all

> that Rational Recovery wants to overcome " Recovery Group Disorder "

> here you are rubbishing treatment for perhaps the quintessential

> psychiatric disorder that accounts for a sizable chunk of human

> misery. Psychiatric diagnosis and treatment is a damn site more

> science based than Jack Trimpey's Addiction Phrenology. I saw

> something the other day in a Biology journal claiming that it was

> obvious that the genetic basis of alcoholism was inbred thru early

> humans eating overripe fruit. That's a crock too. (Not the eating

> overripe fruit part, but the idea it selected for alcoholism).

>

Psychiatric diagnosis and treatment of the extremely conscious and voluntary

action of manually ingesting certain chemicals for pleasure is clearly the

height of medical graft and fraud. RGD is iatrogenic - harm caused by

treatment. AA is socially iatrogenic.

Dave Trippel

[Guest guest]

Re: Szasz's Summary Statement and Manifesto

>

> > Who's to know whether some degree of what is today called

> >schizophrenia was

> > not the norm a few hundred thousand years ago or less. Maybe

> >hearing voices

> > that weren't really there helped 'wild' homo sapiens with the new

> >tool of

> > 'language'?

> > And staying up for days at a time helped track prey.

> >Maybe offspring with naturally inhibitted seratonin reuptake were the

> >'useless zombies' of that ancient time.

>

> I think your seratonin reference is mistaken. What I think you are

> referring to is the dopamine theory of schizophrenia, that

> schizophrenics have over-active dopamine pathways in the brain.

>

Sorry, your right about that.

> Maybe nothing, absolutely nothing, happens in God's world by mistake

> Dave. (Irony for those who dont realise). You can speculate till the

> cows some home but it doesnt alter the fact is that schizophrenia is a

> usually permanent seat in a Wes Craven movie there is no waking up

> from. Whereas Psychoticism appears to have survival value in certain

> contexts - like in disasters for example, generally it's about as

> maladaptive as can be. Even if it had some value in the olden days it

> much use for the guy who does the phoytocopying at Acme Inc. in 2001.

> In addition, although the course is very variable, rather than

> assisting in language and helping one achieve things, it first tends

> to turn a person's speech into salad and then can make it cease

> altogether, excpept perhpas for reptitive garbage. A chronic

> schizophrenic can share a ward with a guy for 20 years and never talk

> to him, or remain frozen in some bizarre posture for hours or even

> days. These poor guys are much closer to " zombies " than anybody else

> is going to be.

>

I get your point, but I don't fully buy into " que sera sera " and give

psychiatry full reign, and your next statement is evidence why.

> > Maybe today we can't see the forest

> >for the trees in how psychiatry is leading society by the nose (or

> >some other body part) down the road of progress.

>

> And maybe Bill was on to something. (Irony again). For all

> that Rational Recovery wants to overcome " Recovery Group Disorder "

> here you are rubbishing treatment for perhaps the quintessential

> psychiatric disorder that accounts for a sizable chunk of human

> misery. Psychiatric diagnosis and treatment is a damn site more

> science based than Jack Trimpey's Addiction Phrenology. I saw

> something the other day in a Biology journal claiming that it was

> obvious that the genetic basis of alcoholism was inbred thru early

> humans eating overripe fruit. That's a crock too. (Not the eating

> overripe fruit part, but the idea it selected for alcoholism).

>

Psychiatric diagnosis and treatment of the extremely conscious and voluntary

action of manually ingesting certain chemicals for pleasure is clearly the

height of medical graft and fraud. RGD is iatrogenic - harm caused by

treatment. AA is socially iatrogenic.

Dave Trippel

[Guest guest]

> Something also not addressed by Szasz is the increasing evidence of

> neuropathology in mental illness, particularly in schizophrenia.

> There is his organic disease, right under his nose, but he doesnt

seem

> to have changed his views. Just like infectious disease was a

> complete mystery before the discovery of pathogens, it doesnt seem

to

> have occurred to Szasz that there might be organic pathology in the

> brain of schizophrenics we just hadnt been able to see yet.

Pete,

The July 2000 interview with Szasz from Reason Magazine has posted

here several times. I think you must not have read it, because it is

quite obvious that you are not grasping what he is saying. Szasz

does not deny the existence of neuropathology, he only insists that

it is physical pathology and should be treated by neurologists.

Szasz argues from a standpoint of semantics in that the

word " illness " refers to physical. Seems like I recall your

admitting that you have read very little of Szasz. Perhaps you

should if you choose to criticize him. Disagreeing with him is one

thing; taking him out of context is another. If you like I will once

again post the Reason interview and past the section where he

specifically addresses what you refer to as " right under his nose " .

Also, while I'm thinking of it, although it is OT, one of the

brightest examples of volunteerism in the world is the RNLI and fits

in well with certain libertarian themes, especially when compared to

the small boat section of the U.S. Coast Guard, an all government

employee org. Wish I had time to write at length about the two but I

don't and, as I said, it is a bit OT. People can accomplish more

when government is small and unintrusive.

http://www.petford.net/kaleidoscope/rnli.html

Tommy

[Guest guest]

> Something also not addressed by Szasz is the increasing evidence of

> neuropathology in mental illness, particularly in schizophrenia.

> There is his organic disease, right under his nose, but he doesnt

seem

> to have changed his views. Just like infectious disease was a

> complete mystery before the discovery of pathogens, it doesnt seem

to

> have occurred to Szasz that there might be organic pathology in the

> brain of schizophrenics we just hadnt been able to see yet.

Pete,

The July 2000 interview with Szasz from Reason Magazine has posted

here several times. I think you must not have read it, because it is

quite obvious that you are not grasping what he is saying. Szasz

does not deny the existence of neuropathology, he only insists that

it is physical pathology and should be treated by neurologists.

Szasz argues from a standpoint of semantics in that the

word " illness " refers to physical. Seems like I recall your

admitting that you have read very little of Szasz. Perhaps you

should if you choose to criticize him. Disagreeing with him is one

thing; taking him out of context is another. If you like I will once

again post the Reason interview and past the section where he

specifically addresses what you refer to as " right under his nose " .

Also, while I'm thinking of it, although it is OT, one of the

brightest examples of volunteerism in the world is the RNLI and fits

in well with certain libertarian themes, especially when compared to

the small boat section of the U.S. Coast Guard, an all government

employee org. Wish I had time to write at length about the two but I

don't and, as I said, it is a bit OT. People can accomplish more

when government is small and unintrusive.

http://www.petford.net/kaleidoscope/rnli.html

Tommy

[Guest guest]

> Something also not addressed by Szasz is the increasing evidence of

> neuropathology in mental illness, particularly in schizophrenia.

It takes thirty-some pages to list what Szasz has written, which

includes about 25 books, one of which the entirity is devoted to

schizophrenia. Yet you are so bold as to declare what Szasz does NOT

address after you have obviously read next to nothing he has written.

Need I say more?

Tommy

[Guest guest]

> Something also not addressed by Szasz is the increasing evidence of

> neuropathology in mental illness, particularly in schizophrenia.

It takes thirty-some pages to list what Szasz has written, which

includes about 25 books, one of which the entirity is devoted to

schizophrenia. Yet you are so bold as to declare what Szasz does NOT

address after you have obviously read next to nothing he has written.

Need I say more?

Tommy

[Guest guest]

> > Something also not addressed by Szasz is the increasing evidence

> >of neuropathology in mental illness, particularly in schizophrenia.

>

> It takes thirty-some pages to list what Szasz has written, which

> includes about 25 books, one of which the entirity is devoted to

> schizophrenia. Yet you are so bold as to declare what Szasz does

>NOT address after you have obviously read next to nothing he has

>written.

>

> Need I say more?

Well you could tell me whether he accepts that schizophrenia is almost

certainly caused by some form of organic pathology that among other

things often involves hyperactive dopamine pathways, and that

symptomology is often dramatically reduced by drugs that suppress the

action of dopamine in the brain. And if he does accept this, why he

considers mental illness to be a myth?