![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 1 to 9 of 9. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by JLM on September 30, 2002, at 5:36:13
I thought I would throw this out to the entire group.
For years, the biopsychiatrists have tried to convice people of the validity of 'chemical imbalances' as the root cause of mental illness.
In my mind this is highly debatable to say the least. There has never been and conclusive, objective, repeatable, and meaurable proof that
mental illness are definitely caused by chemical imbalances, or other organic causes. Not so with: heart disease, bacterial infections, hepatitis C, kidney disease, lung disease, stomach cancer, brain tumors, HIV, and allmost any other illness that you would care to mention, including even rare disorders such as Arnold Chari I malformation, autonomic neuropathy, etc. All are diagnosed by objective medical testing, and drugs can be show to be efficient in treating them by objective medical findings. Certainly a neurologist would not treat you for a brain tumor, with drugs that have
potentially hazardous side effects, without any objective evidence to back up the diagnoses. But in the practice of biopsychiatry its all 'mabye'. "Depression MAY be caused by a chemical imbalance. Zoloft corects this imbalance." I'm sure you have all seen the commercial. How can you claim to correct an imbalance when you aren't even sure it exists in the first place. It flawed logic in my humble opinion.
My question is this thou. Neurologists treat organic disorders of the brain and brain dysfunctions. If mood disorders and mental illness are truly caused by organic brain disorders, what is the need for psychiatry at all, when the practice of neurology allready exists?I'd like to note for the record, that I am not
dissmissing the idea of mental illness as something that is 'all in ones head'. As someone who has suffered from depression I certainly know
that to be the case. I just question the effeciency, as well as the safety of drugs being used to treat mood disorders in the absence
of definitive proof of a brain dysfunction. Especially the less than benign antidepressants. There has been a lot of contentious debate over AD's being barely more effective than placebos, the way in which drugs trials are conducted biasing the results which are again based upon purely SUBJECTIVE measures of illness severity, and the influence that drug companies have over doctors prescribing habits, and the FDA approval process.Something to think about.
Posted by Eddie Sylvano on September 30, 2002, at 11:02:02
In reply to Psychiatry vs. Neurology and a daunting question.., posted by JLM on September 30, 2002, at 5:36:13
> My question is this thou. Neurologists treat organic disorders of the brain and brain dysfunctions. If mood disorders and mental illness are truly caused by organic brain disorders, what is the need for psychiatry at all, when the practice of neurology allready exists?
---------------------------I think it's unproductive to compare disorders of the brain (beyond gross disorders such as stroke) to disorders of other organs, because it is (and this is slippery) the only organ that is so affected by thought processes.
Just like any other organ, the brain can suffer physical dysfunction, but it can also be perfectly healthy and still dysfunctional for the person. The brain needs not only to be well cared for physically, but needs to form the right links throughout life to make for a functional *mind*. Because it's the most environmentally malleable organ in the body, it needs treatment on that level as well as on the organic level. Until the day comes that we understnd the finer workings of the mind, and it's biological basis, it'll probably be easier to treat higher level disorders with drugs *and* therapy.
Posted by Mr. SadPuppyDog on October 9, 2002, at 11:37:21
In reply to Psychiatry vs. Neurology and a daunting question.., posted by JLM on September 30, 2002, at 5:36:13
>
> My question is this thou. Neurologists treat organic disorders of the brain and brain dysfunctions. If mood disorders and mental illness are truly caused by organic brain disorders, what is the need for psychiatry at all, when the practice of neurology allready exists?
>
Your question is a good one. Its a question that is being asked more and more lately. As science evolves and severe mental illness is discovered to stem from organic (physical causes) and not from abstract Freudian concepts and psychology mumbo jumbo, I think more and more will demand this issue to be addressed. For psychiatrists and the mental health community, this issue is a scary one. For if fully confronted, it might eventually mean the loss of their profession, with a loss of a job and loss of lucrative financial career they have established for themselves.Think about it. If you were a psychiatrist and had spent umpteen years studying psychiatry/psychology mumbo jumbo and then suddenly some real scientists came along and said youve got it all wrong, that is financially and professionally threatening to psychiatrists. It would also be financially threatening to psychologists and many other lower lever mental health professionals who have given their adult lives to these fallacious concepts of mental illness being mysterious psycho-mumbo jumbo.
In the end, its all about money and preservation of one's lucrative medical profession, than it is about trying to advance the state of the care of the severely mentally ill. If psychiatrists truly cared about the people they treat, they would be the ones pushing hard to force psychiatry into Neurology. You dont see that and again, its cause many of them are skeered to death that one day, their beloved profession will cease to exist one day and I suppose they will be relegated to working as talk therapists or maybe working at Seven Eleven. Which is where many of them belong anyway.
Mr. SadPuppyDog
Posted by oracle on October 22, 2002, at 14:24:37
In reply to Re: Psychiatry vs. Neurology and a daunting question.., posted by Mr. SadPuppyDog on October 9, 2002, at 11:37:21
>
> Think about it. If you were a psychiatrist and had spent umpteen years studying psychiatry/psychology mumbo jumbo and then suddenly some real scientists came along and said youve got it all wrong, that is financially and professionally threatening to psychiatrists.~~~
Psychiatrists do not study psychology, a medical degree takes far too much time to study non-medical subjects.
Posted by karanan on November 2, 2002, at 21:03:18
In reply to Re: Psychiatry vs. Neurology and a daunting question.., posted by oracle on October 22, 2002, at 14:24:37
> >
> > Think about it. If you were a psychiatrist and had spent umpteen years studying psychiatry/psychology mumbo jumbo and then suddenly some real scientists came along and said youve got it all wrong, that is financially and professionally threatening to psychiatrists.
>
> ~~~
> Psychiatrists do not study psychology, a medical degree takes far too much time to study non-medical subjects.Maybe an explanation of the "mumbo/jumbo" would help illustrate some of the confusion here. Lets begin with college student. Student enters medical school, where he/she studies everything...Medical student then chooses to go for specialty training....Medical student who has graduated can apply to surgery, psychiatry, neurology, etc.etc. Neither psychiatry nor neurology are threatened by advancing technology. As we discover new molecular pathways of disease, psychiatry and neurology may possibly merge together to become one field. As it stands, there is some "overlap" in the two fields. However much the two fields share in common, I see them as each having their own unique focus and methodology.
Posted by abid ade on December 25, 2002, at 16:17:35
In reply to Re: Psychiatry vs. Neurology and a daunting question.., posted by karanan on November 2, 2002, at 21:03:18
reading these posts it is pretty clear the imbecility of some of the authors, especially the idiot who spoke about 7-Eleven. What a retard. Now, a student goes to medical school and graduates with a degree, which can then be applied to specialty study in any of the medical specialties, depending on choice and availability. With my MD degree, I could apply for specialty training in surgery, ob/gyn, medicine, neurology, pathology, psychiatry, etc. Now, Sir, its not at all clear what your understanding of the brain is, but it is unique in that it is the organ of the mind, by which I mean, the organ of thought. It is also the organ of action- movement, respiration, purposive activity all emanate initially from brain signals transported by nerves to organ, you idiot. Neurologists treat, broadly, brain disorders that impinge on function:stroke, epilepsy, etc. They also treat disorders for which there is no diagnostic test, such as headache and back pain. Psychiatrists treat disorders of, broadly, mind and thought.Schizophrenia is one example. Now, there is a recognition that these disorders are organic in nature; organic in the sense that brain dysfunction is at the root of these disorders. But you must realise that the brain is a perceptual organ that displays plasticity in response to environmental stimuli (learning) and therefore an organic etiology does not preclude an environmental insult. Psychiatrists are MDs. They earned degrees from medical school. The nuances and intricacies of organic neurology are not Greek to them. They deal increasingly with somatic treatments and not psychobabble, incidentally the work of Freud, a neurologist. They are undertaking one of the great journeys in man's history: attempting to unravel the workings of mind and memory, the very lack of knowledge about which makes psychobabble possible. A psychiatrist won the Nobel Prize for medicine or physiology in 2000. Psychiatrists have no concerns about the increasingly biological basis of psychiatry:welcome it is, as it establishes psychiatry firmly as a science.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 26, 2002, at 10:04:01
In reply to Re: Psychiatry vs. Neurology and a daunting question.. » karanan, posted by abid ade on December 25, 2002, at 16:17:35
> reading these posts it is pretty clear the imbecility of some of the authors, especially the idiot who spoke about 7-Eleven. What a retard.
Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but please respect the views of others even if you think they're wrong, be sensitive to their feelings, and don't post anything that could lead them to feel put down:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Thanks,
Bob
PS: Follow-ups regarding posting policies, and complaints about posts, should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration; otherwise, they may be deleted.
Posted by Miller on December 26, 2002, at 10:05:38
In reply to Re: Psychiatry vs. Neurology and a daunting question.. » karanan, posted by abid ade on December 25, 2002, at 16:17:35
I don't see your post as civil nor polite. Seeing as you claim to be a professional, maybe you should try being more neighborly to fellow posters as well as to the people providing this site.
Posted by abid ade on January 4, 2003, at 0:28:34
In reply to Re: please be civil » abid ade, posted by Dr. Bob on December 26, 2002, at 10:04:01
Sorry, guys, I just was pissed off by Mr Sad Puppy Dog. I apologise! Criticism noted!
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.