It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An attempt to classify all of humanity as 'Mentally Ill' !??

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Haven't got time to look into it properly right now, but the following article talks about THE psychiatry handbook DSM, in particular the new revision about to come out called DSM-V. This is apparently pretty much the first and final word for a lot of psychiatrists on diagnosis of mental illness, and therefore it is a very important text.

The new version about to come out apparently paints many more members of society as possibly "mentally ill" and therefore requiring medicating, or even isolation (being locked away)

High profile authors of previous versions of this book have accused the current reviewers of being influenced by Big Pharma money to force many many more people to be classified mentally ill and given drugs to 'fix' them.


Seems to be inline with other attempted conspiracies such as the 'Codex Alimentarius' as a way of forcing large parts of the population into 'legal' drug dependancy, and also a possible way to deal with 'dissenters'... I wonder how many of us here at this website would be classified delusional, depressed, bipolar or potentially dangerous due to our beliefs and opinions...


www.newscientist.com...

[edit on 16-12-2009 by diablomonic]




posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
www.telegraph.co.uk...

"Climate 'denial' is now a Mental Disorder".

Oh yes,and on the statement of psychiatrists,you can be locked up for this!



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by diablomonic
 




An attempt to classify all of humanity as 'Mentally Ill' !??


Just briefly, I have to wonder how humanity itself could be judged mentally ill by humanity itself.

I mean, what is the standard? If we are all afflicted, who's to say that the shrinks aren't as deflicted as we are supposed to be?

Insanity is never a sure thing because it is judged against other humans. There is no User's Manual for the human condition so... all benchmarks are suspect.

Edit: Typos

[edit on 16-12-2009 by redoubt]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


I think the point is that those who don't fit in with the total mindset of the "NWO" are to be deemed mentally ill!

The same people that give authority to faulty Global Warming "science" are the same ones who give authority to the "science" of psychiatry!

That gives them even more power over the "dissenters".

There's no logic to it,of course!

Who wants to be deemed "sane" by a mentally unstable society? Not me!

(Besides,in their book,I'm already a crazy "fundamentalist" Christian! It doesn't get much worse than that these days!)



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by diablomonic
 


Every time the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) is revised, it is preceded by grand rumors.

In every discipline, there must be words to use to "refer" to something, whether is it a tool, a condition, an illness, or a mental illness.

This is pretty much what DSM does. It is a tool used to refer to certain characteristics or symptoms an individual might be experiencing or exhibiting, so the practitioner has a good idea of what the person needs for treatment.

As for psychoactive medications? They have been around for my entire lifetime. The difference is....many of them actually work now.

Also, people can be "locked up" for mental illness. This also, has always been true. There is a very stringent set of circumstances, very, very tight, that a person would have to meet for that to happen, but it does happen.

When it does, the physician must appear before a Judge to explain the reason for the hospitalization, what plans will be pursued to help him, and then the person may only be hospitalized for a short period of time, unless he continues to be a danger to himself or others.

So this is a big bugaboo about ...... nothing much new. They generally do change some criteria to meet certain diagnoses, and sometimes change the names of certain syndromes. Remember the path of "Psychopath...Sociopath....Antisocial Personality Disorder" ?

They do make those kinds of changes. I've had the pleasure to meet people who sit on these committee's, and they are generally the best and the brightest, very brilliant psychiatrists who wish to harm no one.

The DSM is simply a tool for practitioners. It is nothing sinister.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I say the psychiatrist are mentally ill. The "science" of psychiatry is bunk first you have to determine what a base line mental state is, which could very depending upon the level of propaganda spewed by the government for a given time. Seeing how the baseline mental state would be what ever is considered "popular" by the people writing the book.

Now I am not saying that there isn't a such thing as mental illness because there is, but there are a lot of people taking drugs that they don't need to be taking that are prescribed by the psychiatric industry.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


There is a "base line of mental functioning" established.

It's called GAF. Global Assessment Functioning. This provides the practitioner the data to assess how the patient is functioning now, compared to a year ago, or even a week ago.

Is there rapid onset--- or has this been developing for a while?

I do agree about the medications. Especially insofar as children are involved with them.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


That's the problem, "rapid onset" and "happening for a while" ends up turning into, we don't know what is wrong with you but here is some drugs check back in two weeks to see how those are working, oh it's not working we are going to up your dosage, etc.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
The following seems to have ended in some sort of a rant.. Please bear with me


The danger of the DSM lies not only in its content (which I always deemed a bit doubtful - many constructs are ill defined in terms of symptoms; ADHD or borderline, anyone?), but mainly in the way it's used. The DSM was supposed to be a set of references and diagnostical tool at best.. not a fullblown algorithm to be followed by the letter. Sadly though, as the quality of education is inversely related to the number of students, the recent influx of psychology/psychiatry students stunted the training of analytical skills; lots of students are happy just to learn theories of the past and present and flip the DSM.

About the article:


We have, as yet, only glimpses into the fundamental causes of the common mental illnesses, and there are no biological tests to diagnose them.

Many disorders have specific correlations to biological aspects. For instance, people suffering from autism cannot follow a target smoothly with his eyes; instead, saccades are made along the trajectory, always lagging behind the target. Admittedly, it's not a biological test of the 'fundamental cause' of the 'common' mental illness, but then again, most mental illnesses are the result of complex interactions (or deficits in interactions), and not to be located in just one specific part of the brain. In this case for example there is subcortical activity where there would be activity in the frontal eye field (FEF) in a normal person, to plan eyemovements smoothly instead of with saccades. As such, it is a biological test - it tells us something about the neurophysiological state of the patient's brain.
Apart from something as simple as eye-tracking, we have EEG's (ERPs), fMRI and NRIS - all brain imaging techniques in a certain way (EEG being quite inferior), many of which can help a diagnosis a long way.


Doctors can only question people about their state of mind and observe their behaviour, classifying illness according to the most obvious symptoms.

The above statement is therefore entirely false (unless you'd categorize brain activity as behaviour, which is not standard in this field).

They probably stated it like this because a diagnosis made with the DSM is based on a collection of symptoms, whereas a biological test might fit with a set of symptoms itself. Hence a biological test will usually never be sufficient for a diagnosis. But the notion of using one method to arrive at a diagnosis is nigh ludicrous; at the time, we're nowhere near methodological perfection, and we definitely need to use all the sources we can. That includes the DSM - but as a source, not a dogma.



They are streamlining diagnoses by removing various subtypes of schizophrenia, for example, and intend to address the confusion created by the fact that many people with one condition meet criteria for other disorders as well. The DSM-V task force is expected to propose a series of "dimensions" to be considered with a patient's main diagnosis. So as well as deciding whether someone has, say, bipolar disorder, doctors would determine whether they are suffering from problems such as anxiety and sleeping disturbances, and assess them on a simple scale of severity.

They must be dreaming! I admire the efforts though - it's long overdue, and it's a mess now..
Would be great if they can pull it off. Having those "dimensions" would decrease the error of diagnosis (another form of measurement is supposed to increase reliability). The scale of severity is strange though - severity surely is too graded among symptoms to be summed up in one simple scale.



The APA says the confidentiality agreements are to stop the manual's authors writing their own diagnostic handbooks alongside the official manual.

That's obviously very bad. Telling the scientists not to rely on their own analytical capacities, but rather blindly follow their work.They seem to suggest that you don't need anything besides the DSM - it's so very wrong.



Given the controversy, psychosis risk may not make it into the DSM proper, and may instead appear in the appendix, as a condition needing more research. But even that designation might boost prescribing.

If that designation does boost prescribing, it would be up to the psychiatrist to confirm the validity of their diagnosis - the DSM can't be to blame for adding extra information. As I mentioned before, I believe a large part of the problem is the way the DSM is used; if it's used correctly, the extra information helps to make a more informed decision. The incorrect use of such extra information is not a reason to exclude it.

What we really need is a revision of how to use the DSM.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by scraze]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Recalling a psych class I took recently, a persons only considered mentaly ill if they meet the tenets of the DSM AND it impedes there ability to function properly in society. (i.e. you're so concerned about the NWO that you never leave your house and only drink your own urine (because it's the only liquid they couldn't contaminate))



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


Actually, rapid onset can generally mean there is a medical reason for the problem....blood sugar out of whack...or the person has been taking too many , uh, medications himself. Of course there are things which can genuinely have rapid onset.

I see you are someone who distrusts this discipline. I can only tell you that generally they mean to help, not harm, and pretty much have thought about the things you have thought about....(and much more
) and provided for or made allowances for these issues/concerns.

You would also be surpised at how many times medications are NOT prescribed, and how many people present to psychiatrists trying to "trick them", because the are "drug seeking". This can also be spotted by the practitioner.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


The distrust comes from two psychiatrist saying two different things one saying there is nothing wrong with you then the other trying to diagnose you with something.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThorinOak
Recalling a psych class I took recently, a persons only considered mentaly ill if they meet the tenets of the DSM AND it impedes there ability to function properly in society. (i.e. you're so concerned about the NWO that you never leave your house and only drink your own urine (because it's the only liquid they couldn't contaminate))



Ok but what if....
I leave the house once in a while?



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by scraze
 


Thanks for an excellent post and your excellent insights into the DSM.

I agree that perhaps it is being used in ways it was not intended, and criteria is at times being used to "rubber stamp" preconceived notions of what might be going on....yes ADHD. I've seen this repeatedly. Typically schools wanting children placed on "chemical restraints". Well. Maybe not typically, but too often to suit me.

Also notice how certain diagnoses become fashionable at times. Suddenly everybody has Reactive Attachment Disorder, etc. Remember Multiple Personality? Oh yeah. Everybody had that for a few years. lol.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Not many of our members are old enough to remember when mental hospitals were so full that any patient that wasn't a danger to himself was turned loose on society to fend for himself and live off government aid.

I well remember when the patients were 'turned out' over 30 years or more ago. Only the criminally insane were restrained in institutions. The remainder were drugged to the point of being zombies.

But I have my doubts about sanity and insanity as I have yet to meet a person totally without some type of tic or mental problem.

It's like asking what is normal? Normal would seem to be what the majority of the population is on about. But I think that is not a valid assumption as most of us are adept at hiding our insanity.

Most of us play our parts so well as all the worlds a stage and we merely the players.

Personally, I prefer to be insane and absolutely would be horrified if I thought I was normal.

Modern medicine has made my life so much more bearable and kept me out of prison. Prozac is good medicine.

If you are honest with yourself and accept the far out thoughts you sometimes have you will be a better person. It's when you are unable to control those far out thoughts and bring them to fruit that you should be locked down.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by dizziedame]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


I have a couple things I'd like to add to this discussion.


Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by diablomonic
 


As for psychoactive medications? They have been around for my entire lifetime. The difference is....many of them actually work now.



I agree many of them work now. However, from what I've read, it seems researchers know very little about how they work, and the side-effects of these working medications are more serious than people make them out to be. I feel that the mentality of this type of provision of results without knowing how they did it is unwise. The saying "shoot first, ask questions later" comes to mind for some reason.



So this is a big bugaboo about ...... nothing much new. They generally do change some criteria to meet certain diagnoses, and sometimes change the names of certain syndromes. Remember the path of "Psychopath...Sociopath....Antisocial Personality Disorder" ?


"Changing the criteria to meet certain diagnoses" sounds to me like the expansion of people who fit certain diagnoses. Am I wrong to assume that these changes to criteria occur heavily in attributing various additional symptoms to various disorders which were previously said to be unknown or not associated to said disorders? I will shut my big fat trap right now if I can find some examples of criteria for disorders becoming less broad and more specific over time. I did say this is based on an assumption, so forgive me if I'm an idiot.

Also, changing the name of certain syndromes, in my opinion, only makes them sound more friendly and more acceptable to the public -- it's given a different name, but someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder is still apparently a Psychopath. Why do this other than to provide a sort of comfort and easiness in acceptance to both those diagnosed and those who encounter said diagnosed people? I see the point in changing the label of Psychopath to Antisocial Personality Disorder in that it makes the people diagnosed with it feel less like outcasts, but I also can see a point in changing the name to make it a much more acceptable and "regular" diagnosis.

The USDA had a program called Animal Damage Control whose purpose it was to "eradicate, suppress, and control wildlife considered to be detrimental to the western livestock industry." Methods include poisoning, trapping, snaring, denning, shooting, and aerial gunning. Denning is where government agents pour kerosene into the den and then set it on fire, burning the young alive in their nests. In 1997, they changed the name to Wildlife Services. I know you can't compare the name of a government organization to the name of psychological syndromes, but the point is that changing the name to more "politically correct" terms doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing. You can read this information in the book "The Food Revolution" by John Robbins on pages 250 and 251.



They do make those kinds of changes. I've had the pleasure to meet people who sit on these committee's, and they are generally the best and the brightest, very brilliant psychiatrists who wish to harm no one.

The DSM is simply a tool for practitioners. It is nothing sinister.


My final point is that... good intentions don't always produce good results. Many corrupt individuals came into power by using the Constitution as their handbook. The people who wrote the Constitution probably wouldn't support a lot of what's going on today.

Just my thoughts on your reply.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Just what is insanity? Who can say? This is a great topic and makes me think of Ezra Pound. A most interesting character in American history that was declared insane to quiet him.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Not trying to be too morbid here,but y'all remember what happened to mental patients under Hitler's regime,right?

Worst case scenario,that's all I'm saying!



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
This topic is even more interesting in that one wonders what `they' would DO with you once you're diagnosed mentally ill.

In the US right now, you can't simply be thrown into the Happy Place. There are some pretty serious laws on involuntary commitment. Even those won't get you a ticket for more than a day or three.

Contrast this with people who really NEED to visit the Happy Place. Their insurance, if it approves an admission, will only allow them to stay for a very brief period of time. The only way a genuinely sick person can gain admission is when they're a clear danger to themselves or others. You can't just say so - the experts need to evaluate you.

You also stand a better chance of getting help if you have no insurance than if you do, but that's a separate thread entirely.


"Irony in the Insurance Age."



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Sociopaths harm societies without empathy or conscience. IMHO we can find many of these type of individuals among psychiatrists and psychologists. I posted today something about Ewen Cameron, who has harmed hundreds of his patients with brainwashing techniques. He was the president of the World Psychiatric Association. Today some sociopathic scumbags are still on the top of this profession.


Media reports alleging that mental health professionals had helped develop abusive interrogation methods prompted APA leaders in 2005 to appoint a task force, which concluded that psychologists were playing a "valuable and ethical role" in assisting the military.

When the task force members were identified a year later, a majority proved to have military affiliations. Behnke, the APA ethics director, found nothing wrong with those connections and said some military members of the task force have been responsible for preventing abuses at Guantanamo and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

www.google.de... dia+reports+alleging+that+mental+health+professionals+had+helped+develop+abusive+interrogation+methods+prompted+APA+leaders&ei=0ucpS8f_JNmlsQaOooTEBw& usg=AFQjCNGDjrbsDdwlP7-159pCmPfA9Mc3gA

Enablers of torture, that is what these people are.

Insane are those technocrats who prescribe psychotropic drugs to children and teenagers without a second thought. In the USA 6,7% of all youths use prescribed psychotropic drugs. Trice the percentage of European countries. Our grandfathers and grandmothers lived a healthy live without those drugs. Europeans are neither saner than Americans nor do more Europeans need these drugs. Instead I believe psychiatrists find more and more reasons to prescribe these drugs. Technocrats set the limit what is acceptable in our society. Instead of using common sense and tolerance, they listen to their sponsors and buddies of the pharmaceutical industry or bow their heads to people in power.

In China massive use of the internet is considered to be a mental disorder, and the “patients” need to be corrected.
www.washingtonpost.com...

Here a link to a scary story, of a woman who was held against her will in a psychiatric ward and called “delusional”, because she believed and said that 9/11 was an inside job.
clareswinney.wordpress.com...

Psychiatrists and psychologists provided bogus science which enabled phrenology and eugenic programs in the US and Nazi-Germany.

Whatever people in power demand, renowned psychiatrists and psychologists will find a “scientific foundation” to justify those demands.

Why are people who harm the society with sociopathic behaviour like politicians, investment bankers and brutal cops considered to be sane, while people who stray from the norm, but don't harm anyone need to be corrected with drugs and indoctrination?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join