#301 ·
There’s a massive overlap here with what we consider the "typical" population, especially since most research focuses on individuals with extensive histories of drug therapy. But here's the kicker: psychiatric journals haven't really dug deep enough into whether the medications themselves might actually be triggering these neurological changes.
That said, the data shows that a huge chunk of people experiencing a psychotic episode don't respond to meds at all. On top of that, a significant number of patients relapse even while staying on long-term prescriptions (clinical trials show relapse rates hover around 30%), and just like anyone else, they might exhibit antisocial behavior when they aren't in the middle of an active psychotic break.
Whether you call them "major tranquilizers," "neuroleptics," or "antipsychotics," these drugs are the backbone of schizophrenia treatment. They're marketed as targeted tools against delusions and hallucinations, but skeptics argue they work through much blunter means—essentially acting like a chemical lobotomy or a pharmacological straitjacket that shuts down all creative thinking.
We really need to revisit the absolute disgrace faced by the scientific community back in 1949 when
Moinz was awarded the Nobel Prize for lobotomy (it's estimated over 50,000 people underwent the procedure in the USA, and in Japan, there were even suggestions at the time to lobotomize "troublesome" children...)
And look at this:
The Defeat Depression Campaign (DDC), which kicked off in 1992 was put together by the American Psychiatric Association in partnership with the American College of General Practitioners and backed by big pharma money. Their literature paints a picture where roughly 10% of the population struggles with depression at any given moment, one-third will face it at some point in their lives, and antidepressants are the go-to solution for anyone with moderate to severe symptoms. It feels like they're trying to claim that a huge portion of human misery is purely biological and can be "fixed" just as easily. The hype machine around the newer antidepressant fluoxetine (Prozac) hasn't been much better, with people claiming it can actually reshape your personality or improve your entire quality of life.
Then there's the fact that—I can't recall if it was Canada or a specific US state—a court actually managed to win a lawsuit banning forced medication.
Where is this global surge in depression and other mental health issues coming from? Maybe the real cause is the world around us—the madness we live in and our struggle to adapt to it. It seems like a deeply complex issue, yet it's so much easier to label it a bio-genetic disorder than to actually address social and family breakdowns. To me, the ideas proposed by Laing and his circle sound far more grounded than this current trend...
Besides, isn't it obvious? We are being medicalized for almost everything nowadays. Who stands to profit from that?
That said, the data shows that a huge chunk of people experiencing a psychotic episode don't respond to meds at all. On top of that, a significant number of patients relapse even while staying on long-term prescriptions (clinical trials show relapse rates hover around 30%), and just like anyone else, they might exhibit antisocial behavior when they aren't in the middle of an active psychotic break.
Whether you call them "major tranquilizers," "neuroleptics," or "antipsychotics," these drugs are the backbone of schizophrenia treatment. They're marketed as targeted tools against delusions and hallucinations, but skeptics argue they work through much blunter means—essentially acting like a chemical lobotomy or a pharmacological straitjacket that shuts down all creative thinking.
We really need to revisit the absolute disgrace faced by the scientific community back in 1949 when
Moinz was awarded the Nobel Prize for lobotomy (it's estimated over 50,000 people underwent the procedure in the USA, and in Japan, there were even suggestions at the time to lobotomize "troublesome" children...)
And look at this:
The Defeat Depression Campaign (DDC), which kicked off in 1992 was put together by the American Psychiatric Association in partnership with the American College of General Practitioners and backed by big pharma money. Their literature paints a picture where roughly 10% of the population struggles with depression at any given moment, one-third will face it at some point in their lives, and antidepressants are the go-to solution for anyone with moderate to severe symptoms. It feels like they're trying to claim that a huge portion of human misery is purely biological and can be "fixed" just as easily. The hype machine around the newer antidepressant fluoxetine (Prozac) hasn't been much better, with people claiming it can actually reshape your personality or improve your entire quality of life.
Then there's the fact that—I can't recall if it was Canada or a specific US state—a court actually managed to win a lawsuit banning forced medication.
briskgull27
In reality, I had an MRI and everything came back perfectly normal. So, does that mean I'm actually crazy because my brain is healthy?
Where is this global surge in depression and other mental health issues coming from? Maybe the real cause is the world around us—the madness we live in and our struggle to adapt to it. It seems like a deeply complex issue, yet it's so much easier to label it a bio-genetic disorder than to actually address social and family breakdowns. To me, the ideas proposed by Laing and his circle sound far more grounded than this current trend...
Besides, isn't it obvious? We are being medicalized for almost everything nowadays. Who stands to profit from that?
