Church Leaders on Mental Health


Recommended Posts

Far too often, those who are plagued with mental health issues face discrimination and shame, and church members are no exception. Fortunately, modern-day prophets and apostles have spoken about mental illness, giving messages of hope and comfort to those who suffer. Here are some of their teachings on the subject:

 

https://mormonhub.com/blog/faith/lds-church-leadership/mental-health/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad that our leaders are bringing up this subject more and more.  I think it's been shoved under the rug and a subject that has been taboo for far too long.  I was grateful when Elder Holland shared his thoughts on the subject and related his own personal experiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Houston Mission President came to speak at our stake conference recently.  He mentioned the topic of mental illness with a nice "middle road" approach.

Quote

I believe few can see the practical implications of <various conditions listed> in such a varied and widespread level as mission presidents.  While I know these are very real conditions and have varied causes, I do believe such conditions are able to be influenced.

This was somewhat refreshing compared to previous comments I'd heard: 

Quote

If you just obey gospel principles, then you're never going to be depressed.

Uuhhmmm...

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pam said:

Yeah I would have to totally disagree with the comment about never being depressed if you obey gospel principles.  

I'm not so sure about this. I've said it before and I'll say it again, mental health is not the same as physical health.  I'm not claiming that it's not real, that people don't feel these feelings or are oppressed by mental health issues . . .it's very real.  

But the solution to the problem is not the same as the solution to physical health.  Mental health medicine, practice, psychology, etc. is in the dark ages and in the realm of basically voodoo medicine.  For mental health issues, all we have are symptoms and diagnosis, but no real measurable data.  Someone is depressed, okay I believe them-but there are no objective tests that say "you're salomine level" is at 1.0 and it should be at 3.0.  Instead voodoo doctors simply say "you have a chemical imbalance" and should take xyz drug to fix it . . .oh really?  I have a chemical imbalance.  Where is the test?  Where is the data that tells me I have a chemical imbalance?  Oh there isn't one, you just want to give me xyz drug.  No thank you doc. you are an idiot and a quack  You don't have any clue what is wrong with me, you just have 3 letters after your name, spot some fancy terms, try to make me feel good and say "here I know how to solve your problems". When if you were honest, you don't have a freaking clue.

And I think that is the point that really people should take away, sure we can talk about it (and I love Holland's talk), but when we really strip away everything, the answer boils down to mental health that no one, not the doctors, or psychologist have a blasted clue as to what is the real problem or why this or why that.  I can get as good a therapy talking to my wife as I can from some idiot doctor.  You don't need 3 letters to help someone help and the sooner we stop thinking that the only way to "solve" mental health problems is by going to a "doctor" the better we will be.  A therapist may help . . .but they may not, and you don't need a therapist to solve your mental health issues.  

Quite honestly, the best way to solve mental health problems is through God.  Which is why I disagree with the above statement; unless someone can show me demonstrable proof of something being wrong (i.e. something we can measure), resolving mental health problems through God is going to be better than resolving it through the arm of flesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was said and what I was responding to was this:

Quote

If you just obey gospel principles, then you're never going to be depressed.

While I can agree with some of what you wrote...I was talking about what was said. The wording never going to be depressed is a blanket statement.  Everyone gets depressed at some point in their life.  Everyone has their down moments.  So to say that no one will get depressed is a falsehood.  

Now as far as the more severe forms of depression, I love Elder Holland's talk.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/like-a-broken-vessel?lang=eng

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
4 hours ago, pam said:

Yeah I would have to totally disagree with the comment about never being depressed if you obey gospel principles.  

Agree with you @pam, 10,000%. It's offensive to the millions of people who struggle with depression and do live gospel principles. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I may have helped to touch this thread off by talking about a mentally ill boss I used to have!  He would fly into a rage randomly with no provocation because he had unmedicated bipolar disorder, which he would "treat" through alcohol.  Because I was more focused on dealing with my old boss, I do not think I used requisite sensitivity when dealing with the mental illness side of the equation, and for this I do apologize.

While my old boss made those around him unhappy on a regular basis, I don't think anyone suffered more than he did.  He needed professional help very badly.

I absolutely agree with @MormonGator and @pam.  Mental illness is a very real thing, often caused by very real (sometimes temporary and sometimes permanent) chemical imbalances, and we absolutely need to support our brothers and sisters who suffer from it.  I also believe that simple science shows us that yes, sometimes people, and even church members, need medical intervention to handle mental illness and lead normal lives, and there should be no stigma or discrimination for those who do so.  The decision to use such medication should be made prayerfully.

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a wonderful thing that ever year, there are fewer and fewer opinions like yjacket's.  From what I've heard of yjacket's story, there's good reason to be ticked off, but not nearly good enough reason to be saying nonsense like this:

"Mental health medicine, practice, psychology, etc. is in the dark ages and in the realm of basically voodoo medicine."
- Insulting language, incorrect analogy. Modern brain health science may be far from perfect and complete, but it's totally unwarranted to broaden yjacket's bad experience across an entire branch of medicine. 

"Instead voodoo doctors simply say"
- Insulting language, unwarranted blanket statement.  Many of us on this board, myself included, have firsthand experience that directly contradicts yjacket's blanket accusations.  Yeah, there are good doctors and bad doctors, but yjacket paints with so broad a brush the comments are basically useless. 

"if you were honest, you don't have a freaking clue."
- Baseless accusation that become one holds a medical degree and an opinion, one must be dishonest.  The whole "doctors/scientists/the government/NASA doesn't want you to know this" stuff is the realm of fake news, anti-science snake oil salesmen, flat-earthers, people who think magnets heal you, and people like yjacket who had a bad experience and assume the whole world is that way.   

"no one, not the doctors, or psychologist have a blasted clue as to what is the real problem or why this or why that."
- Just plain false.  There are plenty of clues, much research and study.  Here's hoping yjacket can some day understand that there's a range of possibilities between solid unassailable fact, and throwing darts while blindfolded and full of wishful thinking.

"you don't need a therapist to solve your mental health issues."  
- Yeah, what yjacket has documented elsewhere, is that yjacket ended up not needing a therapist to solve yjacket's mental health issues.  I'm glad, but again, baseless and unwarranted extrapolation across an entire branch of medicine based on an anecdote or two is just plain illogical.  

"the best way to solve mental health problems is through God."
- Matter of semantics, but ok.  God gave us brains, and thought, and stewardship, and agency, and expects us to learn from the best books and study things out in our minds before we seek spiritual guidance.  The right way to approach things is to seek competent medical advice as well as spiritual blessings and guidance.  Gut-reflex anti-medical rejection is not a Christian virtue.

Again, I'm really glad that yjacket got away from the docs and found healing through spiritual channels.  Got nothing to say against yjacket's personal experience - other than I believe it's totally valid.  But when you start flicking boogies from your ivory tower at people who find their burdens eased by taking a road that didn't work for you, well, go jump in a lake until you grow up a little, friend. 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/10/myths-about-mental-illness?lang=eng

 

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

I absolutely agree with @MormonGator and @pam.  Mental illness is a very real thing, often caused by very real (sometimes temporary and sometimes permanent) chemical imbalances

CFR on the Chemical imbalances.  Please CFR.  Just show me 1 . . only ask for 1 documented journal article that details what exactly a "chemical imbalance is", that actually describes an actual chemical in the body that is measurable that we know causes these problems. 

It is made up bogus pschobabble.

I'm not asking for hypothesis, or conjectures.  I'm asking for real, hard, science.

For comparison, if you have cancer, I can show you hundreds of articles that detail exact chemical, medical markers that demonstrate cancer.

Show me 1, just 1 article.  You can't, you won't, b/c it doesn't exist.

It is all BS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

It's a wonderful thing that ever year, there are fewer and fewer opinions like yjacket's.  From what I've heard of yjacket's story, there's good reason to be ticked off, but not nearly good enough reason to be saying nonsense like this:

"Mental health medicine, practice, psychology, etc. is in the dark ages and in the realm of basically voodoo medicine."
- Insulting language, incorrect analogy. Modern brain health science may be far from perfect and complete, but it's totally unwarranted to broaden yjacket's bad experience across an entire branch of medicine. 

"Instead voodoo doctors simply say"
- Insulting language, unwarranted blanket statement.  Many of us on this board, myself included, have firsthand experience that directly contradicts yjacket's blanket accusations.  Yeah, there are good doctors and bad doctors, but yjacket paints with so broad a brush the comments are basically useless. 

"if you were honest, you don't have a freaking clue."
- Baseless accusation that become one holds a medical degree and an opinion, one must be dishonest.  The whole "doctors/scientists/the government/NASA doesn't want you to know this" stuff is the realm of fake news, anti-science snake oil salesmen, flat-earthers, people who think magnets heal you, and people like yjacket who had a bad experience and assume the whole world is that way.   

"no one, not the doctors, or psychologist have a blasted clue as to what is the real problem or why this or why that."
- Just plain false.  There are plenty of clues, much research and study.  Here's hoping yjacket can some day understand that there's a range of possibilities between solid unassailable fact, and throwing darts while blindfolded and full of wishful thinking.

"you don't need a therapist to solve your mental health issues."  
- Yeah, what yjacket has documented elsewhere, is that yjacket ended up not needing a therapist to solve yjacket's mental health issues.  I'm glad, but again, baseless and unwarranted extrapolation across an entire branch of medicine based on an anecdote or two is just plain illogical.  

"the best way to solve mental health problems is through God."
- Matter of semantics, but ok.  God gave us brains, and thought, and stewardship, and agency, and expects us to learn from the best books and study things out in our minds before we seek spiritual guidance.  The right way to approach things is to seek competent medical advice as well as spiritual blessings and guidance.  Gut-reflex anti-medical rejection is not a Christian virtue.

Again, I'm really glad that yjacket got away from the docs and found healing through spiritual channels.  Got nothing to say against yjacket's personal experience - other than I believe it's totally valid.  But when you start flicking boogies from your ivory tower at people who find their burdens eased by taking a road that didn't work for you, well, go jump in a lake until you grow up a little, friend. 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/10/myths-about-mental-illness?lang=eng

 

 

All I've got to say Neuro, is CFR baby, CFR.  All you come back with is more talk.  You just want to believe what you want to believe with absolutely no basis in fact.

Show me a webMD article that details a "chemical imbalance"; I'm not talking something that tells me what it is.  I want charts, I want graphs, I want numbers, I want ratios. I want a webMD that says STTE of "in cases with bi-bolar, we measured chemical xyz to be > 1000 and in cases without bi-polar we measured chemical xyz to be 10, based on a p value of .86 we assess that elevated values of chemical xyz are indicated of a bi-polar chemical imbalance". And "when we gave 1000 patients who had measured chemical xyz above 1000 apironiton for three months, chemical xyz dropped to 10". 

I've dealt with both in my life . . .cancer and mental junk.  I've read the articles on both.  And I guarantee you in one minute, I can easily find articles telling me what is wrong with someone has cancer . . .can't do it for voodoo "chemical imbalances".

One is actual real science, the other is made-up mumbo-jumbo psuedo-science made up by atheistic individuals as a construct to describes what they think is going on.  One is backed by real hard data, the other simply a made-up mental framework for describing symptoms. And what is amazing is how they have fooled an entire society to believe their made-up mental construct.

Note, I have never said it's not "real", oh it's real alright-mental issues are real alright.  

The thing is that even though my viewpoint is the correct viewpoint; it is a dangerous viewpoint.  It is dangerous b/c it actually admits that quite frankly we don't know what causes these mental issues, we don't have a "fix" for it.  In the world of "google" not understanding or knowing how to fix something is a very, very scary proposition. It makes us vulnerable and scared to think "wow, the doctors really don't have the answer to this"

What we have is symptoms, classifications, diagnosis, and hypothesis on ways to treat (that are no better than placebos). Some "therapies" are good therapies, but therapy isn't cure. If a chemical imbalance really is the problem then no one would ever need therapy b/c they could just fix the "chemical imbalance" and be good.

The mental health profession is full of snake-oil salesmen-fact.

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, just maybe 100 years in the future, the actual science of mental health will be advanced enough to give better information.

Right now, mental health "science" is no better than ideas back in the 1700s about "blood-letting".  If you want to call ideas about blood-letting science and that it had real, measurable effects on healing people's diseases, then sure I'll go with calling modern psychology "science".

Until then, mental health medical treatments and drugs have no more validity than the power of fasting, prayer, blessings and the Power of God.  In fact, with the current state of mental health "science", I'd absolutely put the Power of God up against psychology's atheistic ideology any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, pam said:

What was said and what I was responding to was this:

While I can agree with some of what you wrote...I was talking about what was said. The wording never going to be depressed is a blanket statement.  Everyone gets depressed at some point in their life.  Everyone has their down moments.  So to say that no one will get depressed is a falsehood.  

Now as far as the more severe forms of depression, I love Elder Holland's talk.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/like-a-broken-vessel?lang=eng

No, I think the point being that if we are always following gospel principles, those types of things don't happen.  Do you think Christ was ever depressed? I think in the Garden He took upon himself the sins and feelings of the world so He knows what it is like to be depressed, I don't believe he dealt with depression.  I think if we followed Gospel principles 100% of the time we wouldn't be depressed, just like if we followed gospel principles 100% of the time there would be no malice, no murder, no wars, etc.

Living the Gospel perfectly is the solution to the world's problems; but we live in a fallen world and are unable to do so, therefore depression, etc. will occur.

I understand this is controversial, but I do believe that we have the ability to act and change how we view the world and how we feel.  While depression and other things can act upon us, we also need to act back. This isn't saying one needs to just "snap out of it", it's just a recognition that we have the power to change our thoughts, feelings, actions, etc. and that bit by bit we can change our very being (through the help of God). 

And while Elder Holland didn't mention it in his talk (which is an awesome talk), it only takes a little bit of thought.  Where do good feelings, light, joy, laughter, happiness come from? Does God want us to be miserable?  If God can send to us good feelings, through His spirit, is there not another power in this universe? Who seeks for us to be miserable, like unto himself? Who seeks to influence us to do evil things?  Recognizing the source of light, goodness, in this life is essential . . .as well as recognizing the source of miserableness. It doesn't mean we are evil or have done horrible things if we feel those feelings . . .not in the least.  There is a War that is going on on this earth for the battle of men's souls-both physically and mentally.

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main reason why the "just follow gospel principles" argument is ridiculous is that it goes against some very obvious truths.

All are fallen and are lost.

There is none righteous but one.

If there is a "righteous" person who is suffering from depression, then what?  they're just not being righteous enough?  Oh!  They just don't have enough faith.  That's it.

Depression (or any variety of mental / emotional issues) are a spectrum.  i.e. they vary in severity.

"We all get depressed at some point in our lives."  A true but useless statement.  "We're all tall compared to some people.  Even a baby is tall compared to an ant."

Some feel deeper depression than others.  Some are more chronic than others.  The eventual conclusion from the "just follow" crowd must then be that those affected on the most severe and chronic levels must be absolutely perfect to overcome their depression.  So, they'll have to feel the Spirit enough to overcome all sin so they can get rid of their depression which prevents them from feeling the Spirit in the first place...

Uh-huh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, yjacket said:

All I've got to say Neuro, is CFR baby, CFR.  
...
 I want charts, I want graphs, I want numbers, I want ratios.

Sure thing yjacket.  

http://www.news-medical.net/health/Efficacy-of-SSRIs-for-Depression.aspx
"A meta-analysis of studies into SSRIs in 2010 showed the therapy had small, nonsignificant benefits over placebo in mild and moderate depression but clinically significant benefits over placebo in severe clinical depression."

 

http://www.psychiatryadvisor.com/mood-disorders/analysis-confiirms-efficacy-of-ssri-antidepressants/article/417102/
(New for 2016 - looking at 32 studies performed by pharma companies, and adjusting for errors and bias)
Using this analysis, they found that 29 of the 32 studies comparing active drug to placebo — 91% — showed a significant improvement in depressed mood favoring the active drug.  In contrast, using the HDRS showed only 44% of the studies demonstrated superiority of the SSRI.
“Our conclusion is that the questioning of the antidepressant efficacy of SSRIs is to a large extent based on an unfortunate misinterpretation of the available data,” 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0087089/
Here's your chart.  Sorry you were one of the black figures, but other people get to be the yellow/green figures.
44ed1a8a507a4962fd2285d3d28bc4ffv1_abs_500x595_b3535db83dc50e27c1bb1392364c95a2.jpg

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC181155/
(Good info on adverse effects and tolerability)

 

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/ssris-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/
As mentioned above, when you try to control for publication bias, the effect size of antidepressant over placebo is 0.31.
Suppose antidepressants were in fact a weight loss pill.
An effect size of 1.2 is equivalent to the pill making you lose 32 lb.
An effect size of 0.5 is equivalent to the pill making you lose 14 lb.
An effect size of 0.3 is equivalent to the pill making you lose 8.5 lb.

Or suppose that antidepressants were a growth hormone pill taken by short people.
An effect size of 1.2 is equivalent to the pill making you grow 3.4 in.
An effect size of 0.5 is equivalent to the pill making you grow 1.4 in.
An effect size of 0.3 is equivalent to the pill making you grow 0.8 in.

 

 

 

 

Quote

mumbo-jumbo psuedo-science
...
bogus pschobabble
...
mental health "science" is no better than ideas back in the 1700s about "blood-letting". 

Ok, your turn, yjacket.  CFR, baby, CFR.  Show me why you think your provocative use of scare quotes and insulting language is warranted.  I want a chart comparing modern meta-analysis techniques with 1700's medicine.  Let's have that WebMD site talking about how they understood the placebo effect in the 1700s, or publication bias, or effect sizes, or spoke in notions of tolerability, or they had the faintest clue about the definition of "clinically significant" vs "clinically insignificant". Or, if you think all that is merely "bogus psychobabble", I'd like you to show me how cancer research doesn't use any of those terms.

I notice one of your complaints is "All you come back with is more talk.".  I'm sure you can do better than your own anecdotal experience, and a bunch of talk...

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Ok, your turn, yjacket.  CFR, baby, CFR.  Show me why you think your provocative use of scare quotes is warranted.  I want a chart comparing modern meta-analysis techniques with 1700's medicine.  Let's have that WebMD site talking about how they understood the placebo effect in the 1700s, or publication bias, or effect sizes, or spoke in notions of tolerability, or they had the faintest clue about the definition of "clinically significant" vs "clinically insignificant".

I notice one of your complaints is "All you come back with is more talk.".  I'm sure you can do better than your own anecdotal experience, and a bunch of talk...

You remind me of Kevin O'Leary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, nope fail try again Neuro.  I'll look deeper into them, but on the surface fail.

This is what real medicine looks like:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4251123/

"However, a high postoperative AFP level was associated with worse OS (OR=0.16, 95% CI: 0.05–0.48) and relapse-free survival (RFS) (OR=0.18, 95% CI: 0.08–0.43) compared to a low postoperative AFP level in patients with OYST. In addition, a postoperative AFP level of >1,000 ng/ml was associated with a decrease in OS (OR=0.16, 95% CI: 0.05–0.50) and RFS (OR=0.21, 95% CI: 0.08–0.57). In conclusion, the postoperative, but not the preoperative, AFP level was found to be a prognostic factor in patients with OYST. In particular, a postoperative AFP level of >1,000 ng/ml was an indicator of poor prognosis in patients with OYST."

------

What chemical did the anti-depressants reduce? By how much, what was the measured valued?  Real medicine has measurable numbers and tests that are repeatable, measurable, and accurate.

From the first article: "One reason for the questioning of the SSRIs has been that many of the clinical trials conducted by the pharmaceutical companies years ago to prove their efficacy failed: critics have thus pointed out that less than half of the studies demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the tested SSRI and placebo."

In the article the actually tell you what I'm telling you.

Then they say "We investigated what happens if one instead analyzes the effect of the treatment on the key item of the scale —depressed mood.”Using this analysis, they found that 29 of the 32 studies comparing active drug to placebo — 91% — showed a significant improvement in depressed mood favoring the active drug.  In contrast, using the HDRS showed only 44% of the studies demonstrated superiority of the SSRI."

Which is another way of saying . . .okay so we weren't getting the results that we liked so let's change how we measure the results we are getting and miracle of miracles look at the improvement!!!!

Again, there is nothing that tells me that the "selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors" were inhibited by 50% or that it went up or down by x amount.  In other words, they can't measure what they claim they are trying to do.

The only way they are measuring is by how people feel after they take the drug.  Okay great.  Two things, show me (again, please I'm begging you) a double-blind study of the drug against a placebo, and finally if you can't tell me by how much the drug affects the "selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors" then how do I know a) that the drug actually affects what you tell me it affects and b) that something else in life, some other type of food, activity, or drug wouldn't do the same thing!!!

You can't measure what you are trying to affect (except in generic terms of "does this make you feel better"-okay great but lots of things make me feel better, that doesn't mean you've figured out my problem or solved it or even told me what to do about), you can't narrow down exactly why, I feel this way, all you tell me is some BS blather about ""selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors", but you can't measure what it is, I have no piece of paper with a number that tells me based on taking a sample of brain fluid it is at 1.0 and it should be at .01.  You just tell me "hey take this pill it will make you feel better", call me if you have any problems. If that ain't voodoo science, what is? You tell me I have a "chemical imbalance" but you haven't run one, no not one single test extracting my blood, urine, brain matter, sent it to a lab and receive results on it.

Again your studies aren't studies, they are BS fluff pieces. When you have an article like the one on cancer, I show above . ..then we can talk.

I've got an article-I need to dig it up printed earlier this year where one of the founders of this idea of "selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors" actually says STTE of oops I think we made a mistake about what we think about "selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors".

It is just mind-boggling to me.  We wouldn't stand for this kind of voodoo medicine in cancer, in dealing with broken bones, in any number of things that ail us . . .yet when it comes to psychology-they get a pass.  What a load of dooky.

I tell you a good study that I do believe; Concussion, the neuroscience mortician who discovered that NFL players had significant lesions inside their brains.  He demonstrated verifiable that there was something significantly wrong between NFL players who had multiple concussions and normal individuals who didn't. Based upon what those players went through (and how several of them killed themselves) it is highly likely that yes, their brains were physically damaged and that damage was causing them severe mental problems.

Oh wait a second, my CFR article is one of the articles you sent me:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0087089/

"The nerve cells in our brain use various chemicals to pass on impulses. Even though not all details are known, experts believe that depression is caused by an imbalance of certain chemicals like serotonin which then affects some nerve connections. Antidepressants aim to increase the availability of these chemicals. The various drugs do that in different ways."

Notice the use of what I like to call "weasel" words.  "Not all details are known", "experts believe" "affects some nerve connections".  That's just a fancy way of saying we don't know, but we believe this to be true.  Their viewpoint holds no more validity than my viewpoint that I believe God can heal depression.  It's based on faith-not on science, not on facts.

They admit they are proscribing very powerful drugs, they don't know how depression is caused or why, they just simply believe, or have faith that some chemical like serotonin is responsible-but again they don't know. They don't know how to measure the affects, besides asking "does this make you feel better".  Yeap . . .that sounds like great real medicine for ya (more like voodoo science).

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't phrase things the way @yjacket does; but I'm prepared to accept that mental health science is still in its infancy and that we're dealing with a sort of "Wild West" of treatments at present.

We know that certain endorphins bind to certain receptors, that some of these endorphins can be pharmaceutically supplemented or blocked, and that the result can be to heighten or flatten certain emotions.  The "whys" and the "quantities" of this science are not yet fully understood; and there's a fair amount of guesswork/trial-and-error involved with lots of potentially unforeseen side-effects in any given case.

We know that certain verbal therapy approaches seem to work under various circumstances--CBT, DBT, EMDR--provided they are deployed appropriately; and we know that appropriate use of such techniques seems to coincide with a positive physiological change within the brain itself.  But again, we don't know the "whys"; and as a consumer one has no guarantee that a therapist is actually using the proper approach in a consistent and appropriate way.

We shouldn't be hostile to therapeutic interventions; but we should take active efforts towards being informed consumers.  And we should probably regard caregivers with a bit more skepticism than we would regard an oncologist, or a cardiologist, or an OB/GYN, or some other doctor whose individual treatment techniques are more independently confirmable, more thoroughly understood, and more time-tested.

I know that in my current job (law enforcement, in a roundabout way), we deal with a lot of "therapists" for recovering drug addicts who are certified in all the latest therapies but still wind up validating/enabling the addicts they're supposed to be helping and unquestionably buy in to whatever nonsense sob story the addict chooses to offer.  Then these therapists call me up, on the warpath, wanting to know why we're picking on their client.  

So, yeah--when therapy is bad, it's bad.  Remember, this is a profession that defines and undefines "illness" according to the collective political power of those suffering from the condition; and that supports kicking you out of your job if you help religious gay people to fulfill their aspirations of staying celibate.  We have a lot of good and useful things to learn from them; but we must never, ever mistake them as "friends".  They are not.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I wouldn't phrase things the way @yjacket does; but I'm prepared to accept that mental health science is still in its infancy and that we're dealing with a sort of "Wild West" of treatments at present.

Precisely my own feelings. Or maybe I'd go even a step further toward yjacket, in that I am not only prepared to accept what you say, but I fully accept it, and think those that consider psychology any sort of mature science are deceived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I understand JAG's PoV. And if most people had that viewpoint, I probably wouldn't be so extreme.

I just think it's ridiculous that society as a whole has bought into this idea, hook, line, and sinker that the mental health profession actually knows what they are doing-they don't.  If they (and or the drugs they use) helps, great, fine, no problems.  But don't kid yourself into thinking that they know exactly what they are doing or how to fix whatever is wrong.

One of my big beefs with the industry is how they label people.  You are bi-polar, or you are manic-depressant or whatever other label; basically if you are "diagnosed" then that's it-you have that diagnosis for life; for the rest of your life you can be on disability, etc.  The industry doesn't actually care about people getting better and actually fixing their own problems-they ultimately care about making sure that for the rest of your life you take xyz medicine.

How much money does the pharmaceutical industry make on these anti-psychotic drugs that may or may not work? Tons and tons-they aren't interested in you being 100% healthy, no they want you to take a pill for the rest of your life so they can earn $400 a pop every time you take a pill twice a day 365 days a year for 40 years.  They don't care that life changes, you learn, you grow, you change, become different-nope, they just care that you take a pill for your "condition" that no one can actually measure, no one can actually tell if the pill you are taking works like they say it does.  18% of the US population has some sort of diagnosed "mental illness"-at what point does it stop becoming an illness and just a condition of being human?  18%, 62 million people, say even half of those take pills, 32 million people on powerful drugs that no one knows exactly what they are doing except for saying "it makes me feel better". At $400 a day twice a day that's about 300k per year per person.  For 32 million people, that's billions of dollars.

http://truecostofhealthcare.net/the_pharmaceutical_industry/

Pzifer had 67 Billion dollars in revenue in 2011.  You want to know why insurance costs are so high . . . here is your reason. Medicated, drugged up Americans taking pills that nobody knows exactly what they do, charging it free of cost to insurance companies and everyone pays the bill.

It's a very, very sick racket .. . worse than voodoo medicine.

What I've said is different than saying depression/bi-polar/manic-depressant, etc. doesn't exist; oh the symptoms are there all right-but we have no clue as to what the cause is or why.

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, yjacket said:

This is what real medicine looks like:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4251123/

"However, a high postoperative AFP level was associated with worse OS (OR=0.16, 95% CI: 0.05–0.48) and relapse-free survival (RFS) (OR=0.18, 95% CI: 0.08–0.43) compared to a low postoperative AFP level in patients with OYST. In addition, a postoperative AFP level of >1,000 ng/ml was associated with a decrease in OS (OR=0.16, 95% CI: 0.05–0.50) and RFS (OR=0.21, 95% CI: 0.08–0.57). In conclusion, the postoperative, but not the preoperative, AFP level was found to be a prognostic factor in patients with OYST. In particular, a postoperative AFP level of >1,000 ng/ml was an indicator of poor prognosis in patients with OYST."

That is a completely different type of medicine.  We're not talking about tumors -- an entirely physical phenomenon that is virtually unimpacted by the person's emotional or mental state.  We're talking about emotions -- quite a non-physical phenomenon only impacted by some physical characteristics.

To show this as your example of "real medicine" is like saying that "real science" is only that which looks at things through a microscope instead of a telescope, a measuring tape, a thermometer, spectrometer, etc.

25 minutes ago, yjacket said:

What chemical did the anti-depressants reduce? By how much, what was the measured valued?  Real medicine has measurable numbers and tests that are repeatable, measurable, and accurate.

Chemistry is not the only method of measurement in a scientific study.  I'd even go so far as to say that the bottom line result is more important than the chemical understanding.  

25 minutes ago, yjacket said:

From the first article: "One reason for the questioning of the SSRIs has been that many of the clinical trials conducted by the pharmaceutical companies years ago to prove their efficacy failed: critics have thus pointed out that less than half of the studies demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the tested SSRI and placebo."

In the article the actually tell you what I'm telling you.

Then they say "We investigated what happens if one instead analyzes the effect of the treatment on the key item of the scale —depressed mood.”Using this analysis, they found that 29 of the 32 studies comparing active drug to placebo — 91% — showed a significant improvement in depressed mood favoring the active drug.  In contrast, using the HDRS showed only 44% of the studies demonstrated superiority of the SSRI."

Which is another way of saying . . .okay so we weren't getting the results that we liked so let's change how we measure the results we are getting and miracle of miracles look at the improvement!!!!

Selective quoting indicates you missed the point of the article.

Quote

SSRIs are not commonly recommended for treating mild depression, with the exception of mild depression that has lasted for over two years or in cases where a patient has experienced episodes of moderate or severe depression in the past.

Other uses of SSRIs include the treatment of mental health conditions such as anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, panic disorder, some phobias such as agoraphobia (fear of open spaces) and social phobia, eating disorders such as bulimia, and post traumatic stress disorder.

These agents have shown benefits in each of these mental health conditions, especially in severe cases. Treatment with SSRIs, however, is often supplemented with other treatment modalities such as psychotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy.

These meds are NOT supposed to be used with depression.  They are ineffective.  That was the point of the article.  While you use that information to say that the drug is proven ineffective, I use that information to prove that they are following the scientific method correctly.  Medical professionals are looking at the data and altering what they do to suit the new data.  The fact that it is a young field of research means that there will be much that is incorrect.  But this is a phase the science has to go through to collect enough data to eventually get to where we really want to be.

25 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Then they say "We investigated what happens if one instead analyzes the effect of the treatment on the key item of the scale —depressed mood.”Using this analysis, they found that 29 of the 32 studies comparing active drug to placebo — 91% — showed a significant improvement in depressed mood favoring the active drug.  In contrast, using the HDRS showed only 44% of the studies demonstrated superiority of the SSRI."

Which is another way of saying . . .okay so we weren't getting the results that we liked so let's change how we measure the results we are getting and miracle of miracles look at the improvement!!!!

Apparently missed the context of that statement:

Quote

“However, the sensitivity of this instrument is markedly marred by the fact that many of these symptoms occur also in subjects without depression, while others are absent also in many depressed patients,” the researchers reported in the journal Molecular Psychiatry. “We investigated what happens if one instead analyzes the effect of the treatment on the key item of the scale —depressed mood.”

IOW, they recognized a flaw in their methodology and had to come up with a different method to overcome the flaw.  That is real science.  If they just went with the raw data that any fool would realize was nonsense, then they would not be real scientists.  Instead they recognized something was wrong with their methodology and looked into what it was.  That is what they're supposed to do.

25 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Again, there is nothing that tells me that the "selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors" were inhibited by 50% or that it went up or down by x amount.  In other words, they can't measure what they claim they are trying to do.

And there is NOTHING that has shown that a black hole actually exists.  But we can see the effects of black holes.  And by the observation of those effects, we determine that a black hole must be in a particular region.  This is considered science.  Yet because you don't see a chemical measurement (because our current technology does not allow such measurement) you deem it invalid.  So, do you believe there are black holes?

MY POSITION: To be perfectly clear, my intent is not to defend current medical/psychiatric practices as a "just fine and dandy."  Instead, I'm pointing out that it is a young science with many flaws.  But to call it "pseudo science" ignores the fact that these very studies you denigrated are the ones that show that they are reacting and modifying based on new data and new findings.  While still young, they will make a lot of mistakes along the way.  But ANY science that we hold to be true today started that way.

Give it time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

  We're talking about emotions -- quite a non-physical phenomenon only impacted by some physical characteristics.

I agree, so why are we searching for answers to a non-physical phenomenon in the physical realm.

Drugs change the physical make-up (differing chemical compositions is still changing the physical realm).

If the above really does represent your view, I'm in agreement with you. And if we are in agreement, then the answers we seek to solve a non-physical phenomenon can not, will not reside in the physical realm, only in the spiritual realm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

IOW, they recognized a flaw in their methodology and had to come up with a different method to overcome the flaw.  That is real science.  If they just went with the raw data that any fool would realize was nonsense, then they would not be real scientists.  Instead they recognized something was wrong with their methodology and looked into what it was.  That is what they're supposed to do.

Okay, but what if the foundation of their premise is wrong . . .what if they are searching for answers in the wrong direction.  Regardless of how scientific they are-they will never find them.  I'm very sure that those who did blood-letting, etc. had a method to the madness as to why it worked, conducted experiments, etc.  We do it all the time as humans-we don't need some formalized scientific method or be taught it to actually use it.  A toddler learning to walk tries things out, finds out what doesn't work, makes modifications, tries again.

What if the entire foundation of psychology is wrong? That is my premise, that the underlying assumptions with psychology rely not on God but on atheism and in man's flesh; and you can never solve the things of the Spirit relying on man's flesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

MY POSITION: To be perfectly clear, my intent is not to defend current medical/psychiatric practices as a "just fine and dandy."  Instead, I'm pointing out that it is a young science with many flaws.  But to call it "pseudo science" ignores the fact that these very studies you denigrated are the ones that show that they are reacting and modifying based on new data and new findings.  While still young, they will make a lot of mistakes along the way.  But ANY science that we hold to be true today started that way.

Give it time.

Okay, fine call it a young science; but how much actual damage are we really doing to people?  What are all the cost to be associated with drugging people up with drugs that we aren't sure works? Just to make people feel like we know?

How much damage is being done to children diagnosed with ADHD put on ritalin and heaven knows what else, when the founder of the concept of ADHD says:

"A tall, thin man with glasses and suspenders opened the door to his apartment in Harvard Square in 2009, invited me to the kitchen table, and poured coffee. He said that he never would have thought his discovery would someday become so popular. “ADHD is a prime example of a fabricated disorder,” Eisenberg said. “The genetic predisposition to ADHD is completely overrated.”

SPIEGEL: In the 1960s, mental disorders were virtually unknown among children. Today, official sources claim that one child in eight in the United States is mentally ill.

Kagan: That’s true, but it is primarily due to fuzzy diagnostic practices. Let’s go back 50 years. We have a 7-year-old child who is bored in school and disrupts classes. Back then, he was called lazy. Today, he is said to suffer from ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). That’s why the numbers have soared.

SPIEGEL: Experts speak of 5.4 million American children who display the symptoms typical of ADHD. Are you saying that this mental disorder is just an invention?

Kagan: That’s correct; it is an invention. Every child who’s not doing well in school is sent to see a pediatrician, and the pediatrician says: “It’s ADHD; here’s Ritalin.” In fact, 90 percent of these 5.4 million kids don’t have an abnormal dopamine metabolism. The problem is, if a drug is available to doctors, they’ll make the corresponding diagnosis."

--------------

Is that helping or hurting? Is that causing more problems or solving problems? No psychologists and their godless theology have caused more problems with today's children, parents, individuals, etc. than they possibly know how to solve.

It's not a young field-it's an evil field, based on a godless ideology who's cure is worse than the disease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, yjacket said:

What I've said is different than saying depression/bi-polar/manic-depressant, etc. doesn't exist; oh the symptoms are there all right-but we have no clue as to what the cause is or why.

Actually, we do have a LOT of knowledge on what causes it.  The problem comes when all such individuals are put into one basket.  Then that big mixed up basket are all given the same drugs to treat the symptom and not the cause.  Or in your case, they all get equally dismissed as those who could fix it through behavior.

 

1) Some people are depressed because, guess what?  They have a rotten life.  They've been abused for most of their childhood and part of their adult lives.  Or they had multiple members of their families die, leaving them an orphan in the foster care system moving from home to home for all their childhood and dumped on the street on their 18th birthday.

2) Some people are depressed because they are simply negative people.  No matter what happens, they are going to find something to be upset about (snowflakes).

3) Some are depressed because they have a portion of their brain that is being influenced (I read a story about a guy with a tumor who all of a sudden became the happiest guy on earth once they removed it).

4) Some are depressed because of drugs and alcohol.  

5) Some have a chemical imbalance.  You think it's only about seratonin?  Think again.

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/researcher-identifies-five-types-of-depression-050814

While gospel principles can certainly help with conditions 1 & 2, it has less of an effect on the others, at least in a direct sense.  And to think that "just living righteously" is going to fix all depression is no better than thinking drugs will fix all depression.

I don't see how condition #3 could be influenced by righteous living.

Condition 4 would be influenced by the WoW.  But again, that is an indirect effect.

Condition 5 I don't see how this can be impacted by righteous living at all.  But I will give you an example from my own life.

I remembered a friend who had infrequently dabbled in recreational drug use.  He got a hold of some LSD and set himself up in a fairly safe place.  As he took the drug he kept reminding himself that whatever he saw, it was just a hallucination.  It was just the drug.  He was going to maintain control.  He was going to ignore any weird visions, sounds, or even feelings.  This does not mean the visions, sounds, and feelings didn't exist.  He actually saw, heard, and felt very odd things.   But he could accept them for what they were -- figments of his imagination.

It was about this time when I was first diagnosed for depression.  I wondered why they were taking blood tests because they didn't seem to say anything.  And I really wondered what the doctor was looking for in my blood because he could never really explain it to me.  After a while I decided there was no point in taking the meds or seeing the doctor because I knew what worked and what didn't.  And this didn't work.

A while later I was discussing homosexuality with my heterosexual brother because our other brother is a homosexual.  I was making the argument that some people are born that way -- i.e. with a hormonal imbalance that tended to react to male pheromones, etc.  Correct or not, he pointed out that it didn't really matter how they were born.  The principles of the gospel say that such individuals are supposed to control it within the bounds that the Lord has set.

I considered his words with the LSD experience from my friend and began changing my attitude.  I still have bouts of depression almost every day.  But I've learned to see them for what they are -- figments of my imagination.  There is an attitude adjustment I made because I have a different type of depression.  Even though I feel it just as deep and heavy, I know that I'm supposed to deal with it.

So, I feel bad.  I put a smile on my face as best I can.  I breathe in and out.  I compartmentalize these emotions.  I perform a series of mental exercises that I don't have the vocabulary to describe.  Most of the time it works.  It hampers my work and home, office, and church.  But it works.  Then there are the days it does NOT work.

For those who do not truly suffer from clinical depression, you simply don't know what it is like.  For me to hear "Oh, you just need to live the gospel" is not only judgmental, but it is completely ignorant of what it really is.

By that same token, as I've said above, I do NOT condone or encourage the excusing any negative or sinful behaviors because of depression.  The sinful behaviors are still sinful regardless of the excuse.  But such a person should be given the same level of mercy as you would give to someone who was angry at the world because their spouse just died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share