Long post warning. For the record, I'm responding to this against my
better judgement, but I don't wish Dendron Oaks to think I've turned
my back on him simply because of his attacking me _ad hominem_. I've
certainly experienced more stigma, fear and loathing than seeing
someone who appears to be out- of- control ``warning'' the
participants in a list to ``WATCH OUT FOR POSTS BY ROGUE 007.''
Support Coalition - David Oaks <dendron at efn.org> wrote:
[I said the mainstream media propagates the Big Lie that
antipsychotics are evil, Mr. Oaks responded:]
>THE ABOVE IS TOTAL MISINFORMATION: Mainstream medical literature itself
>labels neuroleptics "dysphorogenic," that is, people don't generally like
>to take it.
Medical literature is not mainstream media; perhaps that is why so
many average citizens don't know the difference between
psychopharmacology and psychoanalysis.
> Let
>Rogue 007 post ONE example of mainstream media blasting neuroleptics... we
>monitor the media internationally, and have only seen very rare
>exceptions, for the past two decades.
I just saw it last week on the NBC-TV show _Law and Order_. A law
school graduate diagnosed schizoaffective with a concurrent history of
violence murders someone, and defends himself in court. The actor
portrayed the character as having a movement disorder, although it was
more of a hideous clonic grimacing than any kind of dyskinesia one
might expect, even for someone who has gone on and off meds
repeatedly, as the backstory suggested.
Millions of TV viewers learned antipsychotic medication has mind-
numbing effects, so intolerable that the way the attorney was shown at
the end of the show was preferable to his being able to perform the
job description of a trial attorney. I know this is a medical group,
but humor me that being an attorney takes intellectual skill, okay?
Due to reasons unrelated to side- effects, the murderer goes off meds
once more for some number of weeks, deteriorates into a hyper-
religious delusionary state and goes loony- tunes during a stressful
cross- analysis.
I hate to break it to you, Dendron Oaks, but the whole point of many
psychiatric meds (including antipsychotics) is in fact to *do* just
what you rail against; in other words, the problem with being
schizophrenic is that your brain is *too sensitive to incoming sensory
inputs* and *needs to be slowed down* so it can more effectively
*filter out the noise* from an environment which can be overwhelming
to a schizophrenia sufferer, and thereby facilitate ability to
*comprehend information* at least on a conscious level. At least
that's the way I comprehend reality.
>Perhaps "Rogue 007" has some kind of underlying motivation, by
>stretching so extremely far to explain why neuroleptics are
>unpopular. SO I'M GOING TO NAIL THIS REBUTTAL DOWN:
If I were an unmedicated schizophrenia sufferer, all that shouting
might have driven my parasympathetic nervous symptom so erratic I
might have had a CVA. My only underlying motivation right now is that
this is getting annoying because it turns my stomach that your entire
c/s/x movement is dedicated to trying to discredit medical treatment
of mental illness and there happen to be people who could benefit from
non- stigmatizing medical mental illness treatment but they *just
don't get it.*
>In the medical literature there are a few examples of psychiatrists taking
>the pill to see what's like. The very first said she felt like she was
>"dying." Wrote Dr. C. Quarti on Nov. 9, 1951, about what it was like just
>one hour after her trying chlorpromazine: "I began to have the impression
>that I was becoming weaker... that I was dying. It was very painful and
>agonizing." [CITATION: JP Swazey, "Chlorpromazine in Psychiatry,"
>(Cambridge, MA; MIT Press, pp. 117-120, 201-207.)]
Get serious. Chlorpromazine is not the first- line drug of choice
when any other option is available. That dude may in fact actually be
dead today: 1951 was almost *half a century ago*. Breakthroughs in
brain science having to do with mental illness have accelerated
starting around the late 1980s.
>Two psychiatrists tried Haldol and wrote up their experiences, saying they
>had to quit work for the day, and couldn't even answer the phone unless
>ordered to. These two psychiatrists injected themselves with 5 mg of
>Haldol, and wrote up their experiences: "... a marked slowing of thinking
>and movement developed, along with profound inner restlessness...
>neither subject could continue work, and each left for over 36 hours...
>Each subject complained of paralysis of volition, a lack of physical
>and psychic energy. The subjects felt unable to read, telephone or
>perform household tasks of their own will, but could perform these
>tasks if demanded to do so. There was no sleepiness or sedation; on the
>contrary, both subjects complained of severe anxiety."
>[CITATION: R.H. Belmaker and D. Wald, "British Journal of Psychiatry,
>131:222-223, p. 1977.]
I understand Haldol can be extremely sedating upon the first
administration, but the fact of the matter is, most side effects
subside given some time and many even disappear after awhile.
I also know about the anxiety stuff. If you keep mentally and
physically active, the anxiety vanishes. Besides, a non- mentally ill
brain would probably respond differently to an antipsychotic than one
with mental illness pathology. BTW, isn't 5mg of injectable Haldol in
one dose is a *lot* to take when you aren't even psychotic?
>And what about what T. Van Putten, et al. said in the "Archives of
>General Psychiatry" (35:480, 1978): "The reluctance to take
>anti-psychotic medication was significantly associated with
>extrapyramidal symptoms [trembling, drooling, rigidity, etc.],
>most notably a subtle akathesia [restlessness]."
This is out of context and I don't know what med it refers to. You've
left out enough meaningful information we don't know if these were
reported responses, elicited responses, or even if they were from the
control group. Akathesia is definitely a bummer, in fact I'd call it
the worst side effect of antipsychotics (the second is not TD
incidentally, it is weight gain).
>The true experts on neuroleptics are those who have had it. They
>understand what mainstream literature shows, if you dig deep enough: It's
>not really a tranquilizer. The internal experience tends to be one of
>antsiness; it's just that thinking while on the drug is very hard, and if
>one tries it becomes even harder. One becomes more easily manageable.
LOL. The term ``major tranquilizer'' is a euphemism-- kind of a
politically- correct Newspeak term before its time, kind of an
analogous morpheme to ``minot tranquilizer'' and those were considered
not only socially acceptable but almost imbued with an aura of glamor
back when they were used. Miltown was the Prozac of its day. I don't
for a minute believe the therapeutic value of antipsychotics is in the
sedation most, but not all, cause, although I can think of a symptom
profile where using thioridizine might be preferable to polypharmacy
including a sleeping pill. Thioridizine at hour of sleep would not
only serve its main function but the stronger than typical sedation
side- effect might alleviate chronic insomnia as a bonus.
>SO EVERYONE, WATCH OUT FOR POSTS BY "ROGUE 007." Anyone who would go out
>of his way to claim that neuroleptics are not unpleasant for non-compliant
>folks -- even though the poster claims some familiarity with the field --
>is displaying a severe kind of distress: "lack-of-empathyitis," and
>"big-lie-itis." A most terrible combination. REFUTATION, ROGUE 007? Come on,
>let's see what you got.
You want my psychiatrist's phone number? I agree, your society's lack
of empathy for the plight of mental patients who desire medical
treatment but cannot even get in$urance parity is the result of Big
Lies accepted as fact by people whose main idea of a mental patient
comes from movies like _One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest_ or _Silence
of the Lambs_.
>> 2a. Untreated schizophrenia sufferers can live in a nightmare world
>> where all thoughts, emotions, and sensory input is heightened and
>> magnified to such an overwhelming intensity their experience is like a
>> living Hell. That is the alternative to not receiving medical care
>> from the point of view of a mental illness sufferer.
>>Hmmmm... 1a. and 2a. don't seem to add up very well, do they? I mean,
>Lithium tends to have fans, who prefer to take it, because they don't
>like the effects. But neuroleptics frequently need to be forced or
>coerced upon people. So if the alternative to neuroleptics are so
>terrifying, why don't people flock to neuroleptics? Because, despite
>what Rogue 007 says, THEY OFTEN DON'T LIKE TO TAKE THEM.
Read my posts. For the benefit of those who missed it, point 1a was:
>1a. This is because the mainstream media propagates the Big Lie that
>there is something ``evil'' about using antipsychotic meds for mental
>illness treatment. As a result, many uniformed non- mental patients
>have a negative attitude toward antipsychotic meds. Is it any wonder
>many untreated sufferers exposed to the same influences don't desire
>meds while dazed, confused, and paranoid?
Is it possible you are either illiterate or retarded? Fortunately
most people can learn how to read; unfortunately there is no
medication that can do for mentally retarded individuals what
antipsychotics, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants can for mentally
ill ones. I suppose you are can explain why Ritalin is always
contraindicated for ADD children also.
>I am referring to an ABSENCE of neuroscientists, as in a VACUUM of
>neuroscientists, as in HARDLY ANY NEUROSCIENTISTS are ever speaking out.
>So that would be just about all of them. For instance, Jill Taylor at
>McLean's KNOWS about random dendritic spreading, but won't cough and let
>the public know it's there.
Calm down and get a hold of yourself, dude. If I didn't find this
thread interesting enough to respond to, you would just be yelling at
yourself. I know, you believe that kind of behavior is acceptable.
Try yelling and screaming this kind of rant in the middle of the night
in most apartment buildings and see what happens.
>> 4a. You received national public radio coverage? This is an example
>> of not speaking out?
>>Yes, only IF we organize, and speak out together, in numbers... which
>the "Brain Boycott" did. So you support our Brain Boycott now?
Why don't you explain it one more time, and SHOUT A TAD.
>I did not publish her phone number. I published the BRAIN BANK's phone
>number, and you can reach her through that. Dr. Taylor has said she feels
>that the Brain Boycott has generally been good for business, and she said
>she welcomed the attention. Thank you for your sudden concern about human
>rights of Dr. Taylor... now how do you feel about people at McLean being
>FORCIBLY injected with neuroleptics? Perhaps your human rights concern is
>a bit.... selective?
Read my other posts, here in bionet.neuroscience, and in all the sci.*
groups you spammed. I guess you don't ever give up, and tenacity is
a good quality in a political organizer, but even you should know when
to order pizza and go home.
>> 6a. People reading your similar spams all over Usenet never received
>> an answer to the most important question I posed to you: in what way
>> are these changes worse than living through a decades-long hell of
>> untreated mental illness symptoms?
>>You missed the point. It's not just which is worse, IT'S *WHO* DECIDES.
>If someone decides to take neuroleptics, fully informed, and offered
>alternatives... FINE. No problem. Many of our members choose that.
>But if not, then "NO" means "NO." And there are very rational reasons for
>that "NO." Bizarre "pharmaceutical fundamentalists" want to make
>the decision FOR us. We may be mental patients, but we're American
>mental patients, DON'T TRED ON US.
If you would just calm down, maybe you will be able to read my lips:
I believe every mental patient should have the right to refuse
medication; but I believe that part of competent medicine is
monitoring for side- effects and their amelioration; physicians
should take the whole patient's life into consideration when
formulating a treatment plan, using as much input from the patient as
is feasible-- including a consideration of who the patient was before
the disease hit and, who the patient would have been had the disease
not hit.
I also stand by my opinion that contrary to your claim too many people
are being forced into taking meds against their will that the *real*
problem is: society needs to realize there is no more reason to fear
or loathe a diagnosis of mental illness than one of arthritis, and to
accelerate the availability of correct, current medical treatment to
all mentally ill individuals, without fear of losing the ability to
become employed at the most productive level they choose, without fear
of being denied acceptance to any academic institution they qualify
for, and without fear of becoming socially outcast for no other reason
than seeking medical treatment for a genetic disease.
It's rather obvious that, contrary to claims of your easily- targeted
foil DJ Jaffee of NAMI, based on what I know, you are indeed worthy of
the name mental patient. Is your life now fulfilled?
>You claim somehow that *YOU* are more capable than us to decide
>what we should take; yet as anyone can see from the above you haven't
>even bothered to do the most basic of homework on neuroleptics.
>Unfortunately, this is very typical in the field. And they want
>to make decisions for us?
Uh, run that past me one more time? I have no quibble that people
should not have medical treatment forced on them. My problem is with
the medical insurance delivery ``system'' and your society's
stigmatization of using meds to treat mental illness. That diseased
combination enables a scenario where many who could benefit from
medical mental illness treatment are in a position where they would
not even consider trying it.
So in the sense that society has enabled a scenario whereby it is more
socially- acceptable to be a drunk driver than to take psychiatric
medication, I agree that is, with regard to its stigmatization of
medical mental illness treatment, sick. Unfortunately I cannot make
the leap of faith that society's distress causes mental illness.
But you *still have not answered my main question*.
The question is, if indeed brain changes called dendritic spreading do
occur in humans after long- term exposure to antipsychotic meds,
in what way are they worse than mental illness symptoms?
--
Legislate the in$urance indu$try out of the business of preventing
medical care. Bean-counters have a DNR order with *your* name on it.