So after seeing this play out recently https://lemmygrad.ml/post/367002/comment/275850 where the community seemed to be posting articles without even bothering to read the content (the study literally had a pro-SSRI arguement in the abstract…) I decided to give the community a bit more of a whirl and see if they had anything of substance to share.
As another example of a random post I picked out;
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/368364?scrollToComments=true
We have someone putting forward the person Joanna Moncrieff.
Why is Joanna Moncrieff significant?
At face value we see that see appears to have legit creditentials; she has a long, legit career of working as a doctor within a psych capacity and has a acredited degree in medicine. She oppouses anti-psych medication views based on as she frames ‘new research’ showing that the theory once held by mainstream psych doctors on the brains inablity to produce enough seritonin was false.
The issue with this is that this link is not new, it was proven 30 years ago. We still know that they do work, we just dont know why. A helpfull anology would be with gravity; if we found a new variable that better explained something to do with it, it would not invalidate all previous laws; just improve them because we would now more understand that we dont fully understand the issue, and we can now try to take another guess as to why it works. To conclude this point she is grifting because she is presenting this information as something new, fully knowing it is not. Likely hoping to lure in people who have been failed by the medical system because of neo-liberalism and exploit them for profit. It is a symptom of neo-liberalism and is class exploitation at its worst, as it tends to hit the disabled.
Tens of thousands of studies have been done on the efficiecy of psychatric help in regards to SSRIs that are all peer reviewed and used scientific methods such as control groups and such.
Is there valid criticisms of the psychatric institutes of capital?
100%
But they are not to be found in the grifters trying to make careers out of anti-intuclectuallism. The anti-psychartic position is completely devoid of marxist analysis; we only need to look at academics like Althusser, who stipulates that psych hospitals have historically been used by fascists to deem communists as ‘mentally ill’ and imprison them against there will. This fate hit many communists like Antonio Gramsci.
Yet there is no mention of any marxists in that community, only psuedo-science.
It is my opinion that the community should be removed and instead replaced with a socialist psychology instance which can discuss psychology done thru an actual marxist perspective.
Good grief here we go again.
So after seeing this play out recently https://lemmygrad.ml/post/367002/comment/275850 where the community seemed to be posting articles without even bothering to read the content (the study literally had a pro-SSRI arguement in the abstract…) I decided to give the community a bit more of a whirl and see if they had anything of substance to share.
Yeah I somehow missed that. Sorry and I apologize.
Also that was no community; I posted that article.
Why is Joanna Moncrieff significant?
Because she’s part of the study that disproved the Chemical Imbalance theory in Major Depression Disorder.[1] The one that is extremely popular.
The issue with this is that this link is not new, it was proven 30 years ago.
What’s your proof for this?
We still know that they do work, we just dont know why.
How do you know that they work? Major Depression Disorder doesn’t require any objective analysis; so the designation of MDD is based on subjective analysis.
A helpfull anology would be with gravity; if we found a new variable that better explained something to do with it, it would not invalidate all previous laws; just improve them because we would now more understand that we dont fully understand the issue, and we can now try to take another guess as to why it works. To conclude this point she is grifting because she is presenting this information as something new, fully knowing it is not.
That’s because gravity is in the material world.
Likely hoping to lure in people who have been failed by the medical system because of neo-liberalism and exploit them for profit. It is a symptom of neo-liberalism and is class exploitation at its worst, as it tends to hit the disabled.
Lure?! This is quite accusatory.
Tens of thousands of studies have been done on the efficiecy of psychatric help in regards to SSRIs that are all peer reviewed and used scientific methods such as control groups and such.
Those same studies don’t study the effects of antidepressants beyond the short-term.
Have you read into those studies? They don’t study antidepressants in the long-term; that’s how companies get away with saying that antidepressants work.
Also, Major Depression Disorder requires no objective analysis, so how are we supposed to discern it from regular people?
Here’s a prolewiki link on Psychiatry.
It is my opinion that the community should be removed and instead replaced with a socialist psychology instance which can discuss psychology done thru an actual marxist perspective.
I agree. It’s not a bad thing to discuss psychology/psychiatry, but it remains a very delicate subject. My problem with the community remains the same: it can be a harmful place if there is no control. Mental health can bring forth very real issues in your life and the treatment of these problems, while they themselves can be problematic, is still a very tricky subject. Especially when it’s done by people that have no knowledge or experience in doing so.
I’m not saying you should listen to your doctors or therapists all the time, but please also actually think about what random strangers on the internet say.
I would like to add that they keep posting ableist articles that claim well-researched and documented mental illnesses or disabilities aren’t real by attacking their “scientific basis”.
I have been removing those posts for the obvious reason, but I’m fed up with having to. Lemmygrad isn’t a place to post ableism freely, just because some people in the medical field are greedy.
I would like to add that they keep posting ableist articles that claim well-researched and documented mental illnesses or disabilities aren’t real by attacking their “scientific basis”.
What’s your proof of this? ADHD and Autism don’t even require any objective analysis. Go read the DSM-5 and ICD-11 if you don’t believe me.[1]
- Studies on Autism and ADHD also try to use the twin study method in families.
- Studies still fail to identify genes for Autism and ADHD.
I have been removing those posts for the obvious reason, but I’m fed up with having to. Lemmygrad isn’t a place to post ableism freely, just because some people in the medical field are greedy.
What?! Showing psuedoscientific labels for what they are isn’t ableist. It’s liberating people from being harmed by pseudoscientific abusers.
I’m against removing an antipsychiatry community, I would call myself antipsych, but the community is in an embarrassing state and have no feelings against wiping most of the community content.
Edit: I’ve found more valuable discussions of antipsychiatry in sites such as Tumblr, Twitter and Reddit. It comes down to the fact it’s only one user posting links to articles and “outsiders” of the community only contributing votes instead of discussion.
I would call myself antipsych
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3610072/
Cuba routinely employes psychatrists.
The problem isnt the profession, its capitalism.
Edit: I should add its what my issues with the anti-psych community are, they are baseleslly attacking the actual undisputed science with bad faith arguements instead of engaging in actual ideological analysis (marxism, femminism what have you)
Yeah and. I don’t live in Cuba and Communist countries are not the ones influencing the state of the discipline today. You won’t change my mind on this, sorry comrade
Communist countries
Socialist* countries. No country can have communism because of the existence of capitalism.
ones influencing the state of the discipline today
Sure, I just wouldnt conflate industrial private healthcare with the actual science, which is still there under the surface.
Its exploitative and dishonest how they utilize it but the root of the issues arent the discipline itself, just the economic system underpinning it that is exploiting it.
Sure, I just wouldnt conflate industrial private healthcare with the actual science, which is still there under the surface.
Its exploitative and dishonest how they utilize it but the root of the issues arent the discipline itself, just the economic system underpinning it that is exploiting it.
How do you know this? Prove it.
