Post a response:
|
I don't want to offend any doctors in here. But, then again, I would like the facts, as they appear to exist, to be brought to light. But, then again, I don't want to spend all night typing just this post, either. So here goes some disjointed thoughts. Doctors are fallable. Doctors make mistakes. Treatments are sometimes found to be ineffective. Antibiotics (usually) cure infections. Reliably, demonstrably. Anti-psychotic drugs, and many other pscho-pharmaceutical, are *not* in the same class as antibiotics. They are *not* proven to work, at least in the same way antibiotics are proven to cure infections. Psychiatric patients are often given a trial-and-error "cocktail" of sometimes as many as 6, 7, or more pharmaceuticals before a "correct" prescription is determined. And even then, the "cocktail" is found to be imperfect, and adjusted again. We really are still mostly in the dark about how the brain functions. Much of what is done supposedly in the name of "science" is just guesswork. Pharmaceutical companies are far from ethical. They are some of the most profitable companies in business. And, they are in league with psychiatrists. There is no *proven* need for the overprescribing of psychoactive pharmaceuticals as is now practiced, especially in the U.S. Someone studies psychology, which is not a "hard" science (i.e. is not based on mathematics, the key to good science) as are most other sciences. Then they study medicine. This means that they are a combination of a soft and a hard science. I do not trust them. They prescribe too many drugs for diseases which they themselves have invented. Funny coincidence, that... When the results of a supposed "clinical trial" depend on asking someone, "Do you feel better now?" then the "clinical trial" is *not* objective, and is therefore not valid. At least, that is how it appears to me. (My spell-cheker stopped working - forgive any errors...) :-) |