Drugs not best option for people at risk of psychosis, study warns
Last edited by firemonkee; 06-04-12 at 06:21.
Yet inside there is this perpetual nagging doubt;
the feeling we are possessed by a 'subtle lack of togetherness''.
If we really want to say what helps in mental health, there’s a straightforward mantra and it goes like this:
“Some people find medication helpful. Some people find therapy helpful. Some people find medication and therapy helpful. Some people don’t find either helpful.”
My newspaper
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Likes, 0 Hug
I must say, "the not so subtle lack togetherness" is of concern to me also on the basis that both psychiatry/pharmacological intervention as well as complimentary therapies like CBT have both played an important role in my recovery and maintenance thereof and continue to do so.Originally Posted by firemonkee
In Australia the is no end of argument for either one or the other which appears to be more grounded in an infernal political peeing match over the squabble for limited resources than anything else.
Certainly, the red cross doesn't want my blood in its entirety on the grounds that it is tainted with neuroleptics, and if I do not misinterpret, there are studies that claim that due to the potential of receptor damage as a consequence of neuroleptic exposure, that to remain drug naive may indeed be preferable.
Counter balanced to that though of course is that if an individual is latently florid, that it to say for example that exposure to sufficient stressors or substance can induce break through symptoms, then a pharmaco intevention at the early stages gives the best chance of a recovery, even if only to the extent of requiring a limited period of intervention to assist to "tweek" the system back into self sustaining balance.
http://beyondmeds.com/2011/03/21/finnishopendialogue/
People can be helped without pouring toxic chemicals down their throat - who would have thought it?
The best treatment is meds and mental treatment. IDC what any one says Though I can say that and not take mine im a hypicrit and i know it ^_^
so only one in ten of young people considered at risk of psychosis went on to develop psychosis, so the study suggests that nine of the kids didnt need antipsychotics and that talking worked better.
illogical, captain
surely all ten shouldnt be treated for psychosis becuase none had psychosis. so if nine kids didnt get psychosis its because they were never going to.
what this shows is
1/ predicting psychosis is less accurate than random selection
2/ antipsychotics are used to treat nonpsychosis
3/ talking to nonpsychotic kids you think will become psychotic helps them to remain nonpsychotic even though they were never going to become psychotic
4/ no one bothers to read source material
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Likes, 0 Hugcalypso gave thanks for this post
"If the human race survives, future men will, I suspect, look back on our enlightened epoch as a
veritable Age of Darkness... They will see that what was considered 'schizophrenic' was one of the
forms in which, often through quite ordinary people, the light began to break into our all-too-closed
minds."
— Dr. R.D. Laing
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Likes, 0 Hug
So how do they decide when someone is at risk of psycosis if they are not in it? I am confused...
If you are taking prescribed medication be careful about stopping it. It should be done gradually and under medical supervision, otherwise you can become acutely ill. Take care.
Last edited by mckie; 21-04-12 at 22:43. Reason: Should be in bold but went through too quickly.
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote