Reply With QuoteI'm sure I've discussed this elsewhere at some point. I've certainly seen it before. Appalling.Originally Posted by bindeweede
As a volunteer for MIND for 7 years or so, I was appalled to come across this validation of homeopathy on their website. I have sent a message stating my concerns, and a link to John Jackson's article from the main site.
http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/B...homeopathy.htm
If anyone else feels like adding their weight, PLEASE DO.
And as for TCM................
http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/B...e+medicine.htm
Looks like my association with MIND will be ending very soon.
Last edited by bindeweede; 19th April 2008 at 09:39 PM. Reason: addition
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear
bright, until you hear them speak.
I'm sure I've discussed this elsewhere at some point. I've certainly seen it before. Appalling.
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield
I keep getting this terrible feeling of deja woo.
Errm, if that upset you, you wont be liking this......
http://www.mind.org.uk/osb/itemdetails.cfm/ID/521
explore your psychosis with drumming and shamanism, only £12.99
Last edited by VoodooJoe; 20th April 2008 at 01:46 AM.
Before you boys n girls get too hot under the collar, consider this:
http://www.scispirit.com/psychosis_s..._mysticism.htm
Hmm? What d'ya think?Our society's particular illiteracy in the area of spiritual experience contributes to the even greater isolation of the person with psychosis. In 'Recovery from Schizophrenia' Richard Warner (1985) notes that in societies where experience of the spiritual/psychotic realm is valued, people diagnosed with schizophrenia have a far better prognosis than in modern Western Society. This research bears out the significance of a sympathetic spiritual and cultural context for outcome of an encounter with the unconstrued, whether labelled spiritual experience or psychosis; mysticism or madness.
Confucius he say: Learning without thinking is useless. Thinking without learning is dangerous.
^^ To be honest, based on my own personal experience, i think im inclined to agree a little, Ive seen a lot of people gain comfort through religious/mystical rituals and strange illogical practices, as ridiculous as something like shamanic drumming or homeopathy may seem at first glance somebody somewhere must be getting something out of it or no-body would be doing it.
Im not going to adopt the whole woo-woo attitude of conventional=bad and alternative = good.
But i do think sometimes we dismiss things when we take a view wholly based on research and statistics, as we quickly lose sight of the needs of the individuals themselves.
If someone feels better about themselves by lighting pink candles and chanting ooga-booga to the invisble pink unicorn in the sky, then who are we to say that is wrong?
I found the argument hard to follow. Perhaps that's because I'm not well versed in either the kind of "spiritual" experiences the author is writing about, nor in clinical psychology/psychiatry. Or perhaps it's because the whole thing appears to be a loosely tied together grab-bag of mumbo-jumbo, anecdote and speculation.
I wasn't sure, either, of what the author was recommending. Is she really suggesting that someone who is, for example, hearing the voice of God or Satan speaking to him, should be encouraged to see that as a mystical experience?
There's also a hint in the opening few paragraphs (both directly and also by the ready acceptance of extreme mystical experience as being similar to, but distinct from psychotic ones) that the author might be a True Believer and so is looking only for evidence that mysticism is A Good Thing;
Perhaps in the societies described by Warner, psychosis isn't seen as anything wrong; perhaps it's seen as evidence that the sufferer (in our terms) has been blessed by supernatural experience. BUt that isn't the case in western society. Indeed, anyone who *hasn't* been diagnosed with a mental illness but who prattles on about mystical experiences and shamanic rituals is often informally categorised as "bonkers" by those who know them. So I fail to see how if can be helpful for someone who is suffering from mental illness to encourage them to adopt belief systems which on the one hand will validate their psychosis, and on the other will make them appear even more crazy.Our society's particular illiteracy in the area of spiritual experience contributes to the even greater isolation of the person with psychosis. In 'Recovery from Schizophrenia' Richard Warner (1985) notes that in societies where experience of the spiritual/psychotic realm is valued, people diagnosed with schizophrenia have a far better prognosis than in modern Western Society. This research bears out the significance of a sympathetic spiritual and cultural context for outcome of an encounter with the unconstrued, whether labelled spiritual experience or psychosis; mysticism or madness.
Just my UKP0.02
Though of course if a psychotic belief has been validated, then its not really a psychosis anymore
You make some excellent points, especially the ones about cultures who do not view psychosis as being anything wrong, we live in a world where 98% of people believe in god(s) they have never seen or have no evidence for.
Maybe blind faith and illogical thought processes are intrinsic to human nature and when we try to escape these concepts things start to fall down(?)
Last edited by VoodooJoe; 20th April 2008 at 03:00 PM.
Richard Dawkins has dealt at some length with the human diposition to faith. As I understand it he thinks it stems from the fact that young children are programmed to believe what their parents tell them, and this obviously had survival value, so it stayed with us. The trouble is, many if not most people never grow out of that phase, and continue to believe what they are told by authority figures. If you are raised, say, in a religious family in the American Bible Belt, it's easy to see how difficult it would be to break away. Or in a family anywhere in which most believe in homeopathy (like the House of Windsor!). In the world we now live in, saturated by mass media, it is only too easy for quacks, woo-woos and downright loonies to seem like authority figures. And so, they are believed.
Yes, of course. And if people find support in spiritual belief of some kind, then that is their choice. My point was that if people are visiting the MIND site with concerns about their own or someone else's mental health, pointing them towards homeopathy or TCM is not very responsible, in my opinion.If someone feels better about themselves by lighting pink candles and chanting ooga-booga to the invisble pink unicorn in the sky, then who are we to say that is wrong?
It is a bit off the topic, but a few weeks ago I came across this site.
http://www.whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear
bright, until you hear them speak.
Don't get me wrong here, I am concerned about the promotion of alternatives, but I'm still not convinced that they would be any more harmful than the regular treatment. So aside from CBT and psychotherapy, what else is there for these unfortunate people?
Also from MIND:
Antipsychotics are often effective in controlling the symptoms of psychosis, and enable many people to return to normal life. They may lessen delusions, hallucinations, incoherent speech and thinking, and reduce confusion. The drugs can control anxiety and serious agitation, make the person feel less threatened, and also reduce violent, disruptive and manic behaviour. However, not everybody finds antipsychotics helpful, and they can't cure the problem. They can also have very serious side effects, which cause major concern to users.Sorry to keep on about it, but the over use of anti-psychotics concerns me more. I'm not saying I advocate not taking them either. I hear that the majority of mentally ill people who end up killing themselves or others are not taking the meds.Antipsychotic drugs are standard, routine treatment for people who are experiencing psychosis, and doctors believe that drug treatment should be started as soon as possible. But recent research has raised important questions about whether people might not do better without using these drugs.
Some research suggests that someone with schizophrenia, who remains on antipsychotics for a number of years, may be less likely to relapse than someone who is not taking them. But a paper published in the Journal of Medical Hypotheses in 2004 suggests that resorting to antipsychotics straight away, as a matter of routine, may worsen long-term outcomes, and that a considerable percentage of those treated would do better if they were not given drugs. This paper suggests that people experiencing their first episode of psychosis should not be treated with drugs, and that every person who is taking antipsychotics should be given the opportunity to withdraw from them, gradually. It suggests that this would dramatically improve recovery rates and reduce the numbers of people who become ill in the long term.
I would like to see better guidelines about self-medicating with alt. medicine on that site, but I personally don't know whether the alt. stuff would necessarily be a complete waste of time? If it is a placebo at best, then should it not help to reduce symptoms of anxiety in people whose minds are beset with magical, disordered thinking? I know of mental health patients who don't like to take their anti-psychotics because of the effect they have on the senses, they dull everything for some people. They see their disordered thinking etc as a better option sometimes...one guy I know has spent (IMO) far too much money on alternatives but who am I to tell him it doesn't work when he believes it gives him some relief from his problems?
so I'm just saying that I'm not 100% sure that telling these guys that it a) doesn't actually work and b) may be harmful, is the right thing to do.
Can anyone convince me?
Confucius he say: Learning without thinking is useless. Thinking without learning is dangerous.
Well, this has impressed me, from the homeopathy page on the website.There's that "energy" again.The amounts involved are so small that it has lead to doubts about whether they can have any effect. Studies with patients have shown that they do, but the evidence is not conclusive. Science can't yet explain how homeopathy works, but there are various theories about how energy behaves at sub-atomic levels that may prove relevant.
Still, they have responded to the 2 brief comments I made on Saturday evening .................
Thanks for your comments on both booklets. We will consider your opinion when we next update our booklets.
No immediate concerns, then.......?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear
bright, until you hear them speak.
What's the worst that could happen? Your friend, and others like him, end up on the news after they've done something messy to themselves or others...
Mental healthcare over here is a shambles, people who are a potential danger to themselves or others (through no fault of their own) are given a bottle of pills and told to take them daily. Normally what happens is they miss a dose or two and like the 'normal' them better, dump the rest of the tabs and go back to normal - which often entails alcohol and drugs along with a circle of 'friends' who are more than happy to share them.
Pharmaceuticals are only part of the solution (and should be tailored to balance effectiveness against side effects), therapy can help, supportive friends and family and removing them from environments which encourage them to relapse.
Alt-med has no evidence of efficacy in these sort of serious cases and quite often the practitioner will be naysaying the prescription drugs. Given that the patient is mentally vulnerable I really can't think of a worse combination.
Defendants might as well have said: Beneficent creatures from the 17th dimension use this bracelet as a beacon to locate people who need pain relief and whisk them off to their home world every night to provide help in ways unknown to our science.
Judge Frank Easterbrook commenting on the Q-Ray bracelet
"For Gods sake you're an American! Stop thinking of the consequences and blow something up" - Stan Smith, American Dad!
There’s a link in today’s Times that might interest you, Bindeweede:
Homeopathy - what a waste of time
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle3798760.ece
BTW, do you know who wrote the homeopathy page for MIND? I’m not making any accusations, but I was wondering if a certain Dr Rob Hicks (a Maida Vale GP who practices acupuncture) might have had something to do with. He originally helped with the development of the (now deleted) CAM pages for the BBC’s website, and he has also written a lengthy piece on 'Homeopathic Remedies for Mental Health Problems' for this outfit:
http://www.healthyplace.com/alternat...plements_8.asp</H2><H2
This is happening to an 18 year old we know. He 'self medicates'. He's recently relapsed.
I couldn't agree more. But use of the words 'should be' means it ain't necessarily the case.Pharmaceuticals are only part of the solution (and should be tailored to balance effectiveness against side effects), therapy can help, supportive friends and family and removing them from environments which encourage them to relapse.
I can't think of anything more irresponsible. Although there may be something to be said for talking therapy/no meds in some cases. Can you show me a study which states no evidence of efficacy? I'm just wondering why the people at MIND are advocating alt.meds at all.
As with anything involving the workings of the human mind/brain though, can we lump em all in the same boat? People respond differently to whatever treatment. It's all about getting it right for the individual innit?Given that the patient is mentally vulnerable I really can't think of a worse combination.
Confucius he say: Learning without thinking is useless. Thinking without learning is dangerous.
Blue Wode
Sorry if you have already seen this. I can find no author's name, just these references -
But there are other "useful" sites quoted, but not about the truth or otherwise of the claims. I won't quote them, as they are just links to commercial outfits selling homeopathic stuff.'Clinical trials of homeopathy', 1991, J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, British medical journal, vol.302, pp.316-323
The concordant materia medica, F. van Vermeulen (Merlijn Publishers)
The organon of medicine, S. Hahnemann, 6th ed. (B. Jain)
Repertorium homeopathicum syntheticum, ed. Dr F. Schroyens (Homeopathic Book Publishers)
Thatak’s materia medica, Dr S. R. Thatak (Foxlee-Vaughan Publishing Ltd)
Thanks for the Timesonline link. I'll ad it to my list.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear
bright, until you hear them speak.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks