First of all, I never said you were being dishonest. In fact, I'm sure you are completely convinced of your beliefs. However, it's indisputable that delusions and obsessive patterns of thinking are common and in fact defining features of schizophrenia.
Claiming I'm delusional is an ad-hominem. Basically you aren't willing to consider my current experiences because you're judging me for my past psychotic episodes.
I don't have schizophrenia; I have schizo-affective disorder. The schizo effects go in cycles the same way mood effects do.
It's very blatantly obvious when I've been in a delusional state because I have something to contrast it to. So while I may not have realized I was being delusional at the time, I do realize it later. It's not fair of you to dismiss my experiences as a whole over a long period of time because a small % of them were invalid.
The fact that you're so convinced that I know nothing is a prime example of my point in regards to delusory thinking. You don't know anything about me, for all you know I'm a prominent neuroscientist (which I am not).
Here's a prime example of you choosing not to take anything I say seriously because you've convinced yourself I'm delusional.
You don't know my history beyond what I've disclosed in this thread, and things are completely different under delusional psychosis than they are now.
Therefore you're biasing your opinions based on your own belief that I'm currently delusional in thinking adderall works for me, rather than stopping to consider if it actually got rid of my hallucinations or not.
The fact that you're still able to jump to that conclusion with no evidence to suggest that is by definition a delusion.
I'm not jumping to conclusions. If adderall was inducing delusions then there are half a dozen people who would have committed me and I'd be back on the medication merry-go-round instead of off of anti-psychotics.
Instead, everyone I know tells me how happy they are that I'm "back to normal" and how glad they are that I "finally found meds that work". I'm being treated as a human being again instead of some nutjob.
It's night and day difference between your family and friends and medical workers constantly nagging at you to do things that you're incapable of because the anti-psychotics break your ability to function vs. when your brain is working and you can get things done so people don't think you're just using mental health issues as an excuse and being lazy.
When my brain is working, I'm an extremely ambitious workaholic personality type. I can write 1,000 lines of code in a setting, create music from scratch, learn new skills many times faster than most people are able to.
When it's being suppressed by improper medication I can barely even string sentences together without it being a chore. And so I feel suicidal constantly because I feel a sense of learned helplessness that many of those on anti-psychotics end up becoming victims of.
Figuring out how to fix my brain has been my primary focus and goal for two years. Because frankly I will commit suicide if I can't be a functioning productive member of society at some reasonable level. I've been a multi-millionaire business owner, and before that I was making six figures a year doing IT consulting…and my idea of "recovery" isn't suppressing symptoms barely well enough to flip burgers or stock shelves.
I think it would be prudent to point out that even if that number you just pulled out of thin air is true, and that 80% of schizophrenics are smokers, that doesn't prove your point that stimulants are effective treatment methods for that disorder.
It's not a number pulled out of thin air. You were so busy looking for ways to invalidate what I said that you failed to do even a cursory google search on any of the arguments that I actually made. Therefore, you're not being objective at all, which again points to being completely biased.
I don't think smoking is an effective treatment method. However I think it would be worthwhile for someone to do more research on stimulants overall. My point has never been that it is a one-size-fits-all cure for schizo; yet you seem unwilling to consider that it might work for a % of people on it, because you are unwilling to consider my view as being relevant.
I can understand how people who are spending all day arguing with creationists about how silly it is to dispute evolution would be inclined to subsequently dismiss any and all anecdotal evidence as entirely irrelevant in the scope of any types of arguments.
But I'm not trying to publish my results to a medical journal nor sell anyone on rx'ing adderall to psychotic patients; rather I'm simply explaining what works for me, and it is really annoying when you're so dismissive of my experiences.
Science is great but when it comes to double-blind studies it's not one-size-fits all. They're proof of what works in a general sense, but not proof that what works for a statistically significant percentage is going to work for everyone. Likewise, studies that show some small % of patients have a risk for something does not prove anything more than that it's statistically significant; not that it's likely to happen.
I'd be interested to see the research you're referencing, that claims stimulants are effective treatment methods for the positive symptoms of schizophrenia, as the current medical literature indicates they do the exact opposite, and tend to trigger manic episodes, delusions, hallucinations, etc.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....icles/PMC20129/
http://bjp.rcpsych.o...ent/111/477/701
Neither of those articles you linked support your original argument of "Stimulants almost always produce a psychotic episode in those with a predisposition towards psychosis"
A cursory google search will show that stimulants
are being used to treat "negative" symptoms in certain patients. This invalidates your argument that they "almost always" produce psychotic episodes.
Schizophrenics "almost always" smoke cigarettes, if 80% is close enough to whatever your definition of "almost always" is. Show me any evidence that smoking causes psychotic episodes.
Nicotine is a stimulant; schizo people have predisposition towards psychosis; 80% of schizophrenics smoke, so if your allegation was correct then there should be a myriad of studies to back up the idea that nicotine regularly triggers psychosis.
Were this true then mental hospitals wouldn't allow patients committed with psychotic symptoms to drink coffee and wear nicotine patches.
That trial was terminated.
So? That does nothing to invalidate my arguments.
The actual manufacturer warns of stimulant psychosis even at prescribed doses.
So what? Warning labels aren't proof of anything other than that someone thinks it's a potential risk factor for a small % of people, so they don't want to get sued by failing to disclose it.
The FDA would slap a "black box" warning on it if the risk factor was significant enough to be concerned about.
One case of a 12 year old girl is the best you can do? Really? I'd argue that she was over-medicated…even healthy adults find 10mg to be a pretty strong/potent dosage.
For all your talk about how science supports your view, that isn't very good evidence.
You're the one claiming that it "almost always" produces psychosis…Schizophrenia affects roughly 1% of the population. Adderall is rx'd to a large enough percentage of the population that there would be a significant amount of science to back up your claims that it was common, but since there isn't your argument is invalid.
in people who have a latent manifestation of the disorder, it can precipitate a psychotic episode.
Ahh so here comes the back-peddling. "it can precipitate a psychotic episode" is a far cry from your original allegation of "stimulants almost always produce a psychotic episode in those with a predisposition towards psychosis".
You just validated my argument right there. I never claimed that there wasn't any risk factor whatsoever; I only claimed that the science doesn't support the idea that it is a common thing.
Are you starting to come around to the possibility that I actually have bothered researching this stuff, and you haven't?
True addiction is associated with reward center activity.
Ahh, the good old "no true scotsman" fallacy. My favorite!
I am not questioning your experiences.
Another fun fallacy, I'll call this one the "I'm not a racist, but…" argument.
Your own subjective experience is questionable at best, as the nature of the disorder is corruption of the subjective experience. Your capacity to gauge your own mental health is inhibited.
You can't claim that you're not questioning my experiences in one breath and then in another breath specifically state that my experiences are questionable.
In case you missed it, here is
what you actually wrote:
I am not questioning your experiences […] Your own subjective experience is questionable at best
I can't hold a civil debate with someone who is so hypocritical as to outright contradict themselves using the same exact words. If you had a valid argument in there somewhere, it was lost on me because you just proved yourself incapable of using logic and reason. So I'm just spinning my wheels trying to hold a conversation with you.
Edited by katimaya, 14 November 2013 - 09:51 AM.
