Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aren't we all somewhere on the spectrum of disease?

thedeductible.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 62 posts

Re: Aren't we all somewhere on the spectrum of disease?

#11

Post by roland00 »

KerryJones wrote: post #6

It's weird that we consider mental illness to be a disease, in my opinion -- none of the drugs have been linked to physical/chemical shortages in the brain or the like. We're able to mask symptoms but have absolutely no proof about underlying reasons, and so we create names of things and put it in the same classification of a medical disease... but that's very different. Bipolar cannot be identified by any physical m…

Mental Illness as defined by the DSM as not thriving. You can have the symptoms of a disorder, but if you are thriving then you do not have the disorder.

>It can seriously mess someone's life up.

Treatment to try fix someone who is not thriving, is precisely because someone's life is already messed up. Yes treatment may make it worse, but it often makes it better and there are treatment algorithms where we use best practices of how to go from here, and what signs should we be mindful for often when the meds make things worse the doctor should be asking the right questions for there are warning signs when the med is making things worse.

Re: Aren't we all somewhere on the spectrum of disease?

#12

Post by hnick »

KerryJones wrote: post #6

It's weird that we consider mental illness to be a disease, in my opinion -- none of the drugs have been linked to physical/chemical shortages in the brain or the like. We're able to mask symptoms but have absolutely no proof about underlying reasons, and so we create names of things and put it in the same classification of a medical disease... but that's very different. Bipolar cannot be identified by any physical m…

I'd personally believe there are physical differences even if we can't see them yet, but there's no proof until we do see them one day. It depends if you subscribe to dualism or not I suppose. Until then we are finding fire through smoke.

A spectrum will be based on a society so over time "normal" can shift. I wonder how many times that has happened? I've heard the USA as a population is typically very extroverted compared to many other countries, so perhaps that's one case.

Re: Aren't we all somewhere on the spectrum of disease?

#14

Post by KerryJones »

roland00 wrote: post #11
KerryJones wrote: post #6

It's weird that we consider mental illness to be a disease, in my opinion -- none of the drugs have been linked to physical/chemical shortages in the brain or the like. We're able to mask symptoms but have absolutely no proof about underlying reasons, and so we create names of things and put it in the same classification of a medical disease... but that's very different. Bipolar cannot be identified by any physical m…

Mental Illness as defined by the DSM as not thriving. You can have the symptoms of a disorder, but if you are thriving then you do not have the disorder. >It can seriously mess someone's life up. Treatment to try fix someone who is not thriving, is precisely because someone's life is already messed up. Yes treatment may make it worse, but it often makes it better and there are treatment algorithms where we use best p…

The DSM is based off the "top" Psychiatrists at the time voting on the illnesses (literally), without scientific backing.

Treatment's don't fix anything, they might lessen one issue and often give a host of other problems that are often more severe. I think more studying of iatrogenics is in order and more data about what "making it better" means -- as often the patient and doctor have different meanings. Again, because there's no physical symptom, you can't say "levels have returned to normal".

If you were feeling depressed but now you feel nothing, is that better?

Re: Aren't we all somewhere on the spectrum of disease?

#15

Post by treeman79 »

roland00 wrote: post #11
KerryJones wrote: post #6

It's weird that we consider mental illness to be a disease, in my opinion -- none of the drugs have been linked to physical/chemical shortages in the brain or the like. We're able to mask symptoms but have absolutely no proof about underlying reasons, and so we create names of things and put it in the same classification of a medical disease... but that's very different. Bipolar cannot be identified by any physical m…

Mental Illness as defined by the DSM as not thriving. You can have the symptoms of a disorder, but if you are thriving then you do not have the disorder. >It can seriously mess someone's life up. Treatment to try fix someone who is not thriving, is precisely because someone's life is already messed up. Yes treatment may make it worse, but it often makes it better and there are treatment algorithms where we use best p…

Doctors kept thinking I had a mental disorder. Several years of horrible experiences with medications were a waste Turned out it was a blood disorder. Proper treatment actually solved problems.

Depression meds just meant I was cool with my mind not working right.

I get some people are bipolar and such, but I think a lot of people have an underlying disorder they’re unaware of.

Re: Aren't we all somewhere on the spectrum of disease?

#16

Post by pdonis »

treeman79 wrote: post #15
roland00 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mental Illness as defined by the DSM as not thriving. You can have the symptoms of a disorder, but if you are thriving then you do not have the disorder. >It can seriously mess someone's life up. Treatment to try fix someone who is not thriving, is precisely because someone's life is already messed up. Yes treatment may make it worse, but it often makes it better and there are treatment algorithms where we use best p…

Doctors kept thinking I had a mental disorder. Several years of horrible experiences with medications were a waste Turned out it was a blood disorder. Proper treatment actually solved problems. Depression meds just meant I was cool with my mind not working right. I get some people are bipolar and such, but I think a lot of people have an underlying disorder they’re unaware of.

Part of the diagnostic process is supposed to be checking for "non-mental" things like blood disorders, by doing blood tests and other evaluations. So it sounds like you went through a flawed diagnostic process. Unfortunately that is far more common than it should be. The best way I have found to mitigate that risk is to have an advocate with you (family member or close friend) whenever you talk to doctors or other medical personnel about diagnosis or treatment--preferably someone who isn't afraid to ask tough questions and be skeptical of what seem like cookbook answers.

Re: Aren't we all somewhere on the spectrum of disease?

#17

Post by JumpCrisscross »

roland00 wrote: post #11
KerryJones wrote: post #6

It's weird that we consider mental illness to be a disease, in my opinion -- none of the drugs have been linked to physical/chemical shortages in the brain or the like. We're able to mask symptoms but have absolutely no proof about underlying reasons, and so we create names of things and put it in the same classification of a medical disease... but that's very different. Bipolar cannot be identified by any physical m…

Mental Illness as defined by the DSM as not thriving. You can have the symptoms of a disorder, but if you are thriving then you do not have the disorder. >It can seriously mess someone's life up. Treatment to try fix someone who is not thriving, is precisely because someone's life is already messed up. Yes treatment may make it worse, but it often makes it better and there are treatment algorithms where we use best p…

> Mental Illness as defined by the DSM as not thriving

Isn’t that a two-system measure? The person. And their society.

A gay man in Tehran won’t thrive, but the solution isn’t medicating him into submission.

Re: Aren't we all somewhere on the spectrum of disease?

#18

Post by blame_lewis »

This is a really dangerous and misleading way to look at bipolar.

The disease proper of bipolar disorder is progressive and degenerative. This progression is accompanied by structural changes in the brain [1] as well as biological changes in the body [2].

If someone had the syndromes of manic or depressed symptoms in response to a medication, that does not prove either way that the person actually has the progressive and degenerative disease that can induce those syndromes spontaneously. If withdrawing the medication completely solves the problem, it simply indicates that they don't have the disease.

The sentiment of "we're all a little crazy" is very old, and very dangerous to go around repeating. There's a specific threshold where things suddenly get orders of magnitude more fucked up, and anyone who has crossed this threshold will know how damaging it is to treat these diseases as if they're just an extension of normal human experiences.

If you have this disease, you need to halt the degenerative process. I've taken my meds every single day for the last 14 years because I know what will happen if I stop. I have friends and family that went down that road, and it isn't pretty.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00063... [2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160531104421.h...

Re: Aren't we all somewhere on the spectrum of disease?

#19

Post by dragonwriter »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #17
roland00 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mental Illness as defined by the DSM as not thriving. You can have the symptoms of a disorder, but if you are thriving then you do not have the disorder. >It can seriously mess someone's life up. Treatment to try fix someone who is not thriving, is precisely because someone's life is already messed up. Yes treatment may make it worse, but it often makes it better and there are treatment algorithms where we use best p…

> Mental Illness as defined by the DSM as not thriving Isn’t that a two-system measure? The person. And their society. A gay man in Tehran won’t thrive, but the solution isn’t medicating him into submission.

> Isn’t that a two-system measure?

Usually, three, because the specific “not thriving” criteria usually have a degree of subjectivity, so it's patient/society/clinician.

Re: Aren't we all somewhere on the spectrum of disease?

#20

Post by Kalium »

KerryJones wrote: post #14
roland00 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mental Illness as defined by the DSM as not thriving. You can have the symptoms of a disorder, but if you are thriving then you do not have the disorder. >It can seriously mess someone's life up. Treatment to try fix someone who is not thriving, is precisely because someone's life is already messed up. Yes treatment may make it worse, but it often makes it better and there are treatment algorithms where we use best p…

The DSM is based off the "top" Psychiatrists at the time voting on the illnesses (literally), without scientific backing. Treatment's don't fix anything, they might lessen one issue and often give a host of other problems that are often more severe. I think more studying of iatrogenics is in order and more data about what "making it better" means -- as often the patient and doctor have different meanings. Again, beca…

The DSM can perhaps be viewed as a field guide to systems we can see the outer manifestations of but have limited deep insight into.
Post reply on HN