It is sometimes argued that psychiatric drugs "curing" (stopping) the thinking, emotions, or behavior that is called mental illness proves the existence of biological causes of mental illness.  This argument is easily refuted: Suppose someone was playing the piano and you didn't like him doing that.  Suppose you forced or persuaded him to take a drug that disabled him so severely that he couldn't play the piano anymore.  Would this prove his piano playing was caused by a biological abnormality that was cured by the drug?  As senseless as this argument is, it is often made.  Most if not all psychiatric drugs are neurotoxic, producing a greater or lesser degree of generalized neurological disability.  So they do stop disliked behavior and may mentally disable a person enough he can no longer feel angry or unhappy or "depressed".  But calling this a "cure" is absurd.  Extrapolating from this that the drug must have cured an underlying biological abnormality that was causing the disliked emotions or behavior is equally absurd.

Are you crazy?

During a visit to an insane asylum, a visitor asked the director what were the criteria defining whether or not a patient should be institutionalized.

"Well," said the director, "One test is that we fill up a bathtub and offer a teaspoon, a teacup and a bucket to the patient and ask him or her to empty the bathtub."

"Oh, I understand," said the visitor. "A normal person would use the bucket because it is bigger than the teaspoon or the teacup."

"Well, no," said the Director, "A normal person would pull the plug. Now, do you want a room with or without a view?"

-------

Watch the 4 minute video:

.

IS PSYCHIATRY SCIENTIFIC AND DANGEROUS?

http://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james58.htm