“I have to point out that to reject the idea that mental illness can have physical causes, is essentially…(snip)”

PeaceMaker, I have not rejected the possibility of anything. Read what I have said. I am simply asking for evidence that reliably establishes the truth of a proposition. #logic

Eric Kandel, MD, a Nobel Prize laureate and professor of brain science at Columbia University, believes it’s all about biology. “All mental processes are brain processes, and therefore all disorders of mental functioning are biological diseases,” he says.

Circular logic and causal reductionism. (See also cum hoc ergo propter hoc and the single cause fallacy). The premise is not evidence of the conclusion. Such “neurocentrism” reduces what is arguably a complex and multifactorial issue into a one-size-fits-all religion.

That viewpoint is quickly gaining supporters, thanks in part to Thomas R. Insel, MD, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, who has championed a biological perspective during his tenure at the agency.

“I spent 13 years at NIMH really pushing on the neuroscience and genetics of mental disorders, and when I look back on that I realize that while I think I succeeded at getting lots of really cool papers published by cool scientists at fairly large costs – I think $20 billion – I don’t think we moved the needle in reducing suicide, reducing hospitalizations, improving recovery for the tens of millions of people who have mental illness. I hold myself accountable for that.” — Thomas R. Insel, M.D., former director of the National Institute of Mental Health (2002 – 2015), May 2017.

See https://www.wired.com/2017/05/star-neuroscientist-tom-insel-leaves-google-spawned-verily-startup/

Mwestern,
As I previously stated this is NOT the forum for this debate. You obviously went to school as you know how to cite a source, but I would suggest that instead of using “Dr. Google” you actually crack a book! As I said. The discussion is over- I have no need to prove myself to you

Thank you, peacemaker for stepping in

To being with, while it’s not a formal line of argumentation, I have to point out that to reject the idea that mental illness can have physical causes, is essentially to hold instead that the brain is then unlike any other part or organ of the body, and never suffers from inherent abnormalities or pathologies that impair or affect its function – not to mention the obvious ones with specific onsets, like injuries from trauma, and strokes. That itself might be said to be a “leap of faith” given what we now do know, and has been proven, about how the rest of the body works, which itself supplanted not so long ago ideas about things like “humours,” and associated practices like bloodletting – supported by compelling-seeming theories and apparently impressive accumulations of anecdotes, and yet which turn out to actually be ineffective and even harmful when subject to rigorous scientific scrutiny, much like Scientology.

I’m not going to drill into the research here, but instead reference a piece intended for general audiences:

“Thanks to new tools in genetics and neuroimaging, scientists are making progress toward deciphering details of the underlying biology of mental disorders. Yet experts disagree on how far we can push this biological model. Are mental illnesses simply physical diseases that happen to strike the brain? Or do these disorders belong to a class all their own?

Eric Kandel, MD, a Nobel Prize laureate and professor of brain science at Columbia University, believes it’s all about biology. “All mental processes are brain processes, and therefore all disorders of mental functioning are biological diseases,” he says. “The brain is the organ of the mind. Where else could [mental illness] be if not in the brain?”

That viewpoint is quickly gaining supporters, thanks in part to Thomas R. Insel, MD, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, who has championed a biological perspective during his tenure at the agency.

To Insel, mental illnesses are no different from heart disease, diabetes or any other chronic illness. All chronic diseases have behavioral components as well as biological components, he says. “The only difference here is that the organ of interest is the brain instead of the heart or pancreas. But the same basic principles apply.”

A new toolkit
Take cardiology, Insel says. A century ago, doctors had little knowledge of the biological basis of heart disease. They could merely observe a patient’s physical presentation and listen to the patient’s subjective complaints. Today they can measure cholesterol levels, examine the heart’s electrical impulses with EKG, and take detailed CT images of blood vessels and arteries to deliver a precise diagnosis. As a result, Insel says, mortality from heart attacks has dropped dramatically in recent decades. “In most areas of medicine, we now have a whole toolkit to help us know what’s going on, from the behavioral level to the molecular level. That has really led to enormous changes in most areas of medicine,” he says.

Insel believes the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness is today where cardiology was 100 years ago. And like cardiology of yesteryear, the field is poised for dramatic transformation, he says. “We are really at the cusp of a revolution in the way we think about the brain and behavior, partly because of technological breakthroughs. We’re finally able to answer some of the fundamental questions.”

Indeed, in recent years scientists have made many exciting discoveries about the function — and dysfunction — of the human brain. They’ve identified genes linked to schizophrenia and discovered that certain brain abnormalities increase a person’s risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder after a distressing event. Others have zeroed in on anomalies associated with autism, including abnormal brain growth and underconnectivity among brain regions.” https://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/06/roots

For just a bit more detail, see for instance: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234144/

You made the claim that (some) mental ills have an “actual physical cause, like other illnesses.”

You have not established this claim to be true.

The implication there “may” be a “chemical imbalance” is not evidence of causation.

It is a leap of faith.

I ask you again to prove your claim.

Despite your lengthy diatribes you have not yet done so. Instead, you have resorted to the typical logical fallacies of someone who is unable or willing to think critically and make a reasoned argument.

1. Questionable Cause (eg. cum hoc ergo propter hoc, single cause fallacy)

Despite the fact you have already admitted there is no way to actually test for a neurochemical imbalance, you continue to repeat the claim that said imbalances exist and are the “cause” of (some) mental illness.

You don’t say which ills.

You also fail to distinguish between causation and correlation, and ignore the multitude of emotional, behavioural, social and environmental factors that influence mental health (and any possible resulting changes in brain chemistry).

To support your argument you introduced the subject of psychiatric drugs (strawman), inferring their efficacy is validation of a biological illness (false cause). I asked you to support this claim. You didn’t.

2. Strawman

I never expressed any opinion on psychiatric drug use or whether they can be useful for some people. It is irrelevant to your basic proposition. Either a mental illness has been established as having a biological cause or it hasn’t.

It goes without saying that evidence of methylphenidate’s effectiveness at “treating ADHD” ≠ evidence of the existence of “ADHD” as a distinct biological disease.

In response to your claim that schizophrenics “generally cannot function without medications”, I referred you to a 2016 study that found this wasn’t the case. In fact, over six decades of clinical research suggests long-term neuroleptic use actually worsens patient outcomes and increases vulnerability to psychosis.

See also:

Hopper K, Wanderling J. (2000). Revisiting the developed versus developing country distinction in course and outcome in schizophrenia: results from ISoS, the WHO collaborative followup project. International Study of Schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2000;26(4):835-46.

Harrow, M., Jobe, T., & Faull, R. (2012). Do all schizophrenia patients need antipsychotic treatment continuously throughout their lifetime? A 20-year longitudinal study. Psychological Medicine, 42(10), 2145-2155. doi:10.1017/S0033291712000220

Wunderink L, Nieboer RM, Wiersma D, Sytema S, Nienhuis FJ. Recovery in Remitted First-Episode Psychosis at 7 Years of Follow-up of an Early Dose Reduction/Discontinuation or Maintenance Treatment Strategy: Long-term Follow-up of a 2-Year Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2013;70(9):913–920. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.19

Hammer J, Heggdal D, Lillelien A, Lilleby P, Fosse R. (2018) Drug-free after basal exposure therapy. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2018 Mar 19; 138 (6). doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.17.0811

3. Appeal to Authority

Rather than providing any evidence to prove your claim, you instead questioned my credentials. It’s worth pointing out that this is a common fallacy used by scientologists to imply that only a highly-trained, certified auditor can possibly comment on or criticise the mechanics of scientology therapy.

4. Appeal to Popularity (eg. argumentum ad numerum)

Rather than providing any evidence to prove your claim, you suggest the number of years you have spent “studying mental illness” is indicative of its truth value. This is a common fallacy used by scientologists to dismiss criticism – particularly from “never-ins” (such as yourself) – as if to suggest that only long-time scientologists can possibly comment on or criticise scientology.

4. Ad-hominem (eg. appeal to motive, guilt by association)

Ahh yes. When all else fails, ad-hom. Rather than providing any evidence to prove your claim, you question my motives, my “agenda” and accuse me of being a scientologist. This is also a common fallacy used by scientologists to dismiss arguments, accusing critics of having “O/Ws”, “M/Us”, of being on the payroll of Big Pharma, of being evil, insane and/or “suppressive”.

* * *

There are legitimate criticisms to be made against the current mental health system, the biological model, psychiatric drugs, diagnostic criteria, clinical research (and funding), drug lobbying, ghost-writing, DTC advertising, drug pricing, the list goes on and on.

And I am more than happy to engage with you on these issues if you can adhere to basic logic and reasoned discourse.

Until then, I will ask you once again: dox or stfu. The burden of proof is on you. Please provide evidence that any mental illness has been established as having a biological cause.

#tyia

Mwestern
In the spirit of the debate, I have no ill feelings regarding our disagreement here. However, I believe your thinking is flawed – as you also believe mine is. I do think you have closed your mind to an entire area of research. It’s like the anti vaccine groups who still believe that vaccines cause autism regardless of the fact that Wakefield admitted to the entire thing being a fraud- very welll documented and disproved through research- yet we still have people who believe it wholeheartedly which is very dangerous to every man women and child. Please take the time to research neurotransmitters and the newest papers regarding the biological and chemical components to mental illness (not on the internet)! You may have your mind opened a bit. I cannot Unread all of the information that I have studied, and cannot unlearn all of the education I have had, so we will never agree as I will not change my position on this matter. I think you have a bad reaction to medication for mental illness that has a root cause somewhere, and it might behoove you to try and figure out the source. Generally someone who is so set against a new idea has a deeper reason somewhere, and your whole hearted resistance to even acknowledge that there is a valid point in medications for certain mental illnesses is very strong for some reason. I assert that my stance is backed by scientific research which is available if you care to look. Let me know if you need a place to start.
Regards,
K. LaRue

Still avoiding answering the questions I see. Your Scientology is showing!! You have added nothing but are regurgitating the same arguments you originally started with. That shows me clearly that you have no interest in engaging in an intellectual discourse on the issues at hand. I see you dug up one reference- I could rebut with a lot of references for my points, but as this argument is pointless and you will never directly respond to the points, I refuse to further engage in this waste of time.

Oh my. A strawman and an appeal to authority in the same comment.

Let me be very clear.

* Correlation does not imply causation

* Drug efficacy is not a diagnostic marker for mental illness

* “Schrizophrenics” may actually function better off neuroleptics than on [1]

* No mental illness has been established as having a biological cause.

By all means, prove me wrong. Dox or stfu.

1. Jung, E., Wiesjahn, M., Wendt, H., Bock, T., Rief, W., & Lincoln, T. (2016). Symptoms, functioning and coping strategies in individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders who do not take antipsychotic medication. Psychological Medicine, 46 (10), 2179-2188. doi:10.1017/S0033291716000775

That’s heartbreaking and despicable!

You calling something “quackery” is extremely telling. Completely disregarding what I was saying also raises eyebrows. I believe I pointed out that there is a link to brain chemistry in some mental illnesses- this is a fact- I never said ALL mental illness is a chemical imbalance that needs medication to alleviate symptoms. You are again misrepresenting what I was saying. At this point, you seem entrenched in taking parts of what I am saying and not seeing the whole picture. Yes, some mental illness, especially mild ones do not need medications to help with the symptoms. However, there are extreme illnesses that DO require medication to make the ones suffering able to function. For example, severe paranoid schizophrenia cannot be “talked” through. Someone who suffers with this generally cannot function without medications. It is also true that many disorders only respond to medication- a suicidal person may have an issue with the levels of serotonin in the brain- that was the analogy that I was drawing on when I made the diabetes reference- mental illness can be a physical issue due to chemical imbalances. I am not sure what your agenda is here but you are off base…or do YOU have a PhD in psychology that you are sitting on??? You pulled out a statistical model to make a rebuttal to my post, but how many years have you studied mental illness?