Yes to all the above. Sciencific research is famous for its competitiveness, back biting, and pedagogical tyrants.Sambee wrote: "It is hard to argue with multiple studies and independent research." - No, it's not hard to argue with it. That's what science does. It's constantly arguing with itself, that's how it progresses. However, this idea (common though it is) belies what actually happens in laboratories. Results are "improved" on a regular basis and researchers are put under pressure from corporate/capitalist interests. There is also a kind of bullying orthodoxy in the scientific community which not only works against scientific progress, but would be quite at home in the worst forms of religion. You'd be surprised at the amount of personal insults which are traded between supposedly objective scientists.
Yes. It is an over-simplification. A blow-by-blow account would wear out my audience."Science and religion clash constantly. Eventually, science wins." - Again, an oversimplification. In one sense, science loses constantly. Witness the huge volume of obsolete theories, some of which had studies and research which supposedly supported them. Science loses all the time, and throws out the old ideas. It's also a human construct, meaning that it comes with all the problems of human society. Also, the fashionable notion that religion and science always contradict each other is one put out there by aggressive militant atheists. It's not quite true either. Western science is biased in a military-industrial direction by economic interests, meaning that some areas of research are underfunded, but others which are detrimental to society (such as more deadly weaponry) are overfunded.
I love old medical and nursing textbooks and home medical guides. The ones published before the creation of antibiotics are amazingly frightening in their suggestions for care. My favorites are the ones published before germ theory. Reading through such books, medical progress is easy to see. Only through having such a long time view can the huge changes in between religion and health care be seen. The Pulitzer-prize winning The Emporer of All Maladies isn't a fast read, but it gives a blow-by-blow account of the history of cancer treatment. It showcases so many treatments that were wrong, yet continued due to egos and power. There is a long trail of horrific suffering and death that has preceded each of our current treatment regimens. And still, our current treatments are too often still of little use.
But, there has been progress.
Nothing gets marketed unless money can be made. Research that isn't market driven takes 10-14 years to make its way from research to clinical practice. An intervention that has potential to make money is amazingly fast to be published, promoted, and pushed by an army of reps. In a perfect world, human suffering would be the reason for well-funded medical research. This is not that world.Medication is improving, but as I say, there are numerous problems.
* By largely ignoring external factors in mental health, we take the onus off society and our rulers to improve our environment and our politico-economic system.
* The side effects of a lot of medication continue to be debilitating. Do depressed people want to become fatter? Impotent? Or to have a damaged liver or facial tics? Moreover does someone with depression really want MORE suicidal thoughts? That's what happens with some anti-depressants. Which could be said to defeat the point of them. Do you think any of these side effects make a person happier?
* Societal prejudice about mental illness is still massive.
* Because drug companies are run by the greedy, the pills are frequently overpriced, putting them out of reach of some people.
I work at 7-8 different facilities located in different socio-economic areas. In the poorest areas, probably 25% of the patient population is on a antidepressant or anti-anxiety med. In an area of extreme wealth, I typically see 80-90% of patients on something for anxiety or depression. They should just add Prozac or Zoloft to the water system. SSRIs and SNRI are everywhere, but we talk about then as if using them is unusual.
My 15 yo daughter has a mild Aspergers. AND Tourette's syndrome. Want to talk about public perception and bias? Say the word Tourette's. Does she yell profanity.? No. Does she repeat everything you say.? No. She has a occasional shoulder shrug and an occasional yawn-like motion with her mouth. Tourette's is a syndrome --it has three components. Tics. OCD. ADHD. She takes medication for OCD and ADHD.
When she hit puberty, her tics went wild and she had trouble sleeping. Everything for tics is off-label use. Especially in the pediatric world. We went thorough 2 years of hell and psychotropic meds while her doc tried to figure this new problem out. Name a psych drug. There is a pretty good chance that she tried it during that time. Seraquel, lamictal, clomipramine, all the SSRIs .. All the SNRI. Weird blood pressure meds. Things that cause rashes that can kill you. One by one .. Titrate on one for 3 weeks. Increase dosages. Titrate off over 3 weeks. Try another med. It was horrible, debilitating, and extremely expensive.
For Tourette's and Aspergers, everyone is always trying to market a new non-medication intervention. There is a whole list of treatment options out there. We used to pursue such interventions until we found no difference other than a lighter wallet.
For our daughter's diagnoses, meds have been her best successes. In the end, we found something that worked for the OCD and ADHD with tolerable side effects. The tics and sleeping issues eventually went away on their own. All that effort, misery, and money was for nothing. Treatment isn't perfect, but she feels her life is better with meds than without.
And due to science's trump over religion, no one is trying to burn her at the stake.