Talk:Bipolar disorder

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Source

Source is a redirect that doesn't redirect. I think the claim that Bipolar disorder is linked to socialism/liberalism in a backhanded way deserves a citation. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 17:55, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

See the link at the bottom of that section. Bugler 18:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
The "See Also" or the external link? The external link is the one that I'm talking about. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 18:06, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
The wikilink makes no mention of bipolar disorder. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 18:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Edit war

F.A.O. Bugler. Your edit summary said "do not edit war". I'm not sure who this is addressed to, but my own contributions regarding the treatment of BPD & famous sufferers were factual & encyclopedic, & addressed an area not previously covered in the text. You have deleted these twice without explanation, so I am now going to restore my version of the text. Please heed your own advice and do not edit war. If you have a problem with my contributions, please discuss it here.

As for your suggestion that BPD is caused by environmental conditioning &/or socialism, please provide a citation for this, preferably from a respected scientific source, or some statistics, as it contradicts the general consensus that it is a largely genetic disorder. Thank you. Sideways 16:21, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Thank you to HelpJazz for reverting. I was about to do it myself. Sideways 16:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

I can't state my case any clearer. Anything that is defined as a mystery (by Andy himself, Bugler, since you seem to make edits on his behalf) by definition can't be included in an encyclopedia article. HelpJazz 16:53, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

That part is out. Its listed as an external link. What are the other issues? HenryS 17:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
That whole paragraph should be removed, unless it can be backed up with reliable citations (which I find unlikely). It suggests "pressing evidence for environmental conditioning" but provides no evidence at all. The referenced "mystery" article mentions bipolar disorder once and states explicitly that it is a hereditary condition. Sideways 17:17, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Yup, my thoughts exactly. HelpJazz 23:37, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Which paragraph are you talking about? HenryS 00:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
"However, this conventional wisdom ignores pressing evidence for environmental conditioning, including the high correlation of BPD and other psychiatric conditions with upbringing in socialist or liberal nations, and the high correlation of increased mental disorder with education in public/state schools."
Sideways 11:13, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
That's the one. Henry? Any opinons? HelpJazz 20:17, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
I added a "citation needed" for now. HenryS 20:37, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
Can this be unlocked now? I promise not to remove the statement now that there's a {{Fact}} tag. HelpJazz 12:05, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Moved from User talk: HelpJazz

Thank you for clearing up the causes of bipolar disorder on the article. I understand that there are certain ideological standpoints on this cite, and I don't want to get in the way of that. However, that outlandish of a claim does require a citation. I didn't want to revert the edits of a sysop (at least I think he's a sysop). So, thanks again! Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 15:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Bugler's not a sysop, he just acts like one. He would have probably blocked you if you undid it though. HelpJazz 16:01, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Which is why I didn't do it. I think I'm in pretty good standing so far, and I don't want to rub anyone the wrong way. Thanks again. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 16:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Bugler just reverted it back to his version. I have undone this as I had made substantial contributions re treatment of BPD which he had deleted. Sideways 16:13, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Look at Andy's Liberal teachings/mental illness article. The link is clearly demonstrated. Add your bits as theory, but don't remove what I have contributed on approved lines. Bugler 16:15, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
It's called a "mystery", so it doesn't belong in a factual encyclopedia article. HelpJazz 16:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
The link isn't clearly demonstrated. The only mention of bipolar disorder in that essay is in relation to Stephen Fry, and it says quite explicitly that "Specifically he is a sufferer of bipolar disorder, a largely hereditary disease". I strongly suggest removing the 'liberalism/socialism causes bipolar' implications from the BPD entry, as it pollutes the quality and balance of the article. Sideways 16:35, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
I inserted fact tags, because I know if I reverted again then Bugler would revert me, ad nauseum until someone runs to Andy. Instead I expect to see some sources or it can't stay in the article. HelpJazz 16:36, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Your belief in 'Big Science' astounds me. There is no demonstrable, factual basis in any real sense for psychology/psychiatry. The practitioners are just feeling around in the dark, learning on an empirical basis that some drugs help here and there, but no proof of what causes anything - just as Darwinians have no proof. Bugler 16:43, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

He's reverted you anyway. Where do we go from here? Sideways 16:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
My belief in big science? Bugler, aren't you supposed to be convincing people that you aren't a parodist? Unfortunately, Sideways, there's not a lot we can do unless a sysop intervenes, since he has blocking rights. HelpJazz 16:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
I don't block for ideological reasons, as you well know, though I would be within my rights to block for that disgraceful insinuation. As for 'Big Science', what is wrong with what I said? Do you believe that scientists are incapable of lying, are incapable of twisting results, are incapable of being influenced by prior agendas? Just look at the way that nutritional advice changes from one month to the next - and always backed up by the best scientific credentails. And psychiatry/ology is the worst of the lot. One day Freudianism is the flavour of the month, then we're all Jungians; now CBT (dog training, as I prefer to think of it) is the panacea. If you attach 'fact' tags to what I wrote, then each of your assertions should have ten! Bugler 16:53, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
You'll never guess what I found in my sock last night! Go ahead, guess! HenryS 16:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Ohhh what'd you find? Bugler: the insinuation was that you could unblock yourself. That you thought I was insinuating that you would block someone on ideological reasons is, well, pretty telling. If you think that change isn't part of science and makes science wrong, then you really have a lot of learning to do. HelpJazz 16:56, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
The insinuation that I am not genuine, which I resent greatly. Bugler 17:03, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm astonished. I don't know what the phrase 'Big science' is intended to mean, but is it really the intention of this site to discredit such well established and successful sciences of psychiatry & psychology? You say they are just feeling around in the dark, Bugler. Why? The sciences are built on observed causes and results. Bipolar disorder is believed to be hereditary, not just because it's a convenient theory, but because of the overwhelming burden of cases suggesting this. You seem to reject this, while also trying to apply the same methodology yourself, in your claim that there are correlations between bipolar disorder and political views, and you have provided no evidence for this. Sideways 17:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
To be clear, Sideways, yes: I do believe that both psychiatry and psychology are speculative in the extreme. I don't think even their most ardent fans would claim that they have concrete standards of proof. And to pretend so in this encyclopaedia would be to do our users a very grave disservice. Bugler 17:05, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
So the only concrete proof we have is that liberal education is a major cause of BPD? BrianH 17:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)So instead we make up our own theories that have absolutely no clinical correlation whatsoever? Yeah, psychiatric medicine can't explain a lot of the causes of these illnesses but inserting this nonsense isn't doing it any justice either! Psychiatry is not feeling around in the dark, nor is it "speculative in the extreme." Millions of dollars are contributed every year to find the causes and treatments for these disorders. Dollars that go to case studies and drug research—by those big pharmaceutical companies that I'm sure you (Bugler) endorse (strawman intended). I didn't ask for much; just a citation. You can't provide one. The claim should be removed until proper citation is found and verified to be a reputable source. Otherwise, you are just as guilty as you claim "Big Science" to be. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 17:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Not a bit of it! I am advancing a theory; Big Science advances its theories as if they were facts. Bugler 18:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Theories have evidence, not just speculation. Do you have any? Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 21:02, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Big Science

In reply to the above: how are you defining "Big Science"? It does not seem to be an encyclopedic term (and has no definition within Conservapedia) but rather a loose-fitting pejorative instead of any specific set of disciplines, and most definitions of 'big science' which I have seen do not tend to include medicine, psychology and the social sciences. You seem to be implying that there is something sinister at work in the diagnosis and treatment of people with this disorder, when in fact the expertise provided by medical professionals and researchers is of great benefit to sufferers.

Regarding your claim that "Big Science advances its theories as if they were facts", consider this. The article text, prior to Bugler's changes, stated:


Current psychiatric/mental health research suggests that Bipolar Disorder runs in families, as it seems to have more to do with genes than with upbringing. There may be a physical problem with the brain systems which control our moods - this is why bipolar disorder can often be controlled with medication. Episodes can sometimes be brought on by stressful experiences or physical illness.

Notice the subtleties of the words I have highlighted. This text is expressing the widely held consensus of the medical community, and some noticeable trends regarding bipolar disorder, not a fixed set of unsubstantiated facts as Bugler implies. Compare this to the statement that "this conventional wisdom ignores pressing evidence for environmental conditioning", etc. etc. when in fact no such evidence has been provided or is likely to be provided. Who is actually advancing their theories as if they are facts? Sideways 20:27, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Sideways, see Big Science. I hope that this will be the piece of grit around which the pearl of Conservapedian opinion will form. Bugler 07:07, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
Well it certainly is a piece of grit; you're right about that. Sideways 11:13, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Medication

Could someone add an item that explains the need to CONTINUE MEDICATION even when feeling good ? Failure to keep taking medication is a fairly common error. An entry on places to seek help with this condition would be good too, such as College clinics, youth help lines etc. . I am assuming that providing a source of support and aid for a person who feels he/she may be displaying symptoms is more important than scoring a political viewpoint. Markr 18:07, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

You are also assuming there are actually people who use Conservapedia for medical advice. BrianH 18:14, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Assumptions aside, the page should contain information on what Mark stated above. At the very least this should be inserted. I'll write it myself if a sysop will insert it. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 18:18, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
I am saying that id this site IS a source for young people then its most important to have material that will help them seek treatment, there are better sources specific to this condition of course Markr 18:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

suggestion to add:
There is a range of drugs that can be used to treat this disorder. It may take some trial and error to determine the suitable drugs and dosages for a specific patient. It is very important that the patient and psychiatrist talk honestly and be prepared to try other options if the treatment is not working satisfactorily. It is also important that the patient continue the drugs even when they feel fine. The idea of the drugs is to keep the brain chemistry stable and that requires they be taken regularly.
A student can consult a school nurse (high school) or any Student clinic or student advisor.
Markr 18:37, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Re: "important that the patient continue the drugs even when they feel fine" - usually, but not always. Continued medication is not always required, as it depends on the individual patient. While some bipolar individuals use lithium or other drugs throughout their lives, others may do so for a few years, then agree with their psychiatrist to try living without the drugs, or just taking a tranquiliser occasionally when they begin to feel manic. It is important to keep up the psychiatric consultations, to check progress and whether going back on medication may be needed. (Feel free to add this as article content if required). Sideways 20:03, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

yes , agree with you of course. I was really addressing the short term , where a person on meds is stable, and so stops them, and then experiances an Up or Down episode.

Perhaps a Mental Health page and link in this page , depression and any others

Markr 23:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Maybe a link to a page like this? I had a friend who was bipolar. He "self-stopped" his medication during a mania. Maybe a link to some sort of help phone line or something would be good? LiamG 23:06, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Locked article

Why is this article locked? Please unlock it or at least undo the last three contributions by User:Conservative. They are spam. --FabioG 09:10, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't think they are spam, but I do think we might want to reconsider including it in the article. Maybe instead of linking to Truehope's website, we could link to a site like WebMD or even a helpline. Also, I think Conservative meant Discover magazine. LiamG 09:42, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
The article was locked due to edit warring, since user:Bugler was using it as a platform to attack the sciences and speculate that the disorder is caused by liberal conditioning (see the second paragraph in the "Causes of bipolar disorder" section). Since he has set up the Big Science article to pursue the same vendetta, this article can probably now be safely unlocked. And since, after two weeks, he has failed to provide the "pressing evidence for environmental conditioning" he claims here, I suggest that this paragraph should be removed again.
Regarding the new content added by Conservative, the first and third citation are to the website of TrueHope, who manufacture the supplement, so should not be treated as objective source material. The second citation gives a better overview, albeit from a 'natural health' perspective, and confirms that there is a lot of skepticism and criticism regarding the product. It concludes that:
"Keeping in mind that this is only a nutritional supplement (regardless of what Health Canada says), the research suggests that it may be worth it for someone suffering from bipolar or other psychiatric disorders to look into trying this approach. However, this should be treated as a nutritional supplement and not an immediate replacement for medication."
On this basis, I think that the wording should be modified to acknowledge that the nutritional supplement is not widely regarded as a full alternative to medication. A citation from a mainstream medical or psychiatric journal would also give a better insight, if one can be found. Sideways 09:54, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
I think this can be unlocked. The {{fact}} tag Henry added serves a good enough purpose for me. HelpJazz 13:25, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
I hate to be a bother, but I know Conservapedia gets really busy and I don't what this article to get lost in the shuffle. I really think we should add a link to a medical website and a help-line of some sort. The page can remain locked if it has to, I just want to get those links added in (and I'd really like to reword the EMpowerplus bit, but that might be too much to wish for). Would anyone able be willing? LiamG 12:14, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Links to more information and help

Since the article is still locked, I'll add the links here, and hope people check the talk page:

I hate to be so forward, but please add these to the article! LiamG 14:26, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

Article quality

This is one of the worst articles at Conservapedia, although it might be better than the corresponding one at Wikipedia. In general, articles on mental health at both encyclopedias are poor in quality.

I suggest deleting all text of this one and starting over. There's no science here, only speculation and fussing about terminology. --Ed Poor Talk 22:00, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Personal tools