I can’t help but to be continually amazed at man’s ability to jump to conclusions. But then my father often reminded me of the cliché, “… you should walk a mile in his shoes before ..;” before what? Before pointing out the most passed over indication that litigation-happy Americans have had staring them in the face? And what is that, you ask? I’ll save that for the end. What I am referring to is best exemplified by an article recently written by a supposed ZYPREXA victim. I say supposed because the argument he points out is an old and tired one: that this guy took “A,” and because “B” suggests — without, I might add, any evidence whatsoever — that taking “A” causes diabetes, that the big, bad, pharmaceutical company that provided him with “A” is involved in a conspiracy to cover up the fact that “A” causes diabetes. Go ahead, read the article for yourself.
And to add to, if not what makes it, the conspiracy theory, the big, bad pharmaceutical company also make a treatment for diabetes! Oh my! Could it be true? Sure; and Mars could be inhabited by little-green men (and women, I suppose) also.
So where does this argument break down, you might ask? Of course you won’t ask, because he never made a good case in the first place, so there really isn’t an argument. First of all, let’s look at the drug, “A” (psssst! “A” = ZYPREXA). People who take the drug do not take it for the treatment of diabetes, they take it because they hear voices that aren’t there, and they develop wild conspiracy theories. In other words, they treat people for a condition that makes them incapable of rendering capable decisions about what is real and what is not. That fact that it’s still something he believes when he is under a treatment schedule suggests one of two things, either of which is very plausible: 1) the treatment is not working for him; or, 2) he developed the theory when he was at a “low,” and cannot distinguish the correctness of something that developed when he hadn’t the wherewithal to assess it.
Option 1 is obvious, so I won’t go there, and option 2 is, well, you decide: if you as someone with schizophrenia — but with his symptoms being successfully suppressed — if he really heard voices prior to taking medication, he’ll tell you yes, because it was very real at the time.
What’s disturbing about the writer’s comments is that he begins saying that the drug “… was ineffective for my condition ..,” but went on to say that in spite of its ineffectiveness, he continued to take it “from 1996 until 2000.” I certainly don’t fault the writer for following the guidance of his psychiatrist, but what competent medical professional would continue to prescribe something that was ineffective? One can’t help but wonder what other drugs may have been improperly prescribed — drugs that by themselves, or in combination, could have caused the diabetes.
So what was it I was saving for the end? What is it that has been so easily passed-over by a litigious society? It’s the link between certain psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and diabetes! That’s right! I believe we should be taking a really close look at disorders of the islets of Langerhans and the [greater] possibility that the somatotropin release-inhibiting hormone, once thought to only impact one’s growth pattern, could be the root cause of various psychoses.
This could be why so many people with weight problems, so many people with diabetes, develop schizophrenia!
After all, I’m just say’in.