“Pro and Con: The British Psychological Society Report on Psychosis”

16
88

In The Huffington Post, former DSM-IV task force chair, psychiatrist, and MIA Blogger Allen Frances offers his analysis of the recently published report from the British Psychological Society’s Division of Clinical Psychology, “Understanding Psychosis and Schizophrenia: Why people sometimes hear voices, believe things that others find strange, or appear out of touch with reality, and what can help.”

Pro and Con: The British Psychological Society Report on Psychosis (The Huffington Post, December 15, 2014)

Support MIA

MIA relies on the support of its readers to exist. Please consider a donation to help us provide news, essays, podcasts and continuing education courses that explore alternatives to the current paradigm of psychiatric care. Your tax-deductible donation will help build a community devoted to creating such change.

$
Select Payment Method
Personal Info

Credit Card Info
This is a secure SSL encrypted payment.

Billing Details

Donation Total: $20 One Time

16 COMMENTS

  1. I absolutely agree the term “psychosis” is being applied to far too many experiences. According to my medical records, my US psychologist thought all dream queries, thoughts, and gut instincts were “psychosis.” Now, I will confess she was also demanding medication based upon lies from the people who raped my small child (I was unaware at the time that the psychiatric and psychological industries had a long standing “dirty little secret” pact to cover up sexual abuse of children for the religions and easily recognized iatrogenesis for the incompetent doctors).

    The bottom line is, it’s much too easy for psychiatric practitioners to claim people who are not “psychotic,” to be “psychotic,” for unethical and greed inspired reasons. How do we end this “dirty little secret of the two original educated professions,” that the unprovable DSM disorders make possible? Psychiatry has chosen the role of social control for the child molesters and incompetent doctors – and there’s nothing respectable about being the perpetrators of “dirty little secrets.”

    • That’s it Someone Else
      The “chronic diagnosis” of “Schizophrenia” is often determined through a person’s reactions to coming off “anti psychotics” i.e. the reappearance of illness (my records reflect this).

      Whereas the truth is that the rebound reactions are treatment induced, anyone exposed to “anti psychotics” would develop the same reactions.

      Dr Peter Gotzsche covers this paradoxical nightmare in his award winning book. He rightly states that doctors cannot handle these drugs.

      • Fiachra,

        My medical records also show proof that drug withdrawal induced super sensitivity “manic psychosis” was misdiagnosed as “bipolar,” then “schizo affective,” while I was being forced to take 9 drugs, all of which have major and moderate drug interaction warnings.

        And, of course, I had zero personal or family history of any mental health issues prior to being improperly withdrawal from a “safe smoking cessation med” / antidepressant.

        I hope the medical community some day learns that the psychiatric drugs cause the DSM symptoms / “mental illnesses.” It’s amazing how deluded they currently are, especially since my pastor told me that the religions have known this for decades.

        • I’m just saying it’s highly ironic the pastors know the psychiatric drugs cause the symptoms of the major “mental illnesses,” but the psychiatrists claim they’re completely unaware of this “dirty little secret of the two original educated professions.”

          One would think the psychiatrists should be more aware of the adverse effects of their drugs than the pastors.

          • Someone Else
            Dr Gotzsche in his book says that psychiatrists will run a mile from the reality of “anti psychotic” induced “mental illness”. He’s telling the truth.

          • Fiachra,

            Absolutely, you’re right, all ADRs and withdrawal symptoms of psychotropic drugs are claimed to be “life long, incurable, genetic mental illnesses” by the psychiatric profession.

            In reality, however, the psychiatrists are in the business of creating iatrogenic “mental illnesses” for profit, and more insidious reasons.

    • It’s amazing isn’t it B? I mean if what these mental health professionals are saying about a person being delusional, psychotic, or suffering from paranoid ideations is true, they are effectively claiming that they have the ability to travel through time and space to check if what a person is saying is correct. I’d be questioning that ability, and anyone who claimed that they could do this.

      I have a letter from our Chief Psychiatrist where he stops just short of saying that mental health professionals have a set of ‘magic bones’ that only they can read, and which predict what actions a person will take in the future.

      Ever seen a mirror in a psychiatrists office? lmao

  2. Psychosis can mean anything. A person can also suffer from extreme anxiety but still be able to communicate; my own experience is that what works for normal anxiety also works for extreme anxiety.

    I know that I would have remained chronically psychiatric had I continued to follow the psychiatric advice I had been receiving.

  3. Highly needed attention to jargon that gets used to seem as if mad doctors are constantly doing actual medicine and awesome research. I still wonder just exactly how good mental health is for a term that supposedly means you need some answers and have to vent.

    But, again, Allen Francis–really? Anne Cooke sounds like someone worth meeting. I haven’t seen Francis put survivor issues first or be upfront about them. Psychiatry first and tough luck if you don’t like your label, your forced treatment, second class citizenship.