Friday, February 3, 2023

Comments by job job

Showing 8 of 8 comments.

  • Nathan M.D. Princeton

    “Whitaker’s conspiracy does not stop there. He claims that “Eli Lilly and the psychiatric establishment” are responsible for the media’s purported campaign against opposition groups like the Church of Scientology, a religion whose cosmology portrays psychiatrists as an ancient evil race.
    This isn’t to suggest that none of the author’s critiques have merit. As a practicing psychiatrist, I don’t dispute that psychotropics are over prescribed by doctors. Big Pharma’s marketing practices do improperly shape physicians’ prescribing habits and do play down the dearth of long-term data on impact and safety. Even so, it’s a reach to conclude drugs are responsible for rising psychiatric-disability numbers. The author seems more intent on condemning psychiatry than improving it, and this book contains more rant than reason.
    A major contradiction (and cruel twist for the antipsychiatry forces) comes in the book’s final and shortest section, entitled “Solutions.” After hundreds of pages that attempt to show how psychiatric medications are essentially useless and inherently dangerous, the author states that psychotropics “may alleviate symptoms over the short term, and there are some people who may stabilize well over the long term on them, and so clearly there is a place for the drugs in psychiatry’s tool box.”
    But such a reasonable viewpoint comes too late to save this book.”

  • Nathan M.D. Princeton has more to say.
    “In contrast, Mad in America, filled with venom disguised as fact, is a general attack on the treatment of severe mental illness. This book is propaganda, not scholarship. Whitaker’s message resembles that of the small but vocal anti-psychiatry movement, which has long opposed medication and involuntary treatment for the mentally ill.

    The book sets out to prove that psychiatry is a morally bankrupt profession, based upon the actions of some misguided and even malicious caretakers of patients.”

    You ain’t kiddin. But, don’t forget, Robert is adamantly opposed to besmirching groups of people, especially his own contributors, those keeping him afloat to spread his indignation at all those greedy slobs over yonder, you know, them, those drug dealing pushers.

  • You are an integral part of a movement that uses a wide brush to condemn and to incite hatred for all of psychiatry wholesale, and all psychiatrists, maliciously, unfairly, with repeated venomous attacks, destroying the reputations of millions of good, conscientious, dedicated and caring professionals, who work very hard to bring healing to the suffering. Disparaging comments about groups of people are banned on your website, you say.
    Millions find relief from terrible suffering due to the care of these doctors and the drugs developed by the pharmaceutical industry. As Nathan says, there’s risk in everything. Discuss those tormented souls who perished under the best efforts of therapists who refused drug treatment. Why not mention them, Robert? Why not mention the profits you make from your books? Your speaking engagements, from this your subsidized advertising resource, funded by many who can’t afford it. Oh no! Not you. No trace of of anything impure about you.

  • I’m really happy for you. You’ve come a long way and your difficulties will enable you to be even more compassionate with others.
    Pot is dangerous. Among other things, it causes lethargy. A society with a stoned, lethargic citizenry is headed for trouble.
    Everyone is a unique combination of DNA. What may be poison to one person saves the lives of others. It sounds to me that quitting pot was a healthy thing to do. See if you can put up with your rx at least until the court order is over. AA, NA, OA, Al-Anon are extremely beneficial for millions around the world and they are free. Proud of you. Keep it up. You can do it!

  • “Clinical improvement or change means that when a client is given a measure to monitor therapy, such as the Outcome Rating Scale, they move from ‘dysfunctional’ to scoring consistent with a ‘normal’ population.”

    I don’t understand. Many psychiatric mental illness diagnoses are rejected for the lack of objective testing. It sounds as if a person undergoing therapy of the type mentioned here, fills out a form to rate his subjective sense of wellness. Therapists then evaluate their efficacy based on non-scientific data. What am I missing?