Wednesday, October 27, 2021

Comments by FYI

Showing 25 of 25 comments.

  • Dr. Hickey,

    Thank you for highlighting Dr. Summergrad’s groundbreaking approach to psychiatry. He is a psychiatrist who knows the most important job for any Prez of the APA. (#1 rule of thumb for all shrinks aspiring to head up that formidable club: Become the greatest cheerleader!) You did such a splendid job breaking down his message, there’s little more to say on the matter, except for pointing out the mysterious circumstances preceding his rise to power. (I began researching his credentials online and can assure you, he has powers that no mere mortal should possess.)

    Dr. Joseph Biederman famously compared himself to God, but now there’s Dr. Summergrad.

    For whoever would like to observe moment that auspicious signs, from on High, foretold Dr. Summergrad’s rise to the APA stump of greatness, I suggest watching just a bit of the following one hour Youtube (of a talk that he gave on “The Future of Psychiatry,” at the Department of Psychiatry, Universiy of Florida College of Medicine, exactly a year ago).

    Specifically, pay close attention to the very first 30 seconds of that Youtube video, which is most unsettling. If you watch it carefully, you’ll see the good doctor standing in the wings, before coming on to the podium, looking rather, well, devious, I think, as his presenter explains that the building has just been struck by lightning.

    She has an unintended deadpan (dignified academic psychiatrist) air about her, as she indirectly informs her audience, that there are no escapes from the coming hour’s lecture.

    There’s really nothing they can do beyond sitting tight through Dr. Summergrad’s talk, as all computer systems are down, even the toilets are not working.

  • “He doesn’t seem to have any knowledge of survivor/service user views at all.”

    Yes that does seem to be the case, and it seems he’d prefer that more of his colleagues would join him in his blissful ignorance, as one of his slides asks the question “Why is this?” … “psychiatric disorders still not valued as much as ‘real illness'” …and he offers his answers with a few bullet points, including this doozy: “Undue focus on adverse effects not benefits.”

    (On the same slide he literally pathologizes the leaders of the critical psychiatry movement, referring to a “Paranoid perspective that some psychiatrists have of the pharma industry.” Attempting to illustrate that point, he provides a brief quoted phrase, that he’s apparently attributed to the writings of Pat Bracken and MIA ‘foreign correspondent’ Philip Thomas: “sickened by the corruption of academic psychiatry.” I guess he believes there is no such corruption?)

  • “Dr. Nutt and two of his co-authors have received grants, personal fees, and other payments from multiple pharmaceutical companies.”

    Dr. Nutt is completely nutty for psychopharmacology (which is to say, he’s a true enthusiast).

    His credentials include Prof of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London.

    Many of his views were highlighted, at a British Association of Psychopharmacology (BAP) lecture that he gave, at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, in July of 2011. That lecture described a number of ways in which Dr. Nutt believes the “science” of psychiatry is being maligned, it provided some of his favorite theories, and it predicted that the future of psychiatry shall offer, “Personalised treatment (stratified medicine)” to be determined by personal genotypes and “Improved treatments based on better knowledge of brain mechanism.” One slide suggested that “something called C‐Ro154513 binding reduced in nucleus accumbens” may be key to treating alcoholism.

    His Powerpoint presentation was quite a hoot.

    It had been posted online, in a link to the RCPSYCH website but was removed shortly after receiving scathing attention from certain bloggers who are known to MIA readers (pharma-skeptics within his field).

    Fortunately, that PDF was archived at, so it can still be be found and studied online.

    For those who may be interested, here’s the link:

    If you go there, you’ll see, in a slide mentioning Dr. Nutt’s ‘declaration of interests,’ he is described, as being on the, “Advisory Boards ‐ Lundbeck, Servier, Pfizer, Reckitt Benkiser, D&A pharma.”

    Also (according to that same slide), he has received “Grants or clinical trial payments” from a company called “P1vital” (as well as others), and he has “share options” in that company.

    Here’s a link to P1vital: There you can see the latest fruits of the sort of psychopharmacological R&D, which Dr. Nutt is monetarily invested in…

    From the home page, of that website: “P1vital is an innovative Clinical Research Organisation specialising in experimental medicine for Central Nervous System (CNS) disorders and obesity that: Provides CNS efficacy biomarkers in anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, cognitive disorders and obesity…”

    One may reasonably imagine that P1vital’s investors expect big dividends…

  • According to Pete Earley, one key facet of the Murphy bill, is its focus upon “changing involuntary commitment laws to focus on a “need for treatment” standard rather than requiring dangerousness.”

    Earley explains that, “This shift has always been important to me because of how my own son and I were turned away in an emergency room. England and France have “need for treatment” standards with built in safeguards to protect individual rights. Focusing on treatment rather than danger should make it possible for people to get care before they are abandoned on the streets or become dangerous.”

  • “All this passive aggressive tough talk does’t get us anywhere.”

    Scott, who’s offering passive aggressive tough talk?

    And what about active aggressive tough talk?

    Where does that get us?

    “Anyone who drugs kids should be hung.”

    Where do you think that talk (your kind of tough talk) will get us?

    Maybe you’re unaware, in the past couple of decades, tough talk like that has been directed at doctors who perform abortions, leading to numerous murders, attempted murders and countless threats of murder.

    I’ll just leave you with this. Pz.

  • “Nor am i scared to comments with some pseudonym FYI.”

    Fine, Scott, I guess you are braver than me, but maybe that’s because you are someone who’s willing to kill people?

    You say “Anyone who drugs kids should be hung.”

    I don’t think anyone should be killed for any reason, I don’t think killing people is ever a good idea.

    People who are willing to kill people should be approached with caution, I think.

    But it’s nice that you hand out fliers.

  • MadInAmerica website commenter, Scott Miller, on July 16, 2013 at 9:49 pm said:

    “I’m not trying trivialize moderating comments. What i am saying is absurd is that this is the most righteous indignation i’ve seen on this site. We are confronting an institution of death that kills and maims with impunity and people are all up in arms about comments being moderated. Why can’t people be this militant when it involves killing children? That’s all i’m saying.”

    ProPublica website commenter, Scott Miller, on March 13, 12:15 pm said:

    “Whatta know? Half these “docs” are quack psychiatrist. Anyone who drugs kids should be hung.”

    Maybe MadInAmerica’s commenter, Scott Miller, is not that same Scott Miller who’s commenting on ProPublica?

    If these two Scott Millers are one and the same person, does his ProPublica comment present an example of the kind of “righteous indignation” he’s wanting from commenters on this MadInAmerica website?

    Only MadInAmerica’s Scott Miller can answer these questions.

  • “Can you guys please stop beating up on David?”

    Beating up on David? Are you kidding? Who’s beating up on him??? I don’t see anyone beating up on him. Really, I don’t.

    David dominates the conversation by posting way more verbiage than everyone else combined.

    Maybe if more people were honest about how that made them feel, he wouldn’t do it. Meanwhile I think he’s fair game for a bit of joking around.

    At least, this way he doesn’t have to take himself so seriously.

    Have you seen how many times on this page he’s claimed to have, “an understanding of madness beyond compare” (or claims that Michael Cornwall says that about him)?

    He’s repeated that nonsense three times already.

    Apparently he thinks he’s smarter than everyone else on this page (and maybe smarter than everyone else who posts on this website).

    He needs help seeing how much room he takes up in a conversation and how that crowds other people out.

    Do you think you help him by making him out to be a victim? I don’t.

    Please, look carefully at everything I’ve posted. I am just bringing awareness of real numbers and joking around a bit and also reminding David of what he says about narcissism. Can you seriously claim that’s beating up on him? I don’t think so.

    What’s sad is that so few people are willing to honestly confront him and let him know the kind of impression he’s making…


  • “He is often excessively occupied with fantasies about his own attributes and potential for success, and usually depends upon others for reinforcement of his self-image. A narcissist tends to have difficulties maintaining healthy interpersonal relationships, stemming largely from a lack of empathy and a propensity for taking advantage of others in the interest of self-aggrandizement.”

    “narcissism is usually considered a problem in a person or group’s relationships with self and others.”

    “to call attention to oneself in ways meant to distract others by “showing off” or being an exhibitionist … is also at the core of a theory about the development of Narcissistic Personality Disorders, whose self aggrandizement is seen as an avoidance of shame to the point of complete unawareness. Like the East pole, people remain connected with others, although in a way that is devoid of true intimacy (i.e. the sharing of vulnerabilities). It creates a hollow, false sense of self and, like the addiction strategy, seems never to be enough to satisfy the underlying need.”

    “Humility can be a path leading away from the poles of this compass and bringing us to healthier ways of living and relating. We can move from shame to humility when we allow ourselves to feel accepted and loved with all our flaws, all our vulnerabilities and failures. Humility can enable us to preserve our attachment to relationships and groups that mean safety and security to us. By striving for humility, we can make the choice to be autonomous and authentic, without diminishing ourselves or destroying the possibility of relationship in our interpersonal worlds.”

  • The first day’s POOV® scores are in! ^

    David Bates: 7,799 words = 100%* (Congrats David!)

    Bruce Levine: 2,220 (1,860 blog + 360 comments) / 28.5%*

    BeyondLabeling: 1,618 / 20.7%*

    FYI: 325 words / 4.2%*

    Discover and Recover: 226 / 2.9%*

    Irenecardenas: 187 / 2.4%*

    Nancy Pontius: 114 / 1.5%*

    Frank Blankenship: 58 / 0.7%*

    Philip Thomas, M.D.: 26 / 0.3%*

    Theinarticulatepoet: 16 / 0.2%*

    Remember our motto, folks: “It’s quantity of verbiage (not quality) that counts.” Optimum performance is always determined by whoever produces the most verbiage.

    ^ Update: David Bates posted 643 more words in the time that the above calculations were being made! (They’ll be included in tomorrow’s tallies.) The latest O.V. (optimum verbiage) is 8,442 words.

    *P.O.O.V. ® (‘Percentage of Optimum Verbiage’)


  • “How often does Bruce Levine respond to comments here?”

    Good question (but not half a day has passed since Bruce posted his blog, and no one’s yet challenged the integrity of his words, so he can hardly be compared to MIA David Healy).

    BTW, That’s an additional 214 words for you, in your comment to me. (You also added 314 words to your count when posting above, on June 17, 2013 at 8:56 pm.)

    Altogether, you’ve posted 3,288 words on this page.

    No one else even comes close…

    (FYI, including this comment, I’ve now posted 195 words on this page.)

    No shame!

    All glory!


  • Bruce’s blog post is 1,860 words.

    He’s attracted eight commenters, thus far .

    Here’s all but one commenter, in descending order of mass verbiage…

    BeyondLabeling: 583 words

    Discover and Recover: 147 words

    Nancy Pontius: 114 words

    FYI: 85 words

    Frank Blankenship: 58 words

    Philip Thomas, M.D.: 26 words

    Theinarticulatepoet: 16 words

    That’s 1,029 commenter words.

    Now the top mass verbiage commenter…

    David Bates: 2,760 words — nearly a thousand words more than the blogger’s blog (and almost double all other commenters’ word counts combined).


  • Greetings to all!

    The winner’s trophy for ‘Sheer Mass of Verbiage’ on this page (featured in bold print, below) goes to David Bates.

    David Healy’s June 10, 2013 blog post amounts to 1,503 words (including footnotes).

    In one week’s time, 10 readers have posted comments, totaling 25,059 words.

    David Bates posted 15,877 words (more than 10 times the verbiage of the featured blogger’s blog post).

    The runner up, BeyondLabeling, came in a distant second, posting 5,703 words.

    John Hogget, the third place winner, posted considerably less than half that – just 1,778 words.

    Joanna Care barely gets honorable mention, with 745 words.

    Johanna (not to be confused with Joanna Care) posted 328 words.

    FYI (yours truly) posted 180 words – all included in this comment.

    In Need Empowered Collective Local Focused posted 159 words.

    MBarbacki posted 110 words.

    Theinarticulatepoet posted 88 words.

    Eli Silly (Oli) posted 74 words.

    Discover and Recover, 15 words.

    Blogger, David Healy, remains the very embodiment of MIA – in the old sense (‘Missing In Action’). That should come as no surprise… considering the bombshell comment left by MBarbacki.


  • I’m unfamiliar with Australian ‘mental health’ law.

    But, if what you say of Australia’s system is true (that they can, “forcibly drug those only deemed to be ‘at risk’ of developing psychosis”), then you have my utmost sympathies. That is truly awful, if accurate (because, of course, there’s no way, in reality, to make accurate ‘mental health’ predictions, of presumed future “psychosis” conditions).

    Psychiatrists can talk about so-called “prodromal symptoms” all they want; but, it’s just talk – all so much loose speculation; there is no real science behind it.

    Meanwhile, it would be an huge mistake to idealize the Canadian ‘mental health’ system.

    It may be perfectly true (as the commenter above indicates) that, “The Supreme Court of Canada in Starson v. Swayze, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 722, 2003 SCC 32, allows informed refusal of medications even by a patient with a diagnosed psychiatric disorder.”

    However, that does not make Canada’s system a truly just or beneficial one.

    To see what I mean, please follow the link, below, to read the brief article, titled, “1 in 4 mental health patients controlled with drugs, restraints.”

  • Stevie (Steve Moffic),

    Where do you get your facts on Canadian psychiatrists and family practitioners? Please read the following news items carefully…

    Via CTV News:

    The Canadian Press
    Published Tuesday, Aug. 23, 2011 8:18PM EDT

    TORONTO – Despite being intended as procedures of last resort, a significant proportion of patients admitted to mental health beds in Ontario [(Canada’s most populous province)] are subjected to behavioural control measures such as physical restraints, medications and seclusion, a study has found.

    The report by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) says one in four patients with mental health issues admitted to a general hospital or psychiatric facility in the province are physically or chemically constrained to prevent them from harming themselves or others.

    “We looked at over 120,000 people admitted for mental health services over four years,” said co-author Ian Joiner, CIHI’s manager of rehabilitation and mental health. “In looking at the data, we found about 30,000 people had experienced some form of control intervention.

    “And control intervention is a broad term we use to describe things such as physical restraint, which is holding someone down, (and) mechanical restraint, which is the application of a belt or a strap to either hold down their arms or restrict movement,” he explained.

    Seclusion involves putting a patient in a room alone for a set period, while medications typically administered are fast-acting antipsychotics, sedatives or tranquillizers.

    Full Story:
    http: //

    Also this…

    The Globe and Mail:

    Published Sunday, Feb. 05 2012, 4:00 PM EST
    Last updated Friday, Feb. 03 2012, 4:28 PM EST

    The number of atypical antipsychotic prescriptions dispensed from retail pharmacies for Canadians under age 18 rose from about 772,000 in 2007 to more than 1.3 million in 2011, according to IMS Brogan, a company that tracks the pharmaceutical industry. The dollar value of those prescriptions shot up from about $38 million in 2007 to nearly $54 million in 2011.

    The drugs are being used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression, developmental disabilities, autism, conduct disorder, anxiety and even insomnia, all conditions for which they have not been approved by health regulators.

    Full Story:

  • Malene, you suggest, “…maybe you want to try the toxins you prescribe for others?”


    “Then how about the time when I sampled Thorazine to see how it made patients feel? Not a pleasant experience, I must tell you. There’s easier ways to learn empathy. I curtailed my self-experimentation after this. Yet, I think this experience may have turned out to be beneficial in other ways. It may be one of the reasons that I’ve always refrained from treating myself with any sort of medication, nor any family members…”

    That is a direct quote from Dr. Moffic’s blog, posted 27 April, 2012, under the title, “What is the Best Memory From My Years as a Resident?”