Sam,
As always, I appreciate your support. I also hope that some psychiatrists will read some of my posts and, hopefully, look at the issues with an open mind. I think that there must be some who see through the hoax.
Rosalee,
Thanks for coming in. You’re right. They never seem to understand the fact that their secrets always come out in the long run. Witness the firestorm over the MISSD akathisia posters this week on the London Underground, and psychiatry’s response. (https://twitter.com/ProfTonyDavid/status/1512467035837640708)
Peter,
Good point, and well put.
Gilbert,
Yes. It is, in my experience, rare to find someone who has received genuine help from modern psychiatry. The first requirement of “psychiatric treatment” is that one must accept that he/she has an illness. It’s all downhill from there.
Gina,
You’re welcome. If you don’t believe that Things Go Better with Coca Cola, then don’t believe psychiatry’s advertising either. As you point out, it’s not reliable.
pacifica,
Yes, there are psychiatrists who are trying to do valuable work, and I’m sure they’re helping people. Thanks for mentioning these individuals.
edward1,
A license to “treat” people whether they want “treatment” or not!
Someone Else,
You’re welcome!
Bradford,
Advertising copy is an apt description, and it applies to so much of what psychiatrists write.
Terces,
And thanks for your support and encouragement.
nickdrury,
That’s just so beautiful!
Tiomak,
You are absolutely correct. A good number of anti-psychiatry writers have promoted the concept of tardive dysphoria – sadness that stems from long-term use of anti-depressants. Psychiatry’s response to this condition has generally been to switch to a different anti-depressant, but generally ignoring the true cause of the sadness. The broad outlines of this perspective are widely accepted, though the details and ramifications are widely ignored.
I should have made a mention of this issue in the post.
Steve,
The sad reality here is that we’re winning all the battles hands down, but the psychiatrists are winning the credibility contest. Maybe we could get a leading PR group to work for us pro bono!
Rachel,
Thanks for the clarification.
Kate,
Thanks for this. Psychiatry is an arm of law enforcement, except that they don’t have to read you your rights, and the ordinary standards of evidence are routinely waived.
bcharris,
Absolutely correct.
rebel,
Thanks for this. I think your comment embodies a huge part of the answer – mutual respect, dignity, and understanding. Psychiatrists should understand this, but have become so embroiled in the quest for the Holy Grail – proof of neuropathological causes for their “illnesses” – that they have thrown out the baby with the bath water.
Psychiatrists are a privileged group. I don’t think they grasp the reality of sadness and have little insight into its prevalence.
Steve,
I agree. But I think the standard should be at least 99% accuracy. In other words, false positives and false negatives should be exceedingly rare, especially if they want to use their findings for “diagnostic” and “treatment alternatives” purposes.
beokay,
Yes. But their immediate response is: The Work Goes On!
Steve,
Yes. Psychiatry is a kind of weird combination of articles of faith and microscopic examination.
Exit,
Thanks for this. They would have the tenacity to build pyramids, but most of them would insist that pyramids could be built from straw, despite vast evidence to the contrary.
Lawrence,
Great article. And with regards to your final question, my answer is a definite yes. It’s reached a point where those of us who describe ourselves as anti-psychiatry are widely regarded as conspiracy theorists, and enemies of progress.
Patrick,
Yes, and they have the full support of the King (government). It’s a hoax, folks.
Steve,
Yes. And it’s becoming increasingly difficult to believe that psychiatrists don’t realize that the whole thing is a hoax. How can they not see that?
Patrick
That’s a very valid analogy!
Fiachra,
You’ve hit the nail on the head. Thanks.
Bradford,
Thanks for this comment. I did read about the illustrious Dr. Lieberman’s fall from grace. What struck me most forcibly was that in his apology, he did seem to be acknowledging vestiges of racism within himself.
Brett,
Thanks for these very helpful insights. I particularly appreciate: “This naturally leads the clinician to explore those causes and regard them as the real problem, with anxiety essentially a side effect.”
Dr. Pierre has informed me that I have listed his job title incorrectly. I lifted his title from his biography on the UCLA website:
“Joe Pierre, MD is the Chief of Mental Health Community Care Systems at the VA West Los Angeles Healthcare Center and a Health Sciences Clinical Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.”
In the interests of readability, I abbreviated this to “Chief Psychiatrist, VA West Los Angeles Healthcare Center, and Clinical Professor, UCLA.”
I apologize for overstating his credentials/rank.
Christopher,
Thanks for the historical perspective. The section on dropping the word “reaction” was particularly interesting. Spitzer just didn’t seem to get it.
But the move was definitely noticed in other circles. Here’s a quote from Ullmann and Krasner’s classic textbook: A Psychological Approach to Abnormal Behavior: Second Edition, 1975:
“There are some features of DSM-II that seem to point in a more conservative direction. A major one is the change from a concept of a reaction (behavior) that is psychotic or neurotic to calling the behavior psychosis or neurosis with the implication of a disease entity.” (p 27)
beokay,
I agree. Consider the hypothetical conversation:
Parent: Why is my child so fidgety and distracted? Why does he run around so much? Why does he not pay attention?
Psychiatrist: Because he has an illness called attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Parent: How do you know he has this illness?
Psychiatrist: Because he is fidgety and distracted, runs around all the time, and doesn’t pay attention.
Nothing is explained by a “diagnosis of ADHD”.
Altostrata,
Yes. Thanks for this clarification.
Fiachra,
Good point. The tranquilizers are often addictive, and the antidepressants often make things worse than they were before.
rebel,
Yes, it is difficult to imagine that they don’t see through the deceptions. They can’t be that dense. With regards to traditional (i.e. non-psychiatric) medicine, they are in a difficult position. If they speak out against psychiatry, they will risk censure. If they go along with psychiatry, they are safe from censure. Unfortunately their customers are not safe, which is one reason that we need the anti-psychiatry movement.
beokay,
That’s an interesting thought.
Gina,
Good point. Regular hospitals have been teaching patient outcomes and satisfaction for years. It shouldn’t be too much of a reach to expect the same from mental “hospitals”.
Richard,
Thanks for coming in. It’s a thorny subject. I vacillated, literally for hours, as to the best way to word this. Your formulation is more accurate, of course, but it’s also a bit of a mouthful.
At the present time it’s all a bit premature, because psychiatry has no intention of voluntarily limiting its scope in the manner I described.
They are onto a “good thing” and will only cede turf when forced to do so – either by attrition in their own ranks or rejection from their “patients”.
scatterbrain,
I believe you are correct. If Dr. Aftab were to be forthright, he would be ostracized by his peers. But other psychiatrists (admittedly very few) have taken this step and survived.
I think Dr. Aftab may have the notion that he can be the one who brings the anti-psychiatry people back into the psychiatric fold. Though, of course, I can’t be sure of this because he has never made his position on this matter clear.
But I don’t believe that a psychiatric service can ever be truly client-centered. Too much of their energy has to be dissipated to supporting the spurious and destructive premise that every significant problem of thinking, feeling, or behaving is an illness best treated with psychotropic pills.
Fred,
Thanks for coming in, and for your support.
Someone Else,
Thanks for your support and for the links.
Although I was aware of the exploitation of children for slavery and sexual trafficking, I was surprised at the extent of this problem as documented in your links.
As my health continues to deteriorate, it becomes increasingly difficult for me to do the research and write up the results, but I will try to devote more time and space to these issues.
Again, thanks for coming in.
Brett,
Thanks for your ongoing support, and for the fussy eater analogy, which seems very apt. I hope the class project goes well.
Louisa,
Thanks for coming in on this important issue.
My essential point in all of this is that psychiatry’s “functional” diagnoses are not illnesses in any ordinary sense of the term because they entail no reliably identifiable causal pathologies, which in my experience is the ordinary everyday use of the term “illness”.
So when we encounter a problem in thinking, feeling, or executive functioning, that has clearly been caused by brain injury, it is important to acknowledge this. During my career (I’m now retired), I worked in a number of nursing homes. Most of the people there were elderly, but there were also young people who had incurred brain damage, either from trauma or from illnesses (infections, etc.), and whose mental processes (thinking, feeling, and behaving) were markedly impaired. It seemed obvious to me that the brain damage was the cause of the impairment in mental processes. Just as we can’t see without eyes, similarly, we can’t think coherently and effectively without properly working brains.
I made the point in the post that the brain pathologies in question “…could be called real mental illnesses, though I personally favor the term ‘brain illnesses’, in that the pathology is primarily based I that organ.”
Again, thanks for coming in.
KateL,
Yes, they are “so convinced they’re the good guys”, but what they offer is a destructive hoax. I think that in their hearts most of them know this, but won’t speak out for fear of upsetting the apple cart. So they continue to promote the hoax and scoop in their victims. And on it goes. They have no shame.
Bradford,
Thanks. What’s so amazing is that so many people continue to accept the hoax, though its errors and contradictions are so transparent.
Rosalee,
Thanks for coming in, and for your support.
bcharris,
I hope so. But I think they are still fairly strong and unscrupulous.
rebel,
Odd indeed!
Someone Else,
Thanks for this comment and for the helpful links.
Fiachra,
Right. But they continuously portray themselves as protecting the public from dangerous mad people, and then blame us for creating stigma.
beokay,
Thanks for this information and the link.
Fiachra,
Yes. Even their so-called antidepressants have suicide warnings on the labels! It’s hard to get one’s head around the irony of this.
Sam,
Yes. “devious” is an accurate description of many of psychiatry’s tactics. And tragically, they’re good at it. They have successfully expanded their “diagnosis” list with every new edition of DSM. We have lots of work to do still.
i.e. cox,
Thanks for this interesting perspective.
John,
I don’t know about his fees, but he does tend to pontificate.
Gina,
Reminds me of the old joke. What’s the difference between God and a psychiatrist? God doesn’t’ think he’s a psychiatrist!
rebel,
Yes. They’ve been making the same errors for about 100 years and show little interest in making any course corrections.
Bradford,
Thanks for coming in and for your support.
maedhbh,
Thanks for coming in. The hoax and the destructiveness are everywhere!, and as you point out, the “level of public blindness is still widespread”. The fact is that they can assign you any “diagnosis” that they want. There’s no real accountability in that area. And not much accountability with regards to “treatment”. That pill doesn’t seem to be working too well. Let’s try another!
Harper,
Thanks.
ThereAreFourLights,
Thanks for your support.
Kevin,
Thanks for your comment, and for your expressions of confidence in my ability, but realistically, I’m too old and broken to do a book.
Frank,
I couldn’t agree more.
Patrick,
Yes, and med checks have become standard practice in psychiatry.
Marie,
Yes. Wasn’t that something?!
yeah_I_survived,
Thanks for coming in and for your helpful comments.
Stevie,
Thanks for the reference.
Brett,
Good catch. Many of the better-known facilities are purging this kind of nonsense from their sites. But Mayo doesn’t seem to have gotten the message yet.
Brett,
Thanks for your insightful comments and ongoing support.
Rosalee,
And thank you for your helpful and insightful comments and ongoing support.
sam,
I think you’re absolutely right. Psychiatry provides a perverse “service” to real medics, in that it enables the latter to shuffle off to psychiatry, which of course, is a “bona fide medical specialty”, those patients that, for whatever reason, they don’t want to deal with, but also don’t want to just kick out the door.
I think this is the primary reason that real doctors don’t expose the psychiatrists. They provide a “convenient” service.
kindredspirit,
Thanks for this. Psychiatry is rotten to the core.
oldhead,
It would be good material for a study.
sam,
Yes, there are lots of parallels between psychiatry and crooked politics. And no, I haven’t been invited to tea yet. But maybe sometime soon. How I crave such an honor!
Willoweed,
Yes. The world-wide psychiatric-pharma machine is light years ahead of any regulatory activity that could hope to rein them in. They are loose cannons on the ship that we call humanity. My guess is that most of them are just hoping that they can make it to retirement before the whole thing unravels.
Frank,
“If psychiatrists didn’t believe in some version of the ‘chemical imbalance theory’ they wouldn’t be damaging their client/patients by giving them harmful psychotropic drugs.”
That is so true!
Someone Else,
You’re welcome. I continue to be appalled by psychiatry’s inherent destructiveness, and their absolute determination to resist any questioning of their self-serving status quo.
bcharris,
I agree. Feelings of sadness are actually adaptive mechanisms that alert us when we get stuck in situations that are not helpful to us.
Thanks. I’m not at all sure that I warrant such praise, but I am grateful.
rebel,
And thank you for putting the matter so well, and so succinctly.
Steve,
Right. And the computer would be kaput also.
Miriam,
Yes. His walk-back didn’t even come close to a genuine apology.
Sam,
Thanks for this and for the interesting link. If anyone had imagined that there was any genuine motivation for reform within psychiatry, their response to the pandemic should be a salutary lesson. Psychiatry’s essential response is to encourage people to come in and get their worries and negative feelings checked out to see if they need “treatment”. And guess what? They do!
Steve,
Yes, indeed! Or perhaps it’s like “repairing” the motherboard of your computer with a backhoe and a couple of jackhammers!
Richard,
Thanks.
Mammon,
I agree that most professions try to present themselves in a favorable light. Electrical engineers, for instance, build marvelous power stations, but tend to understate the negative effects that their products have on the plant’s climate. Similar dynamics occur in most of us. We’re willing to go along with collateral damage for the sake of our comfort. But – and for me this is the critical distinction – change is occurring. People are beginning to realize the reality of climate change. Psychiatry, however, is stuck in its own mythology, and Dr. Pies is perhaps the “stuckest” of them all.
Marie,
You’re right. And yet the learned Dr. Pies would say that you’re wrong: never promoted such nonsense!
boans,
It is serious. Like the Six Million Dollar Man, except that that was fiction, and there was never any suggestion to the contrary.
LindaVZ,
Yes. All psychiatric “illness” is considered “incurable”, on the grounds that their “treatments” are so ineffective. It’s a house of cards.
Stevepittelli,
I think he might actually have been the original editor of Psychiatric Times.
“The periodical was first published in January 1985 as a 16-page bimonthly publication. It was founded by psychiatrist John L. Schwartz and originally edited by Ronald Pies.” (Wikipedia).
rebel,
And thank you for the insights.
Someone Else,
Nice research! Well done.
Fiachra,
Never. And Never!
kindredspirit,
Nice response. Thanks.
beokay,
Thanks for the Max Planck quote. There are several reasons why I am willing to “go the distance” with the learned doctor. I’m currently working on a post to explain these. Perhaps after that I will let him so.
snowyowl,
Welcome back.
Fiachra,
I have heard this too. I hope that the anti-psychiatry movement has played a role in this, and that we can continue the push.
Sam,
As always, I appreciate your support. I also hope that some psychiatrists will read some of my posts and, hopefully, look at the issues with an open mind. I think that there must be some who see through the hoax.
Rosalee,
Thanks for coming in. You’re right. They never seem to understand the fact that their secrets always come out in the long run. Witness the firestorm over the MISSD akathisia posters this week on the London Underground, and psychiatry’s response. (https://twitter.com/ProfTonyDavid/status/1512467035837640708)
Peter,
Good point, and well put.
Gilbert,
Yes. It is, in my experience, rare to find someone who has received genuine help from modern psychiatry. The first requirement of “psychiatric treatment” is that one must accept that he/she has an illness. It’s all downhill from there.
Gina,
You’re welcome. If you don’t believe that Things Go Better with Coca Cola, then don’t believe psychiatry’s advertising either. As you point out, it’s not reliable.
pacifica,
Yes, there are psychiatrists who are trying to do valuable work, and I’m sure they’re helping people. Thanks for mentioning these individuals.
edward1,
A license to “treat” people whether they want “treatment” or not!
Someone Else,
You’re welcome!
Bradford,
Advertising copy is an apt description, and it applies to so much of what psychiatrists write.
Terces,
And thanks for your support and encouragement.
nickdrury,
That’s just so beautiful!
Tiomak,
You are absolutely correct. A good number of anti-psychiatry writers have promoted the concept of tardive dysphoria – sadness that stems from long-term use of anti-depressants. Psychiatry’s response to this condition has generally been to switch to a different anti-depressant, but generally ignoring the true cause of the sadness. The broad outlines of this perspective are widely accepted, though the details and ramifications are widely ignored.
I should have made a mention of this issue in the post.
Steve,
The sad reality here is that we’re winning all the battles hands down, but the psychiatrists are winning the credibility contest. Maybe we could get a leading PR group to work for us pro bono!
Rachel,
Thanks for the clarification.
Kate,
Thanks for this. Psychiatry is an arm of law enforcement, except that they don’t have to read you your rights, and the ordinary standards of evidence are routinely waived.
bcharris,
Absolutely correct.
rebel,
Thanks for this. I think your comment embodies a huge part of the answer – mutual respect, dignity, and understanding. Psychiatrists should understand this, but have become so embroiled in the quest for the Holy Grail – proof of neuropathological causes for their “illnesses” – that they have thrown out the baby with the bath water.
rebel,
Perhaps the 11th Commandment: Thou Shalt Keep Thine Emotions Tightly Wrapped.
Steve,
Nice insight, and so valid.
Kate,
Psychiatrists are a privileged group. I don’t think they grasp the reality of sadness and have little insight into its prevalence.
Steve,
I agree. But I think the standard should be at least 99% accuracy. In other words, false positives and false negatives should be exceedingly rare, especially if they want to use their findings for “diagnostic” and “treatment alternatives” purposes.
beokay,
Yes. But their immediate response is: The Work Goes On!
Steve,
Yes. Psychiatry is a kind of weird combination of articles of faith and microscopic examination.
Exit,
Thanks for this. They would have the tenacity to build pyramids, but most of them would insist that pyramids could be built from straw, despite vast evidence to the contrary.
Lawrence,
Great article. And with regards to your final question, my answer is a definite yes. It’s reached a point where those of us who describe ourselves as anti-psychiatry are widely regarded as conspiracy theorists, and enemies of progress.
Patrick,
Yes, and they have the full support of the King (government). It’s a hoax, folks.
Steve,
Yes. And it’s becoming increasingly difficult to believe that psychiatrists don’t realize that the whole thing is a hoax. How can they not see that?
Patrick
That’s a very valid analogy!
Fiachra,
You’ve hit the nail on the head. Thanks.
Bradford,
Thanks for this comment. I did read about the illustrious Dr. Lieberman’s fall from grace. What struck me most forcibly was that in his apology, he did seem to be acknowledging vestiges of racism within himself.
Brett,
Thanks for these very helpful insights. I particularly appreciate: “This naturally leads the clinician to explore those causes and regard them as the real problem, with anxiety essentially a side effect.”
Dr. Pierre has informed me that I have listed his job title incorrectly. I lifted his title from his biography on the UCLA website:
“Joe Pierre, MD is the Chief of Mental Health Community Care Systems at the VA West Los Angeles Healthcare Center and a Health Sciences Clinical Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.”
In the interests of readability, I abbreviated this to “Chief Psychiatrist, VA West Los Angeles Healthcare Center, and Clinical Professor, UCLA.”
I apologize for overstating his credentials/rank.
Christopher,
Thanks for the historical perspective. The section on dropping the word “reaction” was particularly interesting. Spitzer just didn’t seem to get it.
But the move was definitely noticed in other circles. Here’s a quote from Ullmann and Krasner’s classic textbook: A Psychological Approach to Abnormal Behavior: Second Edition, 1975:
“There are some features of DSM-II that seem to point in a more conservative direction. A major one is the change from a concept of a reaction (behavior) that is psychotic or neurotic to calling the behavior psychosis or neurosis with the implication of a disease entity.” (p 27)
beokay,
I agree. Consider the hypothetical conversation:
Parent: Why is my child so fidgety and distracted? Why does he run around so much? Why does he not pay attention?
Psychiatrist: Because he has an illness called attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Parent: How do you know he has this illness?
Psychiatrist: Because he is fidgety and distracted, runs around all the time, and doesn’t pay attention.
Nothing is explained by a “diagnosis of ADHD”.
Altostrata,
Yes. Thanks for this clarification.
Fiachra,
Good point. The tranquilizers are often addictive, and the antidepressants often make things worse than they were before.
rebel,
Yes, it is difficult to imagine that they don’t see through the deceptions. They can’t be that dense. With regards to traditional (i.e. non-psychiatric) medicine, they are in a difficult position. If they speak out against psychiatry, they will risk censure. If they go along with psychiatry, they are safe from censure. Unfortunately their customers are not safe, which is one reason that we need the anti-psychiatry movement.
beokay,
That’s an interesting thought.
Gina,
Good point. Regular hospitals have been teaching patient outcomes and satisfaction for years. It shouldn’t be too much of a reach to expect the same from mental “hospitals”.
Richard,
Thanks for coming in. It’s a thorny subject. I vacillated, literally for hours, as to the best way to word this. Your formulation is more accurate, of course, but it’s also a bit of a mouthful.
At the present time it’s all a bit premature, because psychiatry has no intention of voluntarily limiting its scope in the manner I described.
They are onto a “good thing” and will only cede turf when forced to do so – either by attrition in their own ranks or rejection from their “patients”.
scatterbrain,
I believe you are correct. If Dr. Aftab were to be forthright, he would be ostracized by his peers. But other psychiatrists (admittedly very few) have taken this step and survived.
I think Dr. Aftab may have the notion that he can be the one who brings the anti-psychiatry people back into the psychiatric fold. Though, of course, I can’t be sure of this because he has never made his position on this matter clear.
But I don’t believe that a psychiatric service can ever be truly client-centered. Too much of their energy has to be dissipated to supporting the spurious and destructive premise that every significant problem of thinking, feeling, or behaving is an illness best treated with psychotropic pills.
Fred,
Thanks for coming in, and for your support.
Someone Else,
Thanks for your support and for the links.
Although I was aware of the exploitation of children for slavery and sexual trafficking, I was surprised at the extent of this problem as documented in your links.
As my health continues to deteriorate, it becomes increasingly difficult for me to do the research and write up the results, but I will try to devote more time and space to these issues.
Again, thanks for coming in.
Brett,
Thanks for your ongoing support, and for the fussy eater analogy, which seems very apt. I hope the class project goes well.
Louisa,
Thanks for coming in on this important issue.
My essential point in all of this is that psychiatry’s “functional” diagnoses are not illnesses in any ordinary sense of the term because they entail no reliably identifiable causal pathologies, which in my experience is the ordinary everyday use of the term “illness”.
So when we encounter a problem in thinking, feeling, or executive functioning, that has clearly been caused by brain injury, it is important to acknowledge this. During my career (I’m now retired), I worked in a number of nursing homes. Most of the people there were elderly, but there were also young people who had incurred brain damage, either from trauma or from illnesses (infections, etc.), and whose mental processes (thinking, feeling, and behaving) were markedly impaired. It seemed obvious to me that the brain damage was the cause of the impairment in mental processes. Just as we can’t see without eyes, similarly, we can’t think coherently and effectively without properly working brains.
I made the point in the post that the brain pathologies in question “…could be called real mental illnesses, though I personally favor the term ‘brain illnesses’, in that the pathology is primarily based I that organ.”
Again, thanks for coming in.
KateL,
Yes, they are “so convinced they’re the good guys”, but what they offer is a destructive hoax. I think that in their hearts most of them know this, but won’t speak out for fear of upsetting the apple cart. So they continue to promote the hoax and scoop in their victims. And on it goes. They have no shame.
Bradford,
Thanks. What’s so amazing is that so many people continue to accept the hoax, though its errors and contradictions are so transparent.
Rosalee,
Thanks for coming in, and for your support.
bcharris,
I hope so. But I think they are still fairly strong and unscrupulous.
rebel,
Odd indeed!
Someone Else,
Thanks for this comment and for the helpful links.
Fiachra,
Right. But they continuously portray themselves as protecting the public from dangerous mad people, and then blame us for creating stigma.
beokay,
Thanks for this information and the link.
Fiachra,
Yes. Even their so-called antidepressants have suicide warnings on the labels! It’s hard to get one’s head around the irony of this.
Sam,
Yes. “devious” is an accurate description of many of psychiatry’s tactics. And tragically, they’re good at it. They have successfully expanded their “diagnosis” list with every new edition of DSM. We have lots of work to do still.
i.e. cox,
Thanks for this interesting perspective.
John,
I don’t know about his fees, but he does tend to pontificate.
Gina,
Reminds me of the old joke. What’s the difference between God and a psychiatrist? God doesn’t’ think he’s a psychiatrist!
rebel,
Yes. They’ve been making the same errors for about 100 years and show little interest in making any course corrections.
Bradford,
Thanks for coming in and for your support.
maedhbh,
Thanks for coming in. The hoax and the destructiveness are everywhere!, and as you point out, the “level of public blindness is still widespread”. The fact is that they can assign you any “diagnosis” that they want. There’s no real accountability in that area. And not much accountability with regards to “treatment”. That pill doesn’t seem to be working too well. Let’s try another!
Harper,
Thanks.
ThereAreFourLights,
Thanks for your support.
Kevin,
Thanks for your comment, and for your expressions of confidence in my ability, but realistically, I’m too old and broken to do a book.
Frank,
I couldn’t agree more.
Patrick,
Yes, and med checks have become standard practice in psychiatry.
Marie,
Yes. Wasn’t that something?!
yeah_I_survived,
Thanks for coming in and for your helpful comments.
Stevie,
Thanks for the reference.
Brett,
Good catch. Many of the better-known facilities are purging this kind of nonsense from their sites. But Mayo doesn’t seem to have gotten the message yet.
Brett,
Thanks for your insightful comments and ongoing support.
Rosalee,
And thank you for your helpful and insightful comments and ongoing support.
sam,
I think you’re absolutely right. Psychiatry provides a perverse “service” to real medics, in that it enables the latter to shuffle off to psychiatry, which of course, is a “bona fide medical specialty”, those patients that, for whatever reason, they don’t want to deal with, but also don’t want to just kick out the door.
I think this is the primary reason that real doctors don’t expose the psychiatrists. They provide a “convenient” service.
kindredspirit,
Thanks for this. Psychiatry is rotten to the core.
oldhead,
It would be good material for a study.
sam,
Yes, there are lots of parallels between psychiatry and crooked politics. And no, I haven’t been invited to tea yet. But maybe sometime soon. How I crave such an honor!
Willoweed,
Yes. The world-wide psychiatric-pharma machine is light years ahead of any regulatory activity that could hope to rein them in. They are loose cannons on the ship that we call humanity. My guess is that most of them are just hoping that they can make it to retirement before the whole thing unravels.
Frank,
“If psychiatrists didn’t believe in some version of the ‘chemical imbalance theory’ they wouldn’t be damaging their client/patients by giving them harmful psychotropic drugs.”
That is so true!
Someone Else,
You’re welcome. I continue to be appalled by psychiatry’s inherent destructiveness, and their absolute determination to resist any questioning of their self-serving status quo.
bcharris,
I agree. Feelings of sadness are actually adaptive mechanisms that alert us when we get stuck in situations that are not helpful to us.
Irit,
Thanks. Incidentally, Robert Whitaker did a nice critique of Dr. Pies’ material in 2015. You can see it here.
https://www.madinamerica.com/2015/09/ronald-pies-doubles-down-and-why-we-should-care/
oldhead,
Thanks. I’m not at all sure that I warrant such praise, but I am grateful.
rebel,
And thank you for putting the matter so well, and so succinctly.
Steve,
Right. And the computer would be kaput also.
Miriam,
Yes. His walk-back didn’t even come close to a genuine apology.
Sam,
Thanks for this and for the interesting link. If anyone had imagined that there was any genuine motivation for reform within psychiatry, their response to the pandemic should be a salutary lesson. Psychiatry’s essential response is to encourage people to come in and get their worries and negative feelings checked out to see if they need “treatment”. And guess what? They do!
Steve,
Yes, indeed! Or perhaps it’s like “repairing” the motherboard of your computer with a backhoe and a couple of jackhammers!
Richard,
Thanks.
Mammon,
I agree that most professions try to present themselves in a favorable light. Electrical engineers, for instance, build marvelous power stations, but tend to understate the negative effects that their products have on the plant’s climate. Similar dynamics occur in most of us. We’re willing to go along with collateral damage for the sake of our comfort. But – and for me this is the critical distinction – change is occurring. People are beginning to realize the reality of climate change. Psychiatry, however, is stuck in its own mythology, and Dr. Pies is perhaps the “stuckest” of them all.
Marie,
You’re right. And yet the learned Dr. Pies would say that you’re wrong: never promoted such nonsense!
boans,
It is serious. Like the Six Million Dollar Man, except that that was fiction, and there was never any suggestion to the contrary.
LindaVZ,
Yes. All psychiatric “illness” is considered “incurable”, on the grounds that their “treatments” are so ineffective. It’s a house of cards.
Stevepittelli,
I think he might actually have been the original editor of Psychiatric Times.
“The periodical was first published in January 1985 as a 16-page bimonthly publication. It was founded by psychiatrist John L. Schwartz and originally edited by Ronald Pies.” (Wikipedia).
rebel,
And thank you for the insights.
Someone Else,
Nice research! Well done.
Fiachra,
Never. And Never!
kindredspirit,
Nice response. Thanks.
beokay,
Thanks for the Max Planck quote. There are several reasons why I am willing to “go the distance” with the learned doctor. I’m currently working on a post to explain these. Perhaps after that I will let him so.
snowyowl,
Welcome back.
Fiachra,
I have heard this too. I hope that the anti-psychiatry movement has played a role in this, and that we can continue the push.