Sunday, November 19, 2017

Comments by David Ross, MEd, LPCC

Showing 100 of 477 comments. Show all.

  • Thanks Michael!

    I’m not sure why we’re bothering with these half-measures. Mandatory monitoring of ALL citizens is what’s needed. The “Citizen Safety and Tranquility Act” will soon require all of us to take our neuro-behavioral monitoring pill. Expect agents of the state to spot check all of us and read our “levels.” Any readings outside established norms will trigger an approved treatment algorithm designed to return the individual to pre-determined behavioral, emotional and cognitive functioning.

    Soylent Green is people my friends.

  • How could this be? Never in our history have more people been diagnosed with a “mental disorder” and prescribed psychotropic drugs. The drugs are given out like PEZ, diagnoses are available in under an hour and you know ‘Brave New Brain’ has been in print for over ten years. Anti-stigma campaigns are all the rage, along with white tee-shirts sporting black block print. I ask again, how could this be?

    Are we ready for a paradigm shift yet?

  • I’m sure you’re using hyperbole, but even so, let’s do it for 368th and 400th time if that what it takes to dispel the delusion! This is a primary belief in the NAMI curriculums taught to families and law enforcement officers via CIT trainings. My experience, like others, is that it continues to be a pervasive message needing rebuttal. I’m glad though that in your experience your not hearing it. Maybe progress is being made?

    Thanks for the book and your review Phil.

  • Yes exactly Jobos. As you can see from their qualifications at the end, it seems there’s all kinds of things that can influence volume of brain structures. I would add that these things are not static and interact with each other in ways we just don’t know. It doesn’t seem to stop them from giving the impression to the general public that they “know” something though.

    “Fourth, apart from disease-related biological factors, numerous confounding environmental factors can influence the volume of brain structures, including fetal hypoxia,50 nutritional and hydration status,51, 52, 53 exercise,54 medications,11 smoking,55 cannabis use,41 social isolation56 and the stress associated with severe mental illness.57”

  • I agree Someone Else – most of my discussions with “professionals” get stuck because they cite all the “credible research” that shows how safe, effective, good, etc. the drugs are. Or how convincing the brain imaging “research” is. Trying to have a conversation about the studies themselves, who conducted them, who funded, how were they conducted, etc. usually gets me no where. I appreciate MIA continuing to help us think critically about these supposed scientific studies. Bob’s latest book does this very well in my opinion as he writes about the various “guild” interests.

  • “My concern is how much of the society on drugs can any country sustain?”

    Unfortunately Jill I think we’re going to find out. I recently finished Bob’s latest book and there seems to be an intransigent ethic among those either directly/indirectly involved in the drug prescribing business. Looking forward to your next post

  • Richard, I don’t agree with your characterization but I get your point. We disagree on this one. I haven’t seen the problems you cite or are cited in the NY Times piece. The MAT program we have utilizing the Drug Suboxone has been useful for many (but not all) of the individual’s in the program by their report. Again, this is a MAT program which means the drugs aren’t given if the treatment isn’t occurring. And the goal is a two-year taper. This is different from a Methadone maintenance program or poorly run MAT program which do exist. I’m all about getting “upstream” and preventing the problem in the first place but give me some additional programs you’re aware of that are showing better results than MAT using Suboxone for persons currently trying to get off opioids.

  • Richard, I think they are part of the solution for some people. I think MAT is actually a good thing as it emphasizes that the drugs are secondary to the treatment, which is the way we’ve seen it work. Not everyone tapers off after two years and it is a difficult process but many do and report that there lives are better for the experience. Thanks for your thoughts.

  • Yes, I don’t think anyone responding is saying anything differently on that. My point is that there are MAT programs that are well run and the persons in them are reporting success in getting off all opiates (within 2 years) and back to living the life they want to live.

  • Jill,
    Thanks for this. I have to say, I’ve got a slightly different take on this. We’ve funded a M.A.T. program in our county for about 10 years now and have seen more advantages than disadvantages.

    To be clear, there are different ways to operationalize M.A.T. and some are horrible and I wouldn’t recommend. The reason I can agree with the M.A.T. label is that, done correctly, the medication (We use primarily Suboxone) is only given when the person is involved with treatment. From a very practical point of view the drug (Suboxone) allows the person to “not feel sick” and they’re able to participate in treatment, able to work, go to meetings, able to do any number of “socially necessary” things. This information comes from over a hundred client interviews. A successful program however has to have a great working relationship between the prescribing physician and drug/alcohol treatment team. This is something that is not always happening. We’ve not seen the issues you describe of complications with persons on the Suboxone but also abusing other substances (alcohol) though I don’t doubt that happens.

    In keeping with medication optimization principles, folks are started on the lowest effective dose (so they don’t feel “dope” sick) for the shortest amount of time. Most folks are titrated off by two years. Our county, like our State and other States is facing quite a problem with opiate abuse/dependence. M.A.T. is the most effective approach we’re aware of. It’s certainly not perfect and not everyone does well but we’ve yet to encounter a more effective option. If anyone knows of one – please suggest.

    We certainly need to do more on the prevention/education end of things. Getting rid of Pharma’s direct to consumer marketing might help. Teaching the benefits of pain, both physical and psychological, may be helpful so we’re all not so inclined to immediately suppress discomfort. Pain is after all a message sent by our bodies. Listening might not be such a bad idea.

  • Early Childhood Adversity (abuse, neglect, etc.) is a huge component largely overlooked but starting to get more attention.

    For me, the bigger question is replacing “ADHD” with any of the DSM labels.

    So, “How Should We Understand the Link Between “Schizophrenia” and Early Death?” “Bi-polar” “Depression” etc.

    And when will we see more and more studies showing the correlation between early use (5-6 years of age) of psychotropic drugs and premature death?

    Thanks for the piece Dr.

  • Phil – I’m a little confused. Are the author’s suggesting that “antipsychotics” have protective capacities? They extend life when compared to people who don’t take any drugs or take “too much.”

    Thanks,
    David

  • What was the suggested treatment for people being given psycho-stimulants like Adderall, Ritalin, Concerta, Vyvanse et ct ? I’ve a thought: Stop prescribing these brain damaging drugs! For those persons already affected by long-term use of these drugs perhaps the research will provide a way forward to lessen the damage wrought.

  • Registered,
    I understand what you’re saying but my comments were trying to take the argument back to Phil’s piece. Being able to “see” “real symptoms” is NOT the same as being able to see a virus. Since the predominate view is a medical/disease model of mental illness – Phil’s point is very important. That individuals experience real distress is not in question. What is in question is that psychiatric labels are real in the same way that medical diseases are real. I believe that was the author’s point.

  • This is great stuff and I encourage readers to check out Chapter 4 in David Levy’s book, ‘Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology, Second Edition’

    “To name something isn’t to explain it.”

    The Nominal Fallacy and Tautologous Reasoning has been and is the bedrock of the DSM endeavor.

    I can’t resist one last quote. “Words are so important to us that if we can find, formulate, or invent a special name for something, we easily fool ourselves into believing that we have explained it.”

  • Did you notice the asterisk at the end of the Pies piece?

    “*In my view, the Web site of “Mad in America” is particularly abusive toward psychiatrists, though it is far from the worst of the bunch. ”

    I think some MIA readers will take that as a challenge Dr. Pies! What do you mean we’re not the worst?

    I was interested in Pies’ comments about migraines and “painful tic” He says, “the history of medicine is replete with well-established diagnoses which, on their initial description, were of unknown etiology…” but eventually a “bona fide disease” is found. I think that’s a pretty accurate view of many of the professionals I speak with. They genuinely believe a “disease” exists but our science is just not sophisticated enough yet to provide the objective measures to “settle the matter.”

    In the other piece, the ending asterisk talks about Dr. Robert E. Kendell and the notion that “disease” should be seen as a “global characteristic” Wow! Not sure how that would be helpful for anyone to be seen as a “diseased person” versus having a “diseased brain.” I mean they’re both really bad terms but a using disease to refer to the “living human person”?? No bueno my friends.

  • The drug will indeed impact you. As has been pointed out to you before but you were dismissive, if you were to adjust the dose to your weight you would indeed feel the same drug effect your child does. The chemical imbalance theory has been disproven for many years now. These drugs are NOT correcting any imbalance in your child they are actually creating a brain imbalance (brain damage) that he may never recover from. Let’s hope and pray you keep him off these brain disabling drugs and the brain has enough plasticity to recover from what was done.

  • I think your responses, and there are many, are very instructive. For you, and by extension your child, ADHD is real and what you’re doing is “right” You’re just not persuadable at this point of any other view. If any of those organizations had actually proven the existence of ADHD I’d agree with you but they haven’t. They’ve agreed that people who act in a particular kind of way should be given a particular label and particular drugs. They can’t point to a blood test, an MRI or other imaging test (pre drug of course) to verify the existence of this so-called disease. I feel bad for you because you’ve been so misled by Pharma, Psychiatry, Schools, and who knows else and it’s your child who will pay the ultimate price for your decision. I know this probably isn’t penetrating but I’m obligated to try!

  • Check it out for yourself but many would say your son is in fact “hyper stimulated” but that stimulation is not expressed externally (through observable behaviors) but internally (in the brain). The brain is so overly stimulated only very limited affect and functioning is possible – judged by teachers and parents as “better” The brain is actually incapacitated to some extent by the stimulant.

  • I’m still waiting for the reports showing the increased mortality rates of persons started on psychiatric drugs as children. There are several studies examining adults dying on-average 20-30 years earlier. What kind of future should a 10 year old expect when started on drugs like these? Will he/she even see their 30th birthday? I’m sure the FDA knows best.

  • So what are we to make of this? Are they both right? Both wrong? One right one wrong? Some other variant? If seems to me that there’s no “bullet proof” study. There’s always someone, usually someone who has a different opinion, who presents arguments of why the study or study conclusions are flawed in some way. It leaves us scratching our heads saying, “what can we believe?”

  • I do appreciate the debate but I think it’s hard for Allen to be objective about the APA and his contribution to the mess we’re in. The DSM IV was his baby and he’s acknowledged that it “created” several “epidemics” including ADHD, Autism and Bipolar.

    I do agree with him about the direct to consumer marketing piece. Bob mentions that it would be a good “first step.” I think it would be much more than that and would love to see it happen. It’s hard to over-estimate the impact on “the story of mental illness in the US” these commercials, articles, billboards, etc. have.

  • Ron,
    Appreciate your perspective. I’m wondering if we would be better off to explore alternative drugs to replace the so-called anti-psychotics? In the same way I would imagine we are exploring alternatives to chemotherapy drugs. Can the “benefits” some people receive be achieved by a last harmful drug? Or, can they be achieved by a non-drug option?

    David

  • Thanks for putting this into words because Phil’s articles hit me the same way. His writing style is concise and clear and he exposes the word games being played.

    But the drugs work…

    Is the clarion call of so many. In what way do they work? For whom do they work? At what cost do they work?

    Good stuff Dr. Hickey.

    David

  • Hmm. SSRIs block the reuptake of serotonin leading to increased amounts of the neurotransmitter in the cleft. How they do that is a little more involved and outside my expertise! Again this gets back to the theory that an individual is somehow lacking enough serotonin so if they introduce a drug to disrupt the way the brain is working producing an increased amount of serotonin…well you’re just all better!

    Except…that’s not what happens for many many people. As to your other question, in my opinion these dangerous drugs shouldn’t be given to adults let alone children with developing brains.

  • I’m not a psychiatrist Someone Else so this may be way off – but I think from the quote you cited that the theory was there was too much serotonin present so they were trying to create a serotonin blocker (antagonist). Seroquel is a serotonin antagonist and Risperdal is what they call an inverse agonist for serotonin which apparently means it binds to the same receptor as an agonist but produces the opposite response as an agonist (quasi-Antagonist). This last bit is above my pay grade!

  • Thanks for this piece and for what you’re doing Sandra.

    I also work “in the field” and am faced daily with the challenges of how to make large and substantive changes in a system without alienating those that you need to work with to bring about the change. It’s taxing stuff but people’s lives are on the line so it’s worth it.

    Best,
    David

  • Both these ladies are powerful speakers!

    Thanks for your kind words and I’m encouraged that you also have a local conference that is making a difference. It takes time to change a culture, even at a local level, but if we’re persistent, I think there’s a real possibility for lasting reform.

    For me, one of the real strengths of MIA is and can be the connecting of like-minded people in this country and around the world. We learn from each other, support and encourage each other and have each others back when necessary!

    Thanks again for your efforts,
    David

  • I think Bob hit this one on the head. Nancy was THE authority in the so-called ‘Decade of the Brain” her books, The Broken Brain and Brave New Brain were pointed to as “evidence” of the biological underpinnings of so-called mental illness. Her acknowledgement, however grudging, that the drugs cause brain shrinkage (aka Damage) is a big deal because of pedestal she’s been raised to by those espousing the bio-reducio-absurdum view.
    D

  • Compare, “I am saying it is founded on a wrong appreciation of the nature of things.” with “It remains a very useful book for other purposes.” And you get some appreciation of this “transitional” time that we’re in.

    Like Insel’s statement of a couple months ago, we see again the equivocation that is going on within the field. The first statement can’t be readily harmonized with the second. Because if the first is correct the second is not. “Other things” is not defined and a bit misleading. The DSM has a stated purpose, namely the identification and classification of so-called mental disorders, so if it’s foundational assumptions are wrong (as I believe them to be) it isn’t “very useful” by definition.

    Insel said very much the same thing but was forced in to equivocating by saying we should keep using the DSM even though it’s not valid because there’s “nothing better” out there.

    As we move through this transitional period I look forward to less equivocation and more honesty.

  • Michael,
    Great piece.

    I’ve been in many meetings trying to stop involuntary outpatient commitment legislation in Ohio and when I mention utilizing the approach you write about, the scoffing and dismissiveness is palpable.

    Those pushing for IOC can’t or won’t find it in their hearts that being kind, gentle, caring and patient with another human being is, in itself, therapeutic. You see, to them, that’s too simple and therefore too simplistic to be considered as an intervention.

    For many, a prejudice exists towards those they/others label as “mentally ill” They perceive these labeled people to be potentially violent, lacking the will/ability to “get better” without the use of coercive measures. They embrace the use of tranquilizing drugs because the person can be reduced to a semi-conscious state (That’s how IOC is perceived as “working” in the NY Times piece).

    This is a difficult debate and I know it’s going on across the States and elsewhere. Thanks again for reminding us and others that the solution need be no more complicated than treating our fellow humans humanely.

    -David

  • Thanks so much Jennifer!

    I don’t want this to get lost in all the discussions about the need for moderation. But what just happened between Jennifer and I is incredibly important (IMO). She has good resources that people in our county desperately need and thru MIA we were able to connect and hopefully bring those resources (in this case Family Education) to our town. This IS part of how things change.

    My hope is that NAMI ‘Family to Family’ curriculum’s will be replaced, phased out, eliminated by alternatives like what Jennifer describes all over the country.

    If we can start to change the basic assumptions of the conversations we can see real change. Thanks again Matt, Kermit and Bob for MIA.

    D

  • Jennifer,
    We are looking for something exactly like this to support family/friends. Our Board (funder) would likely make funding available if it’s consistent with our mission, vision, values.

    Is there any way I can review a summary of the content for each lesson? While I’m fairly sure we would agree with the information, it’s something I’m going to have to do before making a recommendation to our Board. Please contact me [email protected] if this is possible.

    Our need came about because we were not at all satisfied with the NAMI ‘Family to Family’ curriculum. We offered to work to change the information to be more accurate but our offers were not accepted. I’m not sure local NAMI chapters have the latitude to change key portions of the curriculum.

    If we can move forward on this and start with the next cycle in September, I’d be more than happy to do a report out via my blog on how things went in Ashland County.

    Thanks Jennifer,
    David

  • Thanks for posting. Not too many comments yet, maybe everyone at MIA gets this and I wouldn’t be at all surprised.

    Unfortunately, this runs contrary to the mainstream myth of the benefits of stimulant drugs. They’ve longed been thought of as “study drugs” or “focusing pills” and parents, teachers, etc. have been bombarded with these “truths”

    When constructing a “Pluses” and “Minuses” chart for deciding whether to start these drugs or start your child/ren on these drugs, I hope parents and others will see that the “Minuses” column far outweighs the “Pluses” column. For additional information on this topic see the ‘Related Posts’ section above.

    David

  • I’ve watched two of the Szasz You Tube videos and found them to be very interesting. I haven’t noticed any insults other than when a psychiatrist tried to make a point about Szasz and scientology. I know these things get edited and if you were actually there Joanna, I would defer to you.

    Besides that, Szasz is really very coherent and the questions from the audience are great! Some of my favorite quotes:
    “First you have to abolish slavery and then you work on freedom.”

    “We don’t have cancer laws!” In response to the existence of mental health laws.

    “If you don’t inform yourself, you’re a dead duck!”

    “Careful decision maker in a free society”

    “It’s word magic!”

    Welcome back Joanna!

  • Thanks for this idea Matt. I should have remembered Jacqui’s blog of some months ago. I re-read her piece and the responses. It generated a pretty lively debate. There may still be some benefit of another piece.

    Couldn’t help but read the recent (today) WSJ article on Stimulant drugs and academic performance. I know this one can generate a blog!

    WSJ Piece: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323368704578593660384362292.html

  • Last night on The Learning Channel (TLC) part of Discovery Network, there were two one-hour programs on “Born Schizophrenic.”

    It chronicles the life of a five year old child diagnosed with Schizophrenia, her parents and sibling.

    I could not watch the entire program. It was just too disturbing to me. I point this out because the Discovery Network is very well known and I’m sure many will have seen or will see this program.

    In the context of this discussion, how do we dialogue with the people in this story? The parents, children, physicians, etc.?

    This will NOT be an easy thing.

    Link to the program:
    http://health.discovery.com/tv-shows/psych-week/videos/born-schizophrenic-janis-world.htm

  • Stephen,
    I like what you’re saying but I’m not sure whose doing it this way? Can you point me to some systems/states/counties where people in the system but not of the system are helping others in the system? Are these helpers volunteering their time, energy and efforts or is someone paying them? Is this model faith based and/or affiliated with so-called Peer Centers?

    Thanks,
    David

  • Thanks for the links. I was very vigilant in casting my vote and actually saw my printed ballot to ensure my vote was cast correctly. There did appear to be some…let’s call them irregularities in some precincts. Sigh.

    There are 88 counties in Ohio and the vast majority voted for Romney. However, the 12 or so that went for Obama were the most populous and that’s what carried the day.

    D

  • You’re absolutely right, talk therapy is far cheaper than drugs in the short term and long term. Insurance companies would do well to consider that before approving life long courses of drugs for invalid (according to Insel)diagnoses. Especially in light of all the evidence we have that alternatives (talk therapies, nutrition, exercise, etc.) are just if not more effective and again much cheaper. Now it’s important to note that many people might believe results from talk therapy take too long as compared to the drug effects they realize rather quickly. I think that’s a legitimate observation. I would like to think with good and accurate information, most would choose talk over drugs but that won’t be true for everyone.

    D

  • Thanks for your comments above dbunker, you are on a roll! Good stuff. I am definitely NOT a doctor. My LPCC credential is just the nomenclature Ohio uses to denote an independently licensed clinical counselor.

    I’ll talk to Duane about throwing “chum” in the water!
    😉

    David

  • Jonah,
    Thanks for your thoughts and your queries about 1) the psych meds and 2)lack of counseling. These are not easily answered. I can tell you that Nouthetic Counseling is not a proponent of psych drugs. Here’s a brief piece by Adams on the issue:

    “The use of psychotropic drugs, on the other hand, inhibits the body from functioning as it should. It is that use of medicine that we deplore. Mood changing drugs affect a person in such a way that the benefits of pain and other unpleasant feelings are not realized. Discomfort was designed to call attention to some underlying problem (organic or non-organic) so that it might be dealt with. One would hardly want to desensitize the nerve endings on his fingers because he has found that touching a hot stove hurts. If he did, the first he would know of the fact that he was resting his fingers there would be when he smells meat cooking! To desensitize these nerves, in the long run, would cause serious damage to the body. As an alerting system and warning device, then, pain is a friend. We do not believe in masking such pain by drugs.”

    In short, Adams doesn’t buy the chemical imbalance myth but what he does buy is actual organic conditions if they exist (i.e. brain damage).

    Your second query is a tougher one to answer and I won’t pretend to be able to answer it fully or completely. I can only add that people don’t seek counseling for all kinds of reasons. Cost, time commitment, don’t think it helps, bad experiences (personally or family/friends), stigma, culture, etc.

    I think the church can do a far better job of counseling their own members and STOP sending them out to secular authorities. Jay’s group and others are trying to help churches do this and train up counselors within the church to handle the increased numbers of people receiving counseling.

    If you have time, check out some of Dr. Adams’ writings under the “Resources” tab.

    Best,
    David

  • Thanks Duane. I hear you about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I’m no fan of drugs. You’ve read enough of my comments to know that. Unfortunately, counseling approaches based on say a moral relativistic philosophy can do harm, IMO, just a different kind of harm than drugs.

    All the best,
    David

  • Duane,
    No space to answer above. Yes, to answer your question, but it depends. It depends on the beliefs/assumptions undergirding the counseling approach. I’m a firm believer in Nouthetic Counseling, for instance, because I believe in the foundational beliefs behind it.
    http://www.nouthetic.org/about-ins/what-is-nouthetic-counseling

    I can’t say the say for other psychotherapies (Behavioral approaches, Rogerian, Psychodynamic, REBT, etc.)

    Feel free to contact me thru my email if you have additional questions on this.
    Thanks Duane,
    David

  • “Ross, Psychology itself is Humanism”

    Bingo!!

    Beliefs undergird any “ology” or “ism” and the belief structures undergirding psychology have led us to where we are today. I would argue that, given those beliefs, we couldn’t have arrived anywhere else.

    Change, real change, involves a change in beliefs and this is far easier said than done. That’s why It’s more likely for help to come from outside the current paradigm from other disciplines rather than from within.

    Good stuff dbunker.

  • Quote from the story: http://news.yahoo.com/tiny-electric-current-makes-others-look-better-111523142–abc-news-tech.html

    “It’s worth noting, however, that the experiment also demonstrates just how vulnerable the human brain is to seemingly trivial external forces. Two milliamps is practically nothing, yet it produced a measurable effect. So it doesn’t take much to make a difference.

    “Very small imbalances in your brain chemistry, which is related to brain electrical activities, can cause big problems,” Crib said.”

    Which is why drug based “solutions” are so incredibly dangerous. We know so little about the incredibly complex brain. I continue to call for humbleness, caution and care. “Helping” may be hurting as Nijinsky so eloquently said.

    D

  • Oh that Brand is funny! At the 5:30 mark he says, “Thank you for your casual objectification. I’m glad that it’s positive for you.”

    This is a great example of a brilliant comedian being on the show with a bunch of asses. They have no reference for Brand. In their groping to come to terms with what is so foreign, Brand pokes fun and, in my opinion, is very clever. “Lose the ring Mika, its doing nothing for you” That’s precious.

    I love when creative genius meets average (Joe).

  • Movies and Metaphors are a favorite of mine and as we’ve discussed before, Avatar is chock full of them.

    The Red Dragon is a ripe one! I like the concept of Jake and the Dragon so much because it’s a mutual process of acceptance. Jake needs to work within his abilities to “capture” the Dragon but ultimately it’s up to the Dragon to “allow” itself to be tamed. And at a very basic level both understand this. It’s in this understanding by Jake that he takes another step forward in understanding this very different culture.

    I didn’t know if you’ve returned from Thailand or not, but reading some of your other comments it looks like you have. I hope your visit there was helpful and meaningful for you. Also, don’t know if you’ve noticed but there seems to be a growing contingent of Aussie’s on MIA! I think that’s great.

    Best,
    David

  • I appreciated your interviews Barry. You presented the evidence for your point of view convincingly. It’s nice to read your perspective on the gathering as well as Bob’s.

    I’m heartened that you believe your group was “heard” and that, generally, there was agreement “that the child cannot be reduced to a biological description and that love, family, culture, and spirituality were key elements in any therapeutic approach.”

    Also, thanks for posting the presentations.

    Best,
    David

  • I agree with that Duane!

    I think what I appreciate most, both in those interviews and this written piece is Dr. Moncrieff’s communication style. It is clear, even though discussing complex issues. It avoids excessive “jargon” that typically confounds rather than clarifies. It’s reasonable, measured and fact based.

    I appreciate the post and your ongoing efforts Dr. Moncrieff. You’ve said for years that these drugs are not harmless substances. They produce drug effects (because they’re drugs!) and some of those drug effects will be perceived by individuals to be advantageous while others will experience drug effects that are life-threatening and harmful. Informed consent has been discussed quite a bit on this site and that means being honest about what these drugs actually do, not what some wish or want them to do.

    D

  • I too thank you and the other speakers for all your efforts. I think the absolute collapse of the chemical imbalance myth has shown some of the drug proponents for who they really are. Proponents of drugs. Period.

    I think many believe that we, as a species, are “better” on drugs. Sure we may not know exactly why yet, but the answer is just around the corner. Will the drugs produce undesirable effects as well as desirable effects? Sure, but you have to take the good with the bad no? It’s a kind of willful blindness Bob. They “have” to believe that we can be better under the influence. We can’t possibly negotiate all the richness and challenge that life affords clean and sober.

    No, the un-medicated life is not worth living.

    D

  • Batesy,
    I also enjoyed the Avatar meaning. I’ve been meaning to ask you if you had a chance to watch/read the book entitled “Cloud Atlas” While the critics were lukewarm, I absolutely loved both the book and movie, though for different reasons. I think you would enjoy either if you haven’t had a chance to read/watch them yet.

    David

  • Clip 2 includes an interview with Barry Duncan who introduced an interesting concept that might appeal to many of us here at MIA. Barry found the Vatican’s involvement in this effort of pushing back against the drugging of children so important because the church has the power to “push back” against the efforts of Big Pharma. Many blogs and comments have focused on this point. It’s a big challenge to go up against Big Pharma with an alternative message since they have, for all practical purposes, a limitless funding and dissemination stream for their point of view. Mr. Duncan see’s the church as one institution that, if it adopts similar views as those espoused on MIA, could effectively be a foil to the drug industry.

    Interesting idea.

  • It’s nice hearing from you Batesy! I hope all is well with you and your family.

    Your question is a good one and I have to say, unfortunately, no mainstream TV (NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, CNN, MSNBC)or print (NY Times, USA Today, Wash Post, Wall Street Journal) that I’ve seen. There’s plenty of coverage from secondary sources. Maybe it’s forthcoming?

    I’m relying on MIA for posting the live streams which I appreciate very much.

    All the best David,
    D