“The United States is about the only country in the world where mass killings by disturbed loners with easy access to guns are almost a daily occurrence. ”
False.
Then we should seek to un-tie them, but advocating for disarming the public is a repugnant progressive political agenda; not a way to fight the stigma of mental illness.
Articles such as this are decidedly off-message for this website (IMHO). Editorial intervention is needed.
I come to this site for news about psychiatry, not leftist political claptrap.
Yes, it is complex. I think that’s the whole idea. After all, do we not agree that depression is a complex problem? Why then the insistence on a simplistic model?
The initial premise was that overly narrow theories have led to ineffective treatments. It follows naturally that a better, more accurate model will be broad in scope. I am encouraged to see some science that isn’t looking for another ‘magic bullet’ and instead is looking for ‘big picture’ solutions.
Moreover, to my eye this map leads to psychotherapy solutions, not chemical solutions. Even if this diagram isn’t 100% accurate, I think these guys are on to something.
When you argue–contrary to settled law and English grammar–that Amendment 2 does not protect an individual right, yes, you have penned an ideological article.
I’m surprised to find this piece here. And disappointed. If I wanted left-wing political claptrap, I’d go to Huffington Post, not this site.
It is disappointing to see partisan politics (climate change) dragged into an otherwise great piece.
“The great mystery in all of this is why has the mainstream media been so slow to pick up the story. ”
Two words: advertising dollars.
So, this morning (September 22) I read this story, and as if on-cue, Time magazine obliges:
This, supposedly, comes from a neurologist. Is he not up to date? Has he been hoodwinked along with the rest of us? Or is he in on the scam?
“… and without the assumption that one already knows the source of their troubles…”
While I am as yet uncertain of where I stand vis-a-vis Dr. Hickey’s ideas, with this passage I do believe he has just succeeded in getting my psychiatrist fired.
That’s got to be a big part of it, AA. GPs scored a bonanza when they figured out they could horn-in on Psychiatry’s action by casually prescribing SSRIs and benzodiazepines. They know instinctively that if Psychiatry goes down in flames, they will lose some percentage of their practices.
Someday, I’d like to see doctors working on contingency, just like many lawyers. Pay them when you are cured, and not before. Doctors would then find it in their self-interest to get it right the first time, and they would stop pretending to treat people they know they cannot help.
“I think people’s political opinions are highly genetically loaded and appear to be related to the structure of the insula and amygdala.”
This is something I would have expected to hear from a state psychiatrist in Stalin’s Russia.
Well golly, all of this hand-wringing is a fine thing to see, but what I want to know is this: when is someone going to prison? When innocent people die due to scientific fraud, it isn’t an academic exercise in ethics any more; it’s murder, and it needs to be handled as such.
“The United States is about the only country in the world where mass killings by disturbed loners with easy access to guns are almost a daily occurrence. ”
False.
Then we should seek to un-tie them, but advocating for disarming the public is a repugnant progressive political agenda; not a way to fight the stigma of mental illness.
Articles such as this are decidedly off-message for this website (IMHO). Editorial intervention is needed.
I come to this site for news about psychiatry, not leftist political claptrap.
Yes, it is complex. I think that’s the whole idea. After all, do we not agree that depression is a complex problem? Why then the insistence on a simplistic model?
The initial premise was that overly narrow theories have led to ineffective treatments. It follows naturally that a better, more accurate model will be broad in scope. I am encouraged to see some science that isn’t looking for another ‘magic bullet’ and instead is looking for ‘big picture’ solutions.
Moreover, to my eye this map leads to psychotherapy solutions, not chemical solutions. Even if this diagram isn’t 100% accurate, I think these guys are on to something.
When you argue–contrary to settled law and English grammar–that Amendment 2 does not protect an individual right, yes, you have penned an ideological article.
I’m surprised to find this piece here. And disappointed. If I wanted left-wing political claptrap, I’d go to Huffington Post, not this site.
It is disappointing to see partisan politics (climate change) dragged into an otherwise great piece.
“The great mystery in all of this is why has the mainstream media been so slow to pick up the story. ”
Two words: advertising dollars.
So, this morning (September 22) I read this story, and as if on-cue, Time magazine obliges:
“Know what Prozac does? Boosts the neurotransmitter serotonin.”
http://time.com/4042834/neuroscience-happy-rituals/
This, supposedly, comes from a neurologist. Is he not up to date? Has he been hoodwinked along with the rest of us? Or is he in on the scam?
“… and without the assumption that one already knows the source of their troubles…”
While I am as yet uncertain of where I stand vis-a-vis Dr. Hickey’s ideas, with this passage I do believe he has just succeeded in getting my psychiatrist fired.
That’s got to be a big part of it, AA. GPs scored a bonanza when they figured out they could horn-in on Psychiatry’s action by casually prescribing SSRIs and benzodiazepines. They know instinctively that if Psychiatry goes down in flames, they will lose some percentage of their practices.
Someday, I’d like to see doctors working on contingency, just like many lawyers. Pay them when you are cured, and not before. Doctors would then find it in their self-interest to get it right the first time, and they would stop pretending to treat people they know they cannot help.
“I think people’s political opinions are highly genetically loaded and appear to be related to the structure of the insula and amygdala.”
This is something I would have expected to hear from a state psychiatrist in Stalin’s Russia.
Well golly, all of this hand-wringing is a fine thing to see, but what I want to know is this: when is someone going to prison? When innocent people die due to scientific fraud, it isn’t an academic exercise in ethics any more; it’s murder, and it needs to be handled as such.