Saturday 22 September 2012
and few excerpts:
"Biological Basis of Mental Illness: While the focus of psychiatry has been biological, thedescriptive atheoretical DSM was well suited to other specialties involved in the treatment mental illness – psychology, social work, counselors, etc. The DSM-5, however, committed to the neuroscientific bent of most psychiatrists in high places – hardly atheoretical. So even with the failure to find biosignatures or define premonitory syndromes of adult illness, the DSM-5 is unmistakably biological, even proposing to change the definition of mental illness to "a behavioral or psychological syndrome that reflects an underlying psychobiological dysfunction" – a definition that is unproven, self-serving, and surely incorrect. One can only wonder, "What were they thinking?" And even if they back off from that definition, the damage is done. As they say in games, "A card laid is a card played." We know what they’re thinking.
"The Revision: The DSM-IV had some areas that badly needed practical revision – Autism, ADHD, Major Depressive Disorder – the latter being the most blatantly in need. In the DSM-5 Revision, it was essentially untouched except to make it even less useful by adding grief to the already hopelessly over-inclusive category [removing the last vestige of common sense from the class]. And they were so busy doing other things, trying to do something new, that they ignored the basic task of revision.
"The Field Tests: As if driven to self destruction, they cancelled one of two scheduled sets of Field Tests and put all their eggs in one basket – then they dropped it. The Field Tests were a disaster, taking away the one concrete measure of their work – reliability, the bedrock justification for the existence of the DSM in the first place. And to compound the damage, they’ve kept the results largely to themselves. They’ve added un-reliable to non-atheoretical." here
psychotropc talking points...
september 17, 2012
an excerpt:At this point, I’d enjoy a rant eg "Who are these people? The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacologists?" but I’ll try to remain civil. And I’m not going to go on and on with this vetting of their web site. I think I’ve read enough. The AACAP is heavily infected with the pharmaceutical bug as far as I can see, and I find that disappointing [to say the least]. I’ve lived under the delusion that the reason they won’t retract Dr. Keller’s 2001 article about Study 329 is peculiar, maybe not wanting to hurt the feelings of the authors, or the editor. I retract that naive theory. They’re in the game. I didn’t know that, and it makes me feel kind of sad. It’s an organization I’ve looked up to in the past. I guess things change, sometimes for the worse… (emphasis mine) here
something terribly wrong here...Thursday 13 September 2012
a few excerpts:"I actually doubt that because of the date, and because the quoted pieces above read like a travelogue of Gibbons publications [including the Netherlands reference]. But I frankly find it embarrassing that the APA and the AACAP are putting out pamphlets supporting off-label prescription and undermining the FDA Black Box warning. It seems like such a blatant drug industry message. And as for the AACAP, no wonder they are so resistant to retracting Study 329. They’re apparently part of the medication scene if these brochures and papers are any indication. And the guide for Bipolar Disorder in children and adolescents has been scrubbed of any mention of Dr. Biederman or his group except in the references, but the content is little changed from his heyday. But the most bothersome thing is that this brochure endorsing off label prescribing and demeaning the black box warning is recommended by this document:"
1 Boring Old Man is right there's something terribly wrong here.
I hope you take the time to read what he has to say