Mar 21, 2012 at 13:53:31
“"Brief reactive psychosis" is an ambiguous term created by a committee of people who have staked their careers on finding SOMEthing, ANYthing that will allow them to be able to look at someone's brain to "diagnose" them. Until now, it is not possible. Mr. Russell, I hope you know you do not "have" a "disorder"; that stress has as many outcomes as there are individuals on the planet. You will be fine! Don't let them tell you there is something wrong with your brain! You have enough to deal with as it is without fake science further disrupting your life. Have courage!”
CailinRua on Mar 21, 2012 at 19:39:17
“it's a psychotic episode, NBD. he'll get over it. are you having one now, just kidding”
Jan 9, 2012 at 14:51:26
“Let us take a moment to reflect on the stated fact that we are still on the hunt for [conclusive, replicable] neurological evidence for mental illness. Meanwhile mental illness is being treated as though proof was found a long time ago. This unethical, non-sensical practice will only end when the profession has the integrity to admit that they are prescribing for an illness that is not known to physiologically exist. Keep searching, sure. But stop blindly, compulsively prescribing while the endless, tireless search continues.”
hp blogger Scott Mendelson, M.D. on Jan 9, 2012 at 16:07:22
“I keenly suspect that you have never been thanked by a patient suffering schizophrenia for relieving them of tormenting voices and horrifying delusions with medication. I have, hundreds of times. As the great neuroscientist Gerald Edleman was fond of saying, "Sir, you are not even wrong."”
“With all civility, I am relieved you are advocating for science. I have honestly not read enough of your comments to have understood that. I thought you were advocating for psychiatric theories, which as an advocate of science you must know are as of yet faith-based.
I still do not understand that you demand the critics produce proof; maybe I have not read enough on this page to have the proper context. Perhaps there are many kinds of critics, but I for one am simply pointing out the total absence of proof, a lack of scientific evidence, a gaping hole in years of research. This would be fine, an ongoing scientific inquiry, if it were not for the medical model of treatment that intimately interferes with family dynamics. This should be of interest to you, emotional or not, because it has to do with the persistent application of very bad science.”
SwiftJonathan on Mar 27, 2012 at 03:26:41
“"I thought you were advocating for psychiatric theories, which as an advocate of science you must know are as of yet faith-based."
Not really. I have nothing to do with psychiatry, I have absolutely nothing to lose one way or another. I find it very questionable, though, that the man responsible for the last version of the DSM seems to be on a crusade against the new version.
"I still do not understand that you demand the critics produce proof"
Not proof, but civil, scientific discourse. I don't think we have seen much of that here. The problem for Dr. Frances and those who are attacking the DSM working group is that I, as an outsider, can't see what's going on inside the working group. He may be right, he may be wrong. I simply can't tell. But I can see the behaviour of the critics and I do not find it particularly appealing. So if I am going by what I can see here, I am automatically put off by his position, which is counter-productive to what he is trying to achieve.
"Perhaps there are many kinds of critics...."
I can't judge the state of the research. All I can say is that the papers presented by the critics HERE do not seem to make their point, at all. If anything, they seem to agree more with the DSM 5 proposal. That's also not a good sign for the critic's side.”
“I do not understand why so many scientific standards go out the window with these issues of psychiatry. Why would SwiftJonathan demand (though he is not the first) that the burden of proof be set upon the critics? That is quite obviously backwards and evasive. I hear this argument so often- that the critics must produce some sort of proof, while the very creators of the [arbitrary] terminology- for their part- have never been able to do. For whom are you advocating with such a hopelessly twisted process?”
SwiftJonathan on Mar 26, 2012 at 15:20:40
“"Why would SwiftJonathan demand (though he is not the first) that the burden of proof be set upon the critics?"
Because otherwise the critics don't have the high ground in a mud fight, either. If they really cared about their case, they would fight this the right way, instead of engaging in counter-productive politicking.
Look at this mess... I had to ask for weeks to be given some citations... and then, when someone finally takes the time to dig some up, a closer look at their content actually supports the DSM 5 instead of negating it!
What does that tell you? It tells you that the "critics", at least here, haven't done their homework and are arguing from emotional, rather than rational positions.
Trust me, if Dr. Frances had the necessary scientific data to attack the DSM 5 working group with scientific arguments, he would. That he doesn't is, IMHO, a sign that he has chosen a non-defensible position. He was, by the way, responsible for the very language in the DSM IV that is now being criticised by the papers submitted below. So it is his work that is under scrutiny by scientific research, not that of the DSM 5 working group... at least on the bereavement issue.
I hope we can have a rational discussion on this topic. I, for sure, did try.”
“Thank you, Mr. Peele! It is distressing when "groundbreaking studies" get one prime-time media spot after another, and rebuttals or failures to replicate always get the fine print on the back page. I hope your piece at least dims the sensationlism a bit and that there are more and more like it in the future.”
Jan 5, 2012 at 14:38:08
“Until conclusive, replicable studies are conducted which support the theory of chemical imbalances in the brain, the entire question of medicating/over-medicating/diagnosing/over-diagnosing foster children or any children (not to mention any adults) is irrelevant. This practice is comparable to administering chemotherapy to someone not known to have cancer. So the *solutions* lie in the integrity it will take to admit that psychiatric practices rest on a bed of findings that cannot be replicated (as well as a very large pot of big pharma dollars; hence the integrity needed to make this admission). This article is very difficult to grasp in that it largely seems to support the idea of the influence of environmental factors but then goes on to say... to say what? That we must do *something* while we wait for a better option? What are we waiting for? To find the missing proof for the brain disease theory? How many more will needlessly suffer while the search continues? Who among us would take that risk with our health or the health of our children?”