To some people, this is going to be, "A-ha, that d*mn Fred Goodwin!"

To me, this is a tragedy.

When I was first diagnosed with bipolar disorder, it was his writings that gave me hope I didn't have at that time (i.e., I was still somewhat suicidal) that the disease was something that could be controlled and managed.

Obviously I found out on my own, well before this report confirming his suspected corruption, that BP is in fact not at all easily controlled and managed. But it is still a disease one can live with, and I have a small amount of gratitude even now to Dr. Goodwin for reinforcing me at a vulnerable time.

Then again (and this will tell you my age) Pete Rose's hustle and O.J. Simpson's acrobatics lured me into baseball and football as a fan as well. The best and brightest among us are not immune to human weakness and frailty -- and sometimes, due to hubris, are especially susceptible.

Philip correct me if my memory has failed here, but wasn't Goodwin overseeing the recent CBT vs. ZOLOFT FDA study???

Awright!

Seems kinda like, utterly awesome to me. I wish more of us felt there is hope without drugs, because, there is plenty of documented evidence that there is hope without drugs. Sh*t, there's even hope for Republicans (Grassley.)

I have to agree with Larry. This is disheartening news. For bipolar disorder information, I turned to his book with Jamison. I have read the diagnosis and epidemiology sections which were probably not effected by pharma money. I haven't read the treatment section. I wonder how much of that section is tainted by skewed pharma research. Is there any experts in bipolar disorder that are truly impartial?

larry and tony, i understand your points. his book was very influential on me in the early 90s and i'll have more to say about that on monday.

tony, i'm beginning to think that there are few researchers in the bp/depression world who have clean hands. er, well erick turner at ohsu does, but he's an exception.

Had his book not made it to press along with all the other BS written about the treatment of BP, real research may have taken place that would have allowed you real peace.

Thats the problem that has occurred in Psychiatry, no real meaningful treatments have been examined or even looked for because they didn't need too. Pharma and their whores conned the world into believing their pills could cure them and make life grand.

Their is no doubt in my mind we would be much farther along in actually providing help to people with it weren't for the Goodwin's, so I say "a-ha, that damn Fred Goodwin!"

OMG -- he co-authored a book with that Lithium-addled Jamison? I'm sorry I know she's smart but she doesn't understand drug dependencies or withdrawal and totally mistook the course of her own drug-induced rebound experiences for "relapse" and has perpetuated this misunderstanding in her writings and gone on to become an "expert." It really frosts me at times.

Last year even the vaguest criticism of Goodwin would get you labeled a Scientologist by the psychiatry is a real science folks, now The Infinite Mind is going off the air! Progress. Hopefully the biopsy stuff will be further debunked by next November.

I'm glad Philip understood my point.

I'm sad but not in the least surprised so many others didn't.

OK, so now Goodwin has been outed by Senator Grassley. Jesus! And the beat goes on. Who's next? Why on earth do these psychiatrists lie about their financial ties to drug companies? Are they sociopaths or what? I mean, it's not illegal to take money to pimp for drugs. Why don't these leaders of psychiatry simply admit they take money, and just say that it doesn't bias them and that they always keep the best interests of their patients in mind? But they lie! Nemeroff, Biederman et al. blithely ignore reporting requirements to NIH and go on their merry way. Goodwin lies to NPR. Why??? Don't they see that by covering up, they increase suspicion that they are, in fact, biased and on the take? This is disgusting for our profession!

The phrase, "Physician, heal thyself" springs to mind, jostling for place with "First do no harm". It is appalling that these wankers are even employed. They truly have blood money on their hands.

I happen to rely on medications to keep me this side of the death line. My brilliant doctor sees a day for me in the future, where I will be meds free. I always viewed my BPII Disorder as a life-long maintenance, like HIV or diabetes.

I was astounded last year, when a British site talked about being CURED of my illness. It was something I had never even considered.

Possibly because of the culture of pills that exists here, pushed by all those f*cktards lining their wallets with the resulting profits.

sara, first of all i have to say i don't like your "lithium addled" insult. i don't think that's necessary. i suggest you read jamison's memoir which leaves no impression that her symptoms were brought on by drug withdrawal. just because you'd like something to be a certain way doesn't mean it is. also, she is considered an expert (no quotes) not because she takes lithium but because she knows her stuff. your attitude frosts me.

I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on Dr. Goodwin .

I'm saddened because a story like this one, like any negative news article, will vilify Dr. Goodwin way more than what is reasonable.

He started at NIMH in 1965 and was one of the first researchers to identify the antidepressant effects of Lithium (this is from his website). Almost 30 of the 45 years of his career was at NIMH in research. I am sure he meant to "do no harm". I heard him speak to the DBSA group in Washington D.C. last year, where he showed some extensive data comparing Lithium and Lamictal, and made a case in favor of both of them based on specific diagnoses. If he was paid $329,000 by Glaxo over the period of one year to present his (legitimate) case for circumstances where he found Lamictal to be the best mood stabilizer, is it really that big a deal, for someone with Dr. Goodwin's reputation? I'm sure he could have made a lot more than whatever he did, if he wanted to. I think there's a fine line between 'promoting a drug' and being paid to speak about actual findings which show the effectiveness of a drug.

I think (hope) that most of us look to defend Dr. Goodwin as far as possible, while acknowledging possible lapses in judgment and unethical behavior. I hope a lot more details emerge which are not as damning as the first story.

Ingrid:

Your attitude and close minded approach frost me!

You can kiss Lithium-addled Jamison's arse all you want. She has always been pro-pharma, and in reading her book "An Unquiet Mind" and her other questionable writings; I happen to believe she is in personal acceptance of her so called bipolar label, while maintaining a completely professional denial state and separate role as Dr. and bipolar genetic researcher @ John Hopkins University.

I just have to wonder when they and she will be outed by Congress. She is really big into the child bipolar fantasy and myth also! Look at that list of corrupt and criminal elements on that board which Jamison is a renowned member.

http://www.bpkids.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ppl_advisory.

"There is a tremendous amount of progress in understanding bipolar disorder. It's a bad illness to have, but a good time to have it."- Kay Redfield Jamison, PH.D.

Read this Ingrid and all; written in Dec 2007 on

http://bipolarsoupkitchen-stephany.blogspot.com/2007/12/1999-2007-ocd-adhd-childhood-bipolar.html

at Soulful Sepulcher Blog and wake up from your sleep walk through la la land.

Ingrid nice try, but I and others are not buying your bull even for lawn fertilizer!

Yours Truly,
Stan

Ingrid, I have read her memoir twice and it's littered with signs that she was in drug-induced dependency and withdrawal and rebound. The whole course of her "illness" was influenced by her treatment along the way. But I appreciate this can be hard to accept until you've seen it and understood it in others from first hand experience.

....In a program broadcast on Sept. 20, 2005, Dr. Goodwin warned that children with bipolar disorder who are left untreated could suffer brain damage,....

I've been reading this theory being used to other diseases.
I'm not a physician but it's quite odd to me.

Jamison is a pretty horrible person, what with her acceptance of the bipolar label. Those of you happy with the label are generally affluent and I guess lacking in a certain integrity. It's the poor people with the label, whether powerless children, spouses, inmates in psych hospitals or aot'd non conformist who are literally murdered by this unscientific nonsense. Ingrid, maybe the problems you have sleeping are brought on not by bipolar disorder but by your guilty conscience. Surely you realize that all science is against your chemical imbalance theory of "mood disorder," and yet I would imagine that you blame all suffering of folks so labeling on some failure on those folks to comply with their drug regimes. Maybe when you your loved ones destroyed by lithium induced renal failure, you'll open your mind to reality a bit.

Goodwin defenders, sheesh, it takes all kinds. I can't wait for Jamison's books to be opened. Jamison is a pretty horrible person, what with her acceptance of the bipolar label. Those of you happy with the label are generally affluent and I guess lacking in a certain integrity. It's the poor people with the label, whether powerless children, spouses, inmates in psych hospitals or aot'd non conformist who are literally murdered by this unscientific nonsense. Ingrid, maybe the problems you have sleeping are brought on not by bipolar disorder but by your guilty conscience. Surely you realize that all science is against your chemical imbalance theory of "mood disorder," and yet I would imagine that you blame all suffering of folks so labeling on some failure on those folks to comply with their drug regimes. Maybe when you your loved ones are destroyed by lithium induced renal failure, you'll open your mind to reality a bit.

I read The New York Times enough to know that the Times does a better job covering mental health than any other big city paper. But that's not saying much, is it?

I read Philip Dawdy every day. I appreciate that Furious Seasons is pharma-free and supported by readers like you and me.

Dr. Goodwin is my doctor. I believe him to be the best doctor in the world for people with mood disorders. I am not alone in this belief system!

I agree with readers here that Dr. Goodwin should've let his radio listeners on The Infinite Mind know he's tight with big Pharma before each and every broadcast.

The Infinite Mind radio program hosted by Dr. Fred Goodwin and others has been on the air for over a decade and National Public Radio is just now noticing that Dr. Fred Goodwin is NOT a journalist?!!

Bill Lichtenstein, a respected journalist and producer of The Infinite Mind, just realized that Dr. Goodwin has connections to the drug industry?!!

In the acknowledgments section of the book Dr. Goodwin wrote with Dr. Kay Jamison, Manic-Depressive Illness: Bipolar Disorders and Recurrent Depression published in 2007, Dr. Goodwin lists several big Pharma companies that support his work.

A quick Google search brings up Dr. Goodwin's entire professional life -- big Pharma relationships, ground breaking research and all.

I am cautious when I listen to National Public Radio or read The New York Times for mental health information. LOL

Cheers,
Moira

Could anyone please post the timeline of Dr. Jameson's symptoms to account for whether her psychiatric symptoms were due to illness or medication withdrawal? Also, what about her years of suffering manic and depressive episodes prior to starting medication?

I recall that her symptoms did not appear within a few weeks after discontinuing her Lithium, but rather several months later, which is in keeping with a manic relapse. However, I read the memoir a while ago, and would appreciate someone posting some details on this with page references.

Thanks!

Also, I think that two things are certainly true:

(1) Psychiatric symptoms secondary to illness are real.

(2) Psychiatric symptoms secondary to physical illness, medications and medication withdrawal are real.

I think that depending upon one's background, one will either emphasize (1) or (2). However, a reasonable position would be that BOTH are true, often in the same patient.

The best care for patients with psychiatric symptoms is to attempt to identify patients where medications are the solution and where they are the problem, because the management will be different for both.

It is highly unfair to demonize those who legimately suffer from mental illness and who have found benefit to taking medications, just as it is unfair to demonize those who have been mislabelled as having mental illnesses and who have struggled with medication dependence and withdrawal effects.

Mental illness is very complicated and the answers aren't always straightforward, but our knowledge base is expanding regularly, and reasonable criticism is always welcome for progress to be made.

Thank you.

In response to Sekhar's comment I do have to say that the real disappointment here is that a lot of these doctors are well meaning and don't even realize quite how they are being sucked in when it happens. It's a great tragedy of medicine. Sekhar points to the science that Goodwin referred to in his presentations but after what I have seen of clinical research in psychiatry I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole and that isn't to say I think the researchers are engaged in some conspiracy to hide evidence. It's just that they don't get it, they lose sight of common sense, and they don't want to believe medication is harmful -- too much is at stake. And meaningful long term outcomes are rarely evaluated. Thus the research that is almost always devoid of any clinical narratives to give you any hint of what really happened is almost meaningless. There are scores of "good people" out there that have been brainwashed by forces much bigger than anything they can control. We are talking about some major social and cultural ills that have gotten us to this point. Our whole health care system is in danger of serious implosion if things don't change because we are no longer making people well -- we're making them ill.

The only thing that qualifies someone in becoming a leading expert is how well they pimp for drug and device companies. I know that is hard to believe, but that is fact. The fast way for an "expert" to tarnish their name is to start discussing the harm medications do. They can kill as many people as they want. They just can't say anything wrong about a drug.

I'm no fan of "The Unquiet Mind", and was a critic of Kay Jamison as a "Bipolar Elite", until a friend pointed out to me a lot more about her background, and if she is "Bipolar Elite", it's deservedly so.




I just read the above-mentioned article in The Soulful Sepulcher, which refers to a Kay Jamison quote in CABF mailings ("...bad illness to have, but a good time to have it"). I remember reading that quote a long time ago, and she meant it about BP in general, not relating to childhood BP diagnosis. I too have serious reservations about the excessive use of BP diagnosis in adolescents.




I agree that something has to be done about the influence of pharmaceutical monsters. I believe that researchers and practitioners engaging in any unlawful dealings with pharmas have to be investigated. But sponsorship by pharmas helps Dr. Goodwin, Dr. Jamison etc. to dedicate a lot of time to mental health outreach, and brought more awareness to BP. Organizations like NAMI, DBSA, MHA, and yes, CABF, do some good work and are unfortunately dependent on pharma funding for the most part.



But I am wondering who WE are going after? Why are WE on a witch-hunt to completely condemn professionals who have been on our side for the most part? Sure, let's hold them to high standards, but let's look more at a system which has allowed pharmas to get away with absurdly high costs for meds, manipulation of FDA, and being a primary source of funding for researchers and even peddling influence with run-of-the-mill psychiatrists.

Those of us with mental illnesses might as well join an anti-psychiatry movement, if we want to crucify the likes of Dr. Goodwin and Dr. Jamison.

Jane:

It is untrue that only those who are sponsored by drug companies are recognized experts. Dr. Peter Kramer does not take drug company money, but he is recognized as an expert in his field, and quite a popular one at that.

Thank you.

I believe that corruption has to be redefined.

I agree that psychiatric symptoms can be secondary to real mood issues that are not medication related. Whether I believe medication is really a good solution, especially long term, is another thing. And I do intend to report back on An Unquiet Mind and some of the issues I see in how it's written. I felt absolutely queasy reading it knowing what an influence this could have on someone who had some of the mood dysregulation that she so vividly and poetically describes. But as far as I'm concerned she idealized some things and brushed over others with only the slightest hint and I think there's more to her story than meets the eye that's for sure. But of course she isn't telling it with an eye to demonstrating things that would support my point of view but rather her own so it is a question of highlighting certain details that she includes almost inadvertently.

Minimepes:

I would say your post is more than a little off topic, and smells of a bad pitch. But with that said; we will pass along the Hound Dog Site to Dr. Goodwin, even though I believe he has socked away enough pharma money to last a couple of life times {laughing}.

Stan

Dr. Fred Goodwin goes down hard. The Fred Goodwin. Author of the book that's cited on almost every article I've read on BPD.

$329k this year? Oh my.

It super banal to say so, and I'm sorry for that, but this is sorta shocking.

Did he really offer the defense that everyone else is doing it?

Sally:

I get that you have problems with Kay Redfield Jamison's professional work. I get that you do not accept that medication can treat mental illness. I get that you had a horrible tragedy in your family. My condolences.

Yet and still ...

My own grandmother, diagnosed with bipolar disorder, suffered terrible (though not, granted, fatal) side effects from lithium. Yet her grandson still takes lithium (and with some, less serious side effects), over his mother's objections, because after 11 years of sad trial and error, he has found it to be the best way to control his moods.

And because her grandson, unlike her daughter, has researched the h*ll out of all the health care decisions he makes because his very life is at stake.

I am not affluent; but I am also not powerless. I just draw a different conclusion from the data than you do. (Flawed though it is, I concede.)

So the statement that people who say they have bipolar disorder in fact have a "guilty conscience" and lack "integrity" is just galling. Talk about burning bridges. Be careful who you flame -- your searing attack gathers in not only people who disagree with you on these issues, but people who may agree with you at times as well.

Or both.

You probably won't believe this, but having just been cited by MindFreedom -- an organization whose goals, yes, I ordinarily oppose -- for my activism on the Bob Sandford case in Minnesota, I support to the death your right to refuse treatment you don't want.

But it won't stop me from worrying half to death, with far more compassion on my side than your letter seems to show from the other side, that it might be the wrong decision.

Because mine could be too, after all.

Just found this on www.wamu.org (D.C. based NPR station):

"After ten years, the producers of The Infinite Mind have decided to bring the production of the program to a close. We will begin airing the BBC World Briefing at 6 a.m., Sundays, on an interim basis beginning Nov. 23, until a permanant replacement is selected for that timeslot."

MindFreedom is urging people to contact NPR, congratulate them for taking The Infinite Mind off their Sirius network and urge them to cover the broader story: medicine and media on the take from Pharma. I'll do that now...

Sekhar said, "If he was paid $329,000 by Glaxo over the period of one year to present his (legitimate) case for circumstances where he found Lamictal to be the best mood stabilizer, is it really that big a deal, for someone with Dr. Goodwin's reputation?"

If he failed to report these conflicts of interest, then yes, it's a very big deal. PI's are required to report financial conflicts of interest before their studies are approved to begin - it's a federal requirement not a recommendation.

Psychiatry is...

"The Infinite Lie" ..

Larry,

Sorry if I was too harsh. Jamison is just the worst of the worst. I've seen the harm her bipolar pr has done but you obviously have different experiences. I have friends who take lithium and I have to stand by and watch it kill them as it is, in the end their choice, as it is yours.

Sekhar:

So let me get this right! Your coming over from your regular posting pro-pharmaceutical paid for and supported site "BipolarConnect.com" with others doing John McManamy bidding in support of Dr. Goodwin; since I'm sure John wouldn't want to come here and face the litany of questions about how he gets his nice bling bling money checks, is completely bought into, controlled, and aligned with Big Pharmaceutical and his good Pal Dr. Goodwin {seeing as Goodwin did write that outstanding blurb on the cover of his Book}.

I have to wonder when Senator Grassley and Congress are going to start investigating this misrepresentation and pharmaceutical funded ran sites like “BipolarConnection.com” and their master “www.HealthCentral.com”; which in turn is pretty much completely controlled by AstraZeneca?

I’m just surprised that anyone in that tight little closed circle of happy pat you on the back pill poppers would want to come to an open forum and actually want to debate this corruption issue.

Especially since everything on that site is all about what a great guy Dr. Goodwin is, and how this Greed mongering, and unethical behavior in no way puts his research, opinions, and writings in question!

Is it time for a reality check people!!!

What a crock of S---- you have going on over there. Don’t you realize by directing research, wielding his influence, doing his tainted pro-pharma broadcast, and taking which accounts to bribes from Big Pharmaceutical; many less intrusive and more effective treatment modalities were never even considered or looked at because they were not going to make Big Pharmaceutical and Dr. Goodwin the Huge bucks.

Yeah, he’s a real gem alright! Tell that to the millions upon millions that have been damaged, maimed, or killed by these so called medication treatments!

Have you ever even considered that due to the pharmaceutical revolution in psychiatry; with all the greed, influence, and money it has generated; the true results have been not much better than before psychotropic medications, considering both the biological and mental damage they inflict upon consumers and the staggering levels of supposed mental illness we now have falsely diagnosed today?

How about the strong possibility that we have been going in the wrong direction for so long, everyone has lost sight of reality and what we are actually doing to real human beings and society with psychiatry as it is set in its medical model today! All the wasted resources, research, brain power, funds, and energy flowing down the drain for what?

The answer seems pretty simple and common sense considering what is coming to light among the most elite and so called respected of the industry and psychiatry; It’s called $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, not health care!

In fact, it’s so far from ethical and humane! It could now be considered crimes against humanity itself.

Yours Truly,
Stan

when i got my diagnosis recently i read jamison's unquet mind and hated it (my comments). later i tried to read mcman's book but could only make it about a hundred pages before throwing it at the wall.

both of these people have a profound need to gain public respect specifically as mentally ill people. motivating this need is the injury the idea of being mentally diseased did to their self image -- they needed to reverse the stigma.

this theory also explains why they go to such extraordinary lengths to propose that mania and thus BP has benefits. (i don't buy it.) this proposition is more rehabilitation of the sense of self. they argue that BP makes them special and better people, bringing the benefits of their elite minds, touched by fire, to us all. sounds like an argument based more on individual need than anything else.

Crimes against humanity? Stan dares question happy-pat-you-on-the-back-pill-poppers. I resemble that and how!

He asks:

"Have you ever even considered that due to the pharmaceutical revolution in psychiatry; with all the greed, influence, and money it has generated; the true results have been not much better than before psychotropic medications, considering both the biological and mental damage they inflict upon consumers and the staggering levels of supposed mental illness we now have falsely diagnosed today?"

What are the true results of the "glorious" revolution? At a recent national DBSA conference, I heard tell repeatedly that 90% of the seriously mentally ill are unemployed (statistic courtesy of SAMSA).

Factoids aside, here's a question. Are the people being roasted in this comment section afraid of debate? Are the people doing the roasting afraid of debate? I'd knock myself out to arrange for John McManamy to go up against Philip Dawdy in a public forum with audience Q & A on journalism and mental health.

Many commercial websites for "patients" look like Mr. Roger's neighborhood to me. Anonymously standing up to the medical industrial complex with razor sharp wit in the comments section of someone else's independent blog? Rip off that old sweater! Fling those comfy slippers.

Calling Kay Jamison lithium addled?!! I don't know if Kay Jamison enjoys long walks in the rain or being bitch slapped in the blogsphere. But, if she do, comments like that let her know where it is.

Cheers,
Moira

Let us slow down a bit here.

Yes, it was wrong of Dr. Goodwin not to disclose his ties to the drug industry when offering his opinions about medications and their use in mental illness.

But, a case against him must be stronger than an ad hominem logical fallacy. If you want to disprove his points about the efficacy of psychotropic medications in general, and in bipolar disorder in particular, then you must look at the DATA objectively.

Saying that he is an unethical person that should not be trusted, because on a few occasions he failed to disclose his conflicts of interest is not necessarily an argument against his research and medical advice. Just because someone benefits from a certain opinion does not automatically invalidate their opinion.

It is like a thief telling you not to steal, and you reply, "Like I would ever trust a thief to tell the truth!"

I mean, how often does this website and you individuals popularize and mass e-mail studies that show medications are effective? Do YOU have any conflict of interest in the matter, maybe not in terms of money, but in terms of your time invested in demonstrating that biological psychiatry is a sham?

Thanks!

Anon,

I agree that it is a big deal if Dr. Goodwin failed to report something which reflects a conflict of interest. But as far as I know, they are not suggesting that he hid anything intentionally. For all the years that Bill Lichtenstein has been producing The Infinite Mind, and NPR has been carrying that show, did they not know that Dr. Goodwin receives substantial funding from pharmaceutical companies? I've known about The Infinite Mind, though I've heard only a couple of episodes in all these years. Those who are regular listeners can weigh in on whether the program was a mouthpiece for pharmas. I just think that the responsibility for this would lie with NPR, if they were really unaware of it all along.

Stan,

Do I know you? Do you know me? Your attempt to link me to pro-pharma agenda is the kind of baseless accusation that makes me wary of the rush to sling mud at Dr. Goodwin, and now Dr. Jamison - not looking at enough of the facts before making strong accusations.

I am here, and at a couple of other sites/blogs, to learn more about the issue, and to speak for myself, and what my opinion on the issue is. Why would you assume anything different?

I notice that you have linked to Mind Freedom on your blog. Talk to David Oaks (if you know who he is). I have helped him with the MF website as well. That doesn't mean I am a fan of MF and David doesn't approve of my site (Mood Garden) because Mood Garden is a community open to discussion of medications for treatment. It's possible to disagree and still work together!

I'm not here on behalf of someone else. I heard the news and came over to FS, since I expected that Philip will have more details (and I look forward to more of what Philip has to share).

As for me, what I know is that I landed in a hospital after my first manic attack and I have had (and sometimes survived) medical care over the years and I'm functional today.

I ask the same questions often: Is it possible we've been headed in the wrong direction with the medical model? I know that I've been (mis)treated by incompetent psychiatrists in my past, and wasted years taking the wrong medications. If there was a better modality of treatment, I wish I knew about it. But after the days/daze of the first manic episodes were over, I did feel fortunate that there was a name for the experience - or illness, as it's better known. I did feel comfort in knowing that there were many others who have shared similar experiences.

As it stands today, I have no way of knowing if things could have been better for me or not. My reality check is that I'm able to stay in touch with reality. And recovered enough to not be bitter about everything out there. It doesn't help our cause to cast everyone else in the system as evil. That validates the stigma experienced by those of us with mental illnesses, where the "normies" judge all of us by the few whose illnesses made them violent or dangerous.

I do believe a lot, if not a majority, of doctors and researchers and even some politicians do want to work for the betterment of people with good conscience. I know a lot of people with the diagnoses are functioning well today, because - and perhaps at times, in spite of - the treatment available to us today.

Sekhar

Sekhar, if he did not follow the disclosure rules & profited from a gov't grant then that's a violation of the law - let's hope it's not true. It doesn't matter if he meant to or not, he's been in the field long enough to know the rules regarding reporting financial COI (and all of the other researchers of late who have been busted know about this little rule, also).

Dguller said, "Saying that he is an unethical person that should not be trusted, because on a few occasions he failed to disclose his conflicts of interest is not necessarily an argument against his research and medical advice."

Actually, IF he failed to disclose his financial COI it is a very good argument against his research & medical advice because it calls into question the integrity of his research. Failing to disclose financial COI is a major no-no in clinical research. Hopefully, it will come out that he has followed the rules. Ask the IRB & the FDA if they think failure to disclose financial COI is a big deal.

I am basing my impressions of Dr. Goodwin much more on the show reviewed by Philip that I also listened to called "Prozac Nation Revisited" than on his conflicts of interest although the two certainly paint a consistent picture. Philip's review was very aptly entitled "The Lies of the Infinite Mind." I have rarely heard such outrageous dismissals of the link between antidepressants and suicide or violence; furthermore there was no mention of withdrawal or issues surrounding long term chemical dependency even though callers into the show were describing this phenomenon without even realizing they were doing so -- their efforts to get off and the "return of their disease." It made me ill that none of the doctors would even consider that this might have been an issue of not tapering off slowly enough or having the adequate support the patients needed to get over being on antidepressants. It's not easy to get off these drugs but do you think anyone on the show would admit that? No they didn't. That's why I am angry at Dr. Goodwin. This stuff coming over the airwaves of a prestigious national radio show perpetrates a lot of misunderstanding. Let's admit there is a problem instead of sweeping it under the rug and labeling it a "life long disease." The reason these patients think drugs have "saved their life" is that they don't know that what they are experiencing when they give up the drugs (or just miss a dose) is withdrawal of the worst kind not the return of their depression.

What a great day for John McManamy!

Three from his loyal fan club come here to post in a row!

So let's just ask this one simple Question first off! Since “John the ego maniac fraud” doesn't appear to want to come here himself! Does John McManamy get a pay check from www.HealthCentral.com; which is basically saying he is getting his pay check from Big Pharmaceutical? Once that question is answered; all the other questions will fall into line with his bought, well paid for stance, notorious associates, and following!

By the way, oh mighty JM fan club, Yes I am anti-psychiatry and anti-big pharmaceutical which I believe is not Philip's complete position. As if John McManamy could hold a candle to Philip in a mental health debate is laughable to say the least.

Philip is seeking the truth and questioning; while not being paid off to tow the line with the medical model and the huge Pharmaceutical industry for profit!

So spout off all you want, bow before the mighty corrupt Goodwin also if you wish! In fact believe in those magic pills and take them all you want! I do believe you have the choice, but don’t be shoving your poison down other’s throats without getting tagged for it here.

This doesn't change a failed model and the crimes being propagated inside Psychiatry and the Mega Pharmaceutical Industry as we speak. If the usual psychiatric suspects are guilty as they are now shown; then yes it would make perfect sense that any and all their criteria, research, book writing, and public speaking views would be very suspect, tainted, and be brought under magnified scrutiny . Thus the whole drug treatment paradigm created and promoted by people like Dr. Goodwin is in great peril and definitely questionable!

By the way Sekhar; I happen to know who David Oaks is! That doesn't change my stance one iota!

MindFreedom happens to be a great advocacy organization that is not begging at Big Pharmaceuticals Door for their Dollars! MindFreedom is unlike organizations like NAMI, DBSA, and others that are funded by Big Pharmaceutical.

For your information: In fact you cannot get treated or live as a mentally disabled person in NAMI supported group homes or facilities unless you sign a contract in advance to be completely medication compliant. Doesn’t that fall nicely in line with their Big Pharmaceutical funding? NAMI is extremely narrow focused, are totally close minded to any other treatment alternatives, and openly discriminatory against those they claim to advocate for is a truthful and honest way to put it here!

Why don't you investigate ”www.HealthCentral.com”; then come here and tell us all where their money comes from and who is pushing and driving the agenda at that site?

I would personally debate John in a public forum about the pharmaceutical funded mental health paradigm. The invitation is open.

Yours Truly,
Stan

Sekhar: Is there anything at all Dr. Goodwin could have done that would make you question the integrity of his findings and research, if this is not enough? What more could you possibly need? Then you accuse others of being biased?

Moira said, "I'd knock myself out to arrange for John McManamy to go up against Philip Dawdy in a public forum with audience Q & A on journalism and mental health."

Oh, I would pay to see that:)

On a similar note, I said on Paxil Progress Board that I wanted to see Laurie Yorke, the administrator, debate someone like Charles Nemerhoff instead of seeing the Obama/McCain debates:)

DGuller, welcome back to the site. I really didn't want to respond because I know I won't get anything else done with our discussions but I have no choice.

You said:

"But, a case against him must be stronger than an ad hominem logical fallacy. If you want to disprove his points about the efficacy of psychotropic medications in general, and in bipolar disorder in particular, then you must look at the DATA objectively."

Robert Whittaker, a pulitzer prize winning health journalist has regarding neuroleptics and schizophrenia. This is a guy who started his research believing in the miracle of psych meds and found they don't work.

Irving Kirsch and Eric Turner came to the conclusion that antidepressants don't work. In response, physicians said in their own experience, they did work. If alternative folks had done that, you would be crucifying them as saying that anecdotal evidence is not valid.

Joseph Glenmullen, whose book you spoke favorably of, said that Glaxo Smith Kline deliberately hid data on suicidality.

"Saying that he is an unethical person that should not be trusted, because on a few occasions he failed to disclose his conflicts of interest is not necessarily an argument against his research and medical advice. Just because someone benefits from a certain opinion does not automatically invalidate their opinion."

DGullen, with all due respect, I couldn't disagree more. Have you read Danny Carlat's account of his days as a drug rep for Wyeth? He talks about how he bent the truth to fit the picture in Effexor's favor.

Obviously, in reading his blog, he seems like a very highly principled psychiatrist. But if someone like him can be influenced by money, anybody can be which will cause you to shade the truth.

"I mean, how often does this website and you individuals popularize and mass e-mail studies that show medications are effective? Do YOU have any conflict of interest in the matter, maybe not in terms of money, but in terms of your time invested in demonstrating that biological psychiatry is a sham?"

You're comparing apples to oranges. When you come on this site, you know exactly the crowd you're dealing with in same way that I know when I go on to a blog like Shrink Rap. By the way, if you're going to criticize our conflict of interest which I disagree with, you would have to do the same for them as they don't post studies showing that SSRIS cause long term cognitive damage even though they are from pub med sites.

Speaking of conflicts, Peter Kramer, whom you spoke highly of, deleted a dissenting post I made on his blog. So even though he takes no drug money which I salute him for, I find that conflict interesting. I guess he didn't like my posting those pub med citations.

Just like med journal articles are now mostly doing, radio shows have an obligation to disclose all conflicts so people have the tools to fairly evaluate the data.

Anyway, welcome back.

AA

just to clarify something here, robert whitaker has not won a pulitzer. he was a pulitzer finalist in the 90s and also won a polk award--the number 2 print award--back then as well.

Sorry about that as I am dealing with memory and insomnia issues as a withdrawal symptom and that is how I remembered it. But of course, you are right Philip and thank you for that correction.

Look, I have friends on both sides of this debate -- IRL and certainly on this thread.

I think Dr. Goodwin deserves any opprobrium being leveled against him if half the charges are true. (Philip, we await your further reporting with bated breath ...)

But I am also like Sekhar. I know what it is like to be hospitalized and literally out of my mind, and I know that being on medication for a proper diagnosis, despite a lot of other struggles, I have not had that experience in almost 9 years. And that priceless peace of mind is worth a lot of side effects (and medication blind alleys), IMO.

Those who are against medication would seemingly attack someone like me as a helpless victim of Big Pharma. But if they read a story like mine objectively, they would have to conclude that I've seen similar data and, from my experience, reached a different conclusion with at least a modicum of intelligence.

So instead, they attack those like me as hideous co-conspirators in Big Pharma's attempts to enslave all those with mental illness. No question, Big Pharma has a lot of sins to answer for. But I for one don't appreciate being labeled evil for attempting to save my own life.

Honestly, it's as if the proper response to Kohlberg's famous ethical "Heinz dilemma" (poor man unsuccessfully seeks expensive medication from greedy pharmacist for terminally ill wife) would be to shoot the pharmacist -- and then, instead of stealing the medicine, to shoot Heinz too for daring to even lobby such scum to change his mind.

It would feel good, no doubt. But such refusal to compromise wouldn't keep the sick wife alive. Which I thought was the object.

Hey Philip! Totally OT and self serving comment here: My Uncle Jack won the Polk award for his photojournalism. It's so rare I find someone who knows what it is that I jump up and hoot about it whenever it comes up.

Sherry (basking in reflected family glory, wishing it would rub off...)

AA:

Thanks for the welcome back! I hope you've been well. :)

First, I haven't read Robert Whittaker's work, and so I cannot comment on it. However, I will say that antipsychotics, despite their drawbacks, have shown superiority to placebo in many trials. Unfortunately, they are the best treatment we have at this time. Also, no possible conflict of interest when he pronounces psychotropic medications harmful in terms of boosting sales of his book?

Second, Kirsch and his colleagues concluded that antidepressants were effective for very severe forms of depression. However, their methodology has been found suspect by multiple researchers. The alternative of psychotherapy has an even poorer evidence base than antidepressants. Also, Kirsch's preferred mode of treatment is hypnotherapy, which is even more suspect in terms of evidence.

Third, I agree that drug companies have engaged in reprehensible activities in the past in order to maximize their profits, but I still believe that ad hominem and guilt by association fallacies are inappropriate, and instead would prefer to look at the evidence objectively. I try to view all research with a healthy measure of skepticism, especially those sponsored by drug companies, usually awaiting independent replication of results, but I also will not reject information simply because I don't like its source.

Fourth, I agree that people should disclose their conflicts of interest in the name of fairness and justice to those who may be influenced by biased opinions. Therefore, Dr. Goodwin should be reprimanded. Whether he should be strung up and crucified in another matter altogether.

Thanks, and take care. :)

It's an interesting topic: conflict of interests and money received and not disclosed. The more that happens here, with regard to these pharma funded research/ers investigations the more it seems lack of integrity and truth is exposed.

This is a freight train out of control and I applaud Philip for being on top of the stories as they unfold.

Side note:
Per the person wondering if Stan knows David Oaks...I've been in touch with David Oaks re: advocacy for Stan.

Losing his job as a psych tech, injured via a patient and having the termination blamed on bipolar disorder is discrimination at its worst.

After years of trialing most every psych med, Stan has lived and walked in most everyone's shoes that is posting here, as a patient, an advocate and an employee of the mental health system, his voice is one that should be listened to; as well as everyone else's.

I'm a caregiver of a 20 yr old daughter who is currently disabled after a decade of psych med treatment for a wrong dx; and I carry a BPII label and have suffered med trial and withdrawals.

I believe in truth and integrity. The pharmaceutical industry is an industry. It's for profit, and the data and trials are often skewed, cooked and withheld of information.

The Zyprexa scandal is one example of that.

Just a few of my .02

Sophia,

>>>You asked me: " Is there anything at all Dr. Goodwin could have done that would make you question the integrity of his findings and research, if this is not enough? What more could you possibly need?"

Yes, there are things Dr. Goodwin may/could have done that would make me pause and wonder about his integrity and motives.

But what I am reading is about one episode of Infinite Mind, which was the brainchild of Bill Lichtenstein, got funding from Eli Lilly and he recruited Dr. Goodwin to do the radio program. It was a well-received program, and I found the transcript of one of its interesting episodes ("Perfect Pitch : Why can some people name a note as soon as they hear it when others can't tell one from another?") . See http://www.wsf.org/music/articles/mind135.htm ; also an episode "Special on Trauma and Healing", soon after 9/11. One on "Satisfaction" this September, a discussion on stress caused by expectations, how to be grateful for what we have.

This is what I've heard about the show in general - good programming on topics of current interest. Generally boring, I'd say, unless you are a PBS type.

I don't think the program was intended to push meds. Even the program in question seems to be a response to a tragic event where Prozac was mentioned in the press, and the show attempts to balance the one extreme of "Antidepressant leads to violence" with one that points out that antidepressants do work well for most people who take them. Perhaps an attempt to counter the possibility that people may go off AD's based on what they hear in the news. I don't know. I know Philip analyzed it well from the perspective of an "expert patient", but I think the message to people in general would seem to be that AD's (or withdrawal from them) don't necessarily lead to violence.

This one episode is being picked apart, especially by a journalist on The Slate site who apparently had a previous run-in with Eli Lilly in an article she wrote for the British Medical Journal on this topic, which turned out to be inaccurate, causing BMJ to issue an apology to Eli Lilly. Seems to have an agenda.

Nevertheless, that particular episode of the program (which aired 7 months ago) is under the microscope. Philip caught it early, but by the time it made it to NY Times and Grassley, the impression people are getting is that The Infinite Mind was a show aimed at promoting use of meds.

If there's a COI involved in one episode, fine, let that be addressed. Seems rather benign to me, and certainly not as much of onus on Dr. Goodwin as LCMedia or NPR. That's my take. He taped a radio show each week, with programming by Lichtenstein, and BAM - 6 months later he's in trouble for one episode that can be interpreted as propoganda.

For me to question his entire body of findings and research, I've to see some major story of colluding with pharmas and engaging in deceptive practices. If he signed up for hosting The Infinite Mind from the outset as a scheme to get funding from pharmas and promote meds occasionally, that will definitely raise a red flag.

Stephany, I'm glad you are there to advocate for Stan. It certainly appears that he needs one.

Sekhar

Sekhar:

I catch the faint smell of a condescending tone in your comment toward me. Please correct me if I wrong here? But thanks for your support if it was genuine.

Stan

Sekhar: I'm sorry I don't tune in to the show, and those topics probably wouldn't interest me, but, my question is direct and based on the strange history of many mental health professionals who commit egregious acts and are constantly excused as having proper motives for committing these crimes.

Sekhar: Quotes and link From: http://www.healthcentral.com/bipolar/c/15/49780/comments
“Just a bad dream
Sekhar
Saturday, November 22, 2008 at 10:07 PM "
“Having met and interacted with Dr. Goodwin a bit, I feel sad about this. But those who don't know much about him are going to be quick to condemn Dr. Goodwin as some kind of a crook based on the NY Times article, without looking deeper into the facts. I just hope that he is fully vindicated real soon, after whatever investigation has to take place. Dr. Goodwin deserves nothing less.”
reply
re: Just a bad dream
John McManamy
Saturday, November 22, 2008 at 10:51 PM
“Hi, Sekhar. I agree that there are untold people out there, quick to condemn, without even checking the facts. But Dr Goodwin doesn't need an investigation to clear him. His dealings with GSK and others were public and above board. If anyone needs an investigation, it's the NY Times. I'd like to find out what their sorry excuse was for going to press with that piece of gratuitous character assassination.”

Commentary: Yeah you’re here to debate the issue alright! NOT! Tell us John McFraud “Expert Patient” and Sekhar, what are the facts? Why don’t you read up a few post about the king of child bipolar Dr.Biederman and more about your Pal Dr. Goodwin, and then sit here and defend Goodwin when he’s sailing along in high seas and taking on water in the same sinking ship as the notorious Biederman.

I can clearly catch the smell of a very condescending tone in your comments! Which in considering your befuddling defense of Goodwin and your Pal JM {it comes as no surprise since you are riding and petting their pony in this race}; though I still find it quite amazing on the rational and evidence front which you appear to ignore? You ask for data and research and yet it’s all skewed and tainted! So what’s your real argument?

I know your kind, after years watching your kind throughout the mental health system helping destroy or stand idle as others suffered at the hands of psychiatry and your medication paradigm (You are one of those want to be psychiatrist, and blind follower types).

Now the room is full of maimed, damaged, bloodied, and dead bodies; many of them children; the Goodwin’s of the world are standing there with bloody hands over the bodies, and you pull out the “if the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit defense”. Those rose colored glasses your wearing must fit pretty damned well. Did AstraSeneca Pharmaceutical send them along with your last prescription refill?

But then maybe we can find you an advocate for your pure, utter, and unadulterated ignorance. I'm not bad at getting into the personal attack mode as you have started here, so just say go! You little kiss butt pharmaceutical whore! I am here to out you for what you really are, and then crush you like a little bug under my boot sole!
You have no grounds what so ever in your arguments, accept these are your Pals, and they couldn't be corrupt crooks that have cooked the Pharmaceutical books to load their bank accounts and propagate a myth; or your little confused support group world would turn upside down. Take a magic pill and toast to that you complete arse. So how does that taste in your drug induced mood garden? I sure this is the same kind of caring and nurturing support people will find when they go to your cozy little forum.

I see your buddy John McFraud is afraid to face the music; he’s probably hiding over in his Pharmaceutical paid for easy chair hoping against all hope this won’t come back to bite him to hard in the arse. What he doesn’t know or is blind too; is that there’s a mean and angry junk yard dog just waiting for him to stand up and make a move!

But then you’re just a cheap street walker, and the real Mr. John McPimp is standing on his renowned Book! What was it called anywise? “The pharmaceutical Guide to Bipolar 101 for dummies; the copy and paste version of the rehashed bull with all the usual suspects of obvious criminal connections”? Indorsed and verified by the infamous Dr Goodwin of lies, greed, and shame fame.

Have a nice day :)
Stan

Stan,

You are welcome.

Sophia,

You write: "...my question is direct and based on the strange history of many mental health professionals who commit egregious acts and are constantly excused as having proper motives for committing these crimes."

I don't know the history you're referring to, and in cases where there is absolute evidence of a malicious and immoral intent, I will sign up in a heartbeat to condemn them.

Of course, the rest of my answer is going to end up in a long post, so read on if you wish.

My source of my sadness and disappointment are indeed those news stories that appear to add Dr. Goodwin to the Dr. Beiderman queue. I have met Dr. Goodwin a few times. I know he is well into his 70's. If he wanted to make money, even back when the program started, he didn't have to go from D.C. to NY each weekend for a radio program. He was heavily funded by possibly every major pharma out there for the research work he did. It may primarily have been for fame and padding up his resume. If he hasn't retired yet, it's safe to say he wants to maintain his standing name recognition in his profession. (Certainly not name recognition through Congressional investigation on COI or anything like that.)

So I do consider him different from the rest of the pack you're referring to, who get excused no matter what they do.

I will say one thing though. Maybe someone of Dr. Goodwin's caliber could have taken the stand that he'll not be party to the existing mess of research being primarily funded by pharmaceuticals. But I doubt that he will have the fame or name recognition if he had done that. Not everyone can be like Philip. If Philip, with all his talent, had a blog praising specific meds, and writing articles about break-throughs at various pharmas etc., he could probably be in a position to buy out a small island in the Carribean in a few years.

Sekhar

dguller,
I just read Robert Whitaker's Mad in America and would recommend it to you since you haven't. He does a good job of documenting the damage psychiatrists did in America while they masquaraded as scientists. In my opinion psychiatrists have masquaraded as scientists for so long now people believe their lies. Even scientists. And that is part of the problem. To me it's very troubling that Whitaker presents evidence that neuroleptic use caused an increase in psychosis relapse. Or that drug data was manipulated by abrupt withdrawals causing psychosis. How can there be progress without honesty in research and practice? His book was written in 2002 and the past six years have brought only more lies and deception. I agree with Stan that these are crimes against humanity. Perhaps we need to put psychiatry on trial to get past people's misconceptions and even begin looking for alternative care. I still hope science will find some of the answers and so I applaud Senator Grassley's efforts. I am, however, no longer buying what psychiatry is selling.

Stan,

I read your last post after submitting my previous post.

I'm sorry I baited you, it was just too tempting to resist. I just didn't think you would bite so hard. I'm sorry that it affected you so badly, I didn't quite expect it.

Stephany wrote earlier:

>>>Losing his job as a psych tech, injured via a patient and having the termination blamed on bipolar disorder is discrimination at its worst.

After years of trialing most every psych med, Stan has lived and walked in most everyone's shoes that is posting here, as a patient, an advocate and an employee of the mental health system, his voice is one that should be listened to; as well as everyone else's.

My argument with you isn't personal, Stan, even if yours may be against me. I respect Stephany, and I empathize with your life struggles. Your voice is important. Please do try to tone it so that it's worth listening to. The more you take swipes at people who are your peers ("drug-induced mood garden"?!!), the less credibility you have as a mental health advocate.

People who join and support each other in communities like Mood Garden are sick and tired of medications. Their life is consumed in pain, and they have no clue about Goodwin, Beiderman etc. Please do try to exercise restraint and avoid swinging wildly. Sure, knock yourself out calling me names, or associating me with whoever irks you in the pharma-camp; if that makes you feel better, it's definitely worth it. But be a little thoughtful in casting a wide net over 6,000+ members of Mood Garden, most of whom don't know me, and are on the same life path as you.

Good luck to you.

Sekhar

Bob Whitaker's book "Mad in America" is really worth a read, both because it gives the grotesque "history of psychiatry" but also because it has, as mentioned by Vicki, FOIA information on the atypical antipsychotic trial frauds that makes you cry. He is working on another psych- related book and I will rush to buy it. As for Jamison's book about herself, it didn't ring true to me. Poetic license, perhaps.
I stated on another site that the Goodwin-Jamison bipolar bible saved my daughter's life as it listed the symptoms of lithium toxicity. For that, and that only, I can give the authors creditm, though Jamison's "Touched by Fire" was interesting, given that (though many don't believe in a genetic element in mental illness) the book traced this very element in famous composers, artists, etc. , in previous years when there was no medication.
And as for the person who hates to stand by and watch her friends die of lithium, I wonder what else she might suggest for bipolar I. With one child dead from Zyprexa, we're sticking with the family drug, which had worked for him. It is not a little disturbing to come on here to post a comment and read something like "lithium kills my friends" with no thought by the poster how that might impact someone else. But I guess almost anything goes here.

Vicki:

Could you please cite the study that Whittaker used to demonstrate that antipsychotics actually increased the rate of relapse? Did it take into account comorbid substance abuse? Medication compliance?

Just to clarify, where there is clear evidence of the wilful use of deception and falsehood in order to defraud the public, this should be condemned wholeheartedly. However, there is a difference between that and making the strongest case possible for a position that one believes in.

I do not have the hard figures, but I believe that most researchers would probably land in the latter category of people who may disregard lines of evidence that oppose their theories, which places them in the negligent, rather than the mendacious, class of scientists.

It is also true that psychotropic medications have been overprescribed for conditions where there is little, if any, evidence for their efficacy. However, they have also been demonstrated to be effective in treating many psychiatric disoders and brought a great deal of relief to the lives of patients. No treatment is a panacea, and they all come with risks of side effects. The tragedy is not that there are side effects to these medications, but that they were not adequately disclosed to clinicians and thus, their patients.

Thanks!

Sekhar:

I figure anything you’re a part of must be worth going after with booth barrels blazing! I mean you’re such a good Bait person, probably a master-bater with the very best! Probably why you need those rose colored glasses; didn't your mother warn you?

Stan

Yes Sorrowful, anything goes here, including engaging in intellectual dishonesty, and when that happens the speaker is simply being intellectually dishonest, that's all its about, and has nothing to do with you. Nothing. The best way to for me to keep my head on straight when things get personal here involves learning to recognize and quantify dishonest arguments, which means analyzing and putting the derailment into words whether I argue back or not, the point is to keep my own thinking straight, and second, never take an insult personally if I have said nothing to personally to offend. Taking it personally is also an intellectually dishonest tactic, and the manipulation involved is in making you feel bad, which is the goal, smothered in sheer assholery.
You don't have to succumb to that. And third, arguing with people who lack self-awareness (me, intellectually dishonest, manipulative? No way! is a waste of energy, but I do respect your asking for support or acknowledgment or whatever that was, and I hope there will always be some response, no matter how inadequate.

Sorrowful,

It is hard to watch people die from Lithium toxicity, but of course not as hard as dying from it. I'm going through as similar thing with a friend who is taking zyprexa. She liked it a lot in the beginning but the effectiveness has worn off and she's left with the metabolic disorder alone and she's particularly at risk for developing diabetes. Of course she takes zyprexa for depression which she was labeled with 20 years ago which means that like so many people she's been on every trendy psych drug of the last 20 years. Her entire identity is wrapped around being a depressed person. Her problem is the doctor who tells her depression is a physical state that needs to be treated with drugs. Hard not to believe your doctor even when that hocum has been debunked. 20 years ago she got a divorce and ended up trying prozac and being labeled depressed. Since then she's been a lab for big pharma.

Meanwhile, I'm glad your daughter didn't overdose on lithium. As for whether I'd rather see someone die of bipolar I or lithium toxicity, there's no evidence that bipolar I exists and so it can't kill anyone. I particularly dislike "Touched with Fire" because it's romantic marketing for the label bipolar or manic depressive. It's being told that you can't control your moods, that your brain is different, that your genes are different, and believing it that kills.

dguller,
Read the book yourself since you pretend to care. I'd rather not prolong this discussion. Thanks. Vicki

Sorrowful,

I have to respond directly to your last line which I neglected to do before:

"It is not a little disturbing to come on here to post a comment and read something like "lithium kills my friends" with no thought by the poster how that might impact someone else. But I guess almost anything goes here."

The evidence that lithium is toxic is not anecdotal, it is a medical fact which I don't think you are disputing. The evidence that there's a medical disease called bipolar I is anecdotal. There's just no science to back it up. Your belief in this condition as well as the romantic marketing of it by Jamison with evil crap like touched by fire is a belief with no facts behind it and your pushing of this belief as fact is irresponsible.

Wake up! Jamison's partner in crime, Goodwin, the father of the increase in nonsense like the entire bipolar paradigm is a fraud. Surely that must suggest that perhaps the "illness" is not as firmly founded in science as you believe. I know it's hard to here such a thing when being "bipolar" and a part of the "bipolar" community is such an important part of your identity.

There's no science to back up any of this with the exception of the hard cold facts that lithium and other psych drugs really can produce a pleasant state of calmness temporarily but have damaging, often, if not usually, fatal side effects. Your belief that bipolar I exists is just that a belief. My belief that it doesn't exist, while more fact based than your views, is still primarily anecdotal, so if you want to have a battle of the anecdotes, great, if you want to dare imply that suggesting that lithium kills is irresponsible which suggesting that bipolar I is a medical disease is not irresponsible, well, I don't care how vested you are in this belief, it's not a fact and you are harming people and should be called out.

Lithium is toxic, there's no controversy or speculation in this true statement.

Bipolar I is a medical disease, there's no evidence to indicate this belief of yours is true.

As for that tear soaked copy of touched with fire you keep on a shelf next to your copy of the Bell Jar, get over it, the treatment not any disease killed Plath.

Word up! An unflinching scholar of the human condition has Sorrowful figured out to the core. She is very harmful and needs to be called out. Thank god someone finally had the cojones to say it.

Stay classy, Sally.

Vicki:

I do care. If there is evidence that neuroleptics increase the rate of relapse in schizophrenia, then I would really love to read the article.

Can you please look in the reference section of the book, and cite it, please?

Thanks!

**Her problem is the doctor who tells her depression is a physical state that needs to be treated with drugs. Hard not to believe your doctor even when that hocum has been debunked. ... As for whether I'd rather see someone die of bipolar I or lithium toxicity, there's no evidence that bipolar I exists and so it can't kill anyone.**

Sally:

I think Philip's case against Risperdal, Zyprexa, and so many other drugs is that they have terrible side effects and yet Big Pharma tried to hide them (going to outrageous lengths, no less).

But no one from John Cade on has tried to hide the fact that lithium has serious side effects, and people on lithium must be monitored to keep them from being dangerous and even fatal (as I guess tragically happened in your loved one's case). Therefore, no deception. I know the risks I'm taking on lithium.

But I have a more basic question. If depression is not a disease, WHY DOES THIS BLOG EXIST?!

PS -- Helluva nice touch making fun of The Bell Jar when Sylvia Plath was among the thousands, if not millions, in history who (yes) died of bipolar disorder.

Sekhar:
What I wrote was "mental health professioanls who commit egregious acts and are constantly excused as having PROPER MOTIVES for committing these crimes." It doesn't matter if they thought they were doing the right thing. That means they are not in the right line of work, even if you have a lot of trouble proving everything that goes on in their hearts. You don't need absoulute evidence of malicious and immoral intent. The history that stands out in my mind as I write is regarding a Dr. Honig who established the Delaware Valley Mental Health Foundation, who, among his many atrocities, was excused for forcing a patient to eat the contents of an ashtray, and after vomiting, the patient was forced to eat the vomit. The DA found ..."the 'ashtray incident' to represent an inappropriate treatment judment made in good faith by the therapist." If one can excuse this, then they may as well excuse Dr. Goodwin because he was slumming it with PBS or NPR or whoever, and he could have chosen a much more profitable vehicle for spreading specious lies that were misleading the public about the dangers of drugging children. The lies may not have been as easy to believe, however. It must be well worth it to fly from D.C. to NY if you can get $329,000 for one episode.

With all due respect:I find it impossible to wrap my mind around an arguement re: :Li being a life saving drug while Zyprexa is a killer drug. All of these drugs trash human bodies, and it's a matter of time before our bodies tell us that in one way shape or form.

Whitaker is writing a book, and has interviewed me re: the last decade of hell and my daughter's journey with a wrong diagnosis and how she is somehow by the Grace of God still alive in the aftermath of the psych meds.

Whitaker may help shed some light on these nightmares, though I have not given permission for him to use my story.

Larry,

Depression is a serious condition but not a medical disease.

The analogy I like to use in thinking about human distress and emotional pain is this. Imagine 100 people in a freezing cold room at different ages from different regions dressed in various outfits some appropriate for the temperature, some not. Some of these people would get sick first and doctors, if they were biopsychiatrists would decide these people were genetically defective and treat them with drugs then but them back in the same freezing cold room in the same inadequate clothing. When the next group of people got sick, the biopsychs would decide that there most be more genetic defects than they realized and so on. They would never consider the room temperature. Depression is a serious condition but not a biological disorder that exists in a vacuum. If you treat symptoms ignoring environment people are harmed. This doesn't mean there's not a place for drugs, but it means drugs should be looked at very differently and us humans should look at changing the shape of our institutions to reduce the incidence of depression, etc.

from mcman's website

In June 2007, the Seventh International Conference on Bipolar Disorder, acknowledged as the world's leading gathering of bipolar experts, honored me with the prestigious Mogens Schou Award for Public Service, citing this Website, Newsletter, Blog, and book, as part of "the strong tradition of honoring those heroes who are making major advances that bring hope to those suffering from bipolar disorder

Ha! The heroes are those who read this blog and comment, our blogmaster, not those reciding in ivy towers. Those who take meds and are successful or not successful and are in the trenches fighting either actively or with words. These are the real heroes in my book.

Sekhar,

Thank you for your comment that you have respect for me.

I appreciate that. I, as all of us here have and am walking in the same shoes of frustration and a life based on possible and real misdiagnoses.

One year ago, I was in the fight of my life for my daughter. The inpatient psych doc wanted to lock her up in the state institution and declared "no hope".

During this time, I commented at John McManamy's blog about how my daughter was mis-dx childhood bipolar, and medicated with horrible results.

Here is a post that Philip wrote as a result of that, and it is a post that has helped me through many hard times, inspiring me never to give up, for which I am grateful to Philip more than words can say.

John McManamy attacked me on his blog at the most vulnerable of times in my life.

My point here is to add perspective, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course.

But, it was as a result of what I did for my daughter--prevented her from being institutionalized--that fuels my fire for others (like Stan!) to advocate when I see a very big wrong that needs to be right.

Psychiatry in general has only one paradigm to go by and it is pharmaceutical intervention only, and when researchers such as Goodwin get caught in a snare of unethical behavior, it leaves us to wonder who is watching out for...example: my little daughter.

Respectfully,

Stephany

Sally:

You are absolutely correct that Lithium can be toxic, both acutely if used in high doses, and chronically over a few decades (especially in terms of kidney damage).

However, I would dispute with your contention that bipolar disorder is not real. There are certainly individuals who have suffered from manic episodes and major depressive episodes in a regular enough fashion with various characteristics from their histories that an entity known as bipolar disorder does exist.

That does not mean that everyone given that label is accurately diagnosed.

Perhaps your complaint is that it is overused? Or would you state that someone who spontaneously experiencing recurrent manic and depressive episodes is ... what ... faking or imagining it?

Take care.

Sally:

I'm glad your life expectancy is 300 years and you can wait for global revolution to produce the freedom from stigma to care for depression purely holistically. Because mine, unfortunately, isn't.

And the idea that depression is the only disease that reflects societal problems is preposterous. Everyone acknowledges that super-size servings at restaurants and high-fructose corn syrup in most foods contributes immensely to diabetes.

That doesn't mean my girlfriend can afford not to take her glucophage for her type II diabetes -- and it certainly doesn't mean my sister can afford not to take insulin for her type I diabetes.

**With all due respect: I find it impossible to wrap my mind around an argument re: Li being a life-saving drug while Zyprexa is a killer drug. All of these drugs trash human bodies, and it's a matter of time before our bodies tell us that in one way shape or form.**

Stephany:

I cannot even imagine what you and your daughter have gone through (and, I gather, are still going through) as a result of Zyprexa and atypical antipsychotics.

And to say I am not a fan of John McManamy right now, for these and other reasons, would be the understatement of the century.

Yet and still, some perspective that different people have different experiences:

My grandmother was diagnosed with bipolar disorder (type I, for those on the FS comment page who say it does not exist in either type) decades ago and prescribed lithium. She was hospitalized several times -- my mother insists to this day that all occurred because of side effects from her lithium. That may have happened, no doubt, though I suspect some of the hospitalizations may have instead been because she DIDN'T take her lithium.

Either way, when I was diagnosed with BP II (yes, it exists, doubters) in early 2000, I avoided lithium like the plague. And it cost me big time. Depakote and later (when my Pdoc said I was down to either/or with lithium) Zyprexa managed to put 50 pounds on me in just the 5 months I took them combined. At least Depakote controlled my moods for the munchies it gave me; Zyprexa was completely ineffective.

And so, in desperation, I tried lithium. And suffered the dry mouth, hand tremor, and GI symptoms that most people do. Several times in my first few months on Li I had to pull over from my car and puke on the side of the road. (I rarely drive now.)

But it controlled my moods. And that could not be denied -- even when my mother practically threatened to disown me for taking "the family poison."

That was almost 6 years ago.

And lithium, for me at least (I know it is not for others), was metabolism neutral. I've finally managed to lose most, if not all, of that awful Depakote/Zyprexa bloat.

Stephany, if your charge against me is commission of slow suicide via Li, then I plead guilty. Infinitely better, knowing the risks and maintaining quality of life in the meanwhile, to commit slow suicide than immediate suicide.

I wonder what your sentence would be for me.

I said Li was helping me in "maintaining quality of life." That's true, but only of course because the extreme GI symptoms slowly went away as my system got used to Li. Sorry I didn't make that clear earlier.

Larry,

I was thinking out loud referencing "sorrowful's" comment about Lithium and Zyprexa and her 2 adult children. My comment wasn't an attack on anyone, and hopefully not perceived that way....just a comment thinking out loud while typing, how my daughter trialed (well over a dozen) so many meds, and each one did serious physical damage to her body.

I wouldn't "sentence" you to anything. Taking meds is everyone's personal choice, I take them.(and have a BPII dx). Though I do, and have lived my daughter's nightmare with her, I have a harsh opinion about the drugs,(and pharma) but not condemnation for anyone taking them.

My daughter was on Depakote, Zyprexa and Lithium for 6 years and I know the Depakote/Zyprexa weight you speak of. She also had a permanent hand tremor that went away when off of Lithium, had diarhea most daily from it, and Depakote left her with Polycystic ovary syndrome (she has increased cancer risk now and low chance of having children if she could or wanted to).

I don't understand the "slow suicide" remark you made, I was discussing body damage, like kidney failure, tremors etc that I have seen happen to my daughter. A decade of psych med use and by age 20 her body shows much physical damage. (which causes me a lot of grief amd of course has limited her life in so many ways)

I don't even know if this comment makes sense, but hopefully it does.

Take care

Stephany

PS Larry--my "sentence" for you is to have a happy, good and long life.

Dguller,

You write: "Perhaps your complaint is that it is overused? Or would you state that someone who spontaneously experiencing recurrent manic and depressive episodes is ... what ... faking or imagining it?"

I'd say that the terms manic and depressive are subjective, I'd have to know the specific behaviors, the specific life events of the person, and I'd give more to the power of suggestion, valid expression of sane emotions and feelings, valid responses to internal and external stimuli than "faking it." Imagination isn't bad or the equivalent of "faking it."

Someone who believes they have a medical disease called bipolar disorder, or depression for that matter, isn't faking it or imagining it, they're just buying into a false story, dangerous trend...

Meanwhile, here's a quote from a real psychiatrist, The Last Psychiatrist:

" The term "bipolar"-- whether it exists (as a so far unknown physical pathology) or not-- isn't valid because it says nothing about the world; it only says what the person using it thinks about the world." http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/11/the_extent_of_psychiatric_know.html

Larry, Depression is neither a disease nor the only problem reflective of societal problems, as I wrote:
"Depression is a serious condition but not a medical disease. The analogy I like to use in thinking about human distress and emotional pain is this." Human distress and emotional pain would cover the entire range of behaviors in the DSM and more.

As for the diabetes analogy, it's false, even if you buy the disease model which you seem to to say that because your girlfriend takes medicine everyday for her diabetes, someone with asthma has to be constantly hooked up to an inhaler every day whether they are having an attack or not is specious. Furthermore, to say that the treatment not the disease killed Plath is in no way "making fun" of The Bell Jar.

Sekhar,
What you've written on the post "Thanks", November 26, 2008 is outrageous.
You've crossed all lines.
If he was paid $329,000 by Glaxo over the period of one year to present his (legitimate) case for circumstances where he found Lamictal to be the best mood stabilizer, is it really that big a deal, for someone with Dr. Goodwin's reputation?

But after reading this argumentation I can see what are your morals and values.
Now I can understand it all. We use to attribute to others behaviours that are ours, don't we?

Sekhar:

You are now pulling out all the stops and have no conscience; in retort so will I!

What was your mood disorder by the way? Ego-maniac

You and John McPimp are in bed together! Must be quite cozy! How about that for s reality check!
So much for that lovely drug free and non-pharmaceutical promoting Mood Garden you personally run and collect donations for to line your pockets from. I guess it's my turn to play on your turf?

http://moodgarden.org/index.htm

"Mood Garden also provides free web hosting and web programming assistance to independent websites that support the community; currently, we host www.pokibid.org and partner with www.mcmanweb.com and other sites listed on the home page. (POKIBID , mcmanweb and the other sites are completely autonomous sites)."

"If you have any comments, please send feedback to admin@moodgarden.org . ( Site operated and edited by Sekhar Subramani, an individual living with a mood disorder. We can be reached at 1-888-226-6437 from within U.S.)"

This is right on your site for all to see: live and learn Sekhar; liar, liar, pants on fire, as they say on the play ground of life! Enjoy all those new hits!

Stan

Sally:

I'm not too sure what you mean by "subjective".

If you mean that the symptoms of mania and depression are only present in the awareness of patients, and thus cannot be objectively quantified, then I would disagree, because there are physical signs present, as well:

-- For depression --> change in sleep patterns, change in dietary intake, psychomotor agitation or retardation, change in energy level.

-- For mania --> decreased sleep, pressured speech, talkative, engaging in reckless and impulsive activities with negative consequences (e.g. spending money, sexually promiscuous), increased energy.

These can be observed by others and are certainly not subjective.

If you mean that the cluster of symptoms is arbitrary and without any basis in objective reality, then I would also disagree with you to some extent, because the signs and symptoms that are present in depression and mania were collected through multifactorial statistical analysis. That analysis -- the "statistical" in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual -- showed that those signs and symptoms happened to be clustered together to an extent that could not be explained by chance alone, and likely represented a diagnostic entity.

However, I do agree that the number of symptoms that could and the duration of symptoms is somewhat arbitrary, e.g. needing at least four symptoms for at least one week to qualify as a manic episode. Why not three for three days? Kind of arbitrary, right?

But, scientists have to draw the line somewhere in order to quantify their data. Why is a BP > 140/90 considered hypertension? Why not 139/87? It is also arbirary, but it is necessary in order to have some uniformity amongst clinicians.

Take care.

Someone who believes they have a medical disease called bipolar disorder, or depression for that matter, isn't faking it or imagining it, they're just buying into a false story, dangerous trend...

Ha. False stories and danger. You've obviously never told someone in episode that he is manic, bipolar or delusional because the irony is that the person who strong-arms his way into the kitchen at Olive Garden in order to teach the cooks what a real chef does thinks you are deranged, not him. There is nothing wrong with me I'm just going to fix the recipe!

But you're so stuck in your blame the victim mentality you believe the Last Psychiatrist is referencing all your sworn enemies, in love with their label.
Try again, this time with your head out of your ass--

" The term "bipolar"-- whether it exists (as a so far unknown physical pathology) or not-- isn't valid because it says nothing about the world; it only says what the person using it thinks about the world."

Which in your hateful projections you take as a reference to

"Someone who believes they have a medical disease called bipolar disorder"

Putting words in his mouth because you assume he also hates people with mental disorders. He wasn't talking about them. It's not there.

Perhaps your hatred of people with mental disorders interferes with the reading comprehension.

dguller: Quoting you and clarifying “subjective”

"I'm not too sure what you mean by "subjective".
If you mean that the symptoms of mania and depression are only present in the awareness of patients, and thus cannot be objectively quantified, then I would disagree, because there are physical signs present, as well:
-- For depression --> change in sleep patterns, change in dietary intake, psychomotor agitation or retardation, change in energy level.
-- For mania --> decreased sleep, pressured speech, talkative, engaging in reckless and impulsive activities with negative consequences (e.g. spending money, sexually promiscuous), increased energy.
These can be observed by others and are certainly not subjective."
My comment:
Observation is a subjective act in itself; example; two people walk into a room, it's the exact same environment, yet one may feel hot, and another cold, one may notice various objects scattered about the room, while another may not. So on and so forth as the story goes.

Depression:

1.change in sleep patterns - for one person three or four hours sleep may be normal, to another they may need eight or ten hours!
2. Change in dietary intake - one person may be a huge eater and another eats like a bird and still be considered normal. One may even change their eating habits and still be considered normal depending on the situation and other environmental factors.
3. Psychomotor agitation or retardation - one person may seem hyper active to another and still fall completely into a normal range of behavior, while another may appear smart or stupid and still be considered completely normal and function well within society and that’s person individual daily environment.
4. Change in energy level - as if everyone doesn't have times when they feel more energy than others, there are countless explanations for this without a classification of bipolar labeled on them.

Mania:

1. Decreased sleep - same as above, since personal sleep needs and patterns vary widely between people.
2. pressured speech - many factors can be involved here. This could be situational or the person is perceived to have pressured speech by another and still fall well into the completely normal category.
3. talkative - let's take a huge leap here and say some people are more talkative than others. I know some pretty quiet people than can get fairly talkative in the right situation or may be after one or two drinks.
4. engaging in reckless and impulsive activities with negative consequences - you must mean you would perceive them to be reckless with negative consequences; or everyone participating in the X-games or doing dare devil stuff like jumping out of airplanes, or climbing mountains would be Bipolar; or even those driving in rush hour traffic would or could get labeled!
5. Spending money, sexually promiscuous, increased energy - all could fall under perceived normal activity for each individual! I guess it's how you would perceive the activity from your life experience and observation personally.

Then you get into everyone’s individual value system, spiritual beliefs, and everything gets even more twisted, skewed, and mixed up; this amounts to quite a quandary for those supposed based on science people.

Do you notice a pattern here? The DSM and all the criteria are completely subjective upon who's doing the observation.

(now if you want to debate who is expert enough to non-subjectively interpret this continually changing data stream coming out of individual human behavior; we can do that in your next lesson K)

Because diagnosis is all based on subjective observation of human activities, and by other human beings. That is not sound science, or does it qualify as quantitative and irrefutable data.

So your understanding hopefully has improved, as is just maybe your questioning of what is and isn't real science. But then again that's pretty subjective thinking on my part. I gather that makes it so and solid rock hard evidence in your logic?

Yours Truly,
Stan

dguller: Quoting you and clarifying “subjective”

"I'm not too sure what you mean by "subjective".
If you mean that the symptoms of mania and depression are only present in the awareness of patients, and thus cannot be objectively quantified, then I would disagree, because there are physical signs present, as well:
-- For depression --> change in sleep patterns, change in dietary intake, psychomotor agitation or retardation, change in energy level.
-- For mania --> decreased sleep, pressured speech, talkative, engaging in reckless and impulsive activities with negative consequences (e.g. spending money, sexually promiscuous), increased energy.
These can be observed by others and are certainly not subjective."

My comment:

Observation is a subjective act in itself; example; two people walk into a room, it's the exact same environment, yet one may feel hot, and another cold, one may notice various objects scattered about the room, while another may not. So on and so forth as the story goes.

Depression:

1.change in sleep patterns - for one person three or four hours sleep may be normal, to another they may need eight or ten hours!
2. Change in dietary intake - one person may be a huge eater and another eats like a bird and still be considered normal. One may even change their eating habits and still be considered normal depending on the situation and other environmental factors.
3. Psychomotor agitation or retardation - one person may seem hyper active to another and still fall completely into a normal range of behavior, while another may appear smart or stupid and still be considered completely normal and function well within society and that’s person individual daily environment.
4. Change in energy level - as if everyone doesn't have times when they feel more energy than others, there are countless explanations for this without a classification of bipolar labeled on them.

Mania:

1. Decreased sleep - same as above, since personal sleep needs and patterns vary widely between people.
2. pressured speech - many factors can be involved here. This could be situational or the person is perceived to have pressured speech by another and still fall well into the completely normal category.
3. talkative - let's take a huge leap here and say some people are more talkative than others. I know some pretty quiet people than can get fairly talkative in the right situation or may be after one or two drinks.
4. engaging in reckless and impulsive activities with negative consequences - you must mean you would perceive them to be reckless with negative consequences; or everyone participating in the X-games or doing dare devil stuff like jumping out of airplanes, or climbing mountains would be Bipolar; or even those driving in rush hour traffic would or could get labeled!
5. Spending money, sexually promiscuous, increased energy - all could fall under perceived normal activity for each individual! I guess it's how you would perceive the activity from your life experience and observation personally. Then you get into everyone’s individual value system and spiritual beliefs and everything gets even more twisted, skewed, and mixed up; this amounts to quite a quandary for those supposed based on science people.

Do you notice a pattern here? The DSM and all the criteria are completely subjective upon who's doing the observation.

(now if you want to debate who is expert enough to non-subjectively interpret this continually changing data stream coming out of human behavior; we can do that in your next lesson K)

Because this poor excuse for science is all based on subjective observation of human activities, and by other human beings. That is not sound science, or does it qualify as quantitative and irrefutable data.

So your understanding hopefully has improved, as is just maybe your questioning of what is and isn't real science. But then again that's pretty subjective thinking on my part. I gather that makes it so and solid rock hard evidence in your logic?

Yours Truly,
Stan

Dguller,

"change in sleep patterns, change in dietary intake, psychomotor agitation or retardation, change in energy level." These terms are subjective and value based.

"decreased sleep, pressured speech, talkative, engaging in reckless and impulsive activities with negative consequences (e.g. spending money, sexually promiscuous), increased energy." Again, subjective, value based, oppressive.

Fever of 101 is objective, weight of 170. Increased energy is subjective, reckless, sexually promiscuous - come on.

FP, clever semantic trap. I don't hate people with mental disorders. I do believe someone who believes they have a medical disease called bipolar disorder is mistaken. How many times have we been down this block. This doesn't mean I don't think insomnia and loss of appetite are serious problems, and perhaps even pressured speech. And sure medication can help and even therapy but your Olive Garden example, like your directing traffic example has varied interpretations.

Stan:

Where to begin?

Of course some people sleep less or more than others. I mentioned a CHANGE in sleep from what is considered normal given a person's history.

If someone normally sleeps 7 hours a night, and then starts sleeping 10 hours, and this occurs in the context of a change in their appetite and weight, a loss of energy and motivation, and with near-constant sadness and loss of interest in once pleasurable activities over the course of several weeks, which makes them unable to function at work or home, then I would be suspicious of a major depressive episode.

Again, to reiterate, the criteria does not have some standard of "normal", and then anyone who deviates from it is branded with a mental illness even if they are functioning just fine in the world. No. If someone deviates from what is normal FOR THEM with various CHANGES in their mood, cognition, motivation, behavior and so on, to the point that they cannot function properly, THEN a mental illness can be considered.

And no, the criteria are not entirely dependent upon the clinician making the observation. For example, I rely upon collateral from family members and friends who know a patient for information. If people who know someone well express concern over a change in their behavior, then I will not dismiss their concerns saying, "Who are you to judge what is normal for this person? You are just bringing your subjective impressions to me!" That would be ridiculous.

I am not saying that psychiatry is akin to physics where objective test results prevail. However, I do believe that human cognitions, emotions and behavior can be quantified to some extent, and that conclusions can be drawn from those investigations that are useful to help people.

Perhaps you believe that human beings are utterly inscrutable entities that cannot be understand at all to any extent?

Is that your position?

Take care.

Oh fuck your dehumanizing, morally repugnant objectifying interpretations.

My directing traffic "example" was an experience; concrete, felt, lived experience. Your breathtaking interpretation of that experience was that such a person is breaking the law and your solution was that such a person should be placed under arrest for being a public disturbance.

Lucky break how my psychiatrist had other ideas, including what it feels like to be running barefoot through the Congo on a sunny day in an urban city.

Where is the actor's subjectivity in your argument? You too Stan, step out of your unreadable batshittery for a minute and tell me where the agent's subjectivity is in your inane burble.

Now consider where mental health authorities get their leverage in their psycho-education campaign, how they convince a person they are cursed with a disorder characterized by mania.
Is there a maniac in the house?

As Lou Reed put it, How do you think that feels, and when do you think it stops?

Stephany:

Thank you.

Sally, Sally, Sally ...

Are you saying that chronic disease in general does not exist, or only that mental illness does not exist? Because I'm confused, and I certainly wouldn't want to tell my girlfriend not to take her glucophage without at least being clear on the reason.

(Plus, the analogy you tried to construct applied to ECT, not to medication. I'm no fan of ECT.)

And I didn't even catch flawedplan catching you say that mental illness is "buying into a false story, a dangerous trend ..." FP is right -- I cannot imagine anything more patronizing possibly being said on these pages.

(And I'd MUCH rather you hate me than be so g*dd*mn condescending toward me, or anyone else who has -- or in your odd mind, "claims to have" -- a mental illness.)

Besides, if you're right, that means people who say they have mental illness are actually delusional, which means ... they have mental illness. So I'm not sure where your definition helps your theory of the non-existence of mental illness.

PS -- Which also means you're right, I shouldn't have said you were making fun of Plath's book. I should have said you were making fun of Plath herself. Along with me and everyone else on this comment board.

Geez! dguller and Flawed-angry at the world-plan.

I will try to simplify this as much as possible so you can follow along Flawedplan! Let me say this about the insults and demeaning comments from you personally. I consider them indulgent flattery and esteemed compliments considering where they are coming from. So thank you very much.

Class 2 begins for your enjoyment!

Subjective has now been covered and you have made no argument against it unless you also agree with the last line of my prior post, which makes me absolutely correct in your logic anywise! So any combination of the about list as you use for DSM criteria are subjective and not real science! Collecting data from observation of behavior is not science, it just collecting subjective data! That isn’t real science, just speculation as an absolute. Psychiatry at its very core is not science, but subjective interpretations of what's normal and what's abnormal, thus we come to diagnostic criteria and who makes those judgments.
First off, many times the patient themselves are either aware or unaware they are deviating from what society calls acceptable norms. (Let us keep in mind that as human behavior changes, the norms are in constant state of change also! So what is normal today may very well be considered abnormal or obsolete tomorrow or ten years from now. There is no certainty in any of this).

Society makes the call on what’s normal or abnormal! Not psychiatry unless we allow it too! I personally consider them not qualified since they have shown us time and time again they are not to be trusted with prudent or responsible health care or treatment that is beneficial in both short and long term effectiveness to patients in need of mental health services. A diminished life is exactly that! You take away from a human being and leave nothing in its place to fill the void.

I don’t believe either of you are going to argue they are working from any other paradigm than the medical/medication or like model. This model is built on the theory that by changing brain chemistry, we can change behavioral symptoms and gain positive results. This model and other very similar to it have failed us for hundreds of years and are continuing to fail us today! Sometimes a medication works, sometimes it doesn’t work, sometimes it damages patients, sometimes it works for the short term and then causes other damaging or unpleasant side effects that are irreversible in the long term, sometimes it just stagnant and is no better than a placebo and nothing at all.

Basically, Psychiatry is throwing darts in the dark, sometimes they get lucky and hit the board, but more often than not they miss the mark by a mile. Then you add in Pharmaceutical industrial interest where huge profits are to be made, and humanistic greed that permeates our society and medicine (especially Psychiatry) at this time; and you create a perfect storm of failure and abuse.

Mental Health Issues and diagnostics are fairly whimsical at this time, though it may or may not have a biological base. We as human beings don’t know enough about the mind, brain, thought processes, and behaviors to really make sound calls in the name of science! The evidence is just not there! It’s all anecdotal and suspect to be honest. So we as a society need to wake up and call out psychiatry for what it really is, along with calling out the DSM for what it really is! They are both totally flawed and without any doubt incomplete. We need to only let a well regulated and truly independent body make Mental Health decisions within our society with ethically and moral integrity; but since we do have constitutional rights in this society in American. The patient should always in every case make the final call on treatment, and have proper recourse if that treatment is found to be flawed and damage them personally.
It is time to take the power away from the mental health profession and huge Pharmaceutical giants; and place where it belongs, with society as a whole, with communities taking their responsibility on like they have in other areas of accepted disabilities, with families in most cases (not all) as a fostering unit, and finally the personal rights of the person in question with the ultimate and final choice.
We need to throw all the labels out the window, a mental health issue should be just that! There is no need to stigmatize a person for their internal struggles and stimulus. It now time to take a big step back, question all the flawed science that has failed us, and reevaluate what really counts. I believe we are talking about real living human being here that deserve dignity and respect. That is not happening nearly enough or with quality today, nor will it happen if we stay on this same old and tired road of failure. End of class 2
Take a break and class three will begin shortly {laughing}

Yours Truly,
Stan

Simple Larry, according to papa Szasz when convinced you are Jesus Christ you are actually a "liar", and when you amok through the city streets screaming in terror that you've been targeted by the CIA you are "self-dramatizing." These evaluations are necessary to make you a "humane" and "compassionate" "advocate" of the psychiatrically labeled. </