It sounds like McMan was cruising for a bruising and baiting you.

McManamy is just what he is; a talentless and tasteless nobody wanting desperately to be a somebody.

Maybe some more medication or an VNS implant would help?

John seems pretty unstable. Hard to believe he fancies himself a "go to" guy on mental health issues. It's nice to see that Herb found a welcoming place, though. :)

I can't believe he labels you as "antipsychiatry". The Scientologists are "antipsychiatry". Somebody who meaningfully and dispassionately examines the overuse of dangerous drugs in particular areas of psychiatric practice, like you do, is not antipsychiatry. You're doing something far closer to actual journalism than his shoe-gazing.

http://www.psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/58/5/721

Psychiatr Serv 58:721, May 2007
doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.58.5.721
© 2007 American Psychiatric Association

Living Well With Depression and Bipolar Disorder: What Your Doctor Doesn't Tell You ... That You Need to Know

by John McManamy; New York, HarperCollins, 2006, 416 pages, $14.95

Gregory Ludwig

....."McManamy is a former financial journalist with a law degree who was given a diagnosis of bipolar disorder at age 49. He has run a self-funded Web site and published an e-mail newsletter for several years that reports and comments on studies, conference proceedings, and more. He has developed a fan base."

....."McManamy's book has surprising errors. For example, he notes the DSM-II as from 1980 when it is from 1968. He also liberally quotes from patients' Internet writings on his Web site, which can sound chattery, impulsive, and unvetted."

....."McManamy's claim that he is liberally alerting people to the wealth of what's out there may seem to be in good faith but may it be naïve and credulous, or even a con at worst. The book also fails to present the views of those who know very much about themselves from years of nonmedical personal struggle and self-discipline. This book is a useful supplement but by no means is it essential or magisterial."

Looks like the book didn't make the grade at the APA level for knowledge necessity.

Gosh! Erm... Gosh!

John, Philip politely asked you to remove a reference that he regarded as incorrect (which I don't make a judgment on, other than to say that your claim as to Philip's anti-psychiatry stance is unquestionably arguable, as most things are). That's not the same as a personal attack, really it's not. It's not even personal criticism.

Fuck me! Doesn't anybody know how to de-escalate a conflict?

Matt

I'm not very impressed with McManamy, a Psych Central 2007 award winner:

"As to best of web from PsychCentral, Grohol went over to the dark side some time ago. He has been Dawdy’s chief legitimizer since day one. Grohol gets a weird kick out of hanging out with the bad boys. Grohol frequently cites Dawdy as an authority, and at least twice he has bashed me citing Dawdy as the authority and linking to his blog and not mine. Screw that for a joke. Grohol can burn in hell. In July, Grohol actually handed out an outstanding journalism award to Dawdy."

http://knowledgeisnecessity.blogspot.com/2009/10/rerun-where-dumb-psychiatry-meets-dumb.html#comments

I wonder why McManamy appears to harbor such inner resentment toward other successful men, he appears jealous, and quite unstable, certainly not someone to be considered a mental health expert.

I just paid a visit to John's blog. Do you know, it actually hurt my brain to read some of that stuff?

Matt

Yak!
I was going to sleep now but I will have to see something very interesting and nice now.
After reading this I got that "Jesus! Why are there so many mean people in this world?" feeling.
It's amazing how people betray themselves only by raising a hypothesis:

"Why? Or you will tell readers that I beat my wife?"

A person who has integrity, dignity and values would never say that.

John, you are scum.

John,

I'm just waiting for the next time you call Philip anti-psychiatrist.
You will not hear just from Philip.
Best regards,
Ana

Phil.

Take comfort in the fact that tissue sales would have gone up in the area where this guy lives. Word of advice for you - Bring your bunny rabbit indoors.

Fid

Philip,

McManamy is a shill for the psychiatric status quo with narcissistic tendencies.

Someone who trumpets their bio with the lede, "I am an award-winning..." and then sets out to bait his peers with straw-man mislabels (anti-psychiatry) and ad hominem nuggets like "fake journalist" and "unprincipled idiot" - need you really legitimize this backbencher any further?

Stick to what you are good at, Philip: cutting edge, vital mental health journalism.

As Einstein said, "Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."

Less I be mistaken for someone who like soap operas.....what was the result of the threat? Did McManamy cave?
Andrew

Bipolar Porch. The very latest on breaking Bipolar Disorder news...

Spats like this -- both the cheap shots by McMan and Philip's need to publicize them rather than continue to handle the dispute privately one-on-one -- are a big reason I'm slowly withdrawing from the mental health blogosphere, helpful though it has been to my recovery.

A pox on both your houses.

"McManamy is a shill for the psychiatric status quo with narcissistic tendencies."

You realize that's a lot more libellous than the original "antipsychiatry contingent" comment?

So McManamy writes that Dr. Grohol can "burn in hell" because Philip got an award and he didn't? Wow! What a screwball.

He's not exactly a ringing endorsement for the effectiveness of medication.

I find it odd it comes down to these childish attacks, to prove a point. It's come down to the, "take it back or else threat." Amazing how some people never get beyond the sand box.

I think the most salient point to make about Mr. McManamy is just what a cruel human being he has proven himself to be to so many people, including myself.

Enough said.

Andy Behrman
Author, "Electroboy"

"I find it odd it comes down to these childish attacks, to prove a point"

Exactly! You would think this was the "United States Congress", and not the always civil and well mannered blog world. LMAO

Since this is the only mental health blog I follow with any degree of regularity (I found it via Liz Spikol's site) I really don't get what the big whoop is about John M's. opinion of anyone. Why care? I never would have heard of him had Philip not mentioned him.

Personally, I usually try to take the tack of just continuing to do your own work and ignore bullies and annoying people on the theory truth will out. Yeah, I pull this off with varying degrees of success in my own life.

But seriously Philip, (not that you *asked* me, of course) I hope you will be able to just keep on keeping on with your work without continuing to waste your energies on this guy (who apparently attracts people like the ever-creepy Herb) and trust people to sort things out for themselves. Whoever this guy is, he has no hold on you. If you were to start saying negative things about him I would probably feel compelled to go check out his blog just to see what it's all about. You'd just feed into giving him air play. I'm sure more than a few people have wandered over here from his blog in search of the truth. People usually do like to find this sort of stuff out for themselves.

Best wishes to you. It's raining here in NH. I can pretend I'm in Seattle. {;>)

I left a comment on John's blog, to the effect that he should chill the fuck out, along with several of his commenters. The whole thing's really quite unedifying.

As far as I can see, my comment wasn't published - it's more difficult to interrupt some people's thought patterns than I'd previously believed to be the case. Perhaps it's impossible, after all?

Do you know what I've realized, amidst all this? People only talk to me when they're desperate - otherwise I'm deemed surplus to requirements. The human world is founded on exclusion, rather than inclusion. How come it's taken me 42 years to work that out - it was self-evident, when I look at it?

Matt

I think it's easy for those of us viewing from the sidelines to simply advise Philip to ignore such attacks (yep, even I advised his so in my previous note). Yes, sometimes silence is the best strategy, but when dealing with self-absorbed bullies like McManamy who use character assassination rather than reason, one needs to defend their credibility, draw their lines in the sand.

Whether Philip is using the right strategy to defend himself, well, I'll leave that to the public relations specialists out there to debate. What I know is this: Philip is one of the few, comprehensive, dedicated critics of the pharmaceutical industrial complex, and this is bound to draw out anger and frustration in the likes of McManamy.

I've read both blogs (along with dozens of tohers), and the distinguishing differences between the two: Philip checks his ego at the virtual door and relentlessly, courageously investigates, uncovers and publishes stuff with a depth of journalistic integrity. The fact he does it on his own dime, and is forced to fund-raise throughout the year to keep up this probe, it's all the more a testimony to his commitment and integrity. McManamy's blog reads like, well, a blog. A lot of self-congratulations, excessive opinion-giving and the kind of vanity that marks most social media self-publications. I have no doubt that it's a cathartic process for that author, and I wish him well in his pursuit of self-discovery and recovery. But Philip is in a completely different, higher league when it comes to investigative journalism and exposing the dirty laundry of the psychiatric establishment and big pharma. Yet, Philip is also prone to the same vulnerabilities as all of us, and I can't blame the guy for getting fed up and drawing his line in the sand in dealing with a sycophant like McManamy.

What bothers me about McManamy's blatent attack based on what appears to be a personal issue with Philip; are the other blogs that promote McManamy's post, and support it.

Blogs such as

http://blog.beliefnet.com/beyondblue/2009/02/antipsychiatry-dumb-and-dumber.html

Beyond Blue, authored by Therese Borchard, whom Philip has linked on his side bar and has linked to in the past in at least one article I remember.

Liz Spikol allows Herb to post blatent attacks on her blog regarding Philip, and I assumed that she was more like a collegue to Philip than say, McManamy who also allows Herb to commentate slander toward Furious Seasons and the commenters.

So it is the other bloggers, who appear respected in the blog world, that have also taken this road, so anyone reading this cannot sit back and wonder why Philip didn't feel compelled to defend himself.

Frankly, I knew from reasing that Liz tolerated the Dawdy bashings in her comment section for whatever her reason,--Beyond Blue's but Borchard surprises me.

Reading Psych Central's 2007 top Bipolar blog award winner list, and now McManamy's blast of Grohol in his blog comment section, just makes a person wonder about all of it.

PS--Borchard is also a Psych Central award winner

Arguing with someone who hass a bipolar dx: not the best idea.

Oh, what the hell does that mean ? :p

for the record, McMan's ex is also a Psych Central Award winner as well. Maybe he is jealous?

Blame it on the meds.

Oh, for Pete's sake. Way to build your brand, McManamy!

Thank you, Philip, for keeping it polite on your end.

I'm distressed that readers here would perceive me as egging on any dispute -- in either direction. Yes, commenters have said negative things about Furious Seasons on my blog. They've also said negative things about countless other sites and people I adore and admire. I'm not in the business of selectively posting comments, especially since my blog is part of a larger site. At the newspaper, we don't remove comments unless they are libelous and actionable. This means in the history of my blog I have deleted maybe three comments, one of which gave someone's address and another that alleged that a man beat his girlfriends regularly and gave that man's name. As a (now former) editor, I assure you I understand exactly what libel is, and someone saying they disagree with Philip is not libelous.

I'd also like to point out that I wrote an article about Philip that ran in a print newspaper (remember those?) in which I called him "the most rigorous online mental health journalist out there" (by which I clumsily meant even beyond the U.S.). I have continued to post links to him and to praise him on my blog and have been a fervent (if not financially solvent) supporter.

This is why it distresses me to see the comments suggesting I'm somehow in league with anti-Dawdy factions. Which brings us to ...

The issue of factions. Please! Aren't we all here for the same reasons? To learn, educate, expand awareness, and offer support? I hope so.

One commenter in particular who lives in the comment section of the Spikol blog, who constantly streams Furious Seasons/Dawdy bashings is the reason I stopped reading Spikol's blog.

Believe it or not, there are commenters that do detract from readership, and hosting the (typically off topic bashings directed at FS) has detracted from the blog, Liz.

That's life!

I don't need someone else's opinion to decide whether or not I like your blog. I simply enjoy what you have to say.

I just wanted to say now that this has kind of died down, it did serve one good purpose, a small good thing, something that neither party would have anticipated.

It gave me closure and the strength once and for all to "wash that man right out of my hair", and get back in that big old horrible world of dating again.

I am grateful for Philip and Stephany here courage to start my blog in the first place and get my writing back. I have a long way to go, but it's baby steps. And I am grateful for all the people on this blog I have met over my four years of reading it.

Oh yes, why should I care? I am one of two of McManamy's exes.
There. Just outed myself. Been a long, long time coming, and I hope you all know petrifying this was for me to write for the first time in public.

Susan,
You know we are all here to you and we are aware how hard it is for you to write here.
I don't think this man deserves one second of your attention and you must erase it from your memory.
Damn! Why do we have to make mistakes to learn?
Why we trust people that are not trustworthy?
I've been there and I believe we all have.
Be at peace Susan! You deserve that!
Love,
Ana

Oh Susan... I've enjoyed your blog for a while now. Congrats on coming out!! We all love you, you're welcome to be who you are here.