Posts Tagged ‘DSM-IV’

Newer Entries »

Psychiatry & the United States of Affliction: Are You Normal or Finally Diagnosed?

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is a list that can be abused to the detriment of patients and benefit of drug companies.

Miller-McCune
By Arnie Cooper
June 8, 2010

“My dear Sir, take any road, you can’t go amiss. The whole state is one vast insane asylum.” — James L. Petigru

Spend just a few minutes watching prime time television with its endless pageant of commercials for antidepressants and anti-anxiety meds and you start to wonder if USA really means the United States of Affliction.

Such “direct to consumer” drug advertising ties into one of the most far-reaching criticisms in revising the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: the potential to transform normal human behavior into a mental disorder.

This issue didn’t arise with the ongoing revision of the DMS-V. It’s long been a concern for psychiatry, which must exist uneasily alongside pharmaceutical companies’ hopes of expanding their markets and Americans’ desire for take-a-pill quick fixes. But past experiences suggest new diagnoses will reap a harvest of not fully intended consequences of patients larded with labels — and prescriptions.

Christopher Lane, an intellectual historian who has written extensively on psychiatry and culture, detailed the inclusion of “social anxiety disorder” in the DSM-III in his 2007 book, Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness.

Lane revealed how the 15-member DSM-III task force, in its quest to establish psychiatry as a legitimate science (and riding the wave of drug companies looking to expand their markets for anti-psychotics and tranquilizers), spit out “almost over night” various new disorders, including one for those uncomfortable with social situations.

No longer need shyness be a variant of normal. Now it can be a neurochemical disorder addressable with GlaxoSmithKline’s multibillion-dollar marvel Paxil. Before safety concerns and patent expirations raised their ugly heads, antidepressants had become the second-largest selling class of drugs in the United States.

“In this desire to biologize and medicalize, with the idea that every personal crisis or problem is due to a disorder of the brain, we’ve lost sight of the vast complexity of behavioral responses to external stresses,” Lane says. Add to that some possibly dangerous side effects. Along with Prozac and Zoloft, Paxil was found to increase thoughts of suicide, especially among teens, prompting an FDA warning in 2004.

Read entire article:  http://www.miller-mccune.com/health/are-you-normal-or-finally-diagnosed-17073/

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | 1 Comment »

“ADHD is a total 100% fraud. The millions of schoolchildren around the world being drugged have no disease” – Neurologist

Monday, May 31st, 2010

ArticlesRoad.com
May 29, 2010

The term “ADHD” is simply a label used to categorise a list of psychosocial traits that Psychiatry considers to be improper or abnormal in society. Psychiatry defines these traits as a “mental illness”, and promotes it as a “disease” that requires “treatment”.

It is not a “disease”, despite claims or implications made by certain psychiatric or pharmaceutical organisations. There is NO credible scientific evidence that shows the existence of what constitutes “ADHD” as a biological/neurological disorder, brain abnormality or “chemical imbalance”.

“For a disease to exist there must be a tangible, objective physical abnormality that can be determined by a test such as, but not limited to, blood or urine test, X-Ray, brain scan or biopsy. All reputable doctors would agree: No physical abnormality, no disease. In psychiatry, no test or brain scan exists to prove that a ‘mental disorder’ is a physical disease. Disingenuous comparisons between physical and mental illness and medicine are simply part of psychiatry’s orchestrated but fraudulent public relations and marketing campaign.” Fred Baughman, MD., Neurologist & Pediatric Neurologist.

“Chemical imbalance” it’s a shorthand term really, it’s probably drug industry derived “We don’t have tests because to do it, you’d probably have to take a chunk of brain out of someone – not a good idea.” Dr. Mark Graff, Chair of the Committee of Public Affairs for the American Psychiatric Association. July, 2005.

Such behavioural characteristics that Psychiatry created this unscientific “disease” from are, and always have been, generally considered “normal”. Now, it seems, inattention or “hyperactivity” (Hyperactivity means ‘excessively active’* — what is excessive? On whose authority?? It’s ridiculous!!) is abnormal, a “mental illness”.

Read entire article:  http://articlesroad.com/adhd/what-is-the-defination-of-addadhd-according-to-the-dsm_iv.html

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | 4 Comments »

DSM Panel Members Still Getting Pharma Funds

Friday, May 21st, 2010

Despite promises to cut back on Pharma funds, 56% of DSM V panel members have reported industry ties— Zero improvement over the percent of DSM-IV members.


By CCHR International
May 21, 2010

Due to Senate investigations into the American Psychiatric Association, psychiatrists have promised to cut back on their conflicts of interest (pharma funds), but of the current DSM task force members, those who will be deciding on the holy grail of psychiatric disorders (DSM) and what constitutes a “mental illness” are still heavily funded by Pharma. In fact, there is no improvement over cutting down the number of panel members who are getting paid by industry over the last DSM revision in 1994. It was 56% then and its 56% now. So much for psychiatry’s promises…

Former APA president Nada Stotland stated: “We are in the midst of a revolution caused by public and legislative concern about the influence of the for-profit sector….” [Emphasis added] Part of that public pressure for the APA to disclose its conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies was driven by Lisa Cosgrove Ph.D. et al’s study of DSM-IV and DSM-IV-TR committee members, which found that of the 170 members, 56% had one or more financial associations with companies in the pharmaceutical industry.  Pharma’s psychotropic drug profits have soared commensurately with the increased numbers of disorders voted into the DSM.

  • Of the 137 DSM-V panel members who have posted disclosure statements, 56% have reported industry ties—no improvement over the percent of DSM-IV members.
  • Writing in Psychiatric Times (March 6, 2010), Cosgrove and Harold J. Bursztajn, MD, stated: “Although the APA recently announced that it would phase out the visibly industry-supported educational programs, the organization has remained curiously silent about acknowledging and monitoring industry funding of the 2 philanthropic arms of the APA—the American Psychiatric Foundation (APF) and the American Psychiatric Institute for Research and Education (APIRE).”
  • APF’s 15-member board of directors includes 4 high-level executives from pharmaceutical companies that either manufacture drugs recommended by APA (i.e.; in APA’s Clinical Practice Guidelines [CPG]) or have products in development targeted for mental disorders.
  • Other board members include 2 more with industry ties and a senior vice president at one of the largest public relations agencies in the world, whose clients include 6 drug companies.
  • APF’s corporate advisory council comprises pharmaceutical companies that contribute significant funding to APF and manufacture drugs recommended in the APA’s CPG; 6 of the companies give $40,000 “and above” per year.
  • APIRE, like APF, does not require disclosure of financial conflicts of interests, yet 9 of 16 of its board members have industry ties.
  • At least a quarter of the presenters at this year’s APA congress have significant pharmaceutical company ties.

The APA should sever all ties to pharmaceutical company interests. The US Senate Finance Committee has investigated at least a dozen APA psychiatrists over their undisclosed financial ties to drug companies, including:

Investigated - Alan Schatzberg, APA President: Owned $6 million equity in and as co-founder of drug developer Corcept Therapeutics while principle investigator in an NIH-funded, Stanford-based study of Corcept’s drug mifepristone. Schatzberg initiated the patent application on mifepristone to “treat psychotic depression” in 1997. In 2008, after months of Congressional scrutiny, Schatzberg stepped down from his position as principal investigator in the study.


Investigated – Joseph Biederman: Chief of the Program in Pediatric Psychopharmacology, Massachusetts General Hospital, he earned $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers between 2000 and 2007, most of which was not disclosed to Harvard University officials. In March 2009, court documents showed Biederman promised Johnson & Johnson in advance that his studies of their antipsychotic Risperidone would prove effective when used on preschool age children.


Investigated - Melissa DelBello: Research psychiatrist, University of Cincinnati failed to disclose all her Pharma earnings. In 2002, she was the lead author of a study that reported patients benefited from Seroquel by AstraZeneca, which paid her $180,000. She disclosed receiving $100,000 from the company between 2005 and 2007, but federal investigators discovered it was more than double that—$238,000.


Investigated - Frederick Goodwin: Former NIMH director, Goodwin earned at least $1.3 million between 2000 and 2007 for marketing lectures to physicians on behalf of drug makers, which he did not reveal to the producers of “The Infinite Mind” that he hosted on the National Public Radio during its 10-year run. NPR removed the program.


Investigated - Charles Nemeroff: Perhaps the most egregious case exposed was that of Dr. Nemeroff, chair of Emory University’s department of psychiatry and, along with Schatzberg, coeditor of the influential Textbook of Psychopharmacology. He received more than $960,000 from GSK, but reported to Emory $35,000.  He earned a further $2.8 million from various drug makers but failed to report at least $1.2 million. Nemeroff resigned his position at Emory in 2008.


Investigated - Martin Keller: Professor of Psychiatry at Brown University. His (and others’) Study 329 (ghostwritten by a GSK rep.) on Paxil use in children allegedly misrepresented data and suppressed information linking Paxil to suicidal tendencies. Keller didn’t disclose the full extent of his financial ties with companies to medical journals that published his research. In another matter, following a criminal investigation, Brown University returned $300,170 to the state of Massachusetts for research Keller’s department never performed. Keller stepped down as chair of psychiatry at Brown.


Investigated - Augustus John Rush: Former Vice-Chairman of the Dept. of Clinical Sciences at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. He reported only $3,000 of the nearly $18,000 that Eli Lilly paid him in 2001.  Between 2000 and 2007, he failed to report another $12,000 from various drug companies.


Investigated - Karen Wagner: Professor, University of Texas Medical Branch failed to disclose more than $160,000 in payments from GSK, reporting only $18,000. Wagner worked on NIH-funded studies on the use of Paxil to treat teen depression and was a co-researcher on Study 329 (see Keller), for which she was paid more than $18,000. In 2002, Eli Lily paid her over $11,000, which was not disclosed.


Investigated – Thomas Spencer: Assistant Director of the Pediatric Psychopharmacology Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital and Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, reportedly failed to disclose at least $1 million in earnings from drug companies between 2000 and 2007.


Investigated - Timothy Wilens: Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School allegedly failed to report he had earned at least $1.6 million from drug makers.


RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE

RSS Blog Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 4 Comments »

Meet the Psychiatrist Pushing For A Brave New World of Pre-Drugging Kids—Patrick McGorry

Friday, May 21st, 2010

By CCHR International
May 21, 2010

One of the most controversial proposed disorders for the upcoming revision of psychiatry’s billing bible of mental disorders, (the DSM-5) is Psychosis Risk Syndrome (PRS) a “mental disorder” that, if voted into DSM, would confirm the allegations that psychiatry is manufacturing a Brave New World for itself—heavily backed by Big Pharma—of drugging children before they develop a “mental illness.” Already criticized for the millions of children being needlessly drugged and the lack of scientific criteria to substantiate any mental diagnosis as a legitimate medical condition, some psychiatrists now want the power to pull out their crystal ball and predict the onset of a psychosis and drug it before it has even occurred. And perhaps the strongest proponent is Australian psychiatrist Patrick McGorry.

Even psychiatrist Allen Frances, former chairman of the previous DSM task force expressed alarm over the proposed diagnosis and its repercussions should it be legitimized, stating, PRS “stands out as the most ill-conceived and potentially harmful.” The Syndrome fails badly on all 3 counts, he says:

“1. It would misidentify many teenagers who are not really at risk for psychosis;

2. The treatment they would most often receive (atypical antipsychotic medication) has no proven efficacy; but,

3. It does have definite dangerous complications.”

Frances adds: “Drug company marketing would influence parents and clinicians to be especially alert to any strangeness in teenagers.” False positives could be as high as 70-90 percent.[i] This can only lead to greater numbers of children and adolescents being harmfully drugged—already one of the major criticisms against psychiatry and a point of contention among many psychiatrists today.

Australian psychiatrist Patrick McGorry, speaking at the APA convention in New Orleans, as a cheerleader for “early intervention” (i.e. pre-drugging) is undeterred. Despite the unpredictability and risk of the drugs prescribed to treat PRS, McGorry wants to go full steam ahead, increasing the number of children being placed on extremely dangerous and even lethal drugs. It should come as no surprise that McGorry is a paid consultant for, and has received speaker’s fees from AstraZenecca, Janssen-Cilag, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer.[ii]

The theory of PRS wasn’t McGorry’s. He credits Dr. Ewen Cameron, the Canadian psychiatrist who became infamous in the 1980s after it was revealed he had performed cruel and brain-damaging experiments on his patients in the 1950s and 1960s with funding from the CIA.[iii] However, McGorry tested it in a world-first trial. Another study he conducted in 2002 was funded with an unrestricted grant from Janssen-Cilag and supported by pharmaceutical company-funded groups NARSAD and the Stanley Foundation, as well as several Australian agencies. McGorry and colleagues predictably found that risperidone (Risperdal)—made by Janssen—reduced the risk of “transition to psychosis” in young people.[iv] Risperdal has been linked to Type 2 diabetes.

  • In Australia, McGorry’s Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Center’s (EPPIC) preventive treatment center for young people, PACE, receives drug company funding from Janssen-Cilag. Much of the policy development embodied in the Australian Clinical Guidelines has come out of EPPIC research programs. As Richard Gosden, Ph.D., a highly respected Australian author and academic stated: “This may have paid off handsomely for the company…. It may not be coincidental that a half page of the Clinical Guidelines is dedicated to dosage recommendations for using risperidone in first-episode psychosis. The Clinical Guidelines do not extend these dosage recommendations to include other schizophrenia drugs and the recommendations for risperidone give the appearance of an official endorsement of the drug.” [v]

McGorry’s theory has psychiatry’s skeptics and even psychiatrists aghast:

  • One respected American research group equated the practice of pre-drugging children to “performing mastectomies on women who are at risk of—but do not have—breast cancer.” [vi]
  • Honorary Professor Anthony Pelosi from the Department of Psychiatry, Hairmyres Hospital, East Kilbride, stated, “So far, evidence from randomized trials does not support the use of psychological therapies or drugs as preventive interventions.”[vii] Further, “After teachers, college counselors, and families were encouraged to refer young people with possibly prodromal [early] symptoms directly to the same clinic for the same care plans…almost 90% were receiving unnecessary ‘preventive’ interventions.” [viii]
  • Fellow Australian psychiatrist Niall McLaren says the diagnostic criteria for PRS “has no scientific validity whatsoever…it can never be reliable and…will have huge unforeseen consequences.” Essentially, it means “putting large numbers of teenagers and young adults under the long-term supervision and control of psychiatrists” and that “supervision” includes the “aggressive, indefinite prescription of antipsychotic drugs.” It is the “clearest example I know of pseudoscience.  Not since [lobotomies] has psychiatry stumbled so far from the principle of Primum, non nocere. First, do no harm.” [ix]
  • Dr. Richard Warner, professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado, counters the idea that science drives McGorry’s pre-disorder assessment, stating that the screening instrument he uses “is not that accurate in routine use.” Further, “McGorry speculates that a variety of interventions may be effective in preventing schizophrenia in high-risk cases…. Given the expected number of false positives, the potential for harm is significant,” stated Dr. Warner. [x]
  • Dr. Jerald Block, a US psychiatrist writing in Bioethics Forum, reported that “preventive pharmacology” (which McGorry, et al. practice) is “ethically questionable territory” because the treatments given “frequently have side effects and complications” and “you are potentially harming people.” The symptoms used to identify them as at risk of schizophrenia are “also remarkably common…adolescence is a period of life that is normally marked by tumultuous changes in personality.” [xi]
  • Melissa Raven, psychiatric epidemiologist and policy analyst, adjunct lecturer in Public Health at Flinders University, South Australia, and David Webb, board member of the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry and working with the research/policy office with the Australia Federation of Disability Organizations, were published last month, writing: “McGorry’s campaign is part of a wider push to promote the medicalization of mental health (for which psychosocial wellbeing is a better term).” “Further doubts must be raised about McGorry’s agenda when you see the substantial funding his organization (Orygen Youth Health) receives from the pharmaceutical industry and also from the US Stanley Foundation, which is notorious for its particularly aggressive approach to the detention and mandatory treatment of people labeled with psychiatric disorders.” He has “personally received funding from many manufacturers of antipsychotics, frequently reports no conflicts of interest, particularly in his many recent Medical Journal of Australia articles, including a supplement on early intervention that repeatedly advocates the use of antipsychotics.” [xii]

Psychosis Risk Syndrome is nothing more than psychiatrists with conflicts of interest drumming up more business at the risk of teenage lives, while increasing the profits for the pharmaceutical industry they serve.

[i] Allen Frances, M.D., “DSM5 ‘Psychosis Risk Syndrome’–Far Too Risky,” Psychology Today, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201003/dsm5-psychosis-risk-syndrome-far-too-risky.

[ii] http://www.mhanet.ca/documents/2008/Research-Colloquium/0920%20-%20Keynote%20MCGORRY.pdf; http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a695.

[iii] Richard Gosden, Ph.D., “Pre-Psychotic Treatment for Schizophrenia: Preventive Medicine, Social Control, or Drug Marketing Strategy?” Ethical Human Sciences and Services, Vol 1, No. 2, Summer 1999, pp. 165-177, http://sites.google.com/site/richardgosden/ehss.

[iv] Arch Gen Psychiatry, Vol 59, Oct. 2002, http://www.meb.uni-bonn.de/psychiatrie/zebb/literatur/mcgorry.pdf.

[v] Richard Gosden, Ph.D., “Pre-Psychotic Treatment for Schizophrenia: Preventive Medicine, Social Control, or Drug Marketing Strategy?” Ethical Human Sciences and Services, Vol 1, No. 2, Summer 1999, pp. 165-177, http://sites.google.com/site/richardgosden/ehss.

[vi] http://www.ministryoflies.com/pdf-articles/Yale-Lilly.pdf.

[vii] Anthony Pelosi, “Head to Head, Is early intervention in the major psychiatric disorders justified? No,” BMJ 2008;337:a710, http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a710.

[viii] http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a710.

[ix] Niall McLaren, M.D., “Psychosis Risk Syndrome (PRS),” 14 May 2010 (soon to be published).

[x] Richard Warner, MB, DPM, is director of Colorado Recovery in Boulder, Colorado, and professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado, “Early intervention in psychosis: Future or fad?” Centre for Addiction and Mental Health website, http://www.camh.net/Publications/Cross_Currents/Winter_2007-08/futureorfad_crcuwinter0708.html.

[xi] http://www.ahrp.org/cms/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=386; http://ww.bioethicsforum.org/ethics-of-preventive-psychopharmacologic-treatments.asp.

[xii] David Webb, Melissa Raven, “McGorry’s ‘early intervention’ in mental health: a prescription for disaster,” Online Opinion, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10267.

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE

RSS Blog Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 4 Comments »

“Psychiatry’s ‘bible’ could roll out a whole new list of disorders—and more prescriptions for psychoactive drugs”

Friday, April 30th, 2010

The Gazette
By Sharon Kirkey
April 26, 2010

As Dr. Allen Frances read through the list of proposed changes to psychiatry’s bible of mental sickness, alarms started ringing in his own mind.

“I was surprised,” the renowned U.S. psychiatrist says, “that the proposals managed to be much worse than my most pessimistic expectations.”

By the time he was finished reading, Frances had calculated that the recommendations contained within the first draft for the fifth and latest revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – a hugely influential book used daily by doctors worldwide, psychiatry’s official classification of all the ways humanity can go “mad” – could unnecessarily trigger wholesale “epidemics” of mental illness and expose millions more adults and children to potentially harmful psychiatric drugs.

Frances, more than most, knows the kind of surprises that may be lurking.

He chaired the task force that wrote the current edition of the manual – referred to as DSM-IV – which Frances says is a book that unintentionally contributed to vast and sudden increases in the diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism and childhood bipolar disorder (manic depression), after it made changes in those definitions.

Rates of bipolar disorder alone jumped 40-fold in the U.S. after the definition was broadened to suggest that children don’t have to experience the typical manic symptoms seen in adults to be diagnosed bipolar – and that depression in kids can be a persistent irritable mood.

Read entire article:  http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/canada/Psychiatry+bible+could+roll+whole+list+disorders/2951855/story.html#ixzz0mbCzBKaU

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

New York Magazine: Shrink Revolt—The controversy over psychiatric diagnoses and the DSM continues

Monday, April 26th, 2010

New York Magazine
By Jennifer Senior
April 25, 2010

Two Jews may, as the saying goes, have three opinions, but that appears to be a fairly modest ratio when compared with psychiatrists. It was inevitable that revisions to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders would invite controversy—it’s the classic reference work for mental-health professionals, and a convenient field guide to understanding crazy exes for the rest of us—but even the American Psychiatric Association, which first appointed the work groups to update the text two years ago, couldn’t have predicted the squabbles now under way. Dr. Allen Frances, the man who chaired the task force that created the current edition (the DSM-IV), has today emerged as the most trenchant, and relentless, critic of the proposed revisions to the upcoming edition (the DSM-5; among the changes is a transition to Arabic numerals). Last Tuesday was the final day those revisions were open to public comment. “And hopefully,” Frances says, “most of them will drop out.”

Basically, Frances believes that the first draft of the DSM-5 is too promiscuous with its labels, both by loosening diagnostic criteria and by introducing a host of new and, to his mind, problematic maladies—like Binge Eating Disorder (more or less defined as gorging on massive amounts at least once a week for three months). By the estimate of one DSM-5 task-force member, Frances says, this disorder already afflicts 6 percent of the population. “And that,” he notes, “is before drug companies start marketing something for it.”

As Frances pointed out in a recent Los Angeles Times editorial, such taxonomic adjustments only seem to further shrink “the ever-shrinking domain of the normal.” Take another DSM-5 proposed addition: Temper Dysregulation Disorder With Dysphoria. Frances fears this may be deployed for kids who have typical temper problems. Or Major Depressive Episode: As it’s redefined, it could now be used to describe someone who’s spent two weeks grieving over a lost spouse, he contends. But the worst offender, in Frances’s view, is Psychosis Risk Syndrome, which attempts to identify and treat youngsters before they become psychotic. In his view, there isn’t any evidence that early intervention with medication helps, while there’s plenty to suggest that many teens could be misidentified. “And that I saw as a public-health danger,” he says, “because there are real drawbacks to being on antipsychotics.” Like weight gain and diabetes. “Those children are also disproportionately on Medicaid,” he adds.

Read entire article:  http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/65632/

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

MENTAL HEALTH TROJAN HORSE IN HEALTH CARE REFORM BILLS by USA Today Psychology Editor & Current Psychology Editor

Thursday, December 31st, 2009

Richard E. Vatz and Jeffrey A. Schaler
The Washington Times
December 31, 2009

The vast majority of Americans are unaware of most of what is included in the Senate and House health care reform bills as they head for reconciliation in the House-Senate Conference. They will be in for a big surprise concerning parity mental health care coverage, covering mental problems comparably to physical problems. In addition, the arguments supporting the changes, rarely made public in order to avoid rigorous debate, have revealed the shifting grounds supporting parity.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius spoke on Dec. 16 to a friendly crowd of health care providers and others at Sheppard Pratt Health System near Baltimore, a location for a broad array of psychiatric services, concerning mental health coverage, and, according to reports, she defended the expansion of such coverage with all of the familiar shibboleths.

She argued, consistent with the administration’s claim that expanding health care in general to 30 million or more citizens would actually save us money, that the vastly increased mental health parity program would additionally, as the Baltimore Sun reported her message, “improve care for millions of Americans who do not get all the mental health services they need.”

Read entire article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/31/mental-health-trojan-horse/

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

New Scientist – Psychiatry’s bible: Its time has passed – Growing criticism of DSM has Prompted Psychiatry’s Civil War

Friday, December 11th, 2009

Peter Aldhous
New Scientist
December 9, 2009

WHEN doctors disagree with each other, they usually couch their criticisms in careful, measured language. In the past few months, however, open conflict has broken out among the upper echelons of US psychiatry. The focus of discord is a volume called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, which psychiatrists turn to when diagnosing the distressed individuals who turn up at their offices seeking help. Regularly referred to as the profession’s bible, the DSM is in the midst of a major rewrite, and feelings are running high.

Two eminent retired psychiatrists are warning that the revision process is fatally flawed. They say the new manual, to be known as DSM-V, will extend definitions of mental illnesses so broadly that tens of millions of people will be given unnecessary and risky drugs. Leaders of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which publishes the manual, have shot back, accusing the pair of being motivated by their own financial interests – a charge they deny. The row is set to come to a head next month when the proposed changes will be published online. For a profession that exists to soothe human troubles, it’s incendiary stuff.

Psychiatry suffers in comparison with other areas of medicine, as diseases of the mind are on the whole less well understood than those of the body. We have, as yet, only glimpses into the fundamental causes of the common mental illnesses, and there are no biological tests to diagnose them. This means conditions such as depression, schizophrenia and personality disorders remain difficult to diagnose with precision. Doctors can only question people about their state of mind and observe their behaviour, classifying illness according to the most obvious symptoms.

Read entire article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427381.300-psychiatrys-civil-war.html?full=true

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

70% of psychiatrists in charge of adding new mental disorders to psych billing bible (DSM) have conflicts/ties to Pharma

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

Roger Collier
Canadian Medical Association Journal
November 17, 2009

Former editors of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) have publicly declared their concerns that the ongoing revision process of the influential publication has been cloaked in secrecy. In recent months, debate about the confidentiality agreement that contributors must now sign has been playing out in the pages of the Psychiatric Times. Dr. Allen Frances, editor of DSM-IV, has written several editorials slamming the DSM-V task force for their lack of transparency.

The “real problem now is the almost complete lack of openness about [DSM-V] methods, progress, timelines, and products,” Frances writes in an email.

Dr. Robert Spitzer, editor of DSM-III, has expressed a similar opinion. In 2008, he wrote an open letter criticizing the confidentiality agreement (Psychiatr News 2008; 43:26). In the letter, Spitzer says that he requested the minutes of a DSM-V meeting but was refused. The confidentiality mandate, he wrote, would prohibit the free exchange of information between the DSM task force and outside experts that is essential to effectively revising the manual.

Read entire article: http://www.cmaj.ca/earlyreleases/17nov09-dsm-revision-surrounded-by-controversy.shtml

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | 1 Comment »

The Mothers Act Disease Mongering Campaign – Part V

Sunday, August 30th, 2009

Evelyn Pringle
NaturalNews.com
August 28, 2009

In the title of a paper in the May, 2009, Journal of Affective Disorders, Stephen Matthey, of the University of Sydney Infant, Child & Adolescent Mental Health Service Research Unit in Australia, asks, “Are we overpathologising motherhood?”

The paper was critical of self-report screening measures such as the Edinburgh Depression Scale for overestimating the rate of psychiatric disorders in motherhood. “The properties of the Edinburgh Scale show that around 50% of women scoring high are not in fact depressed,” the paper’s abstract reports.

The paper was further critical of the high percentage of women being screened as ‘at-risk’. Classifying women to be ‘at-risk’ based upon “the presence of a single risk factor is questionable given that the majority of women with risks do not become depressed, and also the rate of women reported to have at least one risk (up to 88%) is so high as to negate the usefulness of this concept,” the abstract warns.

Matthey also questioned the use of the diagnostic criteria for depression in the DSM IV, such as weight loss, sleep problems and fatigue, which could easily be attributed to new parenthood rather than depression.

Read entire article: http://www.naturalnews.com/026933_pregnancy_depression_SSRI.html

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Newer Entries »