by Justice Lover
The following article by Philip Dawdy correctly criticises Evelyn Pringle for her failure to expose psychiatry, and for putting the blame for disease mongering entirely on the Mothers Act instead. I have tried to draw her attention to the important research by Dr. Matthias Rath, the renowned German physician, who had proven that Big Pharma, the oil corporations and the big banks are under the same ownership which rules the world.
However, I have sent her also - in the same email - a link to my open letter to Dr. Matthias Rath in which I point out to him the crimes and deceptions of psychiatry which he continues mistakenly to ignore. Yet she had continued for months to ignore and in effect rejected the links I emailed to her. When I criticised her, and asked her to use the important information, she replied that she was sorry for ignoring my email, but she still refused to use the very important links I submitted to her. In her defence she contended that as a journalist she is depended for her livelihood on the acceptance of her articles by the media, and she reckons that neither the views of Dr.Rath nor mine would be acceptable. Her final reply to me was very angry, and she added the words "GO TO HELL" in the Subject field of her email message to me...
Here is an excerpt from Philip Dawdy's article with a comment added to it in the original website :
http://www.furiousseasons.com/archives/2009/08/chemical_imbalance_theory_of_mental_disorders_criticized.html
August 31, 2009
Chemical Imbalance Theory Of Mental Disorders Criticized
...What jumped out at me had little to do with the (Mothers) Act and everything to do with the chemical imbalance hypothesis of mental illness:
"Dr David Stein, a professor of psychology and criminal justice at Virginia State University, and author of, 'Unraveling the ADD/ADHD Fiasco,' has taught psychopharmacology for 25 years. One of the greatest myths about mental disorders, is that they are caused by a chemical imbalance, he says."'The myth is founded on some of the tricks that are pulled in so-called scientific research in psychology and psychiatry,' he explains.
"'The manipulation of research has become one of the most powerful and most unethical marketing tools ever devised,' he says. 'Not one study can be replicated at the testing labs of hospitals or by laboratories involved in clinical patient care.'
"'Replication is a basic step for all sciences,' Dr Stein explains."
So here we have yet another expert claiming that the serotonin hypothesis of depression--the main chemical imbalance theory out there--is bunk and cannot be replicated, which is basic to proving something as sound science.
I wonder why more Americans--and more doctors--are not aware of this kind of this. I wonder how pharma companies can continue to get away with running ads touting the chemical imbalance theory.
Posted by Philip Dawdy at August 31, 2009 12:01 AM
StumbleUpon Toolbar" border="0"> del.icio.us Digg it reddit In any other field of research this type of claim (the chemical imbalance hypothesis) would be dismissed as a spurious, unproven, statistically insignificant hypothesis. But in psychology and psychiatry it is treated as fact.
Much the same is the case with genetic arguments.
The first thing I learned in sociology 100 a couple decades ago was the fallacy of reductionism: reducing highly complex problems to a simple explanation. Humans are not mere biological things. They are complex social creatures, subject to cultural, family, environmental, gender and ethinic influences, as well as biological influences.
I think psychiatry has long suffered from an inferiority complex as it has tried to earn credibility alongside their hard science and medical science cohorts. These eroneous claims of chemical imbalance are part of that striving for credibility; but the claims have no basis in research. The witch doctors who spit out these unproven theories as research or truth are nothing more than shills for the pharmaceutical industrial complex. It's very hard to sell drugs on a mass scale if you can't prove that what you are treating is a 'disease' that exists in the biology (or brain chemistry) of the patient. There are no pills tha can address bad socilization. This is pure political and commercial expediency on the part of big pharma and its well funded band of shills that pose as scientists and researchers.
Posted by: The Skeptic at August 31, 2009 12:32 PM