The Psychiatric Emperor Has no Clothes

[Neuropsych2be]

---

Members do not see this ad.

A couple new and wonderful articles in the popular press. These articles imply that psychotherapy may be a superior treatment modality that has been ignored in the headlong rush to embrace a model of psycho pharmacology with dubious scientific validity. Yes we all know this to be true but its good to see this in the popular press. It's good to see that may favorite bete noir, the DSM is thoroughly trashed. FYI

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/23/epidemic-mental-illness-why/

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jul/14/illusions-of-psychiatry/

 

[2012PhD]

A couple new and wonderful articles in the popular press. These articles imply that psychotherapy may be a superior treatment modality that has been ignored in the headlong rush to embrace a model of psycho pharmacology with dubious scientific validity. Yes we all know this to be true but its good to see this in the popular press. It's good to see that may favorite bete noir, the DSM is thoroughly trashed. FYI

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/23/epidemic-mental-illness-why/

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jul/14/illusions-of-psychiatry/

Thanks for the articles. I hope this type of information will spur some change, but i doubt it has yet. I would have liked to see articles like these splashed all over the front pages of major newspapers. i don't know how many people read the NY review of books??

Right now the MOST emailed article in the NY Times is written by a Brown U. psychiatrist in defense of antidepressants. He doesn't really consider that psychotherapy can be just as effective. I would like to see more prominent psychologists at universities writing about the benefits of psychotherapy and assessment. Check it out and comment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/opinion/sunday/10antidepressants.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

 

[SingingCow]

Thanks for the articles. I hope this type of information will spur some change, but i doubt it has yet. I would have liked to see articles like these splashed all over the front pages of major newspapers. i don't know how many people read the NY review of books??

Right now the MOST emailed article in the NY Times is written by a Brown U. psychiatrist in defense of antidepressants. He doesn't really consider that psychotherapy can be just as effective. I would like to see more prominent psychologists at universities writing about the benefits of psychotherapy and assessment. Check it out and comment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/opinion/sunday/10antidepressants.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

The effectiveness of psychotherapy is not the focus of Peter Kramer's critique. The point of his critique is that public attitude towards antidepressants may have been swayed by several recently published research articles. His writing encourages us to be good consumers of scientific research. Even though the title makes it sound like he's pushing nothing but psychopharmacological interventions, there is much more to this piece, as well as his books on similar matters.

Check out his blog: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-practice

 

[PsychPhDone]

The effectiveness of psychotherapy is not the focus of Peter Kramer's critique. The point of his critique is that public attitude towards antidepressants may have been swayed by several recently published research articles. His writing encourages us to be good consumers of scientific research. Even though the title makes it sound like he's pushing nothing but psychopharmacological interventions, there is much more to this piece, as well as his books on similar matters.

Check out his blog: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-practice

I would have preferred that he make it more explicit that the media frequently misreports the results of studies rather than him railing on a few PIs. Even better if he accurately stated what conclusions *can* be drawn from those studies. We need more accurate media reporting of science.

Also, interesting anecdote he had in there but...the irony of a "case study" in there prompted a 🙄

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Carlat has written some great stuff on his blog about various pharma topics, I'd encourage interested people to check him out. For something with a bit more color and edge, "The Last Psychiatrist" blog is also worth reading. He was a member on here for a number of years, though I'm not sure if he still posts. Pharmalot was also a good blog, though I'm not sure if it is still around.

 

[loveoforganic]

Carlat has also posted here on the iatry forum, in a thread with his name in it, if I remember right.

 

[Wilhem]

This is the man ! 🙂

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kirsch

 

[Zigman]

So, I've been keeping up with the reviews which demonstrate questionable efficacy and selective publication of antidepressant trials. In the course of that, I've noticed the extreme controversy some of these studies have engendered. I'm wondering if some of you have read these "responses" and, if so, what is your assessment of them?

There are several responses to this one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20051569

And there are these which respond to the Kirsch 2008 paper:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20800012
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571143

In my mind, papers such as Kirsch et al 2008 and Fournier et al 2010 must be extremely threatening to the establishment. Thus, these responses are expected. However, the question for me is...are they at all valid???

 

[stigmata]

One problem here is that "patients with less severe depression" may mean patients with normal mood sxs relative to living life and therefor not patients with a disorder at all.

 

[futureapppsy2]

One problem here is that "patients with less severe depression" may mean patients with normal mood sxs relative to living life and therefor not patients with a disorder at all.

But don't almost of these studies require either a score above a certain cut-off and/or a clinical dx of depression?