Twitch psychiatrist's license is reprimanded

[haRtwin]

I posted about Dr K and HealthyGamerGG a few years ago. This psychiatrist engaged in "not therapy" that was live streamed and then the streamer eventually died by suicide. The state of Massachusetts has now officially reprimanded the psychiatrist's license.

Prolific Twitch psychiatrist Dr. K has medical license reprimanded over Reckful interactions - Dexerto

Prolific Twitch psychiatrist Dr. K has had his medical license reprimanded due to interactions with Reckful before his death.

www.dexerto.com

https://www.mass.gov/doc/consent-order-for-dr-kanojia-6-10-24-pdf/download

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cara susanna]

OH SNAP. Guess we were right!

 

[EnPsychlopedia]

He also has a history of pushing non-evidence based ideas about addiction and advocating for “natural” medicine like Ayurveda. All around strange dude and I’m glad his hair is getting trimmed—I’ve seen way too many folks on social media convinced they had some devastating “behavioral addiction” (when they probably did not).

 

[Shiori]

I took a peek at his subreddit. There are some intense perspectives that allow a lot of space for abuses by behavioral health professionals. I hope they're okay over there.

 

[psych.meout]

I took a peek at his subreddit. There are some intense perspectives that allow a lot of space for abuses by behavioral health professionals. I hope they're okay over there.

Like what?

 

[Shiori]

Like what?

I saw several comments state that the reprimand is meaningless since there are no penalties. They feel like it's basically a witch-hunt because he's just being innovative and the field just hasn't caught up. They dinged the character of the person who filed the compliant. Some feel like the missteps he made are justified because he's helped a lot of other people in the process. Some felt that the document was vague (because they don't seem to understand it) and therefore it's irrelevant. Ex: one thought the issue was purely the poor outcome experienced by someone Dr. K would claim wasn't a client. Lots of strange takes. We don't want therapists/psychiatrists/coaches to be heroes, and I think they're turning him into a hero.

 

[psych.meout]

I saw several comments state that the reprimand is meaningless since there are no penalties. They feel like it's basically a witch-hunt because he's just being innovative and the field just hasn't caught up. They dinged the character of the person who filed the compliant. Some feel like the missteps he made are justified because he's helped a lot of other people in the process. Some felt that the document was vague (because they don't seem to understand it) and therefore it's irrelevant. Ex: one thought the issue was purely the poor outcome experienced by someone Dr. K would claim wasn't a client. Lots of strange takes. We don't want therapists/psychiatrists/coaches to be heroes, and I think they're turning him into a hero.

Ah, so a combination of not knowing how the practice of medicine/psychiatry works and a cult of personality?

 

[psych.meout]

I checked the subreddit post about this, which then linked me to other related subreddits and honestly those other ones are far worse than what is posted in this guy's own subreddit. E.g., blaming the person who committed suicide for damaging this guy's reputation and calling him a "basket case."

 

[Shiori]

I checked the subreddit post about this, which then linked me to other related subreddits and honestly those other ones are far worse than what is posted in this guy's own subreddit. E.g., blaming the person who committed suicide for damaging this guy's reputation and calling him a "basket case."

Yeah, it's all pretty gross. It's fine to miss the ethical nuances of the field, but it's weird to be loudly wrong about it.

 

[R. Matey]

I checked the subreddit post about this, which then linked me to other related subreddits and honestly those other ones are far worse than what is posted in this guy's own subreddit. E.g., blaming the person who committed suicide for damaging this guy's reputation and calling him a "basket case."

Just goes to show that a reprimand may not be far enough

 

[EnPsychlopedia]

Ah, so a combination of not knowing how the practice of medicine/psychiatry works and a cult of personality?

It’s absolutely a cult of personality. The people who “follow” him really follow him unquestionably and without tolerance for any criticism of his work. (Speaking generally, of course.)

 

[Shiori]

I wonder if it'll slow anyone else down. I see a lot less of Kati Morten being involved in internet drama and doing much more traditional psychotherapy discussions. Dr. Grande seems right on the edge of the line sometimes with the click-baity titles, but he is pretty heavy on the disclaimers.

 

[cara susanna]

What does the reprimand entail? I know it doesn't mean a suspension or anything, but does it mean "stop doing this"?

 

[BuckeyeLove]

This dude is a total charlatan. He specializes in incel red pill bro treatment. But not really treatment. At what point are these people just going to go full doctor phil and not worry about the license and just say they're "coaches" while raking in the youtube money? Because honestly that's probably what i would do.

 

[Sanman]

This dude is a total charlatan. He specializes in incel red pill bro treatment. But not really treatment. At what point are these people just going to go full doctor phil and not worry about the license and just say their "coaches" while raking in the youtube money? Because honestly that's probably what i would do.

I'm pretty sure that is his plan. However, you first need to make enough money for the license not to matter. Not sure he pulled that off. Dr. Phil signed the TV deal and forfeited his license because TV money.

 

[R. Matey]

What does the reprimand entail? I know it doesn't mean a suspension or anything, but does it mean "stop doing this"?

Basically. The MA board calls it a 'severe' censure. I think the idea is that if he persists in his actions, there could be further consequences.

 

[cara susanna]

I hope that YouTuber who made that video criticizing him (the one that cites our previous thread, lol) posts about this too!

 

[cara susanna]

Finally had some time to read more of the reactions to this.

Fwiw, there are some medical and psychiatry subs talking about it now and they seem to be on the same page as us

 

[Shiori]

Finally had some time to read more of the reactions to this.

Fwiw, there are some medical and psychiatry subs talking about it now and they seem to be on the same page as us

I'll have to check those out! This thought is bleeding over from my supervision competence thread, but it highlights how important it is to hold each other to high standards because our clients sometimes won't know the difference between productive and harmful experiences. My clients would love if I acted as a professional friend for a decade, but it's definitely unethical. Dr. K might give solid feedback and support, but that doesn't change that his current framework is an ethical nightmare.

 

[cara susanna]

I found the actual board action https://www.mass.gov/doc/consent-order-for-dr-kanojia-6-10-24-pdf/download and the reprimand was for undermining public confidence in the field.

 

[psych.meout]

This dude is a total charlatan. He specializes in incel red pill bro treatment. But not really treatment. At what point are these people just going to go full doctor phil and not worry about the license and just say they're "coaches" while raking in the youtube money? Because honestly that's probably what i would do.

Well, if you check his website, that's exactly what he's trying to do. His YouTube and other social media stuff is meant as advertising and clout sharking for his "coaching" business. He doesn't make it clear who the coaches are unless you dig further and see that they're "peer support."

I'm also bothered by all the mods and actual employees of his company on his subreddit.

I hope that YouTuber who made that video criticizing him (the one that cites our previous thread, lol) posts about this too!

Lol, really? What video?

 

[cara susanna]

Apparently there's another video criticizing him, and this person who made it also was the one to report him to the board

 

[cara susanna]

Well, if you check his website, that's exactly what he's trying to do. His YouTube and other social media stuff is meant as advertising and clout sharking for his "coaching" business. He doesn't make it clear who the coaches are unless you dig further and see that they're "peer support."

I'm also bothered by all the mods and actual employees of his company on his subreddit.


Lol, really? What video?

 

[Dazen]

He also has a history of pushing non-evidence based ideas about addiction and advocating for “natural” medicine like Ayurveda. All around strange dude and I’m glad his hair is getting trimmed—I’ve seen way too many folks on social media convinced they had some devastating “behavioral addiction” (when they probably did not).

The “dopamine addition” rhetoric has really gotten out of control on Instagram lately (maybe TikTok too but I refuse to download it haha)

 

[ThatPsyGuy]

Just bookmarking this to remind myself of this clusterf**k if I ever get internetfamous.

 

[futureapppsy2]

OH SNAP. Guess we were right!

MTE! All those Reddit downvotes were wrong!

 

[The Cinnabon]

Just bookmarking this to remind myself of this clusterf**k if I ever get internetfamous.

If you get to this point a far safer bet would be to forgo licensure and begin to appear on right-leaning podcasts, talking about the masculinity crisis, while shilling various supplements.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Basically. The MA board calls it a 'severe' censure. I think the idea is that if he persists in his actions, there could be further consequences.

It can also make it very hard, but not impossible, to get credentialed/get privileges at a new facility. Idk if you could potentially lose privileges you already have due to a reprimand, though.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I just don’t get the defenses of him, tbh—you can’t do psychotherapy (complete with scheduling multiple follow-up appointments!), create clinical relationships with vulnerable and high-risk individuals, nurture those relationships, and then just absolve yourself by saying that you, presenting yourself as a licensed psychiatrist, weren’t providing therapy.

 

[Shiori]

I just don’t get the defenses of him, tbh—you can’t do psychotherapy (complete with scheduling multiple follow-up appointments!), create clinical relationships with vulnerable and high-risk individuals, nurture those relationships, and then just absolve yourself by saying that you, presenting yourself as a licensed psychiatrist, weren’t providing therapy.

There is a worrying amount of "net good" discussion.

 

[psych.meout]

There is a worrying amount of "net good" discussion.

Yeah, when I skimmed it, there was so much hand wringing about being innovative, treating a population that is underserved and/or eschews treatment, etc.

I remember one being like, "You can do a million things right and make a few mistakes and everyone forgets about all the good things."

1. I disagree about those being good things.
2. The "mistakes" included a man killing himself.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I was rewatching some of the videos around this.... and Dr. K was very clearly engaging in clinical work with Reckful--giving diagnoses, giving therapeutic advice/performing therapeutic techniques, taking and exploring an extensive mental health history, and encouraging Reckful to treat and view him as a therapist/health care provider.

 

[cara susanna]

I was rewatching some of the videos around this.... and Dr. K was very clearly engaging in clinical work with Reckful--giving diagnoses, giving therapeutic advice/performing therapeutic techniques, taking and exploring an extensive mental health history, and encouraging Reckful to treat and view him as a therapist/health care provider.

Yup, it's been a while since I did a deep dive on this, but I remember reaching the same conclusion.

 

[psych.meout]

Yup, it's been a while since I did a deep dive on this, but I remember reaching the same conclusion.

I don't know that anyone who is actually in the field who has come to a different conclusion. All the people I've seen defending him are all laypeople, either people who are into streaming in general or those who are specifically in his community. I remember seeing some clips of him with other "interviewees" in one of the videos talking about this specific situation and all of them seem like clinical work and that he's eschewing his professional responsibility and ethics.

 

[R. Matey]

I was rewatching some of the videos around this.... and Dr. K was very clearly engaging in clinical work with Reckful--giving diagnoses, giving therapeutic advice/performing therapeutic techniques, taking and exploring an extensive mental health history, and encouraging Reckful to treat and view him as a therapist/health care provider.

From what I remember, upping care when Reckful's depression was clearly starting to worsen was a one real obvious sign that he was approaching the case as a clinician. To be fair, it's a good clinical instinct but that itself is telling.

 

[cara susanna]

A lot of the arguments I'm seeing are basically along the lines of "this guy was clearly going to die by suicide someday, we shouldn't blame Dr. K." Which, I am sympathetic to the concept of patient agency, I think is a separate point. Even if Reckful hadn't died by suicide, this would have been a sketchy and risky setup.

 

[futureapppsy2]

A lot of the arguments I'm seeing are basically along the lines of "this guy was clearly going to die by suicide someday, we shouldn't blame Dr. K." Which, I am sympathetic to the concept of patient agency, I think is a separate point. Even if Reckful hadn't died by suicide, this would have been a sketchy and risky setup.

Yeah, he could have well gotten good, ethical treatment and died by suicide anyway, because that does happen, but this model of providing therapy and then saying “no I’m not” is dangerous and sketchy regardless.

 

[psych.meout]

A lot of the arguments I'm seeing are basically along the lines of "this guy was clearly going to die by suicide someday, we shouldn't blame Dr. K." Which, I am sympathetic to the concept of patient agency, I think is a separate point. Even if Reckful hadn't died by suicide, this would have been a sketchy and risky setup.

I've seen some of those and I agree it is a separate point, but I don't think these laypeople understand that it's separate. They think that agency is the same as arguing that this guy was basically fated to kill himself, so it doesn't really matter what Dr. K does. They act like it's a nuanced argument, like those allowing for experimental treatments for terminally ill cancer patients, instead of the reality of devaluing this patient's existence because his death is inconvenient for the guy they like.

And it's hypocritical. These people would also be giving Dr. K credit for helping this patient if he didn't commit suicide even if it was just a spurious correlation. I.e., Dr. K gets credit for the successes and none of the responsibilities or accountability for failures.

 

[R. Matey]

And it's hypocritical. These people would also be giving Dr. K credit for helping this patient if he didn't commit suicide even if it was just a spurious correlation. I.e., Dr. K gets credit for the successes and none of the responsibilities or accountability for failures.

That's hero-worship for you. If your guy ends up slapped for unethical behavior, what does that say about your prior approval of said behavior?

 

[Sanman]

I've seen some of those and I agree it is a separate point, but I don't think these laypeople understand that it's separate. They think that agency is the same as arguing that this guy was basically fated to kill himself, so it doesn't really matter what Dr. K does. They act like it's a nuanced argument, like those allowing for experimental treatments for terminally ill cancer patients, instead of the reality of devaluing this patient's existence because his death is inconvenient for the guy they like.

And it's hypocritical. These people would also be giving Dr. K credit for helping this patient if he didn't commit suicide even if it was just a spurious correlation. I.e., Dr. K gets credit for the successes and none of the responsibilities or accountability for failures.

That's hero-worship for you. If your guy ends up slapped for unethical behavior, what does that say about your prior approval of said behavior?

The issue is not whether he died by suicide. This guy is profiting off of mentally ill people's pain by providing (not so great) therapy for viewers entertainment and then leaving "the client" out to dry because it is "not therapy". How many streams do you think have happened because of this ethics controversy? How much money has Dr. K made off this poorly managed case? Did this guy even mention 988 to a guy that discussed suicidal ideation? Safety planning? Nah, cause that is confidential and doesn't bring the views. Not that I am a Dr. Phil fan, but at least they arrange for actual treatment after the show.

 

[R. Matey]

A very sympathetic article from NYT this morning. I guess if you get invited the White House and have the Surgeon General on your Twitch stream, you get a pass for flouting ethical guidelines:

The Gamer and the Psychiatrist

Did Dr. Alok Kanojia's livestreamed conversations with a troubled video game champion cross an ethical line?

www.nytimes.com

 

[WisNeuro]

A very sympathetic article from NYT this morning. I guess if you get invited the White House and have the Surgeon General on your Twitch stream, you get a pass for flouting ethical guidelines:

The Gamer and the Psychiatrist

Did Dr. Alok Kanojia's livestreamed conversations with a troubled video game champion cross an ethical line?

www.nytimes.com

Especially lately, I've not been a huge fan of the NYT's science/health coverage, particularly when it comes to mental health. They're usually coming at it from a certain agenda and don't seem to consult any real experts in the area that they're covering, likely willfully.

 

[R. Matey]

Especially lately, I've not been a huge fan of the NYT's science/health coverage, particularly when it comes to mental health. They're usually coming at it from a certain agenda and don't seem to consult any real experts in the area that they're covering, likely willfully.

Agree. I'm no conservative, but WSJ actually does a better job in their mental health reporting as of late.

 

[cara susanna]

Can anyone gift the article? I'm getting a paywall.

 

[R. Matey]

Can anyone gift the article? I'm getting a paywall.

I'll PM it to you.

 

[cara susanna]

I'll PM it to you.

Thank you so much! I'm already in a pissed off mood, so buckle up folks

 

[R. Matey]

Thank you so much! I'm already in a pissed off mood, so buckle up folks

Lol, I'm excited.

 

[cara susanna]

"Upon his return, envisioning himself as “the next Deepak Chopra,” he went to medical school, completing his residency at Harvard’s prestigious teaching hospitals. "

GREAT, seeing oneself as a guru is just the best motivation to enter mental health. Honestly, that explains SO much about what I observed of his "therapy" style (oh, but it's not therapy then, is it?)

At least for each comment that's saying his work is doing a net good or helped them personally, there is another comment agreeing that 1) he was doing therapy and 2) what he was doing was, at the very least, ethically sketchy. Even from people outside of the mental health field, like a CPA saying that they don't give tax advice outside of their job.

 

[R. Matey]

At least for each comment that's saying his work is doing a net good or helped them personally, there is another comment agreeing that 1) he was doing therapy and 2) what he was doing was, at the very least, ethically sketchy. Even from people outside of the mental health field, like a CPA saying that they don't give tax advice outside of their job.

I appreciated the other Harvard-trained psychiatrists calling him out also. It's sad, but that may very well be what it takes for the public to be convinced that his behavior was reckless.