Psychiatric science

Some things are quite hilarious. Like the election of a psychiatrist as a fellow of the Australian Academy of science. You could just as well elect Santa Claus or one of his rendeer for this position. They have about the same scientific level as psychiatrists.

Psychiatry has a very unscientific history. It started out as not much more than talk therapy and now and then the doctors came with some surgical treatments, like the lobotomy. That’s why the medical profession never saw psychiatrists as real doctors. They couldn’t prescribe drugs and you can’t be a doctor if you don’t have a truckload of drugs that you can prescribe. But that has changed with the introduction of psychiatric drugs. At once the psychiatrists could also use prescription pads and that gave a huge boost to their reputation. But they don’t have any proof whatsoever for any of their diagnoses.psychiatry-cloud

“strives to support and promote science.” The academy is about science, so how on earth can they elect someone whose whole profession is based on opinions? “his work creating new concepts for psychotic disorders and a new clinical and research focus on youth mental health.” New concepts: that’s how psychiatry works. No tests, no lab work, no scientific theories, but just ideas that make it into concepts. That happens through voting. If enough psychiatrists think that something is an interesting idea it will be voted in as a new diagnosis. Add to that a focus on the mental health of young people and you have a really nice socio-political mix, but I still don’t see a shred of science there. “his election was an important validation of mental health research.” I’m sure it is. But that doesn’t mean it’s science. You can give an elephant an Olympic medal, but that doesn’t make it fast at the marathon.

“I think it gives a real shot in the arm to all the researchers that are trying to develop a scientific basis for treatment” Professor, do you realise that here you state openly that no psychiatric treatment is based on science? You call yourself a quack and I don’t think you even realise it. It says a lot about the Academy that they elect a self-admitted quack.

“his work had led to earlier diagnosis, better treatment and outcomes for young people with mental illness.” I would like see this explained. Psychiatric disorders are very hard to diagnose, as there are not tests available. Diagnosis is based on description of symptoms and the opinion of the psychiatrist. So what does earlier diagnosis mean? Could that mean that many young people get a psychiatric diagnosis when they just suffer from puberty? Everyone who has dug into the subject a little bit knows that this is exactly what’s happening. Psychiatrists have also become very eager prescribers, just like all other doctors. That’s the “better treatment”. What better outcomes are is everyone’s guess. If you cannot objectively diagnose the disorder, then how do you know what the outcome would be without any treatment? There’s a LOT of wishful thinking involved here.7436020-3x2-940x627

“That will represent a maturation of our field,” So you are saying that you actually don’t know much compared to medical doctors? That’s correct. You have an awful lot of guesses, but very little knowledge. You will have to do an awful lot of work to ever know a lot. But you can memorise the DSM and throw around all those bogus diagnoses that are in that book. I’m sure that will help your career. “desperately need more progress in this field,” Do I need to say more? He doesn’t know anything, admits that he practices medicine without proper qualification, he has no basis for his work and states that hardly any research has been done. I suggest that this kind of research is abandoned instead of increased, for it will only lead to more quackery.

Professor McGorry, I diagnose you with MQD-NOS: Medical Quackery Disorder – Not Otherwise Specified. And I have a lot more proof for that diagnosis that you will ever have for your whole bogus Bible of Psychiatry. And the Academy deserves an award: the award for the most impressive scientific fiction of the year. Congratulations!

Advertisements

One thought on “Psychiatric science

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s