Chapter 1 ends questioning the validity of psychiatric diagnoses even if we fix the reliability problem. Even if we could get every psychiatrist to agree on the diagnoses, does that mean it’s a real disease entity, or that we’ve just made a reliable but arbitrary construct? He argues that we need biomarkers to prove it’s a “discrete, identifiable biological disease.” While I agree, I think that psychiatric definitions do a good job of separating normal but different from disease, by often requiring that the disease is disruptive to the patients social relationships or occupational function. What makes psychiatric illnesses, diseases is that they are problematic for people’s lives, and people, whether the patient themselves or their friends and family, want something done about it. I’m unsure if we will be able to find or need to find biomarkers for every disease. While some diagnoses may ultimately be arbitrary, if they are clinically helpful and can show statistical and long-term improvements in patients quality of life, then they are valuable. There has been a change in thinking from the 60s and 70s, where psychiatric drugs were seen as altering mood (in the same way as any mind altering drug, including alcohol and street drugs alter moods) A shift occurred to thinking of psychiatric drugs as ‘curative’. This might not seem an important shift – however it goes along with the idea that much uncomfortable, difficult human emotion is now being seen as potentially aberrant and classifiable as a ‘disease’ - as in the DSM – shyness becomes ‘social phobia’. I can't believe that drug companies can have this type of relationship with health professionals--effectively paying them to use and aggressively promote their products to patients. Of course, the professionals are then going to prescribe these drugs, no one is immune to this kind of monetary temptation.

Cracked: The Unhappy Truth about Psychiatry by James Davies Cracked: The Unhappy Truth about Psychiatry by James Davies

Exposé of the practices of contemporary psychiatry and its uncomfortable, perhaps even dangerous, relationship with pharmaceutical companies who profit from an increasingly medicated public. Kandel’s book is a nobel prize winner's memoir that spans from his Jewish childhood in Nazi-occupied Vienna to his work on sea slugs that uncovered synaptic plasticity, the molecular foundation of learning and memory. When I graduated college, every neuroscience major was given a copy of this book. The authors have created a sort of anti-Book of Virtues in this encyclopedic compendium of the ways and means of power.I wonder how extensive Mr. Davies' literature search was; if he needs evidence of the biological root of schizophrenia look at the life work of Professor Eve Johnstone. I will say.. One concept that stood out to me was the difference between the disease-centered model and the drug-centered model. James Davies quotes Dr. Joanna Moncrieff as she explains the difference, “In the disease-centred model, people are assumed to have a mental disease, a problem in their brain. And drugs are thought to be effective because they rectify or reverse that underlying brain problem in some way… But the drug-centred model… rather emphasises that drugs are drugs; they are chemical substances that are foreign to the human body but which affect the way people think and feel. They have psychoactive properties, just like recreational drugs do, which alter the way the body functions at a physiological level.” (103) Who bites the hand that feeds? There is a huge cover-up, smoke and mirrors going on in the world of funding ‘research’ into psychiatric medicine whether in academic institutions, or with clinicians. And, gentle reader, there is even less transparency over this in the UK than there is in the States, where under the Obama administration, spearheaded by a particularly truth-and-justice campaigning Senator, Senator Grassley, some efforts to bring the Pharma hyena under the spotlight are beginning to bear fruit. But not here, where there is murk a plenty. Perhaps though, the fact that fully 56% of the panel member luminaries involved in writing the DSM-IV bible had 1 or more financial associations with the pharmaceutical industry, should begin to rip the wool from over our eyes. And, for those writing/creating the diagnostic categories, which would or course be primarily treated by pharmaceuticals, - 88% of DSM-IV panel members had drug company financial ties.from Big Pharma. And things don’t have appeared to have changed for the better in terms of ‘arms length’ involvement with the writing of the now current DSM-V.

Cracked: Why Psychiatry is Doing More Harm Than Good

Sybil Exposed by Debbie Nathan (excellent takedown of fads in psychiatry/ how therapy can make things worse) A psychologist and Nobel Prize winner summarizes and synthesizes the recent decades of research on intuition and systematic thinking.It has taken me a while to get around to writing this review because I felt that I needed time to do it justice. In many ways this is a scary book and I feel that I might need to read something that puts the other side of the story to really feel that I have a reasonable grasp of the issues. The book begins with a discussion of the DSM and its plausibility. Davies speaks with Robert Spitzer (a key figure in earlier versions) and others about the meaning and purpose of this diagnostic text and establishes that the categories within were not arrived at by research, but what seems to be a consensus of practitioners. Later he talks with a prominent critic of the current DSM (5) with Allen Frances, who expresses his view that many normal behaviours are now being pathologised. I've read Frances' book Saving Normal, on this topic, and it appears in both instances that, for all the valid points he makes, Frances is unable to put himself outside the thought of his profession. I also didn't really find any plausible evidence for the author's statement that drugs have horrible side effects - his examples were all symptoms of the diseases the drugs are meant to treat, so how does he know they're caused by the drugs, but not by the illness that is basically left untreated if, as he suggests, the drugs aren't actually effective in curing the person?