|
Post by Admin on Jul 10, 2021 14:30:51 GMT
A recent article published in Psychological Medicine explores the controversy around what constitutes a “mental disorder.” Based on empirical examples or “test-cases” that emerged during the writing of the DSM-5, psychiatrists Dan Stein and Kenneth Kendler and philosopher Andrea Palk discuss the “fuzzy” borders around mental disorders. In particular, they talk about clinical cases where there is “harm” but not “psychobiological dysfunction,” “psychobiological dysfunction” but not “harm,” and where both may potentially be present, but not without controversy. “The question of ‘what is a mental disorder,’ is crucial, in part, because the real possibility exists of erroneously classifying various kinds of social deviance or behavioral variation as ‘disorder,’ when they are better conceptualized using other categories, such as ‘non-pathological individual differences,’ ‘lifestyle choice,’ or ‘crime,’ the authors write. “A paradigmatic example from DSM is that of homosexuality, which was conceptualized in DSM-I as a disorder, but by DSM-5 was no longer mentioned.” www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/defining-mental-disorders-can-be-a-fuzzy-affair/What is a mental disorder? An exemplar-focused approach pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33843505/Dan J Stein 1, Andrea C Palk 2, Kenneth S Kendler 3 Affiliations expand PMID: 33843505 PMCID: PMC8161428 DOI: 10.1017/S0033291721001185 Free PMC article Abstract The question of 'what is a mental disorder?' is central to the philosophy of psychiatry, and has crucial practical implications for psychiatric nosology. Rather than approaching the problem in terms of abstractions, we review a series of exemplars - real-world examples of problematic cases that emerged during work on and immediately after DSM-5, with the aim of developing practical guidelines for addressing future proposals. We consider cases where (1) there is harm but no clear dysfunction, (2) there is dysfunction but no clear harm, and (3) there is possible dysfunction and/or harm, but this is controversial for various reasons. We found no specific criteria to determine whether future proposals for new entities should be accepted or rejected; any such proposal will need to be assessed on its particular merits, using practical judgment. Nevertheless, several suggestions for the field emerged. First, while harm is useful for defining mental disorder, some proposed entities may require careful consideration of individual v. societal harm, as well as of societal accommodation. Second, while dysfunction is useful for defining mental disorder, the field would benefit from more sharply defined indicators of dysfunction. Third, it would be useful to incorporate evidence of diagnostic validity and clinical utility into the definition of mental disorder, and to further clarify the type and extent of data needed to support such judgments. Keywords: DSM; categorization; nosology.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 10, 2021 16:54:05 GMT
“Getting to the Root Causes of Suffering”: Miranda Spencer interviews Patricia Rush, M.D. Rush was a co-founder and serves as a co-director of the Center for the Collaborative Study of Trauma, Health Equity, and Neurobiology, or THEN, in Chicago. The nonprofit works at the intersection of science education and social justice, exploring and communicating the links between early emotional trauma, inequality, human development, and chronic illness to a network of professionals and the public. In this interview, she discusses a new and more integrated way to understand and treat physical and mental ailments in people of all ages that has important implications for how we raise our children. “Getting to the Root Causes of Suffering”: An Interview with Patricia Rush, M.D. By Miranda Spencer -July 10, 2021 www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/getting-root-causes-suffering-interview-patricia-rush-md/
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 11, 2021 16:21:10 GMT
Les Ruthven: How Do We Know When a Treatment Works? A Primer on the Scientific Method The layperson often has some difficulty understanding the nuance of what “science” is. Science, in its broadest sense, is not the objective truth—rather, it is a method for determining the truth. There are many ways of finding truth, including personal experience and anecdotal reports, but the scientific method is, at its best, the most rigorous method, one which others can replicate in order to confirm the legitimacy of findings. If a doctor gives a drug and then notices that the patient has improved, the doctor’s clinical opinion is likely to be that the drug works. However, the patient might also have improved if he did not take the drug, or if he simply believed he was taking an effective drug (the placebo effect). Clinical opinion has no way to “control” for this potential factor—but the scientific method does. It’s called the “randomized, placebo-controlled trial,” or RCT. How Do We Know When a Treatment Works? A Primer on the Scientific Method By Les Ruthven -July 11, 2021 www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/know-treatment-works/
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 12, 2021 19:03:31 GMT
In a new article, researchers lay out a cogent critique of current practices in mental health care and propose a paradigm shift based on existing, successful alternatives. The authors were Radosław Stupak, and Bartłomiej Dobroczyński at Jagiellonian University, Poland, and the article was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Despite the overwhelming increase in psychiatric services, there has been no improvement in outcomes for people diagnosed with mental illness, according to Stupak and Dobroczyński. Rather, outcomes have only worsened since the dawn of the medication era. For instance, the number of people taking long-term prescriptions continues to rise, as do the suicide rate and the rate of disability due to “mental illness.” The overwhelming focus on biology in mental health research, the authors write, “has failed to address the primary goal psychiatric research should serve—helping patients. The progress in neuroscience does not seem to translate into better treatments, and new drugs are no better than those discovered by accident in the middle of the 20th century and work on the same underlying principles.” Researchers Critique the Medical Model, Propose an Alternative Researchers from Poland detail a thorough critique of current medical model approaches to mental health and propose a shift to humane care. By Peter Simons -July 12, 2021 www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/researchers-critique-medical-model-propose-alternative/
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 12, 2021 20:19:05 GMT
Around the Web, from NBC News: “A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., overturned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s ban on the use of electric shock devices on people with mental disabilities by a Massachusetts residential school. The judges’ 2-1 decision this week will allow the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center in Canton, Mass., to continue using shock devices on its residents. The center, which serves a mix of children and adults with severe developmental and emotional disabilities, has been one of the most controversial institutions for people with disabilities in the country for half a century. NBC News covered the FDA’s years-long effort to stop the school’s use of the devices. In early March last year, the FDA took the rare step of banning the device, finding that the significant risk of harm outweighed any medical benefit it could bring. It is only the third such ban in the agency’s history. . . . The center decried the ban and petitioned a federal court to review it. The judges’ majority opinion in the case Tuesday overturned that ban, stating that the FDA cannot ban the use of electric shock on intellectually disabled people because federal law restricts the agency from interfering with the practice of medicine, which is regulated by states.” JRC Wins Court Battle to Use Electric Shock on Disabled Students www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/jrc-wins-court-battle-use-electric-shock-disabled-students/Appeals court axes FDA ban of electric shock on the disabled The judges’ 2-1 decision this week will allow the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center in Canton, Mass., to continue using shock devices on its residents. www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/appeals-court-axes-fda-ban-electric-shock-disabled-n1273572
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 13, 2021 14:50:08 GMT
An article published in Child and Adolescent Mental Health attempts to fill a gap in research focusing on the experience of voice hearing for adolescents under sixteen. Led by Sarah Parry of Manchester Metropolitan University, the researchers utilized qualitative survey responses to understand the form and function of both positive experiences with voice-hearing, as well as negative or distressing experiences. Based on their findings, the authors provide suggestions for improving psychoeducation in public formats about the useful functions of voices. “The unique narratives within this study offer insight into the diversity of experience of voice-hearing and other multisensory experiences for young people,” the authors write. “Young people do not necessarily consider voice-hearing as problematic or unwanted, with most participants reporting mixed experiences of nurturing and distressing voices, with some potentially distressing voices recognized as valuable in certain domains, such as creativity.” Voice Hearing Adolescents Report Diverse Experiences Qualitative accounts of voice hearing adolescents reveal a wide range of experiences with both comforting and distressing voices. By Madison Natarajan, MS -July 13, 2021 www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/voice-hearing-adolescents-report-diverse-experiences/Whispers, echoes, friends and fears: forms and functions of voice-hearing in adolescence Sarah Parry, Filippo Varese First published: 11 July 2020 doi.org/10.1111/camh.12403Citations: 1 The copyright line for this article was changed on 11 July 2020 after original online publication. acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/camh.12403Abstract Background Despite the high prevalence of voice-hearing in childhood, research with adolescents aged under 16 years is scarce. Theoretical connections between clinical and developmental conceptualizations of voice-hearing are limited, resulting in missed opportunities to explore unusual sensory experiences with young people. Methods Demographic, contextual and qualitative data were collected through a web-based survey with 68 adolescents (M = 14.91; SD = 2.77) from Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom and United States of America. A Foucauldian-informed narrative analysis captured phenomenologically meaningful individual accounts and systemically informed narratives. Analytic layers attended specifically to the form and function of voices, including relational, protective, distressing and nuanced experiences, offering new insights into individual, systemic and cultural interpretative narratives surrounding voice-hearing to inform research, policy and tailored support. Results The average self-reported age of onset of voices was 9 years, 5 months. Reciprocal relationships with pleasant voices were evidenced through the narratives and characterization of voices, while distressing voices were described without reciprocity and the voices held greater power over the young person. Positive aspects of negative voices were discussed and are illustrated with a continuum matrix reflecting interpretation and related affect. Conclusions Voice-hearing is a heterogeneous and often complex relational experience for young people, with structural inequalities, relational traumas and social isolation attributed causes of voice-hearing. Developing personal meaning-making mitigated voice-related distress through contextualizing the origin of the voices in past experiences, without attribution to mental illness. Recommendations are proposed for assessment, formulation and relational interventions that recognize the potential impact of the voice–child–other relationship upon psychosocial functioning and wellbeing.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 15, 2021 13:58:43 GMT
In a new article in Policy and Politics, researcher Sarah White from the University of Bath writes about the pervasive cultural preoccupation with well-being and happiness. She asserts that this preoccupation points to an underlying unease people experience in late capitalism, as their social and relational bonds are eroded. Additionally, the individualist solutions that promise well-being often aggravate the problem. The author bases her assertions on her findings in Zambia and India and instead proposes a relational understanding of well-being. This conceptualization of well-being encourages policy-level changes to include re-building social relations, focusing on societal and political structures, and appreciating local context. How Relational Approaches to Mental Health Implicate our Political SystemsResearch in India and Zambia exposes individualistic approaches to mental health and highlights the power of relational conceptions. www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/relational-approaches-mental-health-implicate-political-systems/Relational wellbeing: re-centring the politics of happiness, policy and the selfAuthor: White, Sarah C Source: Policy & Politics, Volume 45, Number 2, April 2017, pp. 121-136(16) Publisher: Policy Press DOI: doi.org/10.1332/030557317X14866576265970This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tpp/pap/2017/00000045/00000002/art00001
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 16, 2021 18:40:13 GMT
Rebekah Hertzberg: Meds vs. No Meds? My Search for Freedom of Mind I am not necessarily uncomfortable on medication, more like ambivalent. Today, I continue this active contradiction, often professing an anti-medication stance. I harbor anger over the fact that it has never been my choice to take it. I am forever curious about my ability to function without medication. I am curious about my nature and personality, about the doors I imagine would open to endless possibilities and serial productivity, to unrelenting ecstasy, if I were to go off medication and avoid the antagonists and the agony. My experience supports the euphoria theory, and I know that I would be emotionally happy off medication. But the suffering I have endured at the hands of authority (doctors and police officers) has been too traumatic to pretend that I could avoid what has always been inevitable, at least in the past. www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/meds-versus-no-meds-my-search-freedom-mind/
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 17, 2021 19:50:35 GMT
Around the Web, from The National: “Only later when under investigation for war crimes would Dr. John ‘Bruce’ Jessen, one of the two contract psychologists who helped design these CIA ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ at Bagram, tell questioners that ‘the atmosphere was very good … nasty but safe.’ Jessen’s words are haunting, and might have come straight from the lips of a very distinguished yet notorious psychiatrist predecessor, Dr. Ewen Cameron. Which takes us back to the town of Bridge of Allan, for it was there on December 24, 1901, that the man who would become one of the world’s most eminent psychiatrists was born, destined for an ‘illustrious’ career that ultimately fell into disgrace. ‘Patients called him the “eminent monster” and that stuck with me,’ says Stephen Bennett, as we sit in a Glasgow cafe talking over the documentary about Cameron’s life the filmmaker has taken years to shoot, direct and bring to the screen at the Glasgow Film Theatre (GFT) on March 3. Indeed, the film takes its title – Eminent Monsters – from that chilling nickname given to Cameron and those like him. All were psychiatrists and psychologists engaged in experiments on patients that helped devise systems of torture employed by military and security services across the globe, from Northern Ireland and Guantanamo Bay, to the CIA’s dark sites like that at Bagram. In the course of developing his own barbaric practices, Cameron would sometimes destroy the lives of his unsuspecting patients while changing the course of psychological torture forever.” ‘Scotland’s Mengele’: The Truth About Dr. Ewen Cameron www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/scotlands-mengele-truth-dr-ewen-cameron/
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 17, 2021 19:52:12 GMT
Psychiatric Drugs Increase Suicide. CAMPP’s Film “Prescripticide” Exposes the Harms By Chuck Ruby, PhD -July 17, 2021 www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/prescripticide-exposes-harms/Media outlets have reported a multitude of violent acts and suicides over the past few decades, especially those of sensational mass shootings and famous celebrities choosing to end their own lives. But those are just the tip of the iceberg, and far more instances go unreported under the surface. While there are many causal factors that contribute to violence and suicide, one of the most respected texts on forensic psychological evaluations points out that substance use increases the risk of both. Psychiatric drugs are mind-altering substances and are chemically indistinguishable from illicit and recreational drugs such as cocaine, marijuana, LSD, and alcohol. In fact, some of the latter are being widely used (marijuana) or researched (LSD, ketamine, ecstasy) for psychiatric purposes. Even though many report positive results from psychiatric drugs, there is still a sizable number at increased risk of violence and suicide because of them.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 18, 2021 16:09:23 GMT
"This is a hell of a story." Carlton Brown, 66, has spent much of his life without a permanent home, having lived in the streets for long chapters and endured psychiatric hospitalizations in between. He now has his own apartment in a supportive-living residence run by Joseph’s House in Troy, New York. Mad in America asked if he would like to talk about his experiences. He agreed, sitting for two in-depth interviews. The resulting article, published below, was pulled together in his voice, using his words. From our inception, Mad in America has sought to provide a forum for people whose lives have intersected with psychiatry and its treatments to tell their stories. However, we have always known that this didn’t provide a forum for the many, like Carlton, who wouldn’t be prompted to write their stories, or who would even know about Mad in America. With this story, we are launching an effort to provide a forum for those “Unheard Voices” that need to be heard as part of any societal “rethinking” of psychiatry and its treatments. Unheard Voices: Carlton Brown By MIA Editors -July 18, 2021 www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/unheard-voices-carlton-brown/
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 18, 2021 16:11:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 19, 2021 10:16:50 GMT
Mental Health Survival Kit, Chapter 5: Survival Kit for Young Psychiatrists in a Sick System (Part 3) By Peter C. Gøtzsche, MD -July 12, 2021 www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/mental-health-survival-kit-chapter-5-part-3/Editor’s Note: Over the next several months, Mad in America is publishing a serialized version of Peter Gøtzsche’s book, Mental Health Survival Kit and Withdrawal from Psychiatric Drugs. In this blog, he explains how newspapers and film festivals censor the work of journalists and filmmakers in order to appease the drug industry. Each Monday, a new section of the book is published, and all chapters are archived here. Censorship in medical journals and the media It is very difficult to get anything published in a psychiatric journal that the psychiatric guild perceives as threatening to their erroneous ideas. Journal editors are often on drug industry payroll and journal owners often have too close relations to the drug industry, which may threaten to withdraw their support if the journals don’t further their marketing efforts. When the BMJ in 2004 devoted a whole issue to conflicts of interest and had a cover page showing doctors dressed as pigs gorging at a banquet with drug salespeople as lizards, the drug industry threatened to withdraw advertising, and Annals of Internal Medicine lost an estimated US$ 1-1.5 million in advertising revenue after it published a study that was critical of industry advertisements.2 When Robert Whitaker gave a talk at the inaugural symposium for my new Institute for Scientific Freedom in 2019, “Scientific censorship in psychiatry,” he presented two topics of great importance for public health: “Do antidepressants worsen long-term outcomes?” and “What do we know about post-SSRI sexual dysfunction?”22 Whitaker noted that none of 13 and 14 pivotal studies, respectively, about these subjects had been published in the top five psychiatric journals. These five journals did not even appear to have discussed the subjects. Psychiatry professor Giovanni Fava found it so hopeless to publish results his peers didn’t like that he founded his own journal, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. The censorship in mainstream media is huge. When my first psychiatry book came out in Swedish, I was invited to give a lecture in Stockholm and was interviewed by journalists from two major newspapers. They were highly interested, but as nothing was published, I asked why. Inger Atterstam from Svenska Dagbladet didn’t reply to my repeated emails, whereas Amina Manzoor from Dagens Nyheter replied that her editor thought it would be too dangerous to explain to Swedish citizens that depression pills are dangerous, as they can cause suicide! Fortunately, there was a crack in the never-sleeping Swedish censorship, as a third national newspaper, Aftonbladet, allowed me to publish an article that filled the whole back page. When my book about the organised crime industry, which some call the drug industry, although it commits more serious crimes than any other industry,21,23 was published in Spanish in 2014, I was interviewed by a journalist from the number-one newspaper in Barcelona, La Vanguardia. The interview was planned to fill the back page, which readers find more attractive than the front page, but was never published, even though the journalist was very enthusiastic about it. I learned later that unhealthy financial relationships existed between the newspaper and the drug industry. It is also very difficult to get critical documentaries on national TV, and if you succeed, you can be dead sure that the best parts have been removed, “so we don’t upset anyone or get too many complaints from the psychiatrists, the drug industry, or the Minister.” I know that this is the case because I have appeared in many documentaries and have talked with many frustrated filmmakers about this type of censorship. Even after the filmmakers have killed all their darlings so that what is left looks like episode 27 of a harmless British soap opera, there will be a voice-over telling the audience that, “many people are being helped by psychiatric drugs.” Really? It can also be difficult to publish highly relevant books, as the next story illustrates. Silje Marie Strandberg is a Norwegian girl who was bullied at school from age 12 and was admitted to a psychiatric ward aged 16.24 She had no clear idea of herself, but the psychiatrists diagnosed her with moderate depression and gave her Prozac (fluoxetine). They doubled the dose after three weeks. Silje started cutting herself on her stomach and arms. She became aggressive, heard an inner voice, and got suicidal thoughts. She was prescribed Truxal (chlorprothixene), a neuroleptic, and only three days later she saw a man with a black robe and hood who said she was about to die and ordered her to drown herself in a river. She fought and cried when he spoke to her; she said she didn’t want to die, but he was there all the time, telling her she didn’t deserve to live. She went into the river while crying that she wouldn’t do it. She came up again. She had never had such symptoms until she went on drugs, nor after she stopped taking them. Psychiatry stole 10 years of Silje’s life where it just got worse and worse, with serious self-harm and many suicide attempts. She was put in belts 195 times, was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, was secluded, and got electroshocks. After seven years in psychiatry, she met a caregiver who saw the girl behind the diagnosis and took care of her. This human effort is why Silje is healthy today. In 2016, Silje and a filmmaker came to Copenhagen to film me for a documentary about her life. Silje had an agreement with a book publisher about what she perceived was one of psychiatry’s success stories. She wanted to ask me some questions, including whether depression is due to a chemical imbalance and what the theory of serotonin was about. I told Silje that her course was anything but a success story and that she had been seriously harmed by psychiatry. She accepted my explanations, but when her psychiatric “career” was no longer a success story but a scandal, the publisher didn’t want to publish her book! The publisher didn’t want her to tell that the drugs she was prescribed was the reason she became so ill during her stay at the psychiatric hospital. Silje was medicated by 95 different doctors. She received 21 different psychiatric drugs: five depression pills, nine neuroleptics, lithium, two antiepileptics, and four sedatives/ hypnotics. This is not evidence-based medicine:
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 19, 2021 10:18:42 GMT
New Study: The Clinical High Risk for Psychosis (CHR-P) Model Is Flawed The CHR-P model focuses on “attenuated psychosis” to predict “transition” to schizophrenia and ignores other factors. But new research shows that the model is a poor predictor. By Peter Simons -July 19, 2021 www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/new-study-clinical-high-risk-psychosis-chr-p-model-flawed/Researchers and clinicians have begun using the theoretical Clinical High Risk for Psychosis (CHR-P) paradigm to try to identify who is at risk for developing psychiatric diagnoses such as schizophrenia. But a new study has found that the CHR-P model doesn’t reflect current evidence. Instead, it focuses on the wrong symptoms. The CHR-P model focuses on early psychotic experiences called “attenuated psychosis”—hearing sounds that aren’t there, for instance. Its proponents theorize that these experiences predict who will develop more severe psychotic symptoms. But in their new study, researchers found that severe emotional distress and addiction (in combination with attenuated psychosis) were far more predictive of “transition” to schizophrenia. Attenuated psychosis alone was not. The research was led by Laila Hasmi and Jim van Os at Maastricht University Medical Centre, and the study was published in the journal Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences. The researchers used data from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2 (NEMESIS-2), which followed 6,123 people in the general population for about ten years, with four rounds of interviews. About 1.4% of the population developed some form of psychotic experiences over the follow-up period, while about 25% of those also experienced severe emotional distress and/or addiction. Those with psychotic experiences alone were no more likely to have healthcare usage than the average participant. However, those with distress/addiction as well as psychotic experiences were more likely to have experienced childhood adversity and adverse life events and to have lower social functioning, more healthcare usage, and be prescribed antipsychotics. In an email with Mad in America, van Os wrote: We show that having psychotic experiences or “attenuated psychotic symptoms” per se does NOT increase risk for poor outcome at all. Instead, we show that psychotic experiences ONLY represent more severe clinical states if there is a context of severe emotional distress and addiction problems. Psychotic experiences WITHOUT a context of severe emotional distress and addiction problems are not associated with indicators of severity/poor outcome and, in fact, seem to be innocent. In other words: our study shows that the obsession of biological researchers with anything psychotic as the precursor for ‘schizophrenia’ is misplaced. Instead, the “high risk” is mediated by severe emotional distress and addiction problems, NOT psychosis in isolation. The strange thing, however, is that in the official definition of CHR-P, a context of severe emotional distress and addiction problems is EXCLUDED or at best considered a non-relevant epiphenomenon. This is consistent with previous findings. Minor hallucinations (such as hearing the phone ringing when it is not) are incredibly common, even in healthy populations. One study found that 38.7% of college students with no mental health diagnoses occasionally had such experiences. Another comprehensive review found that up to 84% of people experienced auditory verbal hallucinations at some point (such as hearing their name being spoken in the distance). Researchers have found that less than 1% of people who could be considered “clinically high risk” actually go on to “transition” to schizophrenia. In most cases, hallucinations are brought on by stress, lack of sleep, or substance use and disappear on their own. van Os and others have previously critiqued the scientific basis for the CHR-P model; others have critiqued its poor predictive ability. Finally, does using the CHR-P model to define who receives treatment for psychosis actually help? Not according to the research, which demonstrates that the ineffective CHR-P model may actually take resources away from more effective public health approaches. In fact, one study found the same rate of “transition” to schizophrenia for those identified using the CHR-P model as those who weren’t. Given this failure, why does the CHR-P focus on these “attenuated psychosis” experiences as predictors of later development of severe psychosis? And why do its supporters ignore predictors like severe emotional distress and addiction? According to van Os, it might be because of the hunt for neurobiological causes. Researchers may believe that because these experiences are similar, they must therefore share the same underlying neurobiology and therefore be a result of the same “disorder.” And in fact, Yale researchers were recently awarded a $52 million grant to study this supposed neurobiological substrate. According to van Os, that 52 million dollar grant is wasteful. It was awarded to study a model that doesn’t match up with the evidence. And the new study demonstrates that. **** Hasmi, L., Pries, L. K., Ten Have, M., de Graaf, R., van Dorsselaer, S., Bak, M., . . . & van Os, J. (2021). What makes the psychosis ‘clinical high risk’ state risky: Psychosis itself or the co-presence of a non-psychotic disorder? Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci, 30, e53. DOI: 10.1017/S204579602100041X. (Link) www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-psychiatric-sciences/article/what-makes-the-psychosis-clinical-high-risk-state-risky-psychosis-itself-or-the-copresence-of-a-nonpsychotic-disorder/C3EE553F2CCD6710AEDC30138437EEC7
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 21, 2021 17:22:17 GMT
“Getting to the Root Causes of Suffering”: An Interview with Patricia Rush, M.D. By Miranda Spencer -July 10, 2021 www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/getting-root-causes-suffering-interview-patricia-rush-md/Patricia Rush, M.D., M.B.A. is an internal medicine physician whose scientific focus is complex chronic illness. Her over 40-year career has focused on working with underserved populations and promoting universal access to high-quality medical care. She spent 20 years in the Cook County (Illinois) Health System, including six years as director of their emergency department. From 2000-2008 ran a trauma-informed solo private medical practice in Chicago. During this time, she completed in-depth interviews with more than 500 patients, which led her to identify a group of high-risk individuals with serious illnesses who also had a consistent pattern of extreme stress at a young age, including profoundly disordered sleep and emotional distress. Until her retirement, Dr. Rush was also an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Chicago and now teaches neurodevelopment as a member of the Physician Workgroup of the Child Trauma Academy. She was a co-founder and serves as a co-director of the Center for the Collaborative Study of Trauma, Health Equity, and Neurobiology, or THEN, in Chicago. The nonprofit works at the intersection of science education and social justice, exploring and communicating the links between early emotional trauma, inequality, human development, and chronic illness to a network of professionals and the public. In this interview, she discusses a new and more integrated way to understand and treat physical and mental ailments in people of all ages that has important implications for how we raise our children.
|
|