Harvard Psychiatrist Stops Industry-Funded Work Amid Probe

[interwaff]

Quote:

Child Psychiatrist to Curtail Industry-Financed Activities
By PAM BELLUCK

A prominent Harvard child psychiatrist will curtail activities financed by the drug industry while Massachusetts General Hospital investigates his failure for years to disclose the consulting fees he received from drug makers.

The psychiatrist, Dr. Joseph Biederman, a world-renowned and controversial researcher on childhood mental illness, has agreed to stop participating in speaking engagements and other activities paid for by pharmaceutical companies, and also to stop his work on industry-financed activities within the hospital. That includes clinical trials that are under way at the hospital, said Peggy Slasman, a spokeswoman for Massachusetts General.
...
This year, a Congressional investigation found that Dr. Biederman had been paid at least $1.6 million in consulting fees by drug makers from 2000 to 2007, but had failed to report much of this income to Harvard officials for several years.

Quote:

Doctor to halt his drug firm activities
By Liz Kowalczyk
...
A hospital spokeswoman said that Biederman, who specializes in diagnosing and treating bipolar disorder, has withdrawn from running several industry-funded clinical trials, and that another physician will assume oversight of the research.

Quote:

Harvard Psychiatrist Biederman Stops Industry-Funded Work Amid Probe
by Sarah Rubenstein

Controversial Harvard psychiatrist Joseph Biederman has agreed to stop working on clinical trials funded by industry until Massachusetts General Hospital finishes looking into allegations that he didn’t adequately report the funding he has received from drugmakers.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) has accused Biederman of failing to disclose more than $1.6 million in payments he received from companies including Johnson & Johnson and Eli Lilly. Biederman is also taking fire over a research institute at the hospital that J&J, maker of antipsychotic Risperdal, allegedly helped fund to support sales of the drug.
...
You can get an idea of the studies that might be affected by checking out Clinicaltrials.gov. A search this morning shows several active industry-supported trials, including one using J&J’s Concerta to curb smoking in youngsters with ADHD.

If this were anyone but a doctor from a politically sacred specialty, then people would be screaming FRAUD!, woo, scam artist....

Don't let a cool $1.6 million make you suspicious though. That's very small change compared to what corporations rake in by calling you crazy and "curing" you.

Psychiatrists brand kids sick with meaningless acronyms, drug them, work them up and make them weep needlessly.

They are obsessed with confusing people's sexual health. The younger the individual, the better.

Once labeled "mentally ill", one's rights, dignity, and social competitiveness are tarnished. The individual becomes dependent. They become emotionally, economically, and philosophically controllable.

This is how the scam works, if you were curious:

• If you have ever had two human emotions - basically anything other than nervous anxiety - then you are "bipolar".
• If your boy hits another for hitting him first, then he has ADHD. (Intervention is key!)
• If your girl doesn't enjoy "sitting still" while dull teachers drone on for hours, then she has ADD.
• If you grieve when someone you love dies, and don't find comfort watching Judge Judy or Oprah, then your serotonin level is flawed. (It's your genes!)
• If you don't love changing diapers - you've got PPD. (See your doctor!)

On the other hand.... "Testimonials don't lie!"

Isn't that right?

[Foolmewunz]

Ya know, Interwaff, you could've stopped right after the three quotes and you have yourself the makings of an interesting thread.

But then you go and spoil it by turning it into an Interwaff Rant (patent pending).

Why don't you ask the mods nicely to delete all the stuff from your own case files and just present it as a topic for debate. "Resolved: Universities and Scientists/Doctors Should Not Feed At the Corporate Trough. Discuss."

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Ya know, Interwaff, you could've stopped right after the three quotes and you have yourself the makings of an interesting thread.

But then you go and spoil it by turning it into an Interwaff Rant (patent pending).

Why don't you ask the mods nicely to delete all the stuff from your own case files and just present it as a topic for debate. "Resolved: Universities and Scientists/Doctors Should Not Feed At the Corporate Trough. Discuss."

Agreed. That thread would be interesting. This one reminds me of Tom Cruise.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

{snip} This one reminds me of Tom Cruise.

Nay, Tom Cruise isn't so handsome.

[interwaff]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Agreed. That thread would be interesting. This one reminds me of Tom Cruise.

Because of his religion!

What if I brought up Biederman's religion, or yours? Would that be allowed here?

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by interwaff

Because of his religion!

What if I brought up Biederman's religion, or yours? Would that be allowed here?

Does Biederman's religion have anything to do with his research or beliefs about psychiatry?

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by interwaff

Because of his religion!

What if I brought up Biederman's religion, or yours? Would that be allowed here?

as long as you don't get personal, yea.

You started out well but then went for the deep end...it made you seem loony to me (not that you necessarily are).

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by interwaff

If this were anyone but a doctor from a politically sacred specialty, then people would be screaming FRAUD!, woo, scam artist....

Your links suggest otherwise. They suggest the industry is policing itself.

Originally Posted by interwaff

Don't let a cool $1.6 million make you suspicious though. That's very small change compared to what corporations rake in by calling you crazy and "curing" you.

Corruption in the corporate world!? Go figure! Seems like they got caught.

Originally Posted by interwaff

Psychiatrists brand kids sick with meaningless acronyms, drug them, work them up and make them weep needlessly.

Actually, they diagnose people with illnesses that may or may not have a physical component. Drugs are often part of the prescribed treatment. Some work better than others. It's a tough trade but they've come a long way since Freud.

Originally Posted by interwaff

They are obsessed with confusing people's sexual health. The younger the individual, the better.

Again, we've come a long way since Freud. If that's still true, you'll have to show evidence.

Originally Posted by interwaff

Once labeled "mentally ill", one's rights, dignity, and social competitiveness are tarnished. The individual becomes dependent. They become emotionally, economically, and philosophically controllable.

That can be true, and it is sad...but it is what it is. It's a social stigma, not a medical one. If anything, I'd say the doctors do they're best to de-stigmatize the illnesses. Still, don't blame the doctor for telling you your leg is broken.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by interwaff

Because of his religion!

What if I brought up Biederman's religion, or yours? Would that be allowed here?

If someone's religion has a distinctly anti-scientific bent to it, such as fundamentalist Christianity's denial of evolution, radical Islam's denial of the Holocaust, or $cientology's denial of psychiatry/psychology, then yes it would be "allowed". Not only would it be allowed, but I think we, as skeptics, have a duty to speak up against such nonsense.

That good enough an answer for you?

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by interwaff

Because of his religion!

What if I brought up Biederman's religion, or yours? Would that be allowed here?

No, because he went on a bat guano crazy rant against psychologists and psychiatrists too. I actually had no idea you were a Scientologist until you said it.

Of course now that I know you are, so sorry for offending your religion. I definitely would never do anything to offend Scientology in any way. Please don't have me killed.

[interwaff]

I know someone who was saved by a Q-ray bracelet. It really worked for them. That's perfectly valid data... Like saying you "feel better" when you go to a psych.

One can score and quantify outcomes by surveying patients. Doctors - such as the trustworthy Dr. Biederman - can then tabulate this data into colorful graphs, which get presented in large hotel lecture halls to completely impartial pharm companies and their sales representatives.

I don't care how much the Q-ray inventors have made over the years, I only know that it works!

[fls]

Originally Posted by interwaff

I know someone who was saved by a Q-ray bracelet. It really worked for them. That's perfectly valid data... Like saying you "feel better" when you go to a psych.

One can score and quantify outcomes by surveying patients. Doctors - such as the trustworthy Dr. Biederman - can then tabulate this data into colorful graphs, which get presented in large hotel lecture halls to completely impartial pharm companies and their sales representatives.

I don't care how much the Q-ray inventors have made over the years, I only know that it works!

That may be your problem. You seem to be unfamiliar with blinding, controls, radomization and systematic observation if you are conflating a collection of "I feel better statement" with medical research.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think the problem with modern psychiatry is not in the treatment of mental illness per se, but the definition of what behaviour constitutes mental illness in the first place.

With many (but not all) mental illnesses, the criteria for diagnosis are arbitrary lines draw on bell-shaped curves constructed from observing behaviour.

Who decides what is normal and what is abnormal behaviour?

I don't see the need or that it is desirable (from a patient's perspective) to give names to as many psychiatric conditions as there are now. For example:

http://www.social-anxiety.org.uk/whatis/whatis.htm

Quote:

According to research carried out in the United States, Social Anxiety Disorder (SA) is the third most common psychiatric disorder after depression and alcoholism.

However, perhaps because by it's very nature sufferers of Social Anxiety are reluctant to talk about their problems or seek help, the condition is still not widely known amongst the general public, and was only recognized as a disorder in it's own right as recently as 1980.

In it's simplest terms social anxiety or 'SA' is a fear of people: of being around, having to interact with, being watched, criticized or judged negatively by, other human beings.

For sufferers of SA, everyday tasks which most people take for granted - working, socialising, shopping, speaking on the telephone, can be a wearing ordeal marked by persistent feelings of anxiety and self-consciousness.

Sufferers typically experience feelings of dread and nervousness in the build up to the feared situation, and analyse or 'replay' the situation in their mind when it's over, ruminating on how they could have 'performed' better.

Sufferers may also experience physical symptoms such as trembling, blushing or sweating.

At a deeper level, sufferers often experience chronic insecurity about their relationships with others, hypersensitivity to criticism, and deep-rooted fears of being judged negatively, mocked, or rejected by others.

There are two forms of SA, performance social anxiety where these feelings only occur in a few specific situations such as public speaking, eating in public or dealing with authority figures, and generalized social anxiety which affects most, if not all areas of the sufferers life. The latter is the most common type, affecting around 70% of SA sufferers.

Why do the symptoms described for social anxiety need a title?

How does being diagnosed (and labeled) with "Social Anxiety Disorder" help the patient?

Why not just treat the symptoms an individual is suffering from?

[interwaff]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

I think the problem with modern psychiatry is not in the treatment of mental illness per se, but the definition of what behaviour constitutes mental illness in the first place.

With many (but not all) mental illnesses, the criteria for diagnosis are arbitrary lines draw on bell-shaped curves constructed from observing behaviour.

Who decides what is normal and what is abnormal behaviour?

I don't see the need or that it is desirable (from a patient's perspective) to give names to as many psychiatric conditions as there are now. For example:

http://www.social-anxiety.org.uk/whatis/whatis.htm

Why do the symptoms described for social anxiety need a title?

How does being diagnosed (and labeled) with "Social Anxiety Disorder" help the patient?

Why not just treat the symptoms an individual is suffering from?

That's beautifully put! I completely agree with it.

The psych industry has built-in replies:

• marketing easy answers
• exploiting mere correlations as the root cause and mechanism of their invented conditions
• social engineering. screwing up our culture through Hollywood and "Dr. Phil"
• lobbying for laws and regulation designed to validate their racket. Government is happy to collude and reinforce dominance of the strong over the weak (==the true function of politics)
• trapping their patients into a lifetime of self-doubt and emotional subordination toward anyone in power or greater authority
• ignoring your humanity... we are all just chemicals to them

There are real problems and real mental conditions out there. Dr. Biederman isn't the answer to them.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

I think the problem with modern psychiatry is not in the treatment of mental illness per se, but the definition of what behaviour constitutes mental illness in the first place.

With many (but not all) mental illnesses, the criteria for diagnosis are arbitrary lines draw on bell-shaped curves constructed from observing behaviour.

Who decides what is normal and what is abnormal behaviour?

The patient's themselves. No one forces someone with some debilitating behavior from seeking help.

Quote:

I don't see the need or that it is desirable (from a patient's perspective) to give names to as many psychiatric conditions as there are now. For example:

http://www.social-anxiety.org.uk/whatis/whatis.htm

The you'd be completely and utterly wrong.

Quote:

Why do the symptoms described for social anxiety need a title?

How does being diagnosed (and labeled) with "Social Anxiety Disorder" help the patient?

Why not just treat the symptoms an individual is suffering from?

Because how do you research something if you don't define it?
How do you know what treatments are more effective for this spectrum of problems vs. others?
You do realize that there are different forms of anxiety and their treatments are different don't you?

[fls]

Is Interwaff a $cientologist?

Linda

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by interwaff

That's beautifully put! I completely agree with it.

The psych industry has built-in replies:

marketing easy answers

Easy for who? You?

Quote:

exploiting mere correlations as the root cause and mechanism of their invented conditions

I call you a liar. All the neurobiological and current research say otherwise.

Quote:

social engineering. screwing up our culture through Hollywood and "Dr. Phil"
lobbying for laws and regulation designed to validate their racket.

Oooooh, the conspiracy addled paranoia begins. Wait a minute, isn't scientology involved in trying to socially engineer and trick people into their fraud?

Quote:

Government is happy to collude and reinforce dominance of the strong over the weak (==the true function of politics)

Hahahahahahahaha...

Quote:

trapping their patients into a lifetime of self-doubt and emotional subordination toward anyone in power or greater authority

So Psychiatrists, psychologists and all brain researchers are "in on it"?

Quote:

ignoring your humanity... we are all just chemicals to them

Actually since all brain processes are materialistic neurochemical processes, yeah. Was that an actual insult?

What complete and utter nonsense. I see a whole bunch of claims, non-sequiturs, paranoid rants and absolutely nothing but garbage.

Quote:

There are real problems and real mental conditions out there. Dr. Biederman isn't the answer to them.

"Real" mental conditions? What are they? Please clearly state them and the appropriate treatment for it.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by fls

Is Interwaff a $cientologist?

Linda

Yes.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by fls

Is Interwaff a $cientologist?

Linda

He/she did post this in another thread:

Originally Posted by interwaff

"Scientology rocks!" - KELLY PRESTON

I'm convinced.

But he/she posts lots of sarcasm so it's not possible to determine with certainty what that post meant. One thing is clear, he/she views the 'establishment' with a high degree of suspicion.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Citizens Commission on Human Rights says

Quote:

the July 2008 Vermont Attorney General report revealing psychiatrists again top the list of doctors receiving Pharma payments merits a federal investigation for conflicts of interest that is long overdue.On the federal level, Senate investigators uncovered three industry-shaping psychiatrists who failed to report a combined total of about $7.9 million, two of which were psychiatrists attributed with fuelling widespread child psychiatric drugging. First was Maria DelBello, a child psychiatrist at the Cincinnati Children’s hospital, who failed to report being paid $180,000 from AstraZeneca, manufacturer of the antipsychotic drug Seroquel. According to the New York Times, “Dr. DelBello’s studies of Seroquel in children have helped to fuel the widespread pediatric use of antipsychotic medicines. Those studies were inconclusive, but she has described them as demonstrating that Seroquel is effective in some children.” Second is Dr. Joseph Biederman, a child psychiatrist who also fuelled an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic drugs in children, who failed to report $1.6 million in consulting fees he earned from drug makers between 2000 and 2007. The third is Alan Schatzberg, who failed to report over $6 million in Pharmaceutical stocks and income. Schatzberg is not only chairman of the psychiatry department at Stanford University, but President Elect of the APA, which publishes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), also known as the “billing bible” of mental disorders for which the drugs are being prescribed.

Interesting to note then that

Quote:

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights is an international psychiatric watchdog group co-founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and Dr. Thomas Szasz, Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus, to investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights.

It looks like Scientology isn't all wrong here. They obviously go too far when they suggest all psychiatric illness is imaginary or that no medication is useful. But these doctors/researchers getting rich promoting drugs really do the profession a disservice.

I wonder why it took 6 months for the University to act on this?

[Skeptic Ginger]

It seems it may be that a lawsuit involving Dr B added weight to the pile. The controversy included Dr B's Rx recommendations which were markedly different than standard Rxs. Then came the financial disclosures, then a lawsuit. I think Harvard really should have looked more closely at this guy years ago. Shame on them for that.

BNRT Pharma: Goodwin, Biederman on Counter-Attack in Drug Funding Transparency Scandal

Quote:

Biederman wrote to the Globe that he called his research center “the J&J Center”:

To be transparent about its funding…The center’s goal was to advance science; as a business, J&J sought commercial applications for our work … But any implication that J&J’s interests interfered with the center’s work is wrong. Indeed, I have published research critical of J&J compounds. I never owned J&J stock, and whether the company succeeded financially had no importance to me. What does matter to me is the treatment of children and families experiencing great suffering.

Healthy Skepticism - Countering misleading drug promotion

Quote:

Dr. Biederman has been a leading advocate for wider childhood and adolescent use of the drug. The emails were provided to a New Jersey court as part of an effort by patient plaintiffs to force the psychiatrist to testify in their suit against J&J over alleged harms caused by Risperdal. The company has said the drug's side effects are limited, and it has defended Risperdal's safety in previous statements.

In a statement Monday, Massachusetts General said "the allegations related to the Johnson & Johnson Center that were described in various media reports today have raised significant questions and concerns about the implementation of those agreements. The MGH takes these allegations very seriously, and intends to investigate these issues thoroughly."

Frontline featured Dr B.

Quote:

Dr. Joseph Biederman, an influential child psychiatrist, made embarrassing news last June when it was revealed that he had failed to disclose over a million dollars in fees from drug companies whose antipsychotic medications he had promoted to treat bipolar disorder in children.

Now the controversial Dr. Biederman is back in the headlines, this time over new conflict of interest questions regarding his financial ties to pharmaceutical giant Johnson and Johnson. For the latest developments on the story, see The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. For the full backstory, take a look at The Medicated Child, FRONTLINE's recent hour on the dramatic rise in diagnosis and drug treatment of ADHD and bipolar disorder in children.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by paximperium

The patient's themselves. No one forces someone with some debilitating behavior from seeking help.

Society rejects those who do not fit with what is defined to be normal. While not forcing people to seek help, it's certainly very strong coercion.

Quote:

The you'd be completely and utterly wrong.

When am I not?

Quote:

Because how do you research something if you don't define it?

Have I suggested not defining the problems people have?

Quote:

How do you know what treatments are more effective for this spectrum of problems vs. others?

Research. Using the word 'spectrum' makes it sound like we know the physical causes of mental illness. What are the physical causes of social anxiety?

Quote:

You do realize that there are different forms of anxiety and their treatments are different don't you?

Yes.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

Society rejects those who do not fit with what is defined to be normal. While not forcing people to seek help, it's certainly very strong coercion.

Society rejects people with tuberculosis. While not forcing people to seek help, it certainly is very strong coercion.

Quote:

Have I suggested not defining the problems people have?

Yes.

Quote:

Research. Using the word 'spectrum' makes it sound like we know the physical causes of mental illness. What are the physical causes of social anxiety?

Thanks for redefining "spectrum" into your own definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spectrum
.a broad range of varied but related ideas or objects, the individual features of which tend to overlap so as to form a continuous series or sequence:

1. A range of values of a quantity or set of related quantities.
2. A broad sequence or range of related qualities, ideas, or activities: the whole spectrum of 20th-century thought

2. a broad range of related objects or values or qualities or ideas or activities

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by paximperium

Society rejects people with tuberculosis. While not forcing people to seek help, it certainly is very strong coercion.

Is mental illness contagious?

Quote:

Yes.

I must have missed where I did that. Could you point it out to me please?

Quote:

Thanks for redefining "spectrum" into your own definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spectrum
.a broad range of varied but related ideas or objects, the individual features of which tend to overlap so as to form a continuous series or sequence:

1. A range of values of a quantity or set of related quantities.
2. A broad sequence or range of related qualities, ideas, or activities: the whole spectrum of 20th-century thought

2. a broad range of related objects or values or qualities or ideas or activities

Which makes a pretty useless diagnosis with respect to understanding an individual patient's problem. In other areas of medicine collections of symptoms are used to diagnose specific problems, but in psychiatry they are often just given a title and everyone pretends the title is a diagnosis.

Are the symptoms of social anxiety ever considered perfectly normal and rational?

[porch]

Patient: Hey, doc, I came to see you because I feel bad all the time. Everyday interactions with people are very stressful for me. Sometimes, when I'm in public, I start feeling really scared, and my heart starts beating really fast and I feel dizzy, and it's like I'm going to pass out. It seems to be getting worse and worse these days and I avoid going out in public at all, even though this prevents me from having any normal relationships with other people.

Psychiatrist: And . . . why are you here? I know some of my less responsible colleagues would give you some diagnosis of some kind of "syndrome" and attempt to treat you based on what is known about some cluster of symptoms, but I don't want to saddle you with a stigmatizing label. You're just shy, that's all. Did you have any real problems you wanted to discuss, or was that it?

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

Is mental illness contagious?

It depends. Many personality disorders have an irritating tendency of infecting the patient's children.

Quote:

I must have missed where I did that. Could you point it out to me please?

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

With many (but not all) mental illnesses, the criteria for diagnosis are arbitrary lines draw on bell-shaped curves constructed from observing behaviour.

Who decides what is normal and what is abnormal behaviour?

I don't see the need or that it is desirable (from a patient's perspective) to give names to as many psychiatric conditions as there are now. For example:

http://www.social-anxiety.org.uk/whatis/whatis.htm

Why do the symptoms described for social anxiety need a title?

How does being diagnosed (and labeled) with "Social Anxiety Disorder" help the patient?

Why not just treat the symptoms an individual is suffering from?

Quote:

Which makes a pretty useless diagnosis with respect to understanding an individual patient's problem.

Really?
Social Phobia:
One of the most successful treatments involves cognitive-behavioral therapy.
http://www1.appstate.edu/~hillrw/SocialPhobia/Etiology.html

Hypochondriasis:
A supportive relationship with a health care provider is the mainstay of treatment. There should be one primary provider to avoid unnecessary diagnostic tests and procedures.
Treatment with serotonin reuptake inhibitors, a class of antidepressants, may be effective.
Psychotherapy usually does not work well in treating hypochondriasis. Cognitive-behavior therapy may also relieve symptoms. Most people with the disorder are not eager to see a mental health professional. However, a savvy therapist can help the person to cope with symptoms rather than curing them. Doctors and therapists should take the physical symptoms seriously, because the symptoms are real.
http://www.depression-guide.com/hypochondriasis.htm

General Anxiety Disorder:
Treatment for GAD most often includes a combination of medication and cognitive-behavioral therapy.
http://www.medicinenet.com/anxiety/page2.htm#tocg

Borderline Personality Disorder:
Like with all personality disorders, psychotherapy is the treatment of choice in helping people overcome this problem. While medications can usually help some symptoms of the disorder, they cannot help the patient learn new coping skills, emotion regulation, or any of the other important changes in a person’s life.
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx10t.htm

Quote:

In other areas of medicine collections of symptoms are used to diagnose specific problems, but in psychiatry they are often just given a title and everyone pretends the title is a diagnosis.

Really? Do you have any evidence of this?
See above, notice the different psychiatric therapies for different mental illnesses?

Quote:

Are the symptoms of social anxiety ever considered perfectly normal and rational?

Yes. If the patient is able to compensate for the anxiety without any detriment to their daily function or if their aversion is due to mental trauma.
Patient's who can compensate, need no treatment while those with mental trauma require a completely different therapy.

[paximperium]

Anyway, Mental Illness classification is regularly updated.

Some differing disorders or mental illnesses are combined or occasionally split off from other classification based on the latest research. Different mental illnesses are treated very differently and their etiology also differs.

While not exactly the most exact of sciences at present, the addition of neuropsychiatry and other behavioral research will undoubtedly add to the precision of psychiatry as time passes.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by paximperium

Yes.

Surprise, surprise.
Has he paid enough money attatined the level where he learns about the "real" history of manking..you know, Xenu and all those nukes?

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

With many (but not all) mental illnesses, the criteria for diagnosis are arbitrary lines draw on bell-shaped curves constructed from observing behaviour.

No it's not. The criteria for diagnosing a mental illness is whether or not the disorder has a significantly detrimental impact on an individual's ability to perform ordinary life tasks (ie, to adequately take care of themselves and their dependents).

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

Is mental illness contagious?

Some can be, yes. Many mental illnesses have a genetic component, and the disorder, or a suceptibility toward the disorder, can be inherited.

Many behavioural mental illnesses can be passed on to children through learned suboptimal behaviour. Personality disorders are one of the most commonly transmitted disruptive behavioural patterns; and one of the most difficult to treat.

Originally Posted by paximperium

While not exactly the most exact of sciences at present, the addition of neuropsychiatry and other behavioral research will undoubtedly add to the precision of psychiatry as time passes.

I think a lot of people don't really take into account how young the science of mental health is; and how much work still needs to be done.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by luchog

No it's not. The criteria for diagnosing a mental illness is whether or not the disorder has a significantly detrimental impact on an individual's ability to perform ordinary life tasks (ie, to adequately take care of themselves and their dependents).

How is the significance determined? I would suggest it is by comparing how far and for how long an individual's behaviour deviates from what is considered normal, which is what I said originally.

Quote:

Some can be, yes. Many mental illnesses have a genetic component, and the disorder, or a suceptibility toward the disorder, can be inherited.

That is an unusual definition of contagious.

Quote:

Many behavioural mental illnesses can be passed on to children through learned suboptimal behaviour. Personality disorders are one of the most commonly transmitted disruptive behavioural patterns; and one of the most difficult to treat.

Is ignorance coupled with high self-esteem a mental illness? Many parents pass that onto their offspring.

Quote:

I think a lot of people don't really take into account how young the science of mental health is; and how much work still needs to be done.

Psychiatrists in particular.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

How is the significance determined? I would suggest it is by comparing how far and for how long an individual's behaviour deviates from what is considered normal, which is what I said originally.

No. It is up to the patient to determine the significance.
Most research in these disorders are skewed towards the more severe cases.

Quote:

That is an unusual definition of contagious.

That's an interesting movement of the goal post.

Quote:

Is ignorance coupled with high self-esteem a mental illness? Many parents pass that onto their offspring.

Is it harmful to them or others? Are they able to function, hold down a job and perform daily rountine life and function? If not, then no.

One of the criteria for any personality disorder:

C. The enduring pattern leads to clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/di...snltydsrdr.htm

BTW:
Narcicistic Personality Disorder: http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/di...issisticpd.htm

Quote:

Psychiatrists in particular.

Yawn. Oh, did you say something?
Man, could you bias be anymore obvious?

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by interwaff

This is how the scam works, if you were curious:

• If you have ever had two human emotions - basically anything other than nervous anxiety - then you are "bipolar".
• If your boy hits another for hitting him first, then he has ADHD. (Intervention is key!)
• If your girl doesn't enjoy "sitting still" while dull teachers drone on for hours, then she has ADD.
• If you grieve when someone you love dies, and don't find comfort watching Judge Judy or Oprah, then your serotonin level is flawed. (It's your genes!)
• If you don't love changing diapers - you've got PPD. (See your doctor!)

Funny, I saw a psychiatrist when I was 17 and he never did any of those things. I saw another when I was in my 30s and he didn't either. In fact, he refused to prescribe me drugs for ADD because they can be addictive and he claimed I had a history of substance abuse. I conceded on that point.

[interwaff]

Originally Posted by godless dave

Funny, I saw a psychiatrist when I was 17 and he never did any of those things. I saw another when I was in my 30s and he didn't either.

Didn't he cure you the first time? Whatever good he did to help you was not unique to his profession. It could have been freely obtained elsewhere without the risks I described.

Congratulations on wellness. Hopefully you are free and not captive to their system.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by interwaff

Didn't he cure you the first time?

You are aware that neurological disorders cannot be "cured", only treated, right? Just like many physiological disorders, they're chronic and so far uncurable with our current level of understanding and technology. In fact, the only mental disorders that can be "cured" are those which are purely behavioural. And since ADD is neurological, not behavioural, I guess that means... I'll let you figure it out on your own.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by luchog

You are aware that neurological disorders cannot be "cured", only treated, right? Just like many physiological disorders, they're chronic and so far uncurable with our current level of understanding and technology. In fact, the only mental disorders that can be "cured" are those which are purely behavioural. And since ADD is neurological, not behavioural, I guess that means... I'll let you figure it out on your own.

Not that we have a lot of cures, but there are a few 'mental' conditions amenable to actual cure. Just as there are a number of chronic physical conditions still not curable.

In other words, maybe in the future we'll be curing lots of chronic conditions which today we can only treat the symptoms of. Whether it be the pancreas or the brain, it's still anatomy and physiology.