First, the hypocrisy part. I read this at Mad In America yesterday evening, and yes, why do I go there, part of my little masochistic side I guess:
Whitaker really annoys me, because he gives this holier than thou illusion he is calling psychiatrists on all this lame and reckless behavior and rhetoric, which some of his criticism has merit, but then he paints his conclusions in black and white “all antipsychotics are bad”. No, he doesn’t say it that way, he says it in 16 or so sentences to cloak he is saying “all antipsychotics are bad”. And then his usual parting shot that all of psychiatry is bad too. Gee, extremism and zealotry by your opponents, really brings out the fair and responsible side to dissent, eh, Dr W? Cue Wayne, please:
And, he has his editorial woman riding shotgun to make sure the narrative is maintained. What MIA will never get, because they are most likely run by Personality Disordered folk and certainly have their shrieking choir of zealots, who almost write blatantly that psychiatry should be exterminated (as personality disorders would), that their extremism and polarized attitudes only at best neutralize the other end of the extremes my moronic colleagues at the APA and academic bastions of cronyism and crime practice with their equal glee. Which leaves the public in the middle with what, to shrug their shoulders while they then duck for cover from the proverbial shots being taken by the polarized ends of what is a legitimate debate about overuse of medications?
Sorry that middle sentence in that last paragraph was so endless. So is this debate between haters. We deserve better than this hijacking by impaired folks.
Anyway, read Whitaker’s latest attempt to smear all of psychiatry based on what 2 docs write, and then you decide what to believe.
ADDENDUM MARCH 20 12 NOON: WELL, SURPRISE SURPRISE, MIA DID IN FACT POST MY COMMENT, 36 HOURS PLUS LATER. I ADVISE READERS WHO READ THIS ADDENDUM NOW TO GO BACK MONDAY MARCH 21st TO SEE WHAT THE EDITORIAL CENSORS ALLOW AS RETORT IN THE THREAD. MAYBE I WILL BE WRONG AND THEY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE, I LIKE TO BE WRONG ON THINGS LIKE THIS!!!
Addendum March 22 530PM: after reading the thread up to now, I decided to address one of my more outspoken critics, Katie Higgins, as well as Ms Mead, the blog editor who for some reason addresses me in a different section of the thread than at my comment directly. I sense I will violate their inconsistent terms of personal attacks and the comment stricken, so, here it is in case I am right:
“Advertising my site? For what, to encourage readers here to then try to comment there and risk real moderation if not censorship? Oh, and to then consider asking to raise $250,000 for, what?
And to keep the comment simple and related, Ms Mead per your above comment in different section of this thread, tell readers why I am moderated for 36 hours or more, if not just deleted, and yet some of these comments I would bet are printed the moment the commenter hits “post comment”, and yeah, they are so balanced and respectful.
The only nice thing at the end of this, is, it does validate my point, there is not a sincere and genuine effort to engage in fair and balanced debate, but, just shout down the narrative.
So, how have you proved me wrong with the deeds here, as much as the words? Strange, I don’t read any rebuttals from Drs Pies or Frances here, why is that?
Perhaps Dr Whitaker would be kind enough to reach out with an olive branch to encourage their points of view further?
Oh, and just to note it isn’t just me, Dr Nardo at his site noted he won’t make the same mistake again and bring up MIA in a post. Doesn’t that seem to echo someone’s point here…
Joel Hassman, MD
(and I give my name, what does that say as well???)”
Yeah yeah yeah, I know, masochistic and just trying to grab at the snake, but, I do keep fair distance from getting bitten.
Oh, and to Stephen Gilbert, a commenter there who accuses me of elitism and arrogance, my gut is a bit of projection there. Do you know me to some level to make that allegation with some potential for truth? I would certainly be willing to allow your rebuttal, if respectful and can document some validation, to explain how I bear those traits. Arrogance is a bit over generalized, but, I am very interested to understand how you define elitism and it’s application to me.
And note Ms Mead allows that insult, and at the moment Mr Gilbert hit the Print Comment button. The choir must be alllowed to sing, ain’t that the truth, readers who have traveled at MIA?
MIA is not about helping people with mental health problems, that I can almost guarantee is the truth at the end of the day, hence why I go after them once in a while, to make sure dissent is offered.
Again, just try to ask the blog authors and their minions what they offer as substitutes for care interventions if medication is truly not warranted. My money is you will read the usual defense mechanisms come into play.
Check out the thread by the end of the week, unless something else has distracted them that is more fun to swarm over in earnest…
As per the evil, well, here’s the link:
Please, read it all, but this one paragraph really burns me up, because now that Mangled Care is blatantly interfering with care interventions, that is a clinical intervention by denying care, thus there is the accountability a court should rule on!
“But I am lost inside the bureaucratic maze. They don’t want to pay for the MRI because they don’t want to have to reimburse for rotator cuff surgery. So their hope is that I will just go away. Studies show these delay tactics and bureaucratic runarounds work to reduce insurance payouts.”
Ah, no, it reduces treatment interventions, payment is just the secondary benefit.
And Mangled Care thinks people will just go away?! Why can’t some lawyer, whether well intended or just out to find his/her pot of gold and sees it with this industry ripe for the pickings, finally take them on with a class action suit he/she will have the most appropriate group to represent?
John Q, it is coming, but not to a theater near you, but, the nearest hospital, or, maybe the most obscene and intrusive insurance company’s office building?