All in the name of science... honest

The Times newspaper has reported on Dr Michael Mithoefer, a psychiatrist from South Carolina who's been treating people with MDMA, "... the pure chemical compound, not the black-market Ecstasy bought by recreational users." Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever.

Anyone with PTSD should go and see Dr Fraser Gibb then (The ecstasy of life as a psychiatrist), I think he'll be able to help.

In all seriousness though, I'm beginning to think someone's pulling my leg. Ecstasy for PTSD? LSD for this 'n' that to unlock the thoughts of mental patients? Cocaine, or should I say methylphenidate, for kids with ADHD?

Does this mean the bog standard drugs don't work? Or is the doc having a bit of an away-day to see what happens? You know, bit of 'experimentation', all in the name of science?

Enjoy the 'holiday' while it lasts

The secure, prison-like, psychiatric facilities where patients are imprisoned, whoops, 'detained,' for their own good and for the good of others, aren't so secure as it turns out. I saw this headline, Psychiatric patients went AWOL 82 times where unauthorised absences seem a common occurrence.

Now for the test: did any of the escapees harm themselves or others while they were 'on holiday?' I doubt it, otherwise we'd have heard about it. But I'll bet the needles were waiting for them when they got dragged back through the 'secure' doors. Therapeutic needles or punitive ones?

Now that the problem's been highlighted, I suspect the authorities will 'investigate' and make 'improvements' so the patients sure as hell won't get out ever again, ever, ever, ever.

As far as the psychiatrist is concerned, patients running away have proven themselves to be dangerous so it's going take a long, long, long time before the patient's back to some kind of normality.

Well, am I right?

You fooled 'em Mandy, you fooled 'em all

I saw this story in the Shropshire Star.

"A Shropshire woman who took part in a plot to kill her former lover has been remanded to hospital by a judge at Derby Crown Court. Mandy Jackson appeared in the dock today at a brief hearing before she was sent to St Andrew’s Hospital in Northampton for treatment and reports."

Treatment? What sort? Drugs perhaps?

One things for sure: just like the Chief, "you fooled 'em Mandy, you fooled 'em all."

The ecstasy of life as a psychiatrist

A doctor caught with 14 ecstasy tablets at a music festival has been allowed to keep his licence to practise. He also had amphetamines and cannabis resin in his car.

The Herald in Scotland reported the following: "Dr Gibb, 41, of Steilston, Dumfries, was convicted at Kirkcudbright Sheriff Court of possessing the Class A drug at the Wickerman festival in Dundrennan in July 2006 and was fined £400.

Colleagues at Dumfries and Galloway NHS Trust said the locum consultant psychiatrist at Crichton Royal Hospital was an asset to the trust and preventing him from working would not serve any purpose for patients."

Now, let me see if I got this right. So he's a doc, or should I say a psychiatrist, and caught in possession of illegal drugs, 14 ecstasy tablets to be exact. Then he was convicted. Then he was fined. Then his bosses said he could carry on working with a few restrictions on his license. And then he could carry on working for the NHS, which means tax-payers are covering his wages.

Now, I have it on good authority that one person can't take that many ecstasy tablets as they'd soon be pushing up daisies. So the question is, why did the doc have that many tablets? D'you think he was going to share them with some mates, or even make a few quid on the side?

No, surely not.

Oh, the ecstasy of life as a psychiatrist.

Lemmings unite

The scientist Joris Verster of Utrecht University in the Netherlands, says ADHD drugs help you drive better. You know, driving a car. He says methylphenidate, one of those cocaine-like drugs given to people who've been told they've got ADHD, can make you a better driver. How d'you know that then?

Here's an experiment: all you bad drivers out there, and you know who you are. The next time you're pulled over for bad driving, give the policeman a link to this story and ask him for a bit of you know what, and tell him to send you on your way. The docs say it'll make you a better driver, know what I mean? Another problem solved.

Lemmings unite!

How to commit murder by proxy

I've always had a great affection for the all-action, suave, debonair British hero, James Bond. Fast cars, wine, women, oh, and the occasional reduction of baddies to early graves.

Problem is, I saw the news report on psychiatrist Eric Birchall who was responsible for letting Mark Corner out of a psyciatric hospital. Having been released, Corner went on to commit murder.

What's it got to do with 007? Birchall went up before a panel at the General Medical Council to answer up for letting Corner out of the hospital. The GMC said Birchall should not be struck off for “a single error of judgement". It seems as though Birchall and Bond both have a license to kill.

"A single error of judgement?" Excuse me, but in my learned opinion, the Doc didn't have "a single error of judgement". He had brain fade, he messed up big time, and made a decision that ended in two murders. What now then? "Oh well, never mind. Poor old Doc Birchall, he probably feels bad anyway."

No, no, no. Ahem... here's the answer according to Paddy Mac: to ensure accountability for the inability to perform the duties expected of a doc to an acceptable standard whilst maintaining the safety of all concerned.

And here's what we got: a lesson in how to commit murder by proxy, get paid for it, and be allowed to do it all over again. Hey doc, Nurse Ratched would be proud of you.

Kerching!

'Male post natal depression affects child behaviour', says psychiatrist Dr Paul Ramchandani. Ahem... how d'you know that then?

'Psychiatrists warned that the findings could be a portent of future social problems as paternal postnatal depression becomes more widespread.' How d'you know that then?

'Postnatal depression is said to affect about one mother in 10 but is less well recognised, and more controversial, in new fathers.' Yawn, how d'you know that then?

'The latest figures, which are not divided by sex, point to a "persisting and clinically significant level of disturbance" that has significant implications for the future functioning of the children affected and for society.' Yawn, yawn, how d'you know that then?

'Conduct problems at this age are strongly predictive of later serious conduct problems, increased criminality and significantly increased societal costs.' Yawn, yawn, how d'you know that then?

'The finding from this study that paternal depression early in the child's life is associated with these persisting problems… [raises] the possibility that such a sensitive period may be operative, particularly in relation to the effects of parental depression.' Yawn, yawn yawn, how d'you know that then?

Ah, last paragraph. I've woken up now. It says:

'Ramchandani said his study showed the importance of recognising depression in new fathers and providing effective treatments for it.'

Of course, silly me, '...effective treatment for it.' Errrr, expensive drugs?

Kerching!

Sorry to hear you're leaving...

So, a drug company's leaving town to avoid paying taxes? Dare I say profit comes first? No surely not, not when it comes to drug companies. After all, they want people to get better: don't they?


Talking of profits, isn't this one of those companies that fleeces the National Health Service by charging exorbitant prices for new-fangled drugs, which then cause all sorts of iatrogenic illnesses, which then lead to further problems that require further expensive drugs, and which then lead to the person being off work and costing even more in lost production and increased care? Now let's see, what would be more beneficial? Hang on a minute while I do the maths...

By the way, not to seem totally unbenevolent, I found a really great place where the company could take its drug-making outfit: it's called the Kerguelen Islands and it's really nice there...

What's the benefit if the risk is death?

I know kids can be a handful at times, but I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would want to give them tranquillisers. And according to the Guardian, these drugs are putting children's lives at risk.

I don't care what kind of a brat you might have on your hands, but giving kids these kinds of drugs sends out the wrong message, or have I got the wrong hymn sheet?

I hear and I read these words in connection with the use of these drugs: "the benefits outweigh the risks." Can anyone tell me what the benefit is if the risk is death? Immortality? And what are the drugs supposed to do to a kid's brain, apart from fry it?

I want this blog to highlight the stupidity of a system that relies on you and me to nod our heads appropriately and, like lemmings, fall in line and accept the hot air we're fed in the pursuit of mental health. Paddy Mac doesn't nod his head and he doesn't buy the hot air. What about you?

When that pursuit of 'mental health' involves the chemical cauterisation of young minds, we should realise it's time to lift the lid off a new jar of coffee, and breathe deeply.

Lara Croft's out to get me

What does this story in the Inquirer tell you about the author Dr Freeman and his playmates? The Inquirer reports that, "Boffins at the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College, London, have been using a virtual reality tube ride to measure the extent to which people suffer from paranoia."

Well, in my learned opinion, Dr Freeman and his crew really ought to get out more. They've got way too much time on their hands...

By the way, if Lara Croft's out to get me, I give in!

Beemers or Mercs?

I know it's April 7 today, but it could be April 1! A headline in New Scientist said 'male monkeys prefer boys' toys.' This came from Kim Wallen, a psychologist at Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia. So Dr Wallen, ahem... how d'you know that then?

Did the monkeys tell you they actually preferred the dumper trucks over the Barbies? Or was it the fact the wheeled toys could move on their own? Can we say the female monkeys have 'monkeyboy' tendencies? Whoops, I'm getting carried away. Dr Wallen himself even cautions against over-interpreting the results.

Consequently, I have two questions: the first is "So what?" Who cares whether male monkeys prefer boys' toys?

And for fear of being seen as anti-research, anti-psychologist, or whatever, my second question is: did the male monkeys prefer beemers or mercs?

How else are you going to keep granny quiet?

The other day, anti-psychotic drugs were in the news. The stories were about how bad the drugs are, and how they make people worse, especially the elderly. A few months ago, antidepressants were getting a right old slapping, 'the drugs don't work' et cetara. If this trend keeps going, the drugs trolley will be redundant... or will it?

The BBC News site said the drugs were given "...to control behaviour such as aggression." The Mirror reported the pills 'can do harm.' The Guardian reported how the drugs "...do more harm than good..." And the Telegraph reported how the drugs can "...increase the risk of strokes and have other harmful side effects."

Whichever way you look at it, it's pretty bad. Elderly people sitting around in care homes or other mental health places, being given these drugs, sitting in chairs, looking at each other with their tongues hanging out. Yes, it's pretty bad. But is anyone going to take any notice? Will the numbers of anti-psychotic drug prescriptions go down? Will granny get a new lease of life or will she just get another pill to shut her up?

I guess it comes down to the options the experts have to silence the 'cuckoos in the nest.'

D'you hear the one about the psychiatrist who lost his job?

Once upon a time, there was a man who was called a psychiatrist who would be on the telly and who would say things about mental people because he was a famous man and because he was on telly and because he was clever.

He liked doing things with drugs. And he would get money from companies that made drugs for psychiatric things and he would test them on people. And he liked working alot, and he would call people to come and join in the test because he wanted to give them some drugs. And he liked it alot because he made lots and lots and lots of money and he had lots of fun.

And one day he told the people taking some of the drugs some things that were not true and he did some other things too, and the companies making the drugs didn't like it, and they said they were going to tell on him, and they did.

And the psychiatrist then said some nasty things about the companies making the drugs and it got nasty. And the companies making the drugs stopped giving him lots of money after he said horrible things about them. And he said other psychiatrist drug testers didn't like what he was doing because they were not as good as he was.

And then one day, after the companies who made the drugs had told on him, he had to go and say what he had been doing. And the people in charge did not like what he had done and said that it was bad and that he had been naughty and that he lied and that was bad and he would not be allowed to give drugs to people again because they would stop him doing it.

And then they stopped him, and he did not get any more money from the companies making the drugs, and he stopped giving drugs to people, and the people got better.

And it all ended happily ever after.

Please stop me being a psychiatrist

A psychiatrist who'd been up to no good with his secretary asked the General Medical Council to take his name off the medical register. He'd been having clandestine shenanigans with her in his office.

I want to know what the doc's point is, asking the GMC to take his name off the register. Does he want us to say, "Oh how honest of you," or "what a lovely gesture," or "that's nice, he's seen the error of his ways," or some other verbal pat on the back? Does he think he's providing some kind of service to the public doing this?

I think not. Might have something to do with the fact that the doc's 67 years old now. So the burning question is how come he didn't say this all those years ago when the shenanigans were going on.

Might have something to do with the mortgage payments eh doc...

Read on: Cambridge Evening News

Nice work if you can get it...

Don't know about you, but I'm always looking for ways of making a bit of extra cash...

How about a couple of hundred quid for less than an hour of your time? Now, here's the deal: you've got to pretend to know what you're talking about; that's important. What you do is you give your opinion about the way someone's behaving, you know, what they do, what they say, that sort of thing.

The good thing is you don't even have to be right about what you say. It's your opinion after all. And if you really don't know what you're talking about, or you're having a bad hair day, or you got out the wrong side of the bed, or you just don't like the guy or the girl, you can say they're dangerous, nuts, schizo, mad, or bonkers, get 'em locked up, whoops sorry, have 'em detained, and "pass go," and collect your 200 quid.

Nice work if you can get it...

Full story: Norwich Evening News

Are bloggers addicted to the internet?

What about bloggers then Doc? Do we fit your tick box? Are we 'addicted' to the internet?

The story was covered in loads of papers, including The Guardian, and according to Dr Block, we need to officially recognise we're clinically disordered.

I'm pretty open-minded and like having a look at what's going on in the world. But it's this point about a psychiatrist saying this and that about the way we do things, or what we say, and we all go "wow." That really gets on my nerves. Why d'you need a psychiatrist to point out the bleedin' obvious, i.e. you might be on the internet too long? There's nothing psychiatric about that.

Now, here's a little test for all you psychiatrists out there. By the way, I'm not assuming you're going to read this blog, but there might come a day when you can laugh at yourself. I hope I'm around to see it.

If you answer 'yes' to five or more of these questions, you may have a psychiatric thingy that needs a name... All ideas for a name in an email to howdoyouknowthatthen@gmail.com


· Do you feel preoccupied with other people's behaviour? (Think about your practice or your next appointment.)

· Do you need increasing amounts of time to convince your patient of their illness to achieve satisfaction?

· Have you repeatedly made unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back or stop thinking of making up new disorders?

· Do you feel restless, moody, depressed, or irritable when attempting to cut down or stop thinking of making up new disorders?

· Do you ponder on other people's behaviour longer than originally intended?

· Have you jeopardised or risked the loss of a significant relationship, job, educational or career opportunity because of thinking of new disorders no one else has thought of?

· Have you lied to family members, a colleague or others to conceal the extent of your involvement with other people's behaviour?

· Do you tell other people they're ill to escape from your own problems (eg, feelings of helplessness, guilt, anxiety, depression)?

Source: Centre for the Resolution of Addiction to Psychiatry (CRAP)

I'm starting to think like the 'experts'

Research psychologist Angela Rylands, said: "We want to understand what's going on in the brain for men who feel out of control or are easily angered."

Now correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm open to being wrong I'll have you know, but haven't well-funded 'mental health experts' already had a go at this? Ah, hang on a minute, silly me, this must be more expensive research and, ah yes, it's looking into this serotonin stuff... of course, there must be a drug in the offing, ready to be prescribed to resolve the 'imbalance' that the 'experts' say is the cause of the anger.

There now, solved.

If you want to think like the experts too, read on: Manchester Evening News

'Psycho-babbla nervosa'

OMG! Latest research has found 'Athletica nervosa.' Could be a Spanish football team. Joking aside, it's been described as a medical condition. So, how d'you know that then?

Oh yeah, and there's more stuff in this report that makes me likely to believe I may not be definite about what I'm likely to be talking about:

"...the more likely he is to be anxious..."
"...mags seemed to internalise..."
"...it could be that they become..."

Come on you 'mental health experts'; when are you going to say something definite?

Here's the scoop: TheTimes

I believe studies suggest I may not know what I'm talking about...

Here's the latest offering from the "make-it-up-as-you-go-along" gang...

I read this story about ADHD and guess what, there's no definite stuff in it. You know, like facts. Plenty of stuff that 'might' be. Here's what was in the story:

"...may go through..."
"Our finding suggests.." (Not my mistake by the way)
"...may develop..."
"They may be at risk..."
"...with the disorder may go..."
"...may be more at risk..."
"...may make it difficult..."
"...were most likely to have..."
"...were more likely to be..."
"...she believes these factors could contribute..."
"...may develop an array..."

Follow this link and you're most likely to be more at risk of reading on: Scientist Live

No point in asking how d'you know that then. I believe it most likely the doc may not know.

'Brain condition'?

Here's a story in the Evening Chronicle in Newcastle about attention deficit hyperactivity disorder where it's referred to as a 'brain condition.'

Right then, it's a 'brain condition.' There's a first time for everything so here goes: how d'you know that then? Explanations welcomed.

Introduction

'How d'you know what?' This blog is about the claims psychiatrists make about me and you, about our brains, our chemicals, our behaviour, et cetera, et cetera.

For example, if ever you're told you have a chemical imbalance of the brain, the question to ask the psychiatrist is, 'How d'you know that then?' Or if little Johnny seems over active, and the psychiatrist tells you little Johnny has ADD, you ask, 'How d'you know that then?' Or if a psychiatrist prescribes you a drug and says it will help you, you ask, 'How d'you know that then?'

Blind acceptance of psychiatric theories have gone on too long. It's time to ask the question. It'll be interesting to see how much psychobabble gets generated in the process.

By the way, a guiding force in writing this blog is the book and the movie of the same name, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. While the book and the movie are old now, it's evident psychiatric treatments haven't moved on. Have a read of Ken Kesey's book or watch the movie and see what you think.

Welcome to how do you know that then?