In other words, trainings are places where persons are socialised to uphold the values and beliefs of the particular tradition into which they are being initiated. What is good for the ‘patient’ is often less important than what will ensure the longevity of the therapeutic tribe upon which one’s status and livelihood will come to depend. So I tried to expose anthropologically the tacit institutional devices used in training to transform persons into celebrants and defenders of the tradition (often in ways, and unbeknown to practitioners themselves, that are at the expense of the ‘patient’)". On a personal level, I have to say that I encountered this particular issue in the early 1970s, where I was given the relevant medication for "anxiety" which made it almost impossible for me to function. The doctor who prescribed these, who I respected and still do, also said quite directly, in Scottish English "you don't like your job, do ya?" thus bringing that issue into full consciousness. When I left that employment to be a full-time student, I knew that I wouldn't need the medication anymore, and so it was. One of the points Davies makes is that the social aspects causing distress, hyperactivity etc are discounted by the medical model, even the neurological model and how research into genes is presented. Medical naming encourages thinking about human beings in all their complexity as broken, and needing mending – and opens the door to the over-prescription. In fact, as one astute expert (among the many) Davies consults, points out tersely, this thinking of these drugs as ‘cures’ is erroneous, as unlike most physiological disease there just is no hard evidence to support the biology of a lot of what is now being treated as ‘disease’ through these medications – which alter mood. They do not ‘cure’ shyness, (or, lets medicalise it as social phobia) any more than a glass of wine ‘cures’ shyness – both change ways of perceiving the world, that is all. I found it at times got too "sensational" and less rational (as a book like this should be), relying on rhetoric and emotions.

I surely cannot recommend this book. To read books that take down psychiatry, I would instead read something more like the following: TV and radio personality Sonia Kruger has split from her English husband of six years, international banker James Davies. The RSP president argues that the current methods enable them to get mental health funding. The DSM people that they expect users, somewhat Biblically, to make their own interpretations rather than taking the DSM literally. The latter seems a general issue in anything to do with personality and social policy – people using questionnaires and methods literally; not finding out who the person/s are before making decisions about them. You can add your own here. Having played just eight games for Scarlets since September, he's watched his side endure a turbulent campaign. Making matters worse, his discussion of epigenetics was abysmal. He clearly had a limited understanding of how genes work and how epigenetic modifications of genes work, which is a shame because there is an interesting discussion to be had about how epigenetics (methylation of chromatin and RNA snippets) contribute to expression of various genes. Not all genes are the same. Some are more fixed and some are more vulnerable to epigenetic/external modification. Also, it isn't yet well understood how epigenetics affects many mental health issues. Researchers are just beginning to parse all of that. His discussion was far too simplified. The same is true for his entire discussion of the biological basis for behavior. I tried to look up his education but didn't readily find anything. If he was educated in the sciences, it must have been a long time ago. I was stunned by how bad his biological basis of behavior section was.

Who bites the hand that feeds? There is a huge cover-up, smoke and mirrors going on in the world of funding ‘research’ into psychiatric medicine whether in academic institutions, or with clinicians. And, gentle reader, there is even less transparency over this in the UK than there is in the States, where under the Obama administration, spearheaded by a particularly truth-and-justice campaigning Senator, Senator Grassley, some efforts to bring the Pharma hyena under the spotlight are beginning to bear fruit. But not here, where there is murk a plenty. Perhaps though, the fact that fully 56% of the panel member luminaries involved in writing the DSM-IV bible had 1 or more financial associations with the pharmaceutical industry, should begin to rip the wool from over our eyes. And, for those writing/creating the diagnostic categories, which would or course be primarily treated by pharmaceuticals, - 88% of DSM-IV panel members had drug company financial ties.from Big Pharma. And things don’t have appeared to have changed for the better in terms of ‘arms length’ involvement with the writing of the now current DSM-V.

There are no other parties involved. The separation was just due to the strain of two high-profile people leading busy careers and not having enough time together." Patients have been diagnosed with chemical imbalances, despite the fact that no test exists to support such a claim, and that there is no real conception of what a correct chemical balance would look like ". Dr David Kaiser, Psychiatric Times). So, according to Davies, after nearly 50 years of investigation into the chemical imbalance theory, there is not one piece of convincing evidence that the theory is correct. I've read a bit around this topic over many years and wondered at first whether I really needed to have this book to read, in that the general issues: credibility of the DSM, big pharma, the increasing use of medication for dealing with the expanding label of depression and so on, are fairly well established, not that there's been much change as a response to the evidence and perspectives presented. Humming can help relax the mind and body by reducing stress levels and lowering our heart rate and blood pressure. Davies seems to side with the view that some form of suffering is natural for humans and the best way to treat it is through social measures or simply managing it. He suggests a path forward for the profession which has four steps:As a scientific venture, the theory that low serotonin causes depression appears to be on the verge of collapse. This is as it should be; the nature of science is ultimately to be selfcorrecting.

I will say.. One concept that stood out to me was the difference between the disease-centered model and the drug-centered model. James Davies quotes Dr. Joanna Moncrieff as she explains the difference, “In the disease-centred model, people are assumed to have a mental disease, a problem in their brain. And drugs are thought to be effective because they rectify or reverse that underlying brain problem in some way… But the drug-centred model… rather emphasises that drugs are drugs; they are chemical substances that are foreign to the human body but which affect the way people think and feel. They have psychoactive properties, just like recreational drugs do, which alter the way the body functions at a physiological level.” (103) There is no point piling up more quotations. By now you get the picture: the public defections continue to mount because, after nearly 50 years of investigation into the chemical imbalance theory, there is not one piece of convincing evidence that the theory is actually correct..." With Justin Tipuric, Josh Navidi and Ross Moriarty's Grand Slam heroics, the emergence of Aaron Wainwright and Thomas Young and Ellis Jenkins and Aaron Shingler's hopeful return to fitness, Davies has a tough task in staking a claim for the World Cup squad. First of all, let me say that I completely agree that overmedicalisation is a big problem. Okay, now for the real review. c) The training of future psychiatrists must install greater awareness of psychiatry's scientific failings and current excesses as well as how to manage patients outside the medical model.The results of decades of neurotransmitter-depletion studies point to one inescapable conclusion, low levels of serotonin, norepinephrine or dopamine do not cause depression.’ This means there is a reliability problem in the field, which casts serious doubts on the entire DSM-structured paradigm. Indeed, the problems within the field of psychiatry often see the same patients receiving differing and possibly conflicting diagnoses at an alarmingly high rate: After decades of trying to prove [the chemical imbalance theory], researchers have still come up empty-handed.’