Body: Simple techniques and strategies to heal, reset and restore

Product Information

The first thing you’ll notice is that all the groups actually get better on the scale of improvement, even those who had received no treatment at all. This is because many incidences of depression spontaneously reduce by themselves after time without being actively treated. You’ll also see that both psychotherapy and drug groups get significantly better. But, oddly, so does the placebo group. More bizarre still, the difference in improvement between placebo and antidepressant groups is only about 0.4 points, which was a strikingly small amount. ‘This result genuinely surprised us’, said Kirsch leaning forward intently, ‘because the difference between placebos and antidepressants was far smaller than anything we had read about or anticipated..." 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. I can’t urge the reading of this book strongly enough. Anyone who cares about what it means to be a fully human being, and especially anyone involved in any way in the caring professions needs to be aware of what Davies lays clear about the mental health industry. For industry it surely is. Sybil Exposed by Debbie Nathan (excellent takedown of fads in psychiatry/ how therapy can make things worse) Who does he think he is helping? Just by telling a person suffering from psychosis that they do not have a problem does not make them better.

I just want to play. I enjoy being out there in the week... but the fun part for me is being out there on Saturday with the boys." The results of decades of neurotransmitter-depletion studies point to one inescapable conclusion, low levels of serotonin, norepinephrine or dopamine do not cause depression.’ Essentially, my take on this book is that the author points a dammning finger at the psychiatric profession and the drug companies that support them. James Davies is a qualified psychotherapist and has worked with the British NHS. He has a Phd in medical and social anthropology (whatever that actually is). Well I actually googled his thesis and found an interesting interview with him (see: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/bl...) and this is what he has to say about his thesis: She is the second Channel 7 personality to endure a relationship breakup following Chris Bath's split from her partner Denis Carahan. She is now dating newsreader Jim Wilson. First of all, let me say that I completely agree that overmedicalisation is a big problem. Okay, now for the real review.After decades of trying to prove [the chemical imbalance theory], researchers have still come up empty-handed.’ My favourite tip is to be kind to your body. Try to find something you can do daily to relax and clear your mind. It can be as simple as going outside and looking up at the stars or lying down and taking some deep breaths. Relaxing in this way enables our 'rest and digest' mode to do its vital work. I also didn't really find any plausible evidence for the author's statement that drugs have horrible side effects - his examples were all symptoms of the diseases the drugs are meant to treat, so how does he know they're caused by the drugs, but not by the illness that is basically left untreated if, as he suggests, the drugs aren't actually effective in curing the person?

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. In recent years such disproving research has begun to erode the profession’s faith in the chemical imbalance theory. This has led increasing numbers of prominent figures in the mental health profession to declare their defection publicly. To pique your interest in this sea -change, here are a few quotations I’ve managed to gather: Many neuroscientists no longer consider a chemical imbalance theory of depression and anxiety to be valid.’ (Dr David D. Burns, Professor of Psychiatry, Stanford University) I don't really think about it too much. I'm just concerned with getting a few games under my belt and getting fit," he said.

I will accept his grim indictment of the current state of the pharmaceutical industry (indeed, many reviewers are mentioning Ben Goldacre who has pointed this all out before) The book begins with a discussion of the DSM and its plausibility. Davies speaks with Robert Spitzer (a key figure in earlier versions) and others about the meaning and purpose of this diagnostic text and establishes that the categories within were not arrived at by research, but what seems to be a consensus of practitioners. Later he talks with a prominent critic of the current DSM (5) with Allen Frances, who expresses his view that many normal behaviours are now being pathologised. I've read Frances' book Saving Normal, on this topic, and it appears in both instances that, for all the valid points he makes, Frances is unable to put himself outside the thought of his profession. It has taken me a while to get around to writing this review because I felt that I needed time to do it justice. In many ways this is a scary book and I feel that I might need to read something that puts the other side of the story to really feel that I have a reasonable grasp of the issues. I find it worrying that a practising psychological therapist in the NHS knew so little about mental illness, diagnosis and treatment (!) as he claimed at the outset of writing this book. I learnt all about the problems with the diagnostic system (most prominently, the DSM) and how antidepressant medications work (or don't) during my undergraduate degree in psychology, and so what bothers me the most is that the picture he paints is one of a completely clueless psychological and psychiatric profession - which is plainly not true. And yes, it is correct that there are very few (if any) biomarkers for mental illness, but that does not mean they are not real illnesses. I would like to remind (or inform) James Davies that Alzheimer's disease does not yet have a biomarker, nor do any of the other dementias at present. Does he not think they are real illnesses either? This is why we keep doing research. Furthermore, his keenness throughout the book to keep referring to mental illness as 'perfectly normal human reactions' made me quite sad, because who is he to trivialise the suffering of people who are quite literally crippled by depression, social anxiety, schizophrenia? While I completely agree that the grief of losing a loved one and similar reactions should not be thought of as illness, and while I agree that medication should never be the first option (especially in children), I find his argument hopelessly one-sided. The points he is raising are extremely important and equally, we should be critical with regards to how psychiatry, psychology and medicine works. But reporting only one side of the story is not helping anyone, it just creates a basic mistrust in the psychological and psychiatric profession which is unwarranted. He is painting a picture of psychiatrists as pure, money-minded evil and completely fails to see the complex picture of treatment that psychiatry can form part of. Psychiatrists go to work every day wanting to help alleviate people's suffering. They chose that profession wanting to make a difference. His claim that "the only ones who have ever benefitted from psychiatric drugs are the drug companies" is not just biased, but very ill-informed.

I can't believe that drug companies can have this type of relationship with health professionals--effectively paying them to use and aggressively promote their products to patients. Of course, the professionals are then going to prescribe these drugs, no one is immune to this kind of monetary temptation. 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: Even if he doesn't go to Japan in September, Davies' international ambitions only look to be boosted when Scarlets head coach Wayne Pivac takes over the reins from Gatland after the tournament. One has to question the validity of the DSM when (by a relatively close vote of the US Psychiatric Society) homosexuality was removed from the DSM as a psychiatric illness. And one must also question the validity of ADHD diagnostics when in Canada there was an explosion of diagnosis of kids with ADHD and it was found that it was highly correlated with the month of the year. What had happened was the kids in the one class could be over a year different in actual age and the younger kids had lower attention spans. You've got people going out there fighting for our country, people getting diagnosed with serious illnesses, then when you think you've hurt a joint in your body and all you're doing is missing a few games, it puts it all into perspective.

Dr Kevin Fong

The DSM has gone through a number of editions and each time numbers of "new" mental illnesses have been added to the book (82 new illnesses from DSM3 to DSM4). So what are all these "new" mental illnesses. I surely cannot recommend this book. To read books that take down psychiatry, I would instead read something more like the following: I wonder how extensive Mr. Davies' literature search was; if he needs evidence of the biological root of schizophrenia look at the life work of Professor Eve Johnstone. I found this explanation helpful as I’ve process through the idea that the that chemical imbalance theory has yet to be proved. (“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” (129).) If this theory were true, then chemical imbalances could be cured by intaking the right amount of chemicals (via medication). Davies’ view instead is that pills “don’t cure us - they simply change us” (99). He offers, they are “just providing a temporary and superficial distraction” (100). b) there needs to be more thorough regulation an transparency regarding psychiatry's financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry