damage control…

Posted on Friday 10 May 2013

Dr. Bruce Cuthbert, director of NIMH’s Division of Adult Translational Research and Treatment Development. He and NIMH director Thomas Insel are leading the Research Domain Criteria Project [RDoC].
Dr. Paul Summergrad, incoming president of the American Psychiatric Association. He’s chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Tufts University School of Medicine, and Psychiatrist-in-Chief at Tufts Medical Center.

This is a long radio show [24 minutes]. The last part is call-ins where people ask unanswerable and uncomfortable questions. The best way to listen is to play it while you’re doing something else like pencil-sharpening or straightening your desk. Here are some things you’ll learn. Tom Insel’s NIMH Director’s Blog in which he said the DSM-5 was no longer going to be used by the NIMH, written a few weeks before the DSM-5 is being launched, and even though the RDoC that’s going to replace it has been around for for four years and, by the way, doesn’t yet exist, did not mean that the DSM-5 was no longer going to be used by the NIMH nor was there any meaning to Dr. Insel’s timing. In fact, the NIMH and the APA are absolutely the best of friends and the DSM-5 and RDoC are complementary friends too [one, an imaginary friend]. You will also learn that Dr. Paul Summergrad is a straight shooter who doesn’t falsely reassure us about things and is going to be a peach of an APA President in 2014. And I’ll bet if they’d had time, they could have allayed our fears that rampant conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies had no effect on researcher’s opinions and that ghost-writers only grammar check the writings of the army of collaborators producing articles, all of whom were intimately involved in the process. Everything is just fine…
    May 10, 2013 | 8:51 AM

    After listening to this nonsense I am totally convinced that the whole Insel DSM bashing stunt and the trumpeting of RDoC is nothing but a clever sleight of hand designed to keep the bio-babble-bullshit going in psychiatry.

    May 10, 2013 | 10:19 AM

    Best explanation yet!

    May 10, 2013 | 10:58 AM



    « What If Neuroscience Had No Limits?
    Psychiatry’s Reformation?
    By Neuroskeptic | May 9, 2013 3:41 pm

    In a short blog post last week, Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), announced that the organization would be “re-orienting its research away from DSM categories“.

    comment on above blog post

    “Reformation is a strong word, but you’ve got the right idea when you connect biological psychiatry with religion. The real conflict is between biological psychiatry and other approaches to mental health care that don’t lay it all on biology. Psychologists, for instance, have taken over the job of psychoanalysis, or talk therapy, from psychiatrists. Neither the APA nor the NIMH think psychoanalysis is scientific. Both think biological psychiatry is scientific, not because it is scientific, but because it increases the clout of psychiatrists. Assuming that a great rift exists between the APA and the NIMH would be presumptuous. The two are in cahoots. The NIMH just took advantage of an opportunity to change the game plan. The real rift is between proponents of biological psychiatry and proponents of other approaches emphasizing the role of society and the environment. Skepticism of biological psychiatry, well, you won’t get it from its proponents, and those proponents are found in abundance in both the APA and the NIMH..”


    Bernard Carroll
    May 10, 2013 | 11:25 AM

    “… designed to keep the bio-babble-bullshit going in psychiatry.” The name of the game is to keep the game going.

    May 10, 2013 | 11:39 AM

    But what are these biological foundations Insel and Cuthbert keep on referring to?

    TBD — to be discovered.

    May 10, 2013 | 12:24 PM

    Turn out the lights, the party’s over.


    May 10, 2013 | 2:21 PM

    “…increases the clout of psychiatrists.”

    Yeah. You know what would impress me? If they could, before using their short little checklist, try to determine if what they are inclined to call “major depression” might be something else. If that world is just too big, they could limit themselves to concepts that begin with the letter “d”.

    despondent, dejected, demoralized, disenfranchised, drained, discriminated against, damaged, despairing, dominated, delegitimized, dispirited, dissipated, down in the dumps, demeaned, disheartened, discouraged, dismal, dreadful, disgusted, deploring, deprecated, disparaged, different, discordant

    The neurotic bias on top of the opportunistic bias on top of the implicit bias makes them deranged.

    May 10, 2013 | 3:18 PM

    Gee, what do the APA and Obama have in common? Both rule without regard to respectable, reliable dissent within their own ranks, and, if deaths occur from their poor choices of decisions they deem appropriate for the public they SERVE, mind you, well, that ain’t their F—–g problem.

    Rulers! What is the point of elections these days, even the process is a farce!

    May 10, 2013 | 3:34 PM

    bio-babble-bullshit…..love it…..best use of alliteration every!

    May 10, 2013 | 3:55 PM

    I will not listen to Radio Boston and the peachy gentlemen in modus damage control. I’ve seen a picture of Thomas Insel, scarily like a clone of one of our top bureaucrats. Sleek, slim, softspoken, superficial, suave, smart, son of someone.
    I will not ruin my pleasure and better mood derived from the tasty irony of this post and the delicious comments. Thanks, all of you!

    May 10, 2013 | 5:49 PM


    I appreciate your frustration with the political climate, the world we live in, including poor leadership everywhere we look.

    But to bring this right to the heart of the matter… Is a person any better off (any safer for instance) in seeing a psychiatrist who is *not* an APA member (opposed to one who is).

    Same diagnoses; same drugs; same injury; same failure.


    May 10, 2013 | 5:50 PM

    Same denial.


    May 10, 2013 | 6:34 PM

    As I wrote earlier today at another blog, denial solely for the sake of a cause or political agenda that does NOT offer alternatives for true problems is clueless at best, could be construed as neglectful or even evil per outcomes. I really have issue with those who just reflexively claim all psychiatric interventions are wrong.

    So, I ask once again, what alternative care options are there for depression, schizophrenia, PTSD, mania, even medical illnesses that have psychiatric symptoms like delirium?

    What will be the reply, a page from the current Democrat play book, deny and minimize and then wait for the problem to disappear. Or to just die!?

    You antipsychiatry zealots must be fun at suicide funerals! Yes, a rude comment on my part, so is saying illness is not real and ensuing silence about other options fairly interpreted as abandonment.

    But, we get the electorate we deserve, eh?!

    May 10, 2013 | 7:18 PM

    I’m sorry about your libertarian outlook, Joel; but there’s nothing I can do about it.

    May 10, 2013 | 11:00 PM


    In short, you seem to be saying there is no difference.

    Some of us “anti-psychiatry zealots* are as politically conservative as you.
    Look no further than Dr. Peter Breggin. – ‘Wow, I’m an American! How to Live Like Our Nations Heroic Founders’ –


    As far as non-drug treatment options, there are many, including Dr. Breggin’s ‘Empathic Therapy’…. More on madinamerica.com.


    May 10, 2013 | 11:59 PM

    Joel; Do we actually need to be reminded at this juncture that you proudly wear your “bio-babble-bullshit” cheerleader button to work each day…no secret national security unveiled there…It not like you slipped into something more palatable or changed those APA goose step leopard spots in the least… 🙂

    Of course as always you appear to be blinded to the fact that no one is saying emotional suffering is not real…an illness? a disease? We are still waiting for you to present the “scientific medical validation” and “evidenced based” indisputable evidence…still waiting….yawn….

    What is consistently clear to many psychiatry paradigm critics that you love to regularly attack & discredit by referring to them as (paraphrased) “antipsychiatry zealots having fun at suicide funerals”; is any miniscule awareness or recognition that psychiatrist like yourself actually have no idea (not a clue) what your treating, or how to effectively treat what ever it is that you believe your treating, and most definitely continue to cause far more damage than help to patients.

    In addition, dear Mr. Politicized Medical pundit; your cornishly repeated statements are just more evidence & are a further reflection of your own selfish professional/personal motives/maladies.

    Which once more clearly demonstrate that you are much more concerned and invested in your own imaginary medical professional stature than in the health of those you falsely claim or laughably espouse to treat.

    So besides the obvious flaws in your crazed arguments; your continued low level of befuddled ignorance consistently displayed in your online unhinged rants, has unknowingly further demoted your standing to official poster child for modern bio-psychiatry and newly self appointed court jester flag bearer for the APA & NIMH song and dance parade of broken promises and fanatical non-sense.

    It’s all such sweet, sweet irony after all, don’t you think….LMAO

    May 11, 2013 | 12:05 AM

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.