{"id":28652,"date":"2012-10-10T07:59:45","date_gmt":"2012-10-10T11:59:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=28652"},"modified":"2012-10-10T08:04:24","modified_gmt":"2012-10-10T12:04:24","slug":"why-wouldnt-they-want-to-hear-that","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/10\/10\/why-wouldnt-they-want-to-hear-that\/","title":{"rendered":"why wouldn’t they want to hear that?…"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
"British psychiatrist and Big Pharma gadfly<\/font><\/strong> David Healy is so controversial <\/font><\/strong>amongst his colleagues that some have tried to have his medical license revoked — but there he was on Thursday, speaking at the American Psychiatric Association’s [APA] second largest annual meeting at a well-attended session on conflicts of interest. ‘It’s a miracle that I was asked along to give a talk [here], and I’m extremely grateful,’ Healy said.<\/em>"<\/div>\n
Psychiatrist Contends the Field Is ‘Committing Professional Suicide’<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a><\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n
\n
gad·fly<\/font><\/strong> [gdfl<\/font>] –noun<\/strong><\/div>\n
    <\/p>\n
  1. \n
    any of various large dipterous flies, esp the horsefly, that annoy livestock by sucking their blood<\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  2. \n
    a constantly irritating or harassing person<\/div>\n<\/li>\n

    <\/sup><\/strong><\/ol>\n

    <\/p>\n

    Word Origin & History<\/u><\/font><\/strong>: 1620s, "fly which bites cattle," probably from gad "goad, metal rod" [early 13c.], here in the sense of "stinger," from O.N. gaddr "spike, nail," from P.Gmc. *gadaz "pointed stick;" but sense is entangled with gad [v.] and an early meaning of gadfly was also "someone who likes to go about, often stopping here and there." Sense of "one who irritates another" is from 1640s [equivalent of L.oestrus].<\/strong><\/sup><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

    <\/p>\n\n\n
    \n
    con·tro·ver·sy<\/font><\/strong> [kntr-vûrs<\/font>] –noun<\/strong><\/div>\n
      <\/p>\n
      a dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views.<\/div>\n

      <\/sup><\/strong><\/ol>\n

      <\/p>\n

      Origin of Controversy<\/u><\/font><\/strong>: Middle English controversie, from Anglo-French, from Latin controversia, from controversus disputable, literally, turned against, from contro- (akin to contra-) + versus, past participle of vertere to turn. First Known Use: 14th century.<\/strong><\/sup><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

      I don’t think of Dr. Healy as a gadfly. As a matter of fact, as more time passes, I wonder what’s even controversial about what he’s been saying over the last decade and a half. I guess if I had to pick a word for him, it would be resilient, maybe patient. He made the observation early that some people on the SSRI antidepressants react by becoming hostile, aggressive, sometimes suicidal or homicidal. He noticed that people discontinuing these medications sometimes had withdrawal reactions requiring attention. As time passed, he realized some other things that most of the rest of us now know – that the pharmaceutical industry had gained control over much of the academic psychiatric research community, ghost-writing articles for the peer-reviewed literature that favored their drugs, hiring psychiatrist opinion leaders onto advisory boards and speaker’s bureaus, handing out unrestricted institutional grants, financing research, etc. In the meantime, the actual practice of psychiatry itself has become trivialized – down to medication management by brief, infrequent med checks on the way to turning that over to primary care physicians [that’s the "Professional Suicide" part he’s referring to]. What’s controversial about that? In the meantime, we’re increasingly aware that these medications aren’t so benign as we’ve been lead to believe.<\/p>\n

      This article was written as if there would be surprise that he would be welcomed by an audience of psychiatrists – that they might see him as a gadfly, or as controversial, maybe throw rotten tomatoes:<\/div>\n
      \n
      British psychiatrist and Big Pharma gadfly David Healy is so controversial amongst his colleagues that some have tried to have his medical license revoked — but there he was on Thursday, speaking at the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) second largest annual meeting at a well-attended session on conflicts of interest. “It’s a miracle that I was asked along to give a talk [here], and I’m extremely grateful,” Healy said… Healy’s jeremiad was more severe and sharply worded, but it seemed to be well received by the psychiatrists assembled in the audience. Many even asked questions that suggested they too were troubled by the status quo…<\/sup><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      If you’ve read Dr. Healy’s books, you wouldn’t be surprised by his reception at all. I wasn’t. The books are written to physicians, and it easy to intuit that Dr. Healy himself is a physician. He talks about patients, often specific cases. He talks about the difficulties patients run into with their medications, and their lives. If you go to DavidHealy.com<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a>, his posts are often about cases and his R<\/font><\/strong><\/u>x<\/sub><\/font><\/strong>ist<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a> site is patient reported side effects. There was another thing that surprises some:<\/div>\n
      \n
      But when a questioner, claiming himself “speechless” in the face of Healy’s arguments, asked whether he should just stop prescribing antidepressants, Healy said no. Healy prescribes them himself, but believes that the role of the doctor is to manage risks, not view drugs as harmless. “Medical treatment is poison, and the art of medicine is trying to find the right dose,” he said.<\/sup><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      People are surprised that in his practice, he uses medications. I do too. Many of the very medications that he’s talking about, that I talk about here. Although he is a psychopharmacologist, he doesn’t talk about Clinical Trials except to point out their limitations and how they’ve been grossly misused. How is psychiatry different from any other medical specialty? When I saw a new Diabetic as an Internist, I didn’t give them a prescription for Insulin and send them on their way – returning for med checks. Insulin is dangerous stuff. That’s a major part of being a physician – learning to use the potentially toxic chemicals we call drugs in a way that helps rather than harms, helping patients learn themselves. Done right, it’s hard work that requires a lot of knowing and ongoing attention:<\/div>\n
      \n
      Healy noted further that when data surfaced showing a link between antidepressant use and risk of suicide in children, the APA issued a statement proclaiming that “we believe that antidepressants save lives.” “What I believe they should have said is that the APA believes that psychiatrists can save lives because it takes expertise to manage the risks of risky pills,” he said; if psychiatrists’ only role were to dole out drugs, then less trained physician’s assistants could easily replace them, he noted.<\/sup><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      Most of his talk was about how the Pharmaceutical Industry has systematically overstated the efficacy of their drugs and downplayed their toxicity – about how the industry has engaged organized and academic psychiatry in the pursuit of commercial goals, and about the lies they all told in the process. David Healy is neither gadfly, nor controversial, nor even messiah. He’s just a doctor, trying to remind his colleagues that they are too. Why wouldn’t they want to hear that?…<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      "British psychiatrist and Big Pharma gadfly David Healy is so controversial amongst his colleagues that some have tried to have his medical license revoked — but there he was on Thursday, speaking at the American Psychiatric Association’s [APA] second largest annual meeting at a well-attended session on conflicts of interest. ‘It’s a miracle that I […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28652","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28652","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28652"}],"version-history":[{"count":105,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28652\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28757,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28652\/revisions\/28757"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28652"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28652"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28652"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}