{"id":56536,"date":"2015-05-03T14:45:20","date_gmt":"2015-05-03T18:45:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=56536"},"modified":"2015-05-05T17:14:04","modified_gmt":"2015-05-05T21:14:04","slug":"guilding-the-lilly","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2015\/05\/03\/guilding-the-lilly\/","title":{"rendered":"guilding the lily…"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
It really is impossible to start this story at the beginning. And who knows where the middle is before the end is in sight? So all that is clear is the lead-in and general directions. The loose debate in the articles below picks up with an interview in Truthout<\/font><\/strong> of Robert Whitaker by one of the Mad in America<\/font><\/em> bloggers, Psychologist\/Activist Bruce Levine. It came long after Senator Grassley’s investigations of prominent psychiatrists [2008], four years after the publication of Whitaker’s Anatomy of an Epidemic<\/font><\/em> and PHARMA’s exiting CNS drug development [2010], and a year after the publication of the DSM-5 and the tumult that came before [2013]. Here’s Levine’s intro to the interview:<\/div>\n
\n
… Whitaker’s sincerity about seeking better treatment options, his command of the facts and his lack of anti-drug dogma compelled all but the most dogmatic psychiatrists to take him seriously. In the past four years, the psychiatry establishment has pivoted from first ignoring Whitaker to then debating him and attempting to discredit him to currently agreeing with many of his conclusions. But will Whitaker’s success in changing minds result in a change for the better in treatment practices? I was curious about Whitaker’s take on the recent U-turns by major figures in the psychiatry establishment with respect to antipsychotic drug treatment, the validity of the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness and the validity of the DSM, psychiatry’s diagnostic bible. And I was curious about Whitaker’s sense of psychiatry’s future direction.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
As one progresses through these articles, the argument builds over the institution of psychiatry’s participation in spreading the "Chemical Imbalance" explanation of depression [including the idea of Serotonin depletion that is reversible by the SSRIs]. Did psychiatry<\/em> push the idea? or was it picked up in the culture? or promoted by PHARMA? But in the background, the real debate is about whether psychiatry<\/em> knew<\/u> the Serotonin theories were false and promoted them anyway<\/u> as a method to sell drugs? The reason to read these articles in toto<\/em> is that the latter accusation isn’t so apparent in individual extracted quotes…<\/div>\n
    <\/p>\n
  1. \n
  2. \n
  3. \n
  4. \n
  5. \n
  6. \n
  7. \n
    The Spurious Chemical Imbalance Theory is Still Alive and Well<\/font><\/a><\/em>
    Mad in America<\/font><\/strong>; by Philip Hickey; April 27, 2015.<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/li>\n

    <\/span><\/ol>\n

    While not directly part of this dialog, David Healy’s recent editorial on this topic is pertinent to the discusion:<\/div>\n