http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Barrett"Stephen J. Barrett, M.D. (born 1933), is a retired American psychiatrist and author best known for his consumer advocacy related work regarding health issues. ", etc.
Comment Dr. Barrett operates a web-site titled 'quackwatch', where various trends, old or new, are being mentioned — or "exposed".
I am not out for quarrelling with Dr. Barrett about a number of issues which he considers as 'quackeries' or the like -- because I hardly know anything about the most of his listings.
However, this psychiatrist may perhaps be asked some such questions as :
* What is the scientific validity of any such assumptions as the 'physical bases of consciousness' ?
(Please Note : these questions apply not to any of Mr. Barrett's statements but to psychiatry in general, of which 'discipline' Dr. Barrett is reportedly a representative — which 'discipline' is entirely missing in his 'quackwatch'.)
* What is the scientific evidence that a persons mental states can be improved by influencing or intervening with the body chemistry ?
(One does not question that the mental states can be altered by intake of chemical substances ; this is not "the same" is improving the persons or his mental states or as "curing" anything.)
* What is the scientific evidence that any of the 'disorders' listed in the psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (so-called) do in fact exist ?
(Please note ; the 'existence' of any of those listed 'disorders' has been 'established' in an arbitrary fashion by the votes taken by the American Psychiatric Association ; the number of these 'disorders' has been increasing ever since 1952 ; and, observing the fashion in which these 'disorders' are being 'defined', their number could in theory of increase indefinitely.)
* What is the scientific evidence that such psychiatric practices as electroshock do anything other than harm the patient ?
(Note : this is not to imply that Dr. Barrett either advocates or defends such practices as the electroshock. (This I do no know anything about). This is to imply that a 'quackwatch' site true to its label should as a matter of common-sense observation include such quackeries as the electroshock and any "cures" alleged to have been effected thereby).
* Ditto, the cutting or hewing of the brain ('lobotomy', etc); which might render the patient less agitated,-- this can be admitted -- or less "nervous" ; which "cures" yet amount to partial killing of the patient who, if totally dead, would certainly be neither "nervous" nor troublesome to anyone.
These and such questions, here but briefly sketched, do not pertain to somebody's possibly needless spending a few bucks on some vitamins -- one of the trends which Dr. Barrett staunchly opposes, partially on the assumption that the industry has been to an extent driven merely by the profits to the vitamin makers.
However, the vitamins have never hurt anybody ; this certainly could not be said about the profit-driven psycho-pharmaceutical industry products ; where non-existent 'disorders' are being "cured" en masse by chemicals which practically invariably harm the patient (note the "side effects" so apologetically called,).
Do any possible benefits to the patient (who might �feel better� for a few hours) outweigh the positive harm wrought by those �side effects� ?
What is the scientific evidence that anybody does really need any such tampering with the body chemistry (with the unavoidable �side effects") ?
If there be no scientific evidence to such an effect -- then psychiatry ought to be considered as the quackery No. 1 present in the US.
I for one do not know of any scientific evidence in support of the fundamentals of 'psychiatry' (the statements of American Psychiatric Association are not actual science but statements by some individuals — who, by the way, not infrequently lie about their 'specialty', examples I can produce if asked — )
The above has been scientifically determined by me, by way of careful studies of the voluminous literature on the subject ; as a matter of scientific observation I declare hereby that the are no scientific foundations to the discipline of psychiatry : for there are no stated fundamentals at all to this discipline, to be found anywhere.
If anyone does not believe my observation, please inform me about the theoretical fundamentals to psychiatry in general ;
This absent, we are talking, indeed, about a monstrous quackery in the name of 'science' and medicine.
What is the use of Dr. Barrett's 'quackwatch' in such a context ?
WPT