Tuesday, February 10, 2004
The New York Academy of Medicine: Electroconvulsive Therapy and the Concept of Progress in Medical History
The New York Academy of Medicine: Initiatives: Historical Collections: Lectures
Jonathan Sadowsky, Ph.D.
Electroconvulsive Therapy and the Concept of Progress in Medical History
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Reception 5:30 PM, Lecture 6:00 PM
I will be going to this lecture; anyone who wants to come with please contact me and we'll arrange transportation.
I was feeling sick I was loosing my mind I heard about these treatments
From a good friend of mine he was always happy smile on his face
He said he had a great time at the place
Peace and love is here to stay and now I can wake up and face the day
Happy happy happy all the time shock treatment, I'm doing fine
Gimme gimme shock treatment Gimme gimme shock treatment
Gimme gimme shock treatment I wanna, wanna shock treatment
--The Ramones
Jonathan Sadowsky, Ph.D.
Electroconvulsive Therapy and the Concept of Progress in Medical History
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Reception 5:30 PM, Lecture 6:00 PM
I will be going to this lecture; anyone who wants to come with please contact me and we'll arrange transportation.
I was feeling sick I was loosing my mind I heard about these treatments
From a good friend of mine he was always happy smile on his face
He said he had a great time at the place
Peace and love is here to stay and now I can wake up and face the day
Happy happy happy all the time shock treatment, I'm doing fine
Gimme gimme shock treatment Gimme gimme shock treatment
Gimme gimme shock treatment I wanna, wanna shock treatment
--The Ramones
Monday, February 02, 2004
Zombie Infection Simulation v2.3
Zombie Infection Simulation v2.3
Visual simulation of infectious processes on a population level. It's startling to see how quickly almost the entire population becomes infected.
What does this have to do with Psychiatry? Nothing in psychiatry is governed by infectious processes. When they are (rarely) found out to be infectious, like rabies, they become neurological problems. So, why epidemiology?
Indeed; the DSM-IV, the "bible" of psychiatry, was more intended as a guide for researchers looking to come to a consensus regarding what defines a given "mental illness" than for use as a clinical manual. It's called the "diagnostic and statistical manual". Still, we've yet to identify any particular physiological processes that might lead to a true causality or epidemiology: temporal relationship, biologically plausible, understood mechanism, reproducible, demonstrated consistently, and dose-dependent relationship.
Despite this, I would say that psychiatry does have a component of infection in it. But it's not what you think. Think fad, meme, viral marketing, fear-mongering, panic. These are the type of infectious processes that matter in psychiatry. Remember ADHD? How it seemed that every excitable kid was being given Ritalin to control their "disease"? How schools were forcing parents to get a diagnosis and a prescription, or else they were not allowed to be in school, or threatened with charges of child abuse? (Really.) That there are pet psychiatrists? Seasonal affective disorder, eponymously labeled SAD? These are examples of memes:
"What is a meme? A meme is an idea, or a particular way of thinking about what an idea is. A meme is a unit of mental information in the same way that a gene is a unit of biological information -- a metaphor of an idea as a transposon, a pattern of thought as a virus, a knowledge structure as a chromosome. Memes compete to spread their information though a social population in the same ways genes compete to spread their information content through a biological population."
In psychiatry, memes arguably work similarly to a virus: there is a temporal relationship between the development of a drug treatment for a disease and the rate of "infection". The criteria of reproducibility, biological (sociological) plausibility, and consistent demonstration all follow a similar logic to the temporal relationship criterion: When there is a treatment for a disease, people's sense of commiseration with the afflicted leads them to identify with the afflicted, and the vague criteria of the disease allows them to become victims, with excuses for everything. Nelson Mandela's famous quote comes to mind,
"Our greatest fear is not that we are weak, it is that we are powerful beyond measure"
Talking about vague criteria, here's part of the diagnostic criteria for ADHD:
-Fails to pay close attention to details or makes careless errors in schoolwork, work or other activities
-Has trouble keeping attention on tasks or play
-Doesn't appear to listen when being told something
-Neither follows through on instructions nor completes chores, schoolwork, or jobs (not due to oppositional behavior or failure to understand)
-Has trouble organizing activities and tasks
-Dislikes or avoids tasks that involve sustained mental effort (homework, schoolwork)
-Loses materials needed for activities (assignments, books, pencils, tools, toys)
-Easily distracted by extraneous stimuli
-Forgetful
I remember being "afflicted" by all of these problems. I thought it was called "childhood" or "immaturity".
Importantly, however, notice how people are not in a hurry to get themselves diagnosed with schitzophrenia or their children with autism. There's no curative treatment for either. Moreover, it's not just people themselves; often it's teachers, the justice system, Child protective services, schools, etc., etc.
So what's the point? Marketing has driven the production of demand for psychotropic medication to such an extent that it has permeated every level of our society. And psychiatry has been complicit and a willing accomplice. Things have got to change.
Visual simulation of infectious processes on a population level. It's startling to see how quickly almost the entire population becomes infected.
What does this have to do with Psychiatry? Nothing in psychiatry is governed by infectious processes. When they are (rarely) found out to be infectious, like rabies, they become neurological problems. So, why epidemiology?
Indeed; the DSM-IV, the "bible" of psychiatry, was more intended as a guide for researchers looking to come to a consensus regarding what defines a given "mental illness" than for use as a clinical manual. It's called the "diagnostic and statistical manual". Still, we've yet to identify any particular physiological processes that might lead to a true causality or epidemiology: temporal relationship, biologically plausible, understood mechanism, reproducible, demonstrated consistently, and dose-dependent relationship.
Despite this, I would say that psychiatry does have a component of infection in it. But it's not what you think. Think fad, meme, viral marketing, fear-mongering, panic. These are the type of infectious processes that matter in psychiatry. Remember ADHD? How it seemed that every excitable kid was being given Ritalin to control their "disease"? How schools were forcing parents to get a diagnosis and a prescription, or else they were not allowed to be in school, or threatened with charges of child abuse? (Really.) That there are pet psychiatrists? Seasonal affective disorder, eponymously labeled SAD? These are examples of memes:
"What is a meme? A meme is an idea, or a particular way of thinking about what an idea is. A meme is a unit of mental information in the same way that a gene is a unit of biological information -- a metaphor of an idea as a transposon, a pattern of thought as a virus, a knowledge structure as a chromosome. Memes compete to spread their information though a social population in the same ways genes compete to spread their information content through a biological population."
In psychiatry, memes arguably work similarly to a virus: there is a temporal relationship between the development of a drug treatment for a disease and the rate of "infection". The criteria of reproducibility, biological (sociological) plausibility, and consistent demonstration all follow a similar logic to the temporal relationship criterion: When there is a treatment for a disease, people's sense of commiseration with the afflicted leads them to identify with the afflicted, and the vague criteria of the disease allows them to become victims, with excuses for everything. Nelson Mandela's famous quote comes to mind,
"Our greatest fear is not that we are weak, it is that we are powerful beyond measure"
Talking about vague criteria, here's part of the diagnostic criteria for ADHD:
-Fails to pay close attention to details or makes careless errors in schoolwork, work or other activities
-Has trouble keeping attention on tasks or play
-Doesn't appear to listen when being told something
-Neither follows through on instructions nor completes chores, schoolwork, or jobs (not due to oppositional behavior or failure to understand)
-Has trouble organizing activities and tasks
-Dislikes or avoids tasks that involve sustained mental effort (homework, schoolwork)
-Loses materials needed for activities (assignments, books, pencils, tools, toys)
-Easily distracted by extraneous stimuli
-Forgetful
I remember being "afflicted" by all of these problems. I thought it was called "childhood" or "immaturity".
Importantly, however, notice how people are not in a hurry to get themselves diagnosed with schitzophrenia or their children with autism. There's no curative treatment for either. Moreover, it's not just people themselves; often it's teachers, the justice system, Child protective services, schools, etc., etc.
So what's the point? Marketing has driven the production of demand for psychotropic medication to such an extent that it has permeated every level of our society. And psychiatry has been complicit and a willing accomplice. Things have got to change.
