Criscience

Unless they perform a proper deductive differential diagnosis, they are in no position to know what the basis of their patient's problem really is.

Well, then it is a good thing that psychiatrists routinely perform proper differential diagnosis.

How exactly can a psychiatrist treat medical problems a patient "may" have unless s/he performs a deductive differential diagnosis to determine whether the patient's mental distress is caused by such medical problems or not?

Medical conditions noted on Axis III are not generally treated by the psychiatrist but referred to the proper specialist or internist. They are placed there for the psychiatrist to be aware of them and to refer to or confer with the relevant specialist when indicated.

It makes no difference whether the pedophile is a sadist or hypocritical creep who pretends to be friends with children. The child still gets harmed by the creep just the same.

You mention harm. In the definitive study of child sex abuse published 1998 by the American Psychological Association in the most prestigious journal of psychology in the country, Psychological Bulletin, in a majority of cases involving boys, outcomes ranged from neutral to positive. For girls, harm was neither pervasive nor typically intense, in contrast to what is popularly believed and portrayed in the mass media.

Read Rind et al.'s A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples online.

Now let's try to stay on topic.

Psychiatry has no future. Yes, it is clear: they don't have evidence for a biological cause for problems with the human mind. And they have been promising results for almost an age now...

 

Scientific studies show again and again that psychiatry is doing more harm then good and that alternatives (such as for example Soteria psychotherapy) can make up to 90% of all people with complex psychological problems (labeled with schizophrenia/psychosis) recover well while psychiatric treatment reduces the chance to recover. This is hard fact.

There is a lot of evidence for biological causes of psychiatric conditions. Temporal lobe epilepsy and brain tumors are just two examples that come to mind which can present as psychiatric syndromes. You might argue that those conditions are not then "psychiatric," but it is frequently the psychiatrist who will suspect it or want to rule it out of his diagnosis and send the patient to the neurologist for evaluation and possibly life-saving treatment. Exactly how do you measure the "good" psychiatry does in those cases?

What about acutely psychotic patients who are a danger to themselves or others? How about the lives saved by psychiatrists in those cases? How do you measure that?

Have you ever been around someone who is acutely manic or floridly psychotic? They are not exactly amenable to a calm talking to or "rest."

Arjan, if you are an idealistic college student trying to come up with some revolutionary idea to make the world a better place, that is all well and good. I won't begrudge you that. Just get more experience of the real world first before you start pontificating.

Psychiatry is fraud and needs to be put to an end.

Like any other field, psychiatry can improve. Individual practitioners can certainly practice poorly, but they are a small minority. In the meantime, many people benefit from psychiatric treatment.

Merged post follows:

Have you read the work of Sydney Walker? He points out that things like mental confusion and distress are serious symptoms that need to be treated and, where possible, cured, but that psychiatrists (mainstream) are currently foregoing this role, because they treat subjective, unscientific DSM labels as disorders in themselves, rather than finding the root physical causes of brain dysfunction.

 

Egs., so-called ADHD may actually be the result of lead poisoning, carbon monoxide poisoning, pinworms, blocked colons, and dozens of other genetic,

/ environmental causes. But by assigning patients a meaningless label and then drugging them, psychs ensure that any root physical cause as may exist goes neglected and untreated.

Do you seriously believe that the medical professionals who are psychiatrists and who have read hundreds of papers on all aspects of medicine and rotated through the medical specialties including internal medicine, neurology, surgery, etc., have not given a thought to the possibility that some syndromes they treat can have a medical basis?

In fact, Axis III of their diagnostic system is devoted exclusively to medical problems the patient may have.

I am sorry, but some of the posts here reflect a serious lack of understanding of how psychiatrists train and practice.

Merged post follows:

How do you reach this conclusion, MM6? The DSM has led to

 

- people losing their jobs after being witchhunted on the basis they had non- existent disorders (an NIMH employeee was sacked after she correctly reported she had been sexually harassed, on the basis she had "self-defeating personality disorder"). The label was in the DSM 3 but removed from the DSM 4. So she was sacked for a quack label which psychiatrists later admitted had no basis.

stradi, you are quickly losing credibility here. "Self-defeating personality disorder" was never formally admitted into the DSM. To use that as a pretext to fire someone is a serious abuse of the diagnostic process.

MM6, you mean he was not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at the trial involving Gavin Arvizo, and rightly so. I am sure he was not guilty of the kidnapping and false imprisonment charges, but the charges that he plied the boys with alcohol and the sex charges, which may have been based in fact, were not credible because Neverland staff testified that Gavin and his brother had broken into Jackson's liquor cabinet, and their mother was shown to be a manipulative, gold-digging liar.

Or do you believe that Jordie Chandler lied in 1993 when he described Jackson's genitalia in detail as well as all the sex they engaged in, and that the hundreds or even thousands of nights Jackson spent in bed with boys were all "innocent"?

Sounds like John Money is full of BS. Lewis Carroll hated children. How Money proposes raping anyone is compatible with loving them, much less a child, is beyond me.

Sorry, but I can't see anything whatsoever correct about your post. Are you talking about Charles L. Dodgson? Do you have anything to back up your claim? We scientists go by evidence, you know.

Or are you saying that his special friendship with Alice Liddell, friendships with numerous other young girls, long times spent in their company, many sessions spent alone with young girls photographing them nude, and his relative lack of adult relationships are all evidence that he hated children??? That is a bizarre contention at best.

Then, John Money never proposed "raping anyone is compatible with loving them." In fact, I can't see how anyone could ever propose anything as absurd as your statement.

I think his development was arrested certainly. He seemed asexual to me.

I think..., He seemed... So these are all just your own musings, and you have nothing empirical to back them up, right?

I hope he wasn't... that horrible word beginning with 'p'.

It is telling that you are unable to even type the word "pedophile." Some of us, although apparently and thankfully not you, are involved in clinical treatment of individuals attracted to minors. Such an attitude of demonization has no place in a clinician's repertoire and can do nothing to advance the treatment of such patients.

Did you hear his final song? He was going publicly up against the US government.

No, never heard of it. What is it called, and what is the significance of it?

Ok. My impression of Michael Jackson is that he was deluding himself into trying to recapture a lost childhood, and thus semi-worshipped them as sources of youth and innocence, while trying as an adult to befriend them in the way that children befriend one another, or at least how they do in his imagination. In other words, unhealthy, delusional, pathetic, but not sexual. Of course, I have no proof of this, and I haven't followed his tabloid-filtered life. It's just a general impression.

The book scheduled to appear early next year, Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons, of which I have gotten an preview, will put any doubts that you, Transdecimal, and any others may have to rest.

I never really took much notice of his music, but I'm still not convinced that he was ever a pervert.

Of course, one can be a pedophile without ever acting out sexually. I don't believe that anyone knows for sure that Lewis Carroll ever had sex with immature girls; what we do know, however, is that he spent an awful lot of time with them, including trips to a country house alone where he'd photograph them naked.

Similarly, J.M Barrie essentially devoted his life to the five Llewellyn Davies boys, got his name inserted, some say dubiously, into the will to care for them after their parents passed away, and appears to have been infatuated with George and Michael.

Were they "perverts?" Who knows? They were, however, pedophilic genii. (BTW, we do not use the term "pervert" clinically.)

I think he definitely "loved children" in an unhealthy way, but it's definitely not clear to me that that he had sexual attraction to children or that he acted on it.

Could you please expound upon how one can "'love children' in an unhealthy way" without having a sexual attraction or acting upon it?

I'm not sure what you mean by "genius".

I can only refer you back to Money's original formulation.

Michael Jackson the performer: Quincy Jones the producer and Rod Templton the writer.

None of these people were what I'd call genii although they were very talented. If any one of them were missing then the whole Michael Jackson phenomenon wouldn't have happened.

Nobody exists in a vacuum. I am not sure I agree that Jackson as a phenomenon would not have happened. With different collaborators it may have taken a slightly different direction. And certainly Jackson's dancing' date=' which was his greatest talent, was not dependent upon the others you mention.

[mp']Consecutive posts merged[/mp]

Pangloss, there was nothing in the OP about "abuse," so I am not sure of the relevance of your comment.

The late Father of Sexology and Johns Hopkins Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Pediatrics Dr. John Money first described the phenomenon of "pedophilic genius," in which great achievements are inspired by their creator's love of children.

As examples, Money cites Lewis Carroll (author of Alice in Wonderland) and J.M. Barrie (of Peter Pan). Their masterpieces have in turn inspired many succeeding generations of children.

It is fairly clear that Jackson was both a pedophile and a genius, but does he qualify for Money's category? It would need to be established that his love of children (or more specifically, boys) contributed in a major way to his creative inspiration.

Seeing the abundance of Jackson's works, especially music videos, which have flooded the airwaves following his death in which boys play major roles as actors, dancers, singers, extras, and subjects (e.g. the "Black or White" video featuring 13-year-old Macaulay Culkin, and his cover song "Ben," from the movie about a boy and his pet rat), I would have to conclude that yes, he does.

Ref.: "Pedophilia: A Special Instance of New Phylism Theory as Applied to Paraphilic Lovemaps," Money, J., in Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, Jay. R. Feierman, Ed.

I thought you meant we cold earn the credits online.

Looks good, though. Let us know how it goes.

The late Father of Sexology and Johns Hopkins Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Pediatrics Dr. John Money classified sadomasochism as a paraphilia of the sacrificial/expiatory type which requires reparation and atonement for the sin of lust by way of penance and sacrifice.

There is a good precis of Money's construction here. The point is made that it is not so much pain and its infliction that is the turn-on, but the skewed distribution of power.

Also interesting is the fact that there appears to be "fewer individuals with sexual sadistic tendencies than sexual masochistic inclinations. In other words more people eroticize being submissive. This may reflect a general social script that tells us it is more virtuous to be punished than to be an aggressor toward another."

Two of Money's books which shed light on this are Lovemaps and Gay, Straight, and In-Between: The Sexology of Erotic Orientation.

Sorry, I thought this was a scientific forum.

How can I get there?

I'm so sick of hearing phrases like this. Dying does not suddenly make everybody a good person.

No, it certainly was not sudden. His great musical feats were accomplished over a span of 40+ years.

But certainly the greatest entertainer of all time, at least of you go by sales, #1 hits, etc., deserves the period immediately following his death as a time of respect. Much lesser people deserve at least that.

The late Father of Sexology and Johns Hopkins Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Pediatrics Dr. John Money described the phenomenon of "pedophilic genius," giving as examples Lewis Carroll (author of Alice in Wonderland) and J.M. Barrie (of Peter Pan) whose love of children inspired them to create their masterpieces which in turn have inspired many succeeding generations of children.

It is fairly clear that MiJac was both a pedophile and a genius, but does he qualify for Money's category? It would need to be established that his love of boys is what inspired his artistic creations. There is evidence in the abundance of his productions featuring boys as actors, singers, and dancers, e.g. the "Black or White" video featuring 13-year-old Macaulay Culkin, and his cover song "Ben," from the movie about a boy and his pet rat, so I would have to conclude that yes, he does.

Ref.: "Pedophilia: A Special Instance of New Phylism Theory as Applied to Paraphilic Lovemaps," Money, J., in Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, Jay. R. Feierman, Ed.