| Author |
 Topic  |
|
alexis
USA
596 Posts |
 Posted - 06/11/2013 : 06:27:45
|
Hi all,
For anyone following the mainstream psych diagnoses of these disorders, the DSM-5 has been out a couple of weeks now with the new "Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders" category (replacing Somatoform Disorders).
While a lot of people discover somatic illness theory through Sarno and similar popular authors, it's good to remember that this is a pretty well established field that's been studied for well over a hundred years with a lot of ongoing research. It's really essential, therefore, to at a minimum be familiar with the categories and terms used by most of the psychological community.
Alexis |
|
|
pspa123
672 Posts |
|
|
alexis
USA
596 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 07:59:15
|
Yep, a lot of debate, often from people cautioning that too many real illnesses would be missed. I posted last year on some of that discussion and the changes made to accomodate these concerns, for better or worse.
One note on the second link you posted is that hypochondriasis without somatic symptoms is now included under the main category as a illness anxiety disorder. Essentially most people with hypochondriasis were found to have somatic symptoms and so disagnosed as somatic symptom disorder, but the remainder are assigned illness anxiety disorder. |
 |
|
|
pspa123
672 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 08:04:51
|
My cynical self (with regard to psychiatrists, anyhow) found this paragraph from the second post pretty compelling:
When you consider the damage that psychiatrists have done and continue to do to millions of people, with their spurious diagnosing, their routine subordination of science to spin, their disempowering of the individuals they “serve,” and their pill-for-every-problem philosophy, their present pursuit of intellectual purity with regards to mind-body dualism is a little difficult to fathom. |
|
|
|
alexis
USA
596 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 11:45:38
|
Sure, so reading pop psychology written by someone with no education in the field who thinks psychological theory ended with Freud and his followers is better. Got it. Sorry, but you folks who cling to this site are pretty hopeless.
As a tip to anyone not already sucked in, there's plenty of controversy and debate within the psychological communities but at least the work is based on hard data and rigorous debate. Most of what people think is new and radical on this site was said in the psychological community back in the 1970s, much of it rejected. I find it frustrating coming here because, as mentioned on another thread, the religious style fanaticism hinders real discussion, and the persecution complex regarding the medical community is one of the saddest representations of that cult mentality.
If you don't see the conflict and debate in the psychological and psychiatric communities you aren't looking hard enough. If you don't see the purpose in keeping tabs on the diagnostic criteria used by most of this country and, when you include the ICD versions, the world, you are being willfully ignorant.
|
|
|
|
pspa123
672 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 11:55:58
|
| How do you infer from my agreement with a broad criticism of the psychiatric profession what my opinion is regarding Dr. Sarno? In fact, I quite agree that the rigid adherence to his ideas by some here is misplaced, and have said so often. Your post seems unnecessarily contentious, as well: e.g., "hopeless," "willfully ignorant." You lament the absence of real discussion but how do those epithets help? |
Edited by - pspa123 on 06/11/2013 11:59:39 |
|
|
|
bryan3000
USA
513 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 12:19:22
|
Alexis,
Did you actually read his post? It sounded like you were responding to something else.
What he said was nothing like what you wrote.
Pspa is about as far away from being a Sarno-Zombie as you'll find here. I think your ire about the subject matter may be clouding your ability to interact, here.
|
|
|
|
alexis
USA
596 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 12:25:34
|
pspa123, I apologize if I implied you are a Sarno fanatic, about which I don't know. I do infer, however, that you are ready to throw your hat in with Sarno, Weekes etc. and the alternative pop psychology route to the extent of ignoring mainstream psychology and psychiatry (which share use of the DSM). Am I wrong about that? Because refusing to even acknowledge the DSM is a pretty extreme position.
If my response sounded contentious, you might want to reread your own. All I did in my original post was let folks know that the DSM changes were out (this has the potential, btw, to impact many people's insurance reimbursements) and suggest that people might want to "be familiar with the categories and terms used by most of the psychological community". I have previously posted criticisms of the DSM-5 process and category. Your response, however, contained nothing but an outright condemnation of modern psychiatry. Perhaps you do not see this as a contentious response, but I would have to disagree. |
|
|
|
bryan3000
USA
513 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 12:42:56
|
"Modern" psychiatry almost killed me. First a medicine that made me suicidal, and then meds that took me almost 2 years to get the effects out of my system.
Thank god I found some "pop" psychology from the great like Weekes and others, who have an established legacy of healing real people, not doping them up with meds they admit themselves they don't understand. But, you don't need me to tell you this. You can go online and research the millions of people suffering on these meds, or read any of the dozens of books written by accomplished psychiatrists on the subject.
And by the way, Sarno and Weekes were both medical doctors (and Weekes a research scientist) with decades of training in treating somatic illness. I'm not sure where you get this "no training" nonsense. And Weekes was behavioral... not remotely Freudian. She made her name by NOT following Freudian concepts. Maybe you need to do your homework a bit before throwing this stuff around?
I'm better today because I escaped the clutches of "modern" psychiatry. Most people not working for big pharma have a healthy distrust of the sort. |
Edited by - bryan3000 on 06/11/2013 12:44:38 |
|
|
|
alexis
USA
596 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 13:17:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by bryan3000
"Modern" psychiatry almost killed me. First a medicine that made me suicidal, and then meds that took me almost 2 years to get the effects out of my system.
Thank god I found some "pop" psychology from the great like Weekes and others, who have an established legacy of healing real people, not doping them up with meds they admit themselves they don't understand. But, you don't need me to tell you this. You can go online and research the millions of people suffering on these meds, or read any of the dozens of books written by accomplished psychiatrists on the subject.
And by the way, Sarno and Weekes were both medical doctors (and Weekes a research scientist) with decades of training in treating somatic illness. I'm not sure where you get this "no training" nonsense. And Weekes was behavioral... not remotely Freudian. She made her name by NOT following Freudian concepts. Maybe you need to do your homework a bit before throwing this stuff around?
I'm better today because I escaped the clutches of "modern" psychiatry. Most people not working for big pharma have a healthy distrust of the sort.
What "decades of training" did Weekes have? Neither of them were any more psychiatrists than they were urologists or ophthalmologists. And if you reread my post by the way you'll see that I never called Weekes a Freudian nor said that she didn't help people. Neither of these physicians, however, was new or radical except in bringing some fairly well established information to the masses and packaging (well) it for self help. I have no problem with people reading these and benefiting from them, but to pretend that these are the end-all-be-all of psychology research is to ignore reality.
As for psychiatry, many, many people have criticisms about the relationship with the pharmaceutical world. But the heavy use of these treatments has a lot more to do with the cost in money and time of other mental health alternatives in the US than it has to do with any horrible plot of domination.
If you read the literature, most researchers recognize that therapy and behavioral approaches are the best angle for many disorders but when people can only afford one trip to their primary care provider a year and can't take time off for other visits of course they're likely to choose drugs when offered the alternatives. Normally a primary care provider will describe the alternatives of drugs or a visit to a therapist or referral to a psychiatrist. What you usually end up with in the US is primary care provider prescribed medication because that's all people can afford to take advantage of. Yes, at that point self-help is a great alternative, but it's not because the authors have some unique insight on the science.
And remember that psychologists, who can only prescribe meds in two states, are much less likely to suggest them, and yet still use roughly the same psychological framework, which, to get back to my original post, I am merely pointing out should be considered and understood if we are to participate in this debate. |
|
|
|
pspa123
672 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 13:25:51
|
Picking up where Bryan left off, it would take more than both my hands to count the number of psychiatrists I have seen over the years, and to a man and woman every one of them stuck one or more DSM labels on me and prescribed one or more pills to alter my brain chemistry. I thank God for the enlightened people, whether or not they are/were pop psychologists as you pejoratively term them, who showed me a better way. Without them I would still be a klonopin addict living my life around my dosing schedule, and fighting with psychiatrists who wanted me to take more and to add more drugs to my cocktail. And don't even get me started about the DSMing of autistic spectrum disorders and the indiscriminate and inappropriate use of pharmaceuticals for that population, with which I am all too familiar from personal experience as well.
I suggest you read some Marcia Angell (former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, no pop psychologist she) and Joanna Moncrief and then we can talk about how enlightened modern psychiatry is. |
Edited by - pspa123 on 06/11/2013 13:32:53 |
|
|
|
bryan3000
USA
513 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 13:52:19
|
Alexis,
You lumped Weekes in with Freudian psychologists in haste to make your point that this board is somehow populated with people who are stuck in that modality. You were wrong in your assessment of her background, you were wrong in your assessment of the mindset of this board and you attacked someone who not only is not a TMS Zombie, he's a regularly challenged the status quo with insightful, articulate posts. I credit him for not attacking you back the way you attacked him.
Beyond that, your "primary care provider" story also falls short. I know a host of people, many on this board who had access to the best " modern" psychiatrists and psychologists available.
I work for a large corporation, have excellent insurance and like many, paid out of pocket for a host what was considered to be "top shelf" psychiatrists. Some were fruitful, some weren't.
But, let's not pretend that it's just the local, hack GP on the corner doling out the prozac like candy. Doctors of all statures are on the take...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18673220
For all of the people here that may be perhaps too dedicated to one modality, you are clearly as agitated as anyone I've seen post on the subject. Like I said, maybe do your homework before you come in here attacking people next time.
|
Edited by - bryan3000 on 06/11/2013 13:53:08 |
|
|
|
alexis
USA
596 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 14:02:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by bryan3000
Alexis,
You lumped Weekes in with Freudian psychologists in haste to make your point that this board is somehow populated with people who are stuck in that modality.
Please quote the place where you believe I lumped Weekes with Freudian psychologists because I'm not seeing anywhere in anything I said from which this could be drawn. |
|
|
|
alexis
USA
596 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 14:19:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by bryan3000
Beyond that, your "primary care provider" story also falls short. I know a host of people, many on this board who had access to the best " modern" psychiatrists and psychologists available.
I work for a large corporation, have excellent insurance and like many, paid out of pocket for a host what was considered to be "top shelf" psychiatrists. Some were fruitful, some weren't.
Most antidepressant prescriptions (almost 3/4) are written by primary care providers. Anti-anxiety meds show a similar pattern with estimates even higher. I, too, have great insurance but most people do not. Even those who can get a three stop referral to a specialist usually can't get several months of therapy. You can't just draw your beliefs from anecdotal evidence rather than hard data. Your experience with drugs, stories you read on line, people you know. That's the problem with boards like this. There's a lot more data out there than folks here realize and everyone just goes off of personal stories. |
|
|
|
pspa123
672 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 14:21:58
|
"But the heavy use of these treatments has a lot more to do with the cost in money and time of other mental health alternatives in the US than it has to do with any horrible plot of domination."
You should read Dr. Daniel Carlat's book Unhinged about, in part, his experiences as a drug rep. He also discusses how much more profitable it was to set up his practice as a series of 15 minute med checks than 50 minute psychiatric consultations.
Ah, I found it, here is an article by Dr. Carlat in the NY Times which was part of his book.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/magazine/25memoir-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 |
Edited by - pspa123 on 06/11/2013 14:33:41 |
|
|
|
bryan3000
USA
513 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 14:23:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexis
quote:
Originally posted by bryan3000
Beyond that, your "primary care provider" story also falls short. I know a host of people, many on this board who had access to the best " modern" psychiatrists and psychologists available.
I work for a large corporation, have excellent insurance and like many, paid out of pocket for a host what was considered to be "top shelf" psychiatrists. Some were fruitful, some weren't.
Most antidepressant prescriptions (almost 3/4) are written by primary care providers. Anti-anxiety meds show a similar pattern with estimates even higher. I, too, have great insurance but most people do not. Even those who can get a three stop referral to a specialist usually can't get several months of therapy. You can't just draw your beliefs from anecdotal evidence rather than hard data. Your experience with drugs, stories you read on line, people you know. That's the problem with boards like this. There's a lot more data out there than folks here realize and everyone just goes off of personal stories.
If you have a point, it's impossible to detect. So, you're saying people shouldn't drug themselves up at their GP? You think anyone is going to argue that here?
If your point is that people should allow their "modern" psychiatrist to drug them up, you may see some resistance.
But, to this point... I honestly can't tell what you're here to do other than attack people which would even be fine if you had anything to say. But thus far, you're just doling out misinformation and showing your shallow grasp of the subject matter.
|
Edited by - bryan3000 on 06/11/2013 14:24:14 |
|
|
|
pspa123
672 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 14:26:32
|
| I certainly agree PCPs are part of the problem, but I blame much of that on psychiatry and pharma for pioneering the medicalization and chemicalization (if that is a word which it probably isn't) of emotional and life issues. |
|
|
|
alexis
USA
596 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 14:31:57
|
pspa123,
I agree that drugs are overused, though I think there is a place. But my point which seems to have been ignored here is simply that these are the categories of diagnosis (not treatment) which are, imperfect though they are, used by psychiatrists, psychologists, mental health counselors and social workers alike. Only one of those above providers even prescribes drugs. No, the categories aren't perfect but they are needed for reimbursement and statistical purposes or there would be no usable research. It is appropriate to know the DSM and ICD categories and definitions and not go around pretending Sarno invented this stuff. |
|
|
|
pspa123
672 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 14:41:12
|
Well I can't disagree with you that it is important to be informed about DSM and what the profession is doing. I perhaps misinterpreted you as advocating for its legitimacy.
Based on my reading (admittedly somewhat limited) I do think Dr. Sarno made an important contribution, that is the notion that common "abnormalities" of the spine such as disc herniations and arthritic changes were not causative of pain, but I certainly don't think -- and neither did he -- that he invented psychosomatic medicine. If people before Dr. Sarno were talking about this specific subject, I would like to know that. |
|
|
|
tennis tom
USA
4749 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 15:01:58
|
WoW!, I go out to smack a few balls and all holy TMS **** breaks loose, I go to sleep reading the DSM--does the trick every time. I got some catching up to do, I haven't been to enough shrinks. When I have chatted with them, after a few sessions they tell me I'm sane, and to quit wasting their time. Personally, all the shrinks (but not the enlightened ones who contribute here), that prescribe/subscribe to the DSM as a their BIBLE, and their religious followers, are the ones who got us into this MESS.
I gotta' go to work now, but I'm, gonna' copy my post from the other thread over to here so I don't have to say the same things over again.
====================================================
It's no secret modern psychology started with Freud, and prior to him ancient psychology goes back to discussions between Adam, Eve, G-D and the snake. If one READS Dr. Sarno's books, they will find that he has a thorough knowledge of the history of psychology, and works closely with contemporary experts in that field. In one of his books he gave a concise history of psychology up to today. In Yogic terms he has BRIDGED or yoked modern medicine and psychology.
The Good Doctor has explained the psychosomatic causes of "modern" pain epidemics. He has made a major medical contribution to medicine and the lay person's understanding of psychosomatic medicine through his four books on the topic, and inspired and trained numerous other doctors. Reading his books has "healed" numerous TMS sufferer's who've gone on to write their own books, giving much needed hope, and helping inspire others like Steve Ozanich and Nicole Sachs.
Not everyone here is looking for "help". It's a message board and much TMS news arrives here first or is disseminated from here. Many experts and authors come here to announce TMS breakthroughs and books first and continue to present here regularly. Dave the moderator here has done a great public service and mitzvah by keeping the board alive.
I find some come here to practice the psychological concept of "PROJECTION", others like me, may just be interested in the topic, like some people are interested in baseball. Some suffer from TMS/RCD (READING COMPREHENSION DISORDER)--they see what they want to see--the gremlin is sly--I see it a lot of this in tennis too on the line calls. It's also a good way to practice keyboarding, new vocabulary words and spelling. For some others it could also be a dating service--whatever--Dr. Sarno for President and the Noble Prize! Keep Dr. Sarno in your med cabinet alongside the Vicodine, Valiums and Percosets.
Cheers,
Dr. Sarno Zombie Cult Member #2,
tt/lsmft |
Edited by - tennis tom on 06/11/2013 16:29:54 |
|
|
|
alexis
USA
596 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2013 : 16:05:41
|
| pspa123, While I think the categories in the DSM are at least as legitimate as anything Sarno or anyone else has come up with, that's not the same as saying I approve of everything modern psychiatry does or that I think these categories are without significant fault. Personally, I would prefer that psychiatry didn't retain the dominant role in the book's production, but it would be unfair to say that research from other fields was not included or that there were not non-psychiatry representatives on the working committees. Either way, even with the NIMH statements that came out this year the DSM will maintain it's role as a driving force for organizing research in this country. Almost every study anyone here quotes has used the categories in the DSM or ICD as the basis for establishing research so I don't think its importance can be overstated. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
DSM 5 out -Somatic Symptom Disorder
