One important issue here is the nature of knowledge and that some knowledge is constructed or created to meet ideological and professional needs. How are they constructed?

The second issue is the public's reception of such knowledge, how belief transcends science.

More and more all of the time science is contributing important information and insights into how the brain and peripheral nervous system create problems that we refer to as "mental illness". Sadly, the notion that psychiatry and psychology are "soft sciences" because there is no physical or biological evidence for their conclusions, is hard to let go of. I am constantly working to stay up to date on the hard science of psychiatry and psychology. Belief systems should not be the reason for making conclusions. They should constantly be challenged with scientific evidence.

I am very careful with diagnosis, and very big on educating my clients on the physiological aspects of their experiences, both emotional and thought-wise, and how they interact on a physiological basis. All emotions and thought are biological events in the brain and body. People form beliefs about their experience, and often those beliefs are part of their life problem because they are not based upon facts.

Study Poly-vagal theory for some of this information. I work with people who are grieving primarily and the research found in the book, "The Grieving Brain" is very helpful.

The term "Mental" refers to a construct that is based on a historical ignorance of the nature of thought and emotion, that separated them from the body and placed them in some unlocatable place called the "mind." We know more about where the "mind" is located in the brain, and how, for example, the gut influences it.

I do not agree that belief transcends science, however, I also believe that it is the responsibility of the practitioner to educate their clients and the public, wherever possible, about the science that is a major part of the story.

I want to add that when it comes to medications, as prescribing is the primary role of psychiatrists, there is science behind how the drugs work, thought there are still many things that are a mystery and require more study. I believe in explaining the physiology behind how and why a medication works. Psychopharmacology is an active and growing science, with new information available all of the time. There are even tests that can determine which antidepressant is most likely to work for someone. However, since most insurance companies won't pay for this service people are left with trial and error prescribing, with some science behind it based upon the client's history,.

Emillie

I thoroughly welcome your contribution but I have tabled my knowledge on patient experiences and I have no doubt the drugs are extremely dangerous and should never have been given, over what is a 70 year period destroying many lives. I now live in Portugal and the common complaint here is short term memory damage caused by anti-depressives. No one gets compensation in psychiatry a profession in which people earn considerable amounts.

My opinion about 'belief' concerns the knowledge construction psychiatry is based on, which I have described as treatments invented before confirmation of the complaints they are for and confirmation of their positive effects. That the drugs have terrible effects is ignored as patients are not consulted. The doctor's powers of observation are relied on, a nonsensical claim, and this has allowed the widely distributed powerful and addictive drugs that are meant to give patients peace while capable of actually causing anxiety and depression. Crazy, no?

Anyway, look at my papers on here particularly medical fascism.

Emillie

Coming back. The genuineness and efficacy of the science is decided by the drug companies and by academic psychiatry. They make decisions on the efficacy of treatments. The science is one of identity constructed by people who make fortunes out of it and who have normalised their own personalities.

It is essential to pursue certain conclusions.

Psychiatry is a process of identity change or construction for economic reasons, certainly respecting drug companies where some of this started (1950s to 1960s consistent with the DSM ) , normal people suffering the stresses of life becoming mentally ill to propel the making of drugs and increase the popularisation of psychiatry.

Bom dia! Gosto muito de Portugal. I have spent a lot of time in Portugal, attended University there, and am fluent in the language. I have many friends there in a variety of professions and am aware of their political, ideological, and cultural differences from the United States. I have had a conversation with the head of psychiatry in Lisbon and found the discussion to be disconcerting.

I can see that you question was not really a matter open for discussion as you do not seem open to other points of view, having made up your own mind about what is true and what is not. I try to keep an open mind to always be looking to learn new things, especially scientific evidence related to psychiatry and psychology. I desire to help my clients heal without medications wherever possible. But just like antibiotics are an essential part of our pharmacopeia, some medications for emotional problems are also essential. They both can safe lives. It is also true that Big Pharm has done a great deal of harm, and continues to try and prevent other modes of treatment from going to the fore, as they threaten their financial base.

I am curious about where you have obtained your information on the salaries of psychiatrists in Portugal, as they are part of the National Health System. It is very different than in the States.

Emilie,

You are partly right in your position but it is for me necessary because of the way psychiatry has convinced others. Usually, understanding arrives, but true understanding, once the smoke clears.

The damage the drugs have done is immense so I am always aware of that, But actually what I desire is proper discussion and open science. And although I think you may feel that is what you have received, I hold you have received a heavily designed and prejudiced version.

Given the way the people accept the or a medical position, even myself, even though I have been involved with casualties and done much work with patients, listening to them and avoiding the medical viewpoint until I have finished listening. My position on brain studies, which you mention, is that it is still early and new concepts of the brain are emerging. The way the drugs work, serotonin for example, may not work as claimed as the chemical is actually everywhere and in everything but without evidence of agency. It does not work in the environment as apparently it does in the brain.

I will reply on one point, as many respond to me as if I have closed my mind without acknowledging the sheer volume of work I have done on the matter, both academic/scientific and practical, and nevertheless I remain unable to verify what psychiatry claims. Remember, the positive results of psychiatry are concluded by psychiatry and therefore, even for this alone, it cannot be scientific. That is, this is not how science works.

I do get this accusation by those who clearly do not read my evidence!

I respect your right to your opinion and to listen to the evidence that you have found. We each have that right. Even though our conclusions may differ, I caution you about judging the sources that have contributed to my conclusions. I do not know you and you do not know me. I do not know about your experience and you do not know mine. I do not know your training and you do not know mine. Your conclusions are broad, which is your right. My conclusions are varied. Science is not devoid of prejudice, though the focus should always be on identifying and reducing it's influence to scientific conclusions. I would suggest that psychiatry does not conclude its own positive results. Positive results are identified by peer reviewed, rigidly managed, scientific endeavor, that uses valid research design, where the results can be replicated over and over, thus demonstrating the validity of the conclusions. I believe in solid "evidence based practice". Without solid, unbiased, independent research to validate a treatment it should not be engaged with at any time. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all.

I wish you well in your pursuits.

Emilie,

This to me is also about the nature of knowledge, how apparent knowledge can be successfully structured and packaged. The instability of knowledge is an important reference point.

It is interesting to me as I observe your responses that you do not engage in dialogue. Instead you choose to switch focus a little bit to something new, rather than engaging in an actual discussion of ideas and understandings. You are a moving target. I will no longer engage with you as you started by asking a question, but have shown no interest in exploring any view other than your own. That is the exact opposite of scientific inquiry. I wish you well.

Emilie

Fine.

Again, I have written much on this that while engaging with me you choose not to acquaint yourself with, thereby eliminating most of my arguments, my research and my thinking. You try to control the process while claiming that is what I am doing. I am a moving target but why are you shooting? You are not to me a target. You can, as long as you have read my research, deny my arguments but not until you do so.

You have not acknowledged my position and I suggest because you are unable to understand it.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Since_pschiatry_psychology_differs_in_almost_all_countries_even_in_the_local_areas_of_the_same_country_so_how_can_they_be_scientific_in_nature

Both science & nonscience(as cultural) resonance !