As I will soon be returning to the Ivory Towers, the first invite I received is to a lecture on Developing new treatments for psychosis, by a professor who is chief investigator on several randomized controlled trials for repurposed and targeted treatments and (amongst other positions) Honorary General Secretary of the British Association for Psychopharmacology. Titles of this individual’s publications investigate Inflammation and brain structure in schizophrenia and other neuropsychiatric disorders using Mendelian randomization, and The psychopathology and neuroanatomical markers of depression in early psychosis. I haven’t read them, but it seems to me they are alluding to the biological model of mental disorder, and whilst not specifically referring to chemical imbalance theory, advocate theories of markers and structures that reinforce the idea that investigations of the brain will yield all the answers and must continue. I received a second invite to a talk investigating the molecular genetics and brain correlates of executive functioning, a pivotal cognitive process implicated in psychiatric disorders (speaker from your neck of the woods-Professor Scott Clark, Head of the Adelaide University Discipline of Psychiatry). These kinds of lectures always conspire in my mind to support the biological basis of mental disorder without specifically stating it, and whilst the speakers may not have ties with drug companies, they enjoy the trappings of academia whilst seemingly conducting worthwhile research.
Would you call this deceptive and self-serving crap alongside the Hickies of this world? Or just a waste of time and money? I have the links to virtually attend either of these talks by the way if you or anyone else wants them.
It's hard to imagine anyone getting locked up these days for “having” ADHD, especially in the industry I have worked in the last few years, where the “softer” side of this “psychiatric disease” is embraced as a different way of thinking and part of the grand “neurodiversity” of the world. I wonder if such people ever consider the darker (real) side of these diagnoses (is Lucy Letby neurodiverse?), their origin, history, drugging of children (and now adults of course) and how their promulgation of such concepts supports the psychiatric machine. We were reminded at a recent work meeting by an “adhd’er” that October is ADHD month and I have witnessed the ludicrous spectacle of people leaving our company and then two months later declaring themselves to be an employed ADHD coach- but they do and there is a huge demand for it. Two employees also recently declared themselves to be “autistic” (one did this via a video shortly after the first person wrote a piece declaring their own autistic “neurodiversity”, almost as if it was a competition. Neither of them, are of course, autistic). However, people embrace it, this new fad of neurodiversity and whilst I stand by my original comments on it which you wrote about (I have left a new comment on that article today also), people genuinely think that phrasing their “conditions” in this manner helps them -I believe it is now also considered a protected characteristic at least in the UK. My final analysis is that, although ND may help some people in certain circles, it is of course false to equate neurons with thought (by definition it states thoughts are biological basically) and the whole concept is essentially a narcissists’ dream and of course cui bono?
Thank you Dr McLaren, I discovered you through The Pink Panthers website, I really enjoy your articles and specially your integrity! We need people like you in society, in our schools, our universities and communities, you are the light that can be seen at the end of the tunnel.. G_D bless you! 🌹🔥👏🕯️
As I will soon be returning to the Ivory Towers, the first invite I received is to a lecture on Developing new treatments for psychosis, by a professor who is chief investigator on several randomized controlled trials for repurposed and targeted treatments and (amongst other positions) Honorary General Secretary of the British Association for Psychopharmacology. Titles of this individual’s publications investigate Inflammation and brain structure in schizophrenia and other neuropsychiatric disorders using Mendelian randomization, and The psychopathology and neuroanatomical markers of depression in early psychosis. I haven’t read them, but it seems to me they are alluding to the biological model of mental disorder, and whilst not specifically referring to chemical imbalance theory, advocate theories of markers and structures that reinforce the idea that investigations of the brain will yield all the answers and must continue. I received a second invite to a talk investigating the molecular genetics and brain correlates of executive functioning, a pivotal cognitive process implicated in psychiatric disorders (speaker from your neck of the woods-Professor Scott Clark, Head of the Adelaide University Discipline of Psychiatry). These kinds of lectures always conspire in my mind to support the biological basis of mental disorder without specifically stating it, and whilst the speakers may not have ties with drug companies, they enjoy the trappings of academia whilst seemingly conducting worthwhile research.
Would you call this deceptive and self-serving crap alongside the Hickies of this world? Or just a waste of time and money? I have the links to virtually attend either of these talks by the way if you or anyone else wants them.
It's hard to imagine anyone getting locked up these days for “having” ADHD, especially in the industry I have worked in the last few years, where the “softer” side of this “psychiatric disease” is embraced as a different way of thinking and part of the grand “neurodiversity” of the world. I wonder if such people ever consider the darker (real) side of these diagnoses (is Lucy Letby neurodiverse?), their origin, history, drugging of children (and now adults of course) and how their promulgation of such concepts supports the psychiatric machine. We were reminded at a recent work meeting by an “adhd’er” that October is ADHD month and I have witnessed the ludicrous spectacle of people leaving our company and then two months later declaring themselves to be an employed ADHD coach- but they do and there is a huge demand for it. Two employees also recently declared themselves to be “autistic” (one did this via a video shortly after the first person wrote a piece declaring their own autistic “neurodiversity”, almost as if it was a competition. Neither of them, are of course, autistic). However, people embrace it, this new fad of neurodiversity and whilst I stand by my original comments on it which you wrote about (I have left a new comment on that article today also), people genuinely think that phrasing their “conditions” in this manner helps them -I believe it is now also considered a protected characteristic at least in the UK. My final analysis is that, although ND may help some people in certain circles, it is of course false to equate neurons with thought (by definition it states thoughts are biological basically) and the whole concept is essentially a narcissists’ dream and of course cui bono?
Thank you Dr McLaren, I discovered you through The Pink Panthers website, I really enjoy your articles and specially your integrity! We need people like you in society, in our schools, our universities and communities, you are the light that can be seen at the end of the tunnel.. G_D bless you! 🌹🔥👏🕯️