Charlie Rose

jpke  08/21/2012 03:53 PM Report

Mr (Charlie)Rose,

You've had a series on the brain, brain "science" and psychiatry with various guests discussing developments and "discoveries" in their field(s). How about doing a show (or even a series) on a growing number of groups and activists in the field of "mental health" and psychiatric reform? I (and a growing number of others) believe it would be of great public service to broadcast in the "mainstream" media the views and work of individuals such as Peter Breggin, MD(author,psychiatrist), Jim Gottstein (atty, mental health activist), Robert Whitaker(psychiatric researcher and author), David Healy MD (author, psychiatrist), Ann Blake-Tracy(International Coalition for Drug Awareness), and others.

There is increasing, documented evidence on the harm done by the use of psychotropic drugs which should be made more "public".

There are also mental health/ psychiatric consumer (and "insider expert") voices rising on issues related to: Informed consent, coercion, disclosure, misrepresentation, false claims, conflict of interest, corruption, ghostwriting, fraudulent practice, physical/mental abuse, and professional ethics and standards issues in the psychiatric and mental health field.

Your response would be appreciated.

Sincerely, Jim Keiser

PS: I'm adding the following statements (by others) for your consideration and comment:

RE. DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS: "The thing that bothers me the most about psychiatry (outside of the harm done by its so-called "treatments") is the fact that psychiatrists almost NEVER look for underlying medical disorders. They just use their "Bible," the DSM, which is merely a collection of symptoms that could be caused by MANY THINGS. By not using differential diagnosis, psychiatrists are failing to practice actual medicine. Joe Blow off the street, with no medical training, could come up with a diagnosis after listening to someone describe their symptoms once he has flipped through the pages of the DSM. If I can accomplish one thing (and I have no idea of how to do this), I would like to create a standard that forces psychiatrists to do a thorough battery of medical tests before any medications are prescribed or labels given."~unk

___________________________________

STANDARD PRACTICE IN PSYCHIATRIC "DIAGNOSIS" AND TREATMENT (valid from my, and others' experiences):

"...Most people would agree that people need to (be) told accurate information about the validity of a diagnosis; including whether or not it is Biological in nature; or if this is a belief based on nothing more than a yet to be validated Hypothesis. Saying that a psychiatric diagnosis is a disease/chemical imbalance/neuro-biological in nature is a story told to 'bust the stigma' and to get people to take their meds; not because it is based on fact.

...Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent 'discoveries', e.g., in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain. ...

...Most people would agree that people need to given accurate, unbiased information about the drugs prescribed to them and their children. Most of us would agree it would be wrong to tell people that they in fact have a disease/chemical imbalance or a neuro-biological condition requiring drugs to treat it; when no imbalance, disease, defect or neuro-biological condition has been identified. These claims are being made without any physical, neurological or medical examination taking place. A conversation with the person and gathering information from others about their personal opinions and subjective observation of the patient or 'client' is not an examination; and even a consensus of informed opinions does not make the weakest of 'evidence' scientific or valid; it does not make the psychiatric diagnosis a medical condition either. ...

The fact is: no genetic condition, chemical imbalance, or neuro-biological pathology has been identified ever--in any human being alive or dead; that causes any mental illness, or psychiatric diagnosis. ...

...Failing to give people the very information which is necessary to protect their children and themselves is particularly heinous; despicable really, all things considered. ...

...For professionals to ignore their ethical duty to fully inform patients and parents of children about the nature of psychiatric diagnoses, about the potential for harm involved in taking psychiatric drugs is criminal; not just 'unethical.' It is, in reality fraud...

...This being the case, it is an unethical claim for any psychiatrist or mental health professional to make. It is dishonest, it is disrespectful and it is evidence of an utter lack of professional integrity. ...

...Many believe the drugs are treating a disease, because of the erroneous belief that doctors don't lie to patients. People take neurotoxic drugs believing that the drugs treat a brain disease they have. The drugs cause iatrogenic, or 'physician caused' diseases, neurological impairments, and can disable them; and even cause their untimely death. ...

...It is fraud. It is Standard Practice. It is criminal. "~from article in Systems of Care Yakima

Tigoti  01/26/2011 12:27 AM Report

Brian science is a complex topic but the roundtable conversation has presented it in straightforward, simple terms that can be understood by everyone, well, at least myself. Now I have a general idea about the core reason why brain imaging studies have become so popular and also how much we now know about the brain. So I think this is an excellent intro to brain science, or should I say sciences that concern the brain.

Now I have a little wish that these roundtable conversations would also include some physicists. Because physics is about how we understand the world and brain science is about why we understand the world the way we do. There have to be some interesting connections between the two sciences, which might be revealed during conversation between physicists and neuroscientists. P.S. I have a personal hypothesis connected with electromagnetism. We know that changing electric field creates magnetic field and vice versa. And now we also know that neurons in our brains are constantly firing electrical signals, which means there is changing electric field in the brain, which in turn should generate magnetic field. Isn’t this just like the “soul” suspending above our firing neurons? Or should I say the “mind”? This is just a thought. But I think it’s interesting.

clarkjames9  07/21/2010 12:29 AM Report

which series deals with epileptic seizures and pnes. thanks jim clark

tc420691  05/19/2010 07:10 PM Report

How do you prove the brain is a single sheet of cells?

museumoftechno  04/26/2010 06:52 AM Report

@Ouria78 - why is it a conundrum that the mind can affect the brain?

Atoms exist in configurations that we call molecules, and molecular chemical reactions affect the fate of the molecules' component atoms. EG as a sugar molecule is metabolised in an animal cell, one of its carbon atoms might be released as part of a carbon dioxide molecule.

The fate of the molecule, which is an entity that emerges from the interaction of atoms, constrains and affects the fate of the atoms of which it is composed.

The same's true of the mind: mental processes emerge from biological processes in the brain, and their fate affects the fate of the biological brain.

Ouria78  04/23/2010 09:23 PM Report

I would have to disagree that "neuroscience" (whoever that is) does not simply say "the mind is the activity of the brain."

The conundrum within the field of neuroscience is that, in fact, we can use our minds to change our brain. So, if the mind is only the by-product of brain activity, how is it that the mind then appears to exert an influence over the brain?

I think the whole "mind is the activity of the brain" proponents are seriously underestimating the complexity of a field that is in its infancy.

geneoh  04/12/2010 09:47 PM Report

Please excuse my poor choice of words. The question should have read: Is there even a shred of credible empirical evidence that all thoughts etc. (what we call the mind) are not solely the product of the brain? Or, is there any credible empirical evidence for any source of thought other than the brain?

geneoh  04/12/2010 08:41 PM Report

Is there even a shred of credible evidence that all thoughts, etc. (what we call the mind)are not the sole product of the brain?

LoomingEnchantment  03/20/2010 02:17 PM Report

Dualism, the theory that the mind and brain are separate entities, seems to me incoherent: how do they connect? Descartes talks about the pineal gland as being the connection but that is just part of the brain.

Neuroscience has a much more plausible account: the mind is the activity of the brain.

tele---  03/05/2010 12:13 PM Report

REMant seems correct. I think we or rather i would say the mind is the driver of the machine called our body (chemical/electrical/mechanical device).

The brain is like a multi modular computer that both drives and responds to internal and external stimuli; as a means of making the body animate and sustaining life force.

Quantum Mechanics as mentioned in the series, should be considered, as to why and how the body exists. There are external stimuli that although not consciously noted, effect the operation of the body and thus the brain.

A simple example may be the barometric pressure or the moon and the tides (liquids of the body).

One cannot fully understand "Life" without both the operation of body and the philosophies that affect thought as an internal stimulus.

Simply put: as one thinks so too does one change.

Mr. Kandal is brilliant, but less than fully correct as i see it.

N-diggity  02/09/2010 08:50 PM Report

REMant, he never said we have learned more about the MIND in the last 5 years...He said we learned more about the BRAIN in the last 5 years. I think you were confusing the introductory comments regarding how philosophers, religious figures, etc. pondered the mind with the actual point of the series: "THE BRAIN." We most certainly have learned more about the BRAIN in the past 5 years than in the entirety of human history in my opinion; this makes logical sense if you consider the advancement of technology, and the advancement of cellular and molecular biology.

todd  01/24/2010 01:36 AM Report

All do respect Mr.REMant: Please read and re-evaluate your post/thought process. To be quite honest I'm embarrassed for you.

kylewallace69  01/21/2010 02:49 PM Report

Mant's rant is embarrassing.

kylewallace69  01/21/2010 02:47 PM Report

Read Searle's most recentbook on Neurobiology.He is not as sloppy as portrayed!

ShalomFreedman  01/19/2010 01:18 PM Report

I do not agree with Eric Kandel's opening statement to the effect that Mind is Brain. I believe John Searle corrected it when he spoke about 'subjectivity' as one of the basic elements of 'consciousness'. The other panelists also made significant contributions. A good introduction to what I believe is going to be an especially fine series.

tonycohenster  01/15/2010 10:28 PM Report

Charlie...Sorry, forgot to include the references:

Dr. Bob Jahn, plasma physics,School of Engineering and Physical Sciences, Princeton.

Dr. Roger Nelson, Director of the Global Conscienceness Project at Princeton.

Dr. Ed May, Professor of Physics, Stamford University.

tonycohenster  01/15/2010 10:08 PM Report

Charlie...when you get a chance, ask about the work being done at Princeton and Stamford referencing neuronal synapses as Bioquantal Interfaces (BQI's).

REMant  01/13/2010 12:55 AM Report

We certainly have NOT learned more about the MIND in the last 5 yrs than in the history of mankind. Mind is certainly NOT a FUNCTION of the brain, anymore than ppl are a function of society, or vice versa. Neither can physiology or psychology say much about it, nor have they, Nobelists notwithstanding. I could tell in the first 5 mins that Prof Kandel has neither idea of science nor the history of psychology, and in the last 5 mins that he has little idea of politics and ethics either. It seems he is interested in what makes men Nazis, while I am interested in what makes seemingly bright ppl so often so completely wrong. In this case, the error seems to be the notion that somehow "objectifying" thought would make it possible to better understand it, which is not a significant improvement on phrenology, Darwin or behaviorism. All of the positions taken by scientists in this debate were long ago identified and discussed by philosophers and theologians, and with a very great deal more sophistication. I began my career with these very same notions, but when I realized the latter, I moved on, and even after nearly half a century I've seen nothing to change my mind. The way to understand thought is to study the various permutations of thought, by the use of sheer logic. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that genes represent a method of learning, the basis of free will, just as do those brain events that contribute to an even freer will, but this free will is fraught with danger of maladaptation, simply, the existential question.