Charlie Rose

jpke  08/21/2012 03:49 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

guygeorge  03/07/2011 10:15 PM Report

I’ve learned so much watching this series. Very informative!

aznartfag  03/01/2011 05:25 AM Report

I don't know what happened between mid-December and now, but MrGameTheory's link takes you to a site which appears to be currently held by GoDaddy.com and suggests that it's for sale.

MrGameTheory  12/12/2010 11:30 PM Report

I was very surprised to see that the topic of emotional balance was not brought up in this conversation. Several prestigious scientists have weighed in on the issue of emotional balance since January of 2010. For more information check out www.ofgrandeur.com

Satz  09/01/2010 09:29 PM Report

The discussion about addiction shocked me in that there was so little progress made over the decades, though given the politicians exploitative behavior it comes as not a surprise.

The listed "treatments" for addiction on the show was very depressingly primitive, surely we can advance beyond this in the treatment of people that get trapped by bad chemical-math-loops?

The part about variation being very important to pleasure is spot on.

When dealing with chemicals people make the mistake of getting obsessed with the extreme end of the spectrum. Also this obsession with the extreme drugs that everyone is aware of, and the bad patterns people get trapped in some times, obscures the very profound multidimensional aspects of other very different "states of mind" that can be produced.

Addiction study will probably never be advanced much until a group of scientists approach the topic with the goal of finding chemicals that enhance life, its experience and interaction with others. Not the exclusive idea of chemicals being an enemy. Thus exploration of thousands of substances might lead to life enhancing experiences that do not interfere in any way with a persons regular life. This is a very slippery slope but a very essential one for human development.

The biggest blunder people make in categorizing pleasure states (as if they are all similar, like "what is pleasurable is an addiction" type of thinking which could not be further from the truth.) is that there are so many dimensions, some very paradoxical, which work in very differing ways. Most of the very best rely on the cumulative life experiences, things that a person *does* most of the time. These things are very powerful and badly under-rated. Discussion of substances exclusively that can not harness this such as Booze, Amphetamines, Narcotics,Coke, Barbiturates and tranquilizers only create a bad mindset for study of the mind-chemical experience. If those things were all that there was, this is a pretty impoverished world!

Nonetheless this is a great series and I love the people in it and their great positive approach to the topic.

c824767  06/07/2010 10:22 PM Report

this is about the brain and addiction, not about how to be successful in life...

AnnPorter  05/28/2010 06:18 PM Report

This show was a great reminder of all that is still unknown. It is easy to dump all of this into the bucket of drug addictions. But I believe that any "habit that is pleasurable" becomes that person's addiction. Drugs not needed to qualify that. There was some talk about the Pavlov conditioning that is inherent in everyone (including humans). Habits become conditioning states of being. I truly enjoy the learnings from this series and I appreciate the magnificent beauty of our brains and minds. May we never forget its magnificence.

expaand  05/20/2010 03:41 PM Report

These people are scientists, the top in their field. Therefore, I was somewhat shocked to hear someone say "Addicts don't have free will", and then everyone agreed. But no one asked the real question: does *anyone* have free will? There is a large consensus in certain physiological/philosophical/cognitive science circles that the idea of "free will" is an *illusion*. I don't pretend to understand the issue at all, but perhaps Charlie could have a show devoted to "Free Will - fact or fantasy?". I think it would be very interesting. I am just surprised that no one on the show brought this up.

NeilMacCallister  05/05/2010 04:02 PM Report

NORA VOLKOW: Drugs hijack our brain’s natural reward system.

ERIC KANDEL: You have people who are addicted in major executive positions.

CHARLIE ROSE: In universities and everywhere else.

***

CHARLIE ROSE: Is it possible that part of the addiction is to risk?

DANIEL SALZMAN: That’s exactly right.

***

NORA VOLKOW: Anything that is novel will activate the dopamine system.

CHARLIE ROSE: Next, we look forward to fear and anxiety.

_________

I hope many people also saw Dr. Volkow and others on the 4/25 '60-MINUTES' television hour, where the subject was the current college use of the amphetamine drug Adderall.

Prof. Alan DeSantis estimated its use at university fraternities and sororities at 80%.

Harvard Economics Professor Brandon Adams offered that its use is "extremely common among professors".

Harvard Economics graduates are now "restructuring" our entire national economic engine, at the behest of our Harvard graduate President of the United States.

Is there anything to be worried about here?

***

Last week we heard how a nude Mr. Rahm Emanuel, our President's Chief of Staff, accosted another naked man in the Congress' showers, in an attempt to get him to vote for the President's massively-worded healthcare bill.

Doesn't that behavior seem "highly stimulated"?

Is there actually something to worry about here?

DSPS  05/01/2010 01:54 AM Report

I have to say that I was somewhat disappointed to see a show that was primarily focused on drug addiction. Although I realize that most scientific knowledge about normal processes are discovered through the study of pathological processes, I was hoping for something more about the mechanisms of normal positive emotion rather than pharmacologically hijacked emotion. Maybe we just don’t know enough to have that discussion yet but there has to be something more than the decades old dopamine discussion. Some more interesting topics would have been:

-why are some people naturally happier than others.

-what mechanisms prevent humans from being happy all of time and seem to need both highs and lows(is there an analogue to a sleep and wake cycle for emotion?). In short why can’t we get naturally addicted to happiness…or can we?

-How does the behavior of a risk taker (i.e. a skydiver) generate positive emotions from something that would cause a normal person fear and stress?

-why are some people driven by ambition and keeping up with the Jones’s while other are just as happy or happier to maintain a simple life.

This show was an excellent discussion on addiction and probably should have been its own episode. For this episode I would have rather seen the panel tackle the empirical data on happiness discussed on the Apr 29th show with Derek Bok. “Perceived” good health, close relationships, religion, what you think about your government, helping others. All of these things appear to make you happier in a lasting way… so what’s the science behind this? If we learn more about these things then we may have a lot less addicted people to begin with.

That said, Charlie you have managed to consistently create one of the best shows on the air. I hope to be watching you for many years to come.

SkyLarkJ  04/26/2010 10:05 PM Report

I swear I believe in noetics bc for the last 2 weeks emotion has been my topic of research for this final paper for my social emotional learning class.

Emotions truly are the key to everything, it's crucial to be in touch with yours and express them effectively, not to mention validate those of others. Einstein, all the great thinkers make note that emotions/ intuiton/feeling, they are the magic of the human mind, body, & soul for survival, satisfaction, and work.

I'm a psychology major, and in my thesis for my class, I'm so happy to have this comforting and timely episode. Love you Charlie.

BrendanNYC  04/26/2010 12:08 PM Report

A very interesting discussion, but I was disheartened to hear discussion of 12-step programs, and the foregone acceptance of their high recidividism rates, with no mention whatsoever of harm reduction therapy, and the non-abstinence based approach to the treatment of addiction and substance abuse. Those who are interested should seek out the work of Dr. Andrew Tatarsky among others.

JimFrank  04/25/2010 07:11 PM Report

I am surprised that you can have discussion on the emotion and the brain without considering the work of Jaak Pankseep, and his work in Affective Neueroscience. The conceptions of emotion as discussed here are quite dated and do not all hold up in the laboratory. I really like Kandel's work but his view learning and emotions is not being held up. Check out Pankseep's work.

ValeriePorr  04/24/2010 10:23 AM Report

Thank you for excellent program bringing the science of addiction to the public's attention. Unfortunately, the program did not discuss the comorbidity of addiction with other disorders. Our organization, (TARA NAt'l Asscn for Personality Disorder) focuses on Borderline Personality Disorder. We deal with people who use drugs and alcohol to regulate emotional pain and to just feel "normal." People with BPD generally do not respond to most addiction treatments. According to Bridget Grant at NIAAA, 5.9% of the general population have BPD and 70% of alcoholics meet criteria for BPD. The statistic for drug addiction is 67%. When considering treatment for addiction, it behooves us to discuss Borderline Personality Disorder. Many 12 steps programs induce "shame" which is an intolerable emotion for people with BPD, contributing to their high revolving door remission rate. A program on Borderline Personality Dusorder would be greatly appreciated as a continuation of this wonderful discussion of addiction.

Thank you

Valerie Porr

kkc524  04/23/2010 11:18 PM Report

Thank you for bringing to the forefront that the disease of addiction is so very complicated. It is important that we remember and view addictions as a disease and not as a weakness.

The function of the brain is subject to many diseases, and illnesses that are not yet accepted. Discussions such as this are valuable in furthering the discourse scientifically and socially.

linsawt  04/23/2010 03:02 PM Report

incredible show. Addiction to food was not covered enough as we are a society f overweight and sick peopled largely based on food. Corporations that make food rely on our addiction to substances to put it in food to have us buy more - especially sugar. Want more shows on this. 12 steps do work at abating the addiction - foodaddicts.org is one with incredible results.

sweaver  04/23/2010 10:17 AM Report

I absolutely love this series and am grateful for the exposure. One hour can never be enough to delve extensively into this subject, however the organized attempt to bring exposure and discussion I believe is successful. Thank you

wrichard  04/22/2010 05:41 PM Report

re: addiction

On the topic of the negative consequences of the major demonized drugs (marijuana, heroin,cocaine), I would like to see a scientific and dispassionate analysis of what harm is caused by the substances themselves, and what is caused by society, especially the criminal justice system.

Thank you very much for your invaluable program.

scoutshonor  04/22/2010 05:15 PM Report

Thank you for providing your entire brain series and, particularly this segment on addictions.

My biological family has been ravaged with sociopathic violence, fueled by alcohol and drugs, in spite of being "upper middle class" and "educated." This show validates what my late mother, a brilliant clinical psychologist, who specialized in substance abuse and depression, became convinced of back in 1995 - that neuroscience would eventually be the key to understanding and treating the hard core propensity of addicts to eschew all logical reasoning for sobriety. My mother was strong, deeply kind and patient, with a wonderful sense of humor, who had enough professional and common sense to know that psychology could only go so far in helping addicts.

With one "educated" middle age brother so addicted that he has spent the last 15 years in and out of jails for DUI's and committed terrible violence against his own children, including causing his own wife's death, I applaud you and your show for providing the resources to give voice to this important work.

Let's hope some resource decision makers at the NIH and in private endowments/foundations are paying attention.

ShalomFreedman  04/22/2010 02:58 PM Report

The subject of this show was ostensibly our emotional life, and more specifically 'positive emotion'. It in fact focused on a widespread and yet narrow element in emotional life 'addiction'. The researchers seemed unanimous in claiming that beyond a certain point 'addiction' is not a matter of conscious decision. They speak about the 'pleasure' given through the addictive activity as interfering with the functioning of dopamine in the brain. They talk primarily about heroin and cocaine , drug addiction. But also speak about addiction to alcohol, food, gambling and sex. They stress that there are in emotional lives, both conscious elements and elements of automatic response which happen often before we consciously are aware of the causative event. They talk about the animal experiments in which pleasure can be so addictive that the animal in effect commits suicide to continue having it. All of this and much more was interesting and informative in the show. But again they did not even begin to properly analyze our complex emotional life. It would for instance have been instructive to hear something about the way 'happy' people manage their emotional life. And again 'pleasure' is one element in the whole complex of our emotional life.