Comments on: Will ‘Disruptive Mood Disregulation Disorder’ proposed for inclusion in DMS5 be the next child mental health epidemic?

By: Napoleon

Napoleon — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 19:58:20 +0000

Hello, i feel that i saw you visited my weblog thus i got here to go back the
favor?.I’m trying to to find things to improve my site!I guess its
ok to make use of a few of your concepts!!

By: top weight loss supplements

top weight loss supplements — Thu, 22 Aug 2013 23:26:31 +0000

After looking over a number of the blog articles on your web site, I honestly appreciate your
way of blogging. I saved it to my bookmark webpage list and will be checking
back soon. Take a look at my web site too and tell me your opinion.

Also visit my web site – top weight loss supplements

By: site

site — Wed, 07 Aug 2013 11:41:20 +0000

Excellent site you have got here.. It’s hard to find good quality writing like yours nowadays. I really appreciate people like you! Take care!!

By: Anthony

Anthony — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:05:41 +0000

This is a fantastic website. Thank you Martin

By: martin

martin — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 08:03:18 +0000

A few quick responses Shalk.
First, I am not a psychiatrist, I am a politician, mental health advocate and author.
Second, I am totally opposed to the recognition of Disruptive Mood Disorder in the DSM5 and anywhere else for that matter. I think it has the potential to be an even bigger disaster than ADHD.
Third, sorry to dissapoint you but I am not anti-psychiatry or anti-medication. I am however opposed to bad psychiatry an the innapropriate and dangerous use of psychotropic medications. Unfortunately, both bad psychiatry and the innapropriate and dangerous use of psychotropic medications are very, very common.

By: Rog

Rog — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 07:45:56 +0000

When will these crooks be brought to justice? Is a person promoting unsafe drugs to children, which might result in brain damage or developmental disturbances hurting less people than Mr. Sandusky? The criminal court should prosecute this creep for neurochemical assault on children or something. That Harvard does nothing about this lowlife just shows how corrupt the universities are. It is not about finding the truth or benefit humanity, it is about cold cash. I hope the creep, Johnson & Johnson executive board, and the administration at Harvard have a room waiting for them in hell.

By: bjcirceleb

bjcirceleb — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 07:24:07 +0000

I totally agree it is useless diagnosis, and one that will do a lot more harm than good. I would however like to add, that most of this prescribing is not “off label” anymore. Resperidone the most commonly prescribed antipsychotic is now approved by the Theraputic Goods Administration for the treatment of Autism, Intellectual disability and a number of other conditions. It is of course also approved for the treatment of Bipolar. One can only guess that drug companies are already in the process of doing or at least planning research to make sure that these drugs are approved for the treatment of these conditions. Within the US Resperidone and a number of other antipsychotics are now approved for the treatment of Depression and Anxiety. If this is not the best evidence of the lies that are told about these med’s I don’t know what is. How can a drug that supposedly stops voices in the head, also make people happy, less anxious, less autistic, cure an intellectual disability, etc???

As for the 3 y.o screening check don’t even get me started about that one. They claim it is not compulsory, but parents will loose over $700 in family tax benefits if the child is not screened. Mind you they have no such penalty for not having a child immunised. They pay bonuses for immunisations, don’t take away basic payments. And for immunisations parents can simply attend a one off counselling sessions with a GP to be told about the risks of not immunising and they then get paid, regardless of whether the child is even immunised. While I respect there are debates about immunisation I am not aware of anyone who would think that we had more evidence in regards to predicting bogus brain diseases, than we do of the benefits of immunisation. And of course the government has not provided any funding to fund any other treatments for children, so doctors are supposed to diagnose and treat these children and they have nothing in which to do it with except drugs. Of course none of this even looks at WHY a child is acting this way. Why not do a parenting check to make sure parents are actually looking after the kids, and then refer the parents to parenting services instead of labelling children and drugging them up for life.

By: Dr Joe

Dr Joe — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 01:42:20 +0000

What utter rubbish! This “condition” can join Oppositional Defiance Disorder at the top of the BS chart. We all have different moods and children more so because they are still learning to manage their emotions.
Labelling and drugging them may boost profits but damages children. No doubt this will be looked for as part of the 3y.o. screening checks.
Keep up the good work Martin!

By: Schalk

Schalk — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 14:56:55 +0000

It seems like you also don’t get it. There is no scientific foundation for these psychiatric “diseases” and they therefore cannot be discussed within the realm of science. Akin to a child baking mud cakes cannot be discussed within the realm of gastronomy.
So? In which realm should these issues be discussed? Surely there are people who exhibit the unwanted behavioral traits as described in the DSM? The answer?: If you cannot find a home for your theories, don’t hijack and infect SCIENCE with your perverted ideas! Find your OWN platform and display it there! (Or is psychiatry so bankrupt and without substance that it has no hope in hell to survive on it’s own merit? Does it have to attach itself to a host (science), like a parasite, for sustenance?)
Although I appreciate your criticism of psychiatry, you do tend to debate the bogus issues! How can you prove or disprove something that does not exist! Surely the starting point should be to ask the claimant to prove his claim, something psychiatry has been unable to do.
By continually entering into debate with bio-psychiatry about different “treatments” for bogus disease (as IF there is some scientific link), you legitimize the discussion around this invented bogus disease as if it belongs in science. You are willfully blurring the borders between objective science and pure conjecture.
Bio-psychiatry should be exposed for what it is: Medieval sorcery and human experimentation in it’s most evil form.
Don’t you think it is time to put things in it’s right perspective?
What I perceive is a psychiatrist (you) that BELIEVE and concur with the diagnosis, you just differ with the “treatment”. By doing so you keep the door wide open to profit from the bogus diagnosis.
Maybe you wish to make a categorical statement and clarify your stance?