Why I Refuse to Read Anatomy of an Epidemic

I did read it. My review is here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dj-jaffe/book-review-anatomy-of-an_b_1071163.html You can see Dr. Torrey's review of Robert Whitaker's other book, Mad in America here http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=621 (That one I didn't read. grin)

I appreciate you being able to stomach it. I just can't get over bad science. I'm like that.
- Natasha

Natashia - I am a little confused. You started out stating you refuse to read the book, and then spend the entire post debunking it. Hmmmmm.
I am an individual who is still recovering from the damage I incurred from taking psychiatric medications for a periond on years. It's been well over a year since I gradually stopped (under a doctors care). My long term memory is slowly coming back and I sense some portions of short term memory and brilliance are getting better, little bits at a time. Yes, improving and am slowly regaining a sense of mysel again. Initially, the medications helped the most severe sensations, with time, I learned how to manage life and began to heal emotionally, but huge chunks of my memory were disappearing, along with my sharp, quick intellegence. Tha work that had come to me so easy became unmanagable. I lost my career, income, benefits, and stability. I could not find a therapist in my area whospecialized in deep trauma initially. Now, having gotten off the medications I had been told I would need totakefor the rest of mylife, some of my memories of my adult children are beginning to return and I am thrilled. I continue to spend time with them and talkabout fond memories. The more we do the more I find them again. Some times they return to me in my sleep. Losing parts (huge sections) of those memories was more maddening than the original distessing emotional states. I am very slowly rebuilding my life, one day at a time. I am healing and getting smarter and creative again! I am learning how to be excited again, I can feel exhilleration and remain balanced. And, I know I still have more work to do, more healing to gain and mental cognitive capacity to reclaim. I was stuborn and determined to find my own way and to do what I felt was best for me, little bit by little bit. What made the difference for me was hope, unconditional love, meditation, eating well, and a return to my "roots" (a life style of "alternatives"). I am a member of NAMI & an In Our Own Voice presenter and am very, very concerned about the ongoing trend within NAMI to frame "mental Illness", exclusively as a biological condition that is a life sentence for ALL who stumble into the halls of the "mentally Ill" (a term that is so "ill' used). Dr. Torrey and Jaffe have built significant accomplishments on their life's work establishing the hounds for their expertise. Their research and/or funding streams depend on their "expert" opinions. But, see if you can read between the lines... There was a time whe certain experts knew the world was flat! Natalie - you are some what young, so there is still hope for your unequally uninformed opinion. You sound very bright with a capacity to do more research. Here are a few suggestions:
Look up Dr. Breggen's blogg and web site.
Find papers about the "ACE Studies".
Find I formation about the "Western Lapland" work being done in Finnland.
Research longitudinal outcomes in India, where medications have historically not been used as a first course of action.
Read the "Ten Pillars of Recovery" as published by SAMSHA.
hopefully I will look forward to one of your future more I formed and balanced posts with a comittment to "objective" reporting. Wishing you the best.

Yes healthyplace.com is really a health place for the users like me. All the topics of this website are very very useful and fulfill the user requirements and queries as well. please keep it regular..
thanks

Since you included the statement "...being concerned with the use, and possibly overuse, of some medications and the prescribing of heavy psychotropic medications to children is quite warranted", your post provides value in that it reminds people not to believe everything they read. Like with our presidential candidates, it seems that the powerful and rich get seen and heard much more often than Joe Plumber. And the rich and powerful don't always have the right answers
Science and medicine have certainly made mistakes from time to time, and unfortunately sometimes people pay a price for that. The false epidemic of Bipolar in children in the USA is a significant example of that.
That said, sometimes people go too far with their anti-something agenda. Sometimes they serve a good purpose in stirring up a debate and more attention to a topic, and sometimes they can hurt people with misleading statements.

Dee, I'm sorry you had that experience, but an anecdote and an ad hominem slight do not a rebuttal make.

I want to know - what is his diagnosis? He sounds like someone in denial about his own issues. Also, I hate when people misrepresent studies. It is like 'anti-science'. Horrific.

Hhmmm....Dee Jacobsen said something that made me wonder: "with time, I learned how to manage life and began to heal emotionally" and: "some of my memories of my adult children are beginning to return" that's quite unusual for mentall illness, strictly defined. Recovery through life management without medications it's quite unheard of also. The "healing process" doesn't pertain to mental illness, but to "neurosis" or emotional trouble that can be cured or treated with psychotherapy and a lot of patience. I wander if you were misdiagnosed and mistreated. Deep trauma it is not mental illness. It could lead you to that, but I don't think that's your case. You're talking about deep sensations..that's to vague and weird. Horror and umbearable pain are more suitable to mental illness.
And also why would you want to include your neurosis under your "mental illness catch all umbrella"? For judging psychiatry? May be you've never been mentally ill. That's why you felt so bothered by drugs. If you suffer from strong debilitating migrains for example, and take strong meds for it, you won't complain of side effects 'cause the benefits would outpast them.

I really think that you need to read his book before you criticize it. I do agree that there are some flaws in his reasoning and conclusions. For instance, I think we have so many more people receiving disability for mental health reasons now in part due to changes in our economy, with a loss of decent paying low-skilled jobs with benefits (to pay for our meds....) And there is somewhat less stigma to having a mental illness- or at least more awareness, and people get connected to a system that, for many encourages dependency. But I do agree with a lot of what he says. And the data from antipsychotics in studies that I have seen is that by 3 years they aren't doing very much good compared to placebo for schizophrenics, although early on they do. And I do worry a lot about what they do to the brain. I take meds, I am not totally against them- but I think that there is a lot to question. And you don't have to have a medical degree to look to evaluate the research. In fact, that is all that most psychiatrists ever do- read the available literature and draw their own conclusions- or do whatever they were taught by their instructors and mentors. In psychiatry, you tend to see a skewed sample- those who are not able to stop their medication and function- and then there are the cognitive biases that tend to make one think that the current drug or therapy intervention is having some kind of effect. It is hard to come to population-level conclusions from working with individuals.

I thought I might offer up a link to yet another person's comentary on the same book:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jul/14/illusions-of-psychiatry/?pagination=…
Peace.

So now you're proud of your own ignorance? What kind of person trashes a book they proudly annoucne they refuse to read? Whitaker had a long career as a science journalist before he wrote Mad in American and Anatomy of An Epidemic, and he started out believing the propaganda of the drug companies and was prepared to write a book supporting that view. Only when he started examining the reserach did he reach a different conclusion, and you are thoroughly wrong that he is unable to read a reserach study. Of course, you refuse to read his book, so how could you know one way or the other? His grasp of science is much better than yours.

@ Sarah, Bob Whitaker is not a "patient" and doesn not have a psychiatric diagnosis. He has nothing to be in "denial" about. He is a medical journalist and he understands quite well how to read scientific studies much better than the author of this blog.

This is both funny and sad. You're trashing a book you're never even read. Robert Whitaker is an award-winning medical journalist who wrote for the New England journal of medicine for many years, and he is not at all antipsychiatry. In fact, he seeks to support a reform and better use of medication. He doesn't even use the same language that survivors of psychiatry use. He uses the medicalized jargon of "mental illness". And for your reader who would like to know Whitaker's "diagnosis" and feels he must be "in denial about his problems"...THE FACT is that Whitaker has never been a psychiatric patient. He used to report all the same things you report as facts, and then he went to the actual studies. He explains how he got to where he got in his work in his book, Anatomy of an Epidemic.
This blog post of yours only serves to highlight the disservice you do to the public and to your vulnerable readers.

I'm amazed that you would publicly trash a book thta you are bragging that you refuse to read. Perhaps you should read Bob Whitaker's response to E. Fuller Torrey's ignorant review of his book:
http://beyondmeds.com/2012/05/16/robert-whitakers-response-to-e-fuller-torrey-about-the-r…

Do you realize that if you get sued by someone over something you write under a pseudonym, you will not be able to remain anonymous in court records? Food for thought. This is real life, and real lives are at stake, and Robert Whitaker is putting his real name on his work, unlike you.

As Natasha Tracy suggests, reading a doctor's review of Whitaker's book is a great idea. For the prestigious New York Review of books, Marcia Angell, MD, wrote a very favorable and thought-provoking review of Anatomy of an Epidemic and two other books that expose the harm being done by "treating" mental disorders with psychotropic drugs. The reviewer, Marcia Angell, is a scientist's scientist and a former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. Here is a link to Part 1 of her review:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/23/epidemic-mental-illness-why/?paginat…
Dee Jacobson posted Part 2 above. Thank you, Dee!
To Natasha Tracy and DJ Jaffe, how about you try reading a book before you attempt to "review" it? That's what Dr. Angell did. And Natasha, I would suggest that what you find so hard to stomach is actually "truth."

I'm flattered that so many people took the time to be offended by my dry humour... perhaps those people are also in denial about their psychiatric diagnoses?

Also, I know neither Natasha Tracy nor Robert W., so I can't say who can read an article better. Can you?

Readers can read more reviews of Whitaker's book here:
http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Epidemic-Bullets-Psychiatric-Astonishing/product-reviews/03…
The folks who wrote these reviews seem to have actually read the book!

Yes, Sarah...That must be it. People who don't appreciate your dry humor must be mentally ill. Whatever gets you through the night...
And to answer your question about Bob Whitaker, those of us who commented about him do know him. Like we said before, he's an award-winning medical journalist with many books and other publications under his belt, years of experience and research behind him, Pulitzer nominated for his work...NOT an little internet blogger looking for something to do.

I agree on many levels with this book. I had a manic reaction when my antidepressant for PMDD was increased at 35 yrs. old with no family history. This resulted in job loss and agonizing symptoms as well as serotonin syndrome.
I have also worked in the mental health field for 20 plus years.
I initially felt as though meds were making people sick although now as I have worked as a counselor for the past 8 years since this experience. I have not been on meds and have no symptoms.
I have seen over and over again with the schizophrenic population / schizoeffective people slowly reducing meds with psychiatric instruction and these people with profound symptoms going from speaking in clear sentences to word salad speech.
As well as dangerous threatening behaviors towards others when while on meds being kind and non threatening. This makes me question if some people really need to be on these as quality of their lives are adversely impacted as well as society at large being put at risk. They eventually get arrested and involuntarily committed.
I have seen people very sick start clozapine and 6 months later being devastated that they felt and acted the way they did prior to medication because it was so effective.
I am conflicted by what I have witnessed over and over again.
Could it be that there are different forms of mental illness? Being organic in nature and symptomatic or genetic or onset with the start of meds? If so maybe although I agree with the fact that meds are not a great option and toxic maybe it is just the best option for some cases. I feel conflicted and think maybe there is a missing piece of the puzzle.
I'm simply going on experience and what I have seen and experienced myself.
For myself these meds caused enormous problems but for others they have been helpful. I'm very conflicted any insight would be helpful.

Why does medication work for some and not others? I think it is because psychiatrists are working blind. If someone comes in with a broken leg, management depends on personal factors (age of the person, other medical conditions) Genetic factors (what type, strength, size of bone) and environmental factors (nature, extent and location of injury). The same is true for psychiatric management; it depends on the person, their genes and the nature of the psychiatric injury or dysfunction. Our brains are all different, even more so than our bones are different. One cast does not fit all, and so neither does one medication fit all.

Natasha,
In a few years you will read Whitakers book and wish that you had read it a few years back.
Lu

I read his book and found it quite interesting, and not surprising. the hand-in-glove relationship between psychiatrists and "big pharma" is very disconcerting. A year and a half ago my boyfriend of 11 yrs experienced a life crisis that brought about a depressive episode. He went on antidepressants, one after another trying to find the right one. Four months later he committed suicide. I was devastated and and felt depressed. i opted NOT to treat my depressed state with medication. And I am feeling better the more time goes by. I am in the field of Psychology and I agree that it should be handled case, by case and medication used only when necessary and only in the short-term. I agree we are a medicated society, I am so glad I did not go down that path....I realize some need medication, but not for the rest of their lives. I think everyone should read his book....every little quirk is not a disorder to be treated and medicated......they are making millions on the back of people that probably would do better with therapy then a pill that masks the problem.

I did read the book. If you had read it, you would know that Whitaker does acknowledge the issues around changing definitions over time and in different countries. Does that mean end of case we can never know anything from different times and countries? No. He tries to take the differences into account as best he can. I think this is more hones than critiqueing a book you have not read. There is a LOT in there that is important. Conversely, there are a lot of doctors who never read the studies they are told about, and believe it blindly. So good on you for reading the actual studies. However be aware that studies are only looking through a glass darkly at part of a picture; trying like Whitaker to pull together the wider pieces is not something science does well.

Looks like the same cheering crowd from Mad In America where they block opposing points of view, harass dissenters and mock them while deleting scientific data that challenges their pat answers.

If you think the average MD knows how to interpret and critique a study, think again. I am an epidemiologist and my experience has been that unless they have an additional research oriented degree, they can tell you little beyond what is in the abstract. They have a poor concept of what kinds of evidence may be causal. They typically only take a single class in research methods and maybe one more in statistics. Your example from Fuller (When a broad definition of schizophrenia was in vogue, outcomes were better but when a narrow definition was in vogue, outcomes were worse, as would be expected) is ecological evidence, which is the weakest kind of evidence out there for trying to disentangle the effects of changing treatments over time. If you are going to take an MDs word, at least read something published in the peer reviewed literature, not Torrey (certainly not DJ Jaffe, who is not an MD or any kind of authority and I wish would find some other cause to use his marketing skills on)

I don't get why you are telling us that you won't read the book, then go on to criticize it. If it is so revolting, then why not just put some links up to the reviews, rather than view it based on a second hand account of the book. This post doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

Thankfully, you can't fool all the people all the time. I don't believe rockinrolldoggie or whatever she calls herself is an epidemiologist. And, good doctors know how to analyze data. BTW, there were 558,000 hospitalizations in 1955 due to severe mental illness, not 355,000 as reported by an anti.
To use government figures spanning half a century to portray accurately the number of Americans defined as mentally disabled is preposterous. Just a few things have changed and BTW, if you are going that route, get your figures straight first.

Horace, I don't understand your criticism of me, an epidemiologist who has worked with enough clinicians to have a sense of their ability interpret the scientific literature. Do you have an issue with the fact that I may have some criticisms of psychiatry (which is not the same as being anti psychiatry)? My point is that if Natasha wants to get information from MDs, she would get the best information from the peer reviewed scientific literature, not someone who has an obvious political agenda and conflict of interest.
I don't think you understand my criticism of Fuller. Of course there is an issue with changing definitions of mental illness over time, but the key words are over time. So much has changed over time with respect to mental illness(treatments, who presents for treatment, societal support factors, etc) that it is really not possible to tell if changes in outcomes are related to changing definitions of mental illness or these other factors.

Last comment. Natasha, you need to read the book before calling Whittaker anti psychiatry. One of his actual conclusions is, "The real question regarding psychiatric medications is this: When and how should they be used? The drugs may alleviate symptoms over the short term, and there are some people who may stabilize well over the long term on them, and so clearly there is a place for the drugs in psychiatry’s toolbox. However, a “best” use paradigm of care would require psychiatry, NAMI, and the rest of the psychiatric establishment to think about the medications in a scientifically honest way and to speak honestly about them to the public."
The book isn't perfect scientifically (I wish he would more clearly state which studies are observational vs randomized trials). But it calls attention to issues that need more attention.

Suzanne Beachy kicked her son out of her house, she writes. Then, when reminded she said that, she says she didn't throw him out. She blames psychiatry for his death. He was hit by a train years after he was hospitalized for a psychotic break. Once she discovers psychiatry is a good target to blame for Jake's problems, she doesn't continue to cite the other factors which led to his homelessness, hunger and tragic demise. Yet, when police and perfect strangers informed her that her son was living next to a dumpster, she made no attempt to bring him home.
At one time, she wrote, "More recently, and especially in the past three years, Jake's life was marred by anger, confusion and frustration as he found himself engaged in a sort of death struggle for his heart and mind.
After graduating from OSU in 2004, he seemingly became possessed by a sense of entitlement -- as if he shouldn't have to do anything he didn't particularly feel like doing. He often expressed a belief that life should be easy. And he began to embrace a conviction that a person's moral code is entirely subjective, making just about any conduct permissible." His parents had divorced and he was arrested and jailed. "Judge Bender sneeringly told Jake to “have more realistic expectations” for his life and promptly sentenced him to six weeks in the county jail." Ms. Beachy
"My son’s jail sentence was a trip to the beach compared to the other life-destroying sentence meted out by Judge Bender. That sentence: incurably mentally ill – damned to a limited life due to impairment – worth less."
"And even though the drugs almost completely incapacitated Jake, and he requested a reduced dosage, Igor refused." "On only his second day on the psych ward, he was told that he probably had 'schizophrenia.' The next day, his doctors were leaning toward a diagnosis of 'bipolar disorder.'"
"The pessimistic prediction of chronic disorder became a self-fulfilling prophecy for my son Jake. Being told he needed to 'set more realistic goals for himself' presumably because of his 'chronic mental illness,' Jake gave up on his goals and decided he might as well be homeless." She kicked him out and sent him away on a bus to California where he became homeless.
Why didn't she get her son when she was told he was hungry and without shelter?

To Natasha Tracy and DJ Jaffe, how about you try reading a book before you attempt to “review” it? That’s what Dr. Angell did. And Natasha, I would suggest that what you find so hard to stomach is actually “truth.” Suzanne Beachy
Back at you Suzanne.
The truth is, I believe, based on each one of the many contradictions she's written about Jake in his memory, and her silence when presented with questions about said discrepancies, something doesn't smell right. Well, she isn't really silent, at all. She just avoids answering simple direct questions as in, "Why didn't she go get him when she learned he was destitute?" Yet, easily provoked by such questions, she becomes quite wordy, bitter, and sarcastic criticizing others who dare to raise them. Suzanne is intent on presenting her beloved son's death as a direct result of a premature and incorrect psychiatric diagnosis. She describes how Jake lost all hope once he was given a lifelong label as a brain diseased young man.
I doubt it. His father and Suzanne were divorced. He had a psychotic episode and was hospitalized. He left against medical advice. He was abusing drugs and alcohol. He had developed a sense of entitlement and a situational bent on right and wrong. In other words, he did pretty much as he pleased. He was jailed. She kicked out again and sent packing on a bus to California where he lived next to a dumpster and was hungry.

Dr. Marcia Angell writes of a “raging epidemic” in mental illness, citing the fact that there are more individuals receiving disability payments for mental illnesses than ever before. While this is accurate, her article suggests that this is a false crisis that owes its existence to the discovery of psychotropic drugs starting in the 1950s. This creates the impression that Americans are overtreated for mental illnesses. Nothing could be further from the truth. The National Institute of Mental Health reports that currently only 36 percent of those who suffer from mental illnesses actually seek and receive treatment. This is especially concerning given the fact that comprehensive, biopsychosocial treatment of mental illnesses is increasingly effective, comparable to or at times greater than the effectiveness of treatment for many other medical disorders, such as heart disease and diabetes.
Dr. Angell and the authors she reviews also suggest that psychiatry, in general, regards mental illnesses through the reductionist lens of an imbalance of chemicals in the brain. Although psychotropic medications have been found to alter the balance of neurotransmitters in the brain, there is no consensus on whether these imbalances are causes of mental disorders or symptoms of them. The bottom line is that these medications often relieve the patient’s suffering, and this is why doctors prescribe them. It does not mean, as Dr. Angell suggests, that mental disorders were invented in order to create a market for psychotropic drugs. The disorders that these medications (and other therapies) treat have been around for all of recorded history. The difference is that today, thanks to medical and therapeutic advances, there is real help for those who suffer the devastating effects of mental illness.
John Oldham, M.D.
Keep reading even if it offends your cherished whipping boy.

Horace
Are you always such [moderated]? Instead of bashing Natasha why don't you go join a book club somewhere. This blog is written by someone with a mental illness for people with a mental illness. Do you have a mental illness? If so why don't you write about your OWN experiences!

NOTHING can replace personal experience! No book, no study, or anything else you care to quote for that matter. Everybody's truth is different based on their own life experiences

Natasha? She's cool. Why are you bashing me?

How revealing. Attack dogs accuse the messenger with ill will. All that's been described came from what Ms Beachy revealed on the net.
The loss of this young man seems to be a secondary issue. Abhorrence over psychiatry is her primary focus. Despising all psychiatrists is her theme and Jake's premature, senseless, avoidable death gets pushed aside. Anyone who dares to express a contrary opinion becomes a vicious enemy. Ms Beachy has to learn to grow up. She is not the center of the universe. Truth can be quite uncomfortable. Jake's doctors wanted to help him. Most doctors seek to do no harm.

Suzanne Beachy is a mother, musician, writer, and activist, who advocates for more recovery-oriented approaches to treating the kind of mental/emotional distress which gets labeled as “severe mental illness.” She writes, “Any diagnosis of a mental disorder can result in a complicated and uncertain fate for those it strikes. When you lose a son as a result of such a diagnosis, it ignites a painful and prolonged search for answers.”
Any time a young man is hospitalized because he is manifesting psychotic symptoms, his destiny can be complicated and uncertain. His doctors were not responsible for his psychotic episode.
At age 21, my son Jake landed in the psych ward of a teaching hospital because he was having a "psychotic episode."
That is probably a good place for Jake to have ended up. At least he wasn't homeless, alone and hungry.
Jake graduated from The Ohio State University in 2004, three years after his diagnosis. Beachy said, "When you lose a son as a result of such a diagnosis...” It took a long time after his death sentence was pronounced for Jake to die.

Try to point out errors on Whitater's propaganda platform. They politely ban you. Well, not really politely. In the name of their revolution, they don't fret about little things like respect and decency. They don't care about truth or facts. They want all readers to know that they have suffered. They have been tortured, in fact, worse than anyone else in history. All at the hands of psychiatrists. So, you cannot reason with them. Like Ms Beachy, every harm and painful experience they've had to endure, is the result of big pharma and psychiatry. All suffering heaped upon mankind is due to those vile devils. Jake died so that Suzanne can preach to the multitudes how her hands are washed clean. It was Igor and those other bad boys in white coats who deliberately sent Jake away to California and left him there bereft of hope and to be a target for a runaway locomotive. She never did anything to Jake. It was you and me. It was everyone but her. Sossity, you're a woman.

Whitaker is a money hungry opportunist. He writes garbage. Look closely at the fine print. Scientific statistics are not his strength. He is an expert on combining facts with biased junk. He's certainly groomed a pack of wild devotees who know even less than he does and depend on his every word for sustenance. Frightening. Truly.

"Seven years after being hospitalized in a psych ward, my brilliant, funny, sensitive, artistic, shining star of a son died as a homeless person after being struck by an Amtrak train in Santa Barbara."
After police and perfect strangers from Santa Barbara informed Mrs. Beachy that her homeless son was hungry and living next to a dumpster, she did not try to retrieve him and bring him back home. She kicked him out and sent him away on a bus because he was drinking, drugging and had an attitude of entitlement. Mind you, this happened after he graduated from Ohio State University in 2004. If, in fact, it was his diagnosis that took his life, how did he finish college? If many people recover from a break with reality, why didn't Jake fully recover? If Dr. Fisher, Mrs. Beachy's hero, recovered from schizophrenia after he completed a regimen on psychiatric, prescribed drugs, why didn't Jake?
"What I have learned in the time since Jake’s death is that despite what mainstream psychiatry likes to purport, people recover from psychotic disorders all the time, all over the world. I have met many of these survivors personally."
Psychiatry makes perfectly clear that some people recover from schizophrenia.
"Any diagnosis of mental illness results in a complicated and uncertain fate for those it strikes. When you lose a son as a result of such a diagnosis, it ignites a search for answers"
Any psychotic manifestation that leads to hospitalization creates a complicated and uncertain future. I see no evidence whatsoever that Jake was lost and died because of such a diagnosis. I believe his "diagnosis" was likely a fairly accurate assessment of his condition (Jake left the hospital with his mother's assistance prematurely against medical advice) and his prognosis was probably hopeful and positive if he followed the recommended, professional medical directions.

Robert Whittiker is not anti-psychiatry.
A wide range of people write on the Mad in America website: psychiatrists, anti-psychiatrists, social workers, psychologists, survivors of psychiatry, therapists, counsellor, leaders of self help groups for people who hear voices, leaders of other self help groups. So Robert Whittiker clearly surrounds himself with a wide range of people. Though the website is now run by a group of people so his input might not be as large as it once was.
I understand you have not read it as you do not like what it might say and you criticise Robert Whittiker's way of interpreting studies. However others do like his way of interpreting studies and they are not exactly new or novel interpretations. Others have reached similar conclusions before, he merely puts the evidence in a more clear manner than most.
You have not sited what the studies are that Wittiker uses and then said why you think his interpretations are wrong and why others interpretations are better. Until you do that you are presenting a weak argument. You write that he cannot interpret studies very well and say others do it better and reach different conclusions but the only evidence you have is from Torrey Fuller, a man who receives drug company funding.
I therefore ask you if you have any credible independent experts who take apart Whittiker's work? If so can you present them in a future blog? Without that I think you are making accusations but not substantiating them very well, certainly not enough for anyone to make any useful decisions on.
Robert Whittiker has toured the world speaking at conferences on this issue. Perhaps you could invite him to debate his findings with you or an expert of your choice? If you do that I for one would be interested in hearing about that. Until such a debate is held, or a more independent expert than the one you have sited is asked to examine his work I am afraid that your piece is best seen as a biased and provocative opinion piece that is amusing but has little basis in fact or has much in the way of reasoned debate. I love such columns, as sharp opinions make life interesting, but not something one should base serious opinions on.

Dear Mr. Big Mouth,
E. Fuller Torrey claims that he and his organization do not receive drug company funding. I don't know if that's true or not. I do know that Torrey is a prime source of misinformation, mainly in the form of fear- and hate-mongering against people with the scarier psychiatric labels.
I agree with you that he is not a credible critic of Mr. Whitaker's work. In fact, Mr. Whitaker addressed Torrey's "review" of Anatomy of an Epidemic in this article entitled "Dear Dr. Torrey, Please Stop the Lies"
http://www.madinamerica.com/2012/10/dear-dr-torrey-please-stop-the-lies/

"So Robert Whittiker clearly surrounds himself with a wide range of people..."
Is that right, Big Mouth? Quote some people who make pro-psychiatry comments at MIA.
Confront Suzanne Beachy, too, that deeply grieving mother. MIA grants her carte blanche to insult those with whom she disagrees.
Whitaker is pathetic. "Though the website is now run by a group of people so his input might not be as large as it once was." Who runs it now? Listen up, mouth, Whitaker has complete control over the content oozing from that stinking cesspool. It is a dump, a septic tank trench field gushing waste in every direction. He, ultimately, is responsible for every stupid, unscientific, hate-filled word and phrase uttered from that viper's nest.

" I am an individual who is still recovering from the damage I incurred from taking psychiatric medications for a periond on years...huge chunks of my memory were disappearing, along with my sharp, quick intellegence. Tha work that had come to me so easy became unmanagable. I lost my career, income, benefits, and stability. I could not find a therapist in my area whospecialized in deep trauma initially. Now, having gotten off the medications I had been told I would need totakefor the rest of mylife, some of my memories of my adult children are beginning to return and I am thrilled." Dee Jacobson
I don't believe her. Many of the "I hate psychiatry" fanatics love to post lies of their alleged tortured lives. They try to appear something other than what they really are. Their accounts are too contrived, too perfectly designed to attack psychiatry. After a while, they are easily spotted. They are despicable.

This author states right up that she's ill-informed - she refuses to read the book because she finds the author's viewpoint, which differs from hers, to be too infuriating to stand - but then rants and raves in a frothy-mouthed rebuttal of the argument she hasn't read.
First of all, she claims to be interested in "good science", which means she ought to be embarrassed by how unscientific she is being.
But what terrifies me is that Natasha is so convinced that she knows it all already. "Why bother read his book," runs her argument, "when I already know he's wrong." The arrogance is breathtaking. She has no shadow of a doubt that her prevonceived ideas are correct. She believes she has no more learning to do. Doesn't it freak you out to think that your doctor probably has the same belief?!? And if so, he or she will keep doing what she was taught in medical school until the day she dies, even after it's proved wrong?!?
Such blinkered arrogance is all too common among scientists and the medical community. And you know what? That's how mistakes get made.
Scientists who think they already know the answers nake mistakes. Why? Because what do they do when confronted with results that don't fit their preconceived notions? They explain it away. They disbelieve the results. They make an excuse. They fudge the results.
But even if the scientists can accept the new information, you can be certain that the medical community won't. Because they will fly into illogical knee-jerk fits of rage at having their all powerful, all-knowing status questioned.
Heres the thing: Scientists don't want to be proven wrong, and medics don't want to change. And there you have the reasons for the diabetes epidemic, the obesity epidemic and now it seems, the mental health epidemic, too. Pure and simple, these epdemics were created because for periods of thirty or fifty years, scientists explained away results they didn't like, and the medical community went into a mouth-frothing fit of apoplectic rage at any suggestion that they might need to change.
This post is a perfect example of that knee-jerk, illogical rage against challenging new information which has caused the overwhelming evidence to be ignored for decades, and the lives of thousands of people to be compromised. This post is an example of how the scientific and medical communities fail us.

You are a riot, Mathi.