The Truth about Mental Health Disorders — Psychology
psychetruth asked:
Be My Friend — www.myspace.com The Truth about Mental Disorders. Dr. John Breeding, Ph.D. psychologist discusses how mental disorders are created by the American Psychiatric Association and listed in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical manual of Mental Disorders. Disorders such as bipolar, ADHD, OCD, Anxiety Disorders, etc. are voted into existence by APA committees. The underlying assumption of biological psychiatry is that mental illness is biologically based despite the fact that no solid ...
Be My Friend — www.myspace.com The Truth about Mental Disorders. Dr. John Breeding, Ph.D. psychologist discusses how mental disorders are created by the American Psychiatric Association and listed in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical manual of Mental Disorders. Disorders such as bipolar, ADHD, OCD, Anxiety Disorders, etc. are voted into existence by APA committees. The underlying assumption of biological psychiatry is that mental illness is biologically based despite the fact that no solid ...
The same exact stuff happened to me and I went non-spiritual. :/
DSM is bullshit, yes. But John Breeding is no less B.S than DSM. A psychologist talking about psychiatry is like a sky cap talking about how to fly a plane.
Sadomasochism still IS in the DSM-IV («disorder of sexual preference»).
This is the sanest commentary on mental illness I have come across. I was declared bipolar disorder. When I got off the meds the problem was extreme emotions from fear. When I became centered and grounded in actions, I became so to speak sane. It was about running away from love and reality. It only took incorporating love and spirituality to have clarity. Drugging people in fear is sick not curing them.
the dsm , the preppy handbook.
maybe im wronge, but you have to be mad to a certain extent and have a obsession to study the human mind in that much depth, i rfind some mind doctors do it to self medicate , in my expernaice any way, up most respect to you doc
No, I wasn't aware that the DSM was looked upon so negatively by the APA. In fact, I still don't. I did read some negative comments about the latest edition of the DSM.
Personally, I'm not a psychiatrist or a psychologist. I did enjoy watching John's videos; but this isn't my area of expertise.
Having said that; what's the alternative ? Are we gonna bash the DSM without another publication to fall back on ? For example, John is selling a book.
Pseudo intellectial bs is all I hear.
Good work. It's really nothing short of marvelous, the enormous con-job psychiatry/psychology have perpetrated on the lay community and unsuspecting isn't it? This period in which we live will be looked back on with astonishment that so many actually were duped into believing this was actual bona-fide «medical science». amazing.
Are you aware that the APA called the DSM «one of the top ten worst documents ever created by psychology»? In addition, I'm going to assume you are aware that it is an entirely political document, in that, not a single so-called «mental disease/illness» has ever been discovered by legitimate medical science. Having said that, it is indeed pointless that you or anyone would even bother making any statement regarding this appalling document. It is the product of pseudoscience.
John graduated from the University of Texas, and he has practiced psychology for some 22 years. I'm not sure why anybody would question is understanding of psychology.
I don't agree with everything he says. The DSM was designed to characterize mental illness in a uniform way. If he's got a better way of classifying mental illnesses, I'd like to hear it. It's like a Christian arguing about how the bible isn't perfect.
If he wasn't selling a book, I'd be curious as to why he's on here.
I'll check it out. I'm involved in business and economics, but I have personally battled depression, anxiety, and suicide, and I definitely think it's important to be sensible about these kinds of things and accept that the other side is partially right too, whatever your side is.
4) In this video, 7:40 Breeding says « any behavior or misbehaviour cannot be a desease, it's just not what desease is... it is tragic that some doctors mandate to classify this as mental illness and that's what gets you into that system... so that those social problems could be controlled by this profession called psychiatry.» (look up that book, I strongly recommend it)
3) I have therefore come to see that one of the most important tasks of the doctor today is disavowal of his own power and responsibility. The patient's notion that he is ill stands in the way of the understanding of the situation, without which moral change cannot take place. The doctor who pretends to treat is an obstacle to this change, blinding rather than enlightening. "
2) "... a ridiculous pas de deux between doctor and patient ensues: the patient pretends to be ill, and the doctor pretends to cure him.
In the process, the patient is wilfully blinded to the conduct that inevitably caused his misery in the first place.
I have therefore come to see that one of the most important tasks of the doctor today is disavowal of his own power and responsibility.
1) nuclearcollision, I read your comment and what you wrote exactly echoes my conversation with a Spanish friend of mine, a future psychologist, who can't stop wondering about so many things in the US. Yesterday I showed her a book by Theodore Dalrymple 'Our Culture, What's Left of It / The Mandarins and the Masses'. Theodore Dalrymple is a pen name of Anthony Daniels — a British writer and retired physician (prison doctor and psychiatrist). I will quote just a few sentences from his book here:
@kevinneslund
Just different ways of saying bullshit my friend.
They (Universities) certainly don't «dish out» degrees to illiterate people such as yourself. You can't even spell the word «liar». You're pathetic.
HFergel appears to be the kind of person degree mills allow to graduate. a self-interested charlatan as well. He's authored a number of books and testified before congress on a number of occasions. Have you?
It's actually referred to among scientists as «descriptive science». Which is a polite, euphemistically way of saying pseudoscience.
I believe that both sides are partially right (mental illness does exist on one hand, and psychiatry is to an extent a method of control), and that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Therefore I am probably quite unpopular because many people feel quite strongly one way or the other. Medical intervention IS appropriate at times. Medical intervention is NOT appropriate a lot of the time, and spiritual support is what's really needed. Can any sane person argue with that?
No, that's what the 'real' scientist say about psychology, they do call it a soft science for very good reasons.
Breeding is a self-interested charlatan. He gives no real facts to support his arguments. Breeding is the kind of person degree mills allow to graduate.
It is sad indeed that people like this charlatan, John Breeding, provide support for what you say. Rest assured, credible and honest institutions (Universities) do not dish out degrees to such egotistic liers as Breeding is. Mr. Breeding is a opertating a crooked practice that borders on the criminal.
John Breeding is a classical con-artist. What he says is only his own opinion and he never supports anything with truthful facts. This man is dishonest to the point of sociopathic behaviour. I feel very sorry for those who are ****** in to believing his self-interested egotistic mumbo-jumbo. One wonders what kind of institute would sink so low as to give a degree to such a low-life person.
If you, dear reader, have an honest reply to what I say here, please do so.
Psychology is called a 'light science' I say it's not science at all.