Biology of “Mental illness” – fact or fiction?

The majority of physical illness diagnoses can be verified by objective clinical tests. The majority, if not all, of psychiatric 'mental illnesses' cannot be (those caused by alcohol, drugs and certain real diseases, Alzheimer’s and Huntingdon’s excepted). Many medical diseases have verifiable causes. Psychiatry has none. 'Mental disorders' are simply categorizations of behaviours or thought processes which are then given labels.

The truth is finally – after too long a period of denial – “coming out”:

There have been claims, published in professional journals and in the media for decades, of gene discoveries and that mentally disordered patients have faulty genes and chemical imbalances in their brains. All are now shown to be wrong.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has now officially admitted that there are no genes for mental disorders. In an official APA press release dated May 3rd, 2013, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for mental disorders version 5 (DSM-5) Task Force head David Kupfer MD stated, “In the future, we hope to be able to identify disorders using biological and genetic markers that provide precise diagnoses that can be delivered with complete reliability and validity. Yet this promise, which we have anticipated since the 1970s, remains disappointingly distant. We’ve been telling patients for several decades that we are waiting for biomarkers. We’re still waiting.” 

 In this statement, American psychiatry has at last come clean about its failure to support its claims of a biological basis for “mental illness” with actual scientific findings.

The hope is that one day, as David Kupfer MD plaintively tells us, research may, “culminate in the genetic and neuroscience breakthroughs that will revolutionize our field. In the meantime, should we merely hand patients another promissory note that something may happen sometime? Every day, we are dealing with impairment or tangible suffering, and we must respond. Our patients deserve no less.”

I have raised the fact before that almost by definition, psychiatric disorders are not medical conditions. If they are shown to have a biological basis, they cease being psychiatric disorders and are transferred to other areas of medicine, such as neurology. This point has been made repeatedly by others more qualified than I. As far as I can determine there is no evidence that DSM “mental disorders” are true medical conditions, but if such evidence comes in, they will be treated as medical conditions and not psychiatric disorders.

As I understand it, psychiatry and psychology have been trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. There is an attempt to reconcile the objective, quantitative, scientifically measurable aspects of the biological brain with the subjective, qualitative and immeasurable aspects of the mind with the hope of arriving at some meaningful answer.

I know that various scanning techniques have identified parts of the brain that “light up” when emotions or thoughts are invoked. But no one has ever been able to determine what comes first; do the thoughts “light up” the neurons or do the “lit up” neurons generate the thoughts?

We need to know the answers to this conundrum because the present level of psychiatric research conformity demands that any mental disorder can only be the result of some biological/chemical deficiency in the brain which can be cured by pharmacological products alone. The fact that the APA (above) has had an unusually reflective moment and realised that it may be wrong in promoting the quest for biological markers for mental disorders is illuminating to say the least and well over due.

Pharmaceutical drugs are not the answer – so what now?

I suggest that if it took years for any particular individual to develop whatever mental disorder symptoms are presented to the health professional concerned, popping a pill may, temporarily, alleviate the problem but will not cure it. What is needed is a long and time consuming, gentle, empathetic, holistic approach to the person concerned – listen, LISTEN to what the person has to say. There is always a message in there somewhere. It may need deciphering. The message will undoubtedly be garbled and may, for example, be an attempt to interpret an event which occurred when the person was an infant who would have lacked the relevant emotional or cognitive abilities to arrive at a satisfactory answer.

Once more, pharmaceutical drugs are not the answer. They are only marginally more efficacious than a placebo (and in some cases – generally not reported by the pharmaceutical companies concerned – may actually perform worse than placebos). Drugs, without exception, have severe side effects and have physical effects on the body, which often reduce life span by many years.

So, to answer the question posed at the beginning of this post - it now accepted that the assertions mental disorders are caused by biological factors are myths and based on fantasy, not facts.

Governments withholding information from the public

I have a rooted objection to being patronised or being considered as a “lesser” being.  What follows is a slightly modified version of a letter I sent to the Prime Minister of Australia the Hon. Tony Abbott PM. I believe that the sentiments expressed could easily be considered valid by the citizens of any nation:

“I write to you as a concerned citizen regarding your Government’s decision to withhold information provided to the public (the voters) of Australia relating to the plight of refugees trying to make their way to this country. The excuse offered is that this is an “operational” matter that cannot be made public. This as you will be well aware is a diversionary tactic and could be considered as a “weasel word”.

Your determination, your fixation on the “stop the boats” mantra is doing Australia immeasurable harm and by default to you, as Prime Minister and your Government. This greatly concerns me. By withholding information how are we the citizens, and voters, of Australia supposed to judge whether your actions are trustworthy or in our interests? For instance if another “Tampa affair” should eventuate how would we know (in 2001 the Australian Government refused to allow the Norwegian MV Tampa with over 400 refugees it had rescued from a fishing boat in distress to enter Australian waters) ? If another “they threw children overboard” accusation was made how would we know (refugees falsely accused by the Australian Government of throwing children overboard to force a rescue)? How will we ever judge your actions in a true and fair manner if we are only fed what you decide we are (apparently) “worthy” enough to know?

Take a hypothetical – if a massive earthquake or volcanic eruption demolished most of New Zealand’s North Island and thousands of “boat people” used whatever means at their disposal to make the dangerous trip across the Tasman Sea to the “safety” of Australia would they be stopped and sent to Nauru or Manus Island? Not at all! They would be welcomed because they are from our culture, speak English, are well educated and in desperate need. There would be no accusations of “queue jumping”; no accusations of “illegal immigrants” would there? 

So why attach derogatory and misleading terms to describe the unfortunate people fleeing dangerous countries – Afghanistan, Iraq (remember Australia helped create the problems in both these countries) Sri Lanka, South Sudan and similar places of great unrest and human misery? All peoples, whoever they are, and as a requirement of our common humanity, need to be treated with respect, dignity and compassion – particularly children. To do otherwise is to diminish yourselves and thereby the Nation.

Animal welfare organizations have the force of legislation to ensure that animals on farms; animals in zoos; and at home, even in abattoirs – are all considered with care for their welfare and wellbeing. But humans who we consider as “inferior”; humans we consider as “criminals”, or are treated as if they were criminals, are incarcerated on remote islands! This is no way to treat anyone – certainly not children. This manner of treatment has echoes of the 18^th and 19^th century policy of transportation - remember the Colony of New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land? Remember “Devil’s Island” off the coast of French Guiana?

Please! This is the Twenty First Century and (hopefully) we have moved on from taking punitive action against those who we (or the representative Government of this country) deem unworthy of the shelter offered by this country. Such action leads to a dangerous path resulting in unknown and unforeseen consequences.

All close knit groups, collectives, with people in positions of authority, such as the Australian Government Cabinet, have a natural tendency to abuse their power. They all need oversight to prevent the situations so graphically exposed by the Abu Ghraib abuses, in Guantanamo Bay and those examined by Professor Philip Zimbardo (Stanford University) in his famous book “The Lucifer Effect – how good people turn evil”. And we, the voters of Australia, are your Government’s oversight and we need to know what it is that you are doing in our name.

Tell us what we MUST know to fulfill our duty as voters – not what you think we should know (which is propaganda)!!”

“Ask not what your country can do ….”

I know that in many Americans homes there hangs a plaque with the famous statement by the late John F Kennedy:

“Ask not your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country”.

The truth, and this may be unpalatable for many, is that John Kennedy was not the first to use these famous words. That honour goes to the famous Lebanese Arab/American writer Kahlil Gibran (December 6, 1883 - April 10, 1931) – he who wrote The Prophet.

In an essay, written obviously before he died in 1931, originally in Arabic, but translated into English with the title “The New Frontier” Gibran wrote:

“Are you are a politician asking what your country can do for you or a zealous one asking what you can do for your country”.  

I found this “fact” in a book, published in 1965 containing a collection of works written by Gibran called “Mirrors of the Soul”. The essay from which the quote was taken, was written in 1925 - most certainly before Kennedy used it in his famous speech.

So there we are. Just thought you might like to have the record set straight – sorry if you are disappointed or disillusioned.

Supposed season of good cheer!

Australia – as with many developed countries is a wealthy nation; high standard of living; high standard of education and the under-privileged are (relatively) well cared for. But we have a blot on our Nation’s Escutcheon – that of our treatment of those “illegals” – “queue jumpers” – “boat people” or whatever other derogatory name they are given by politicians. They are still people in need.

This time of year – Christmas time – is a time to reconsider our commitments and the one time of year, if at none other, when we should help those less fortunate. Sometimes it is good to remind ourselves of what others have said about this.

The following quote is from Charles Dickens timeless “A Christmas Carol” (written December 1843):

“But I am sure that I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come around – apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that – as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys.”

We need to closely attend these wise words. We need, also, to recall that these  people, politically diminished voyagers from another country, are fleeing persecution or abuse; they are human beings; they are not aliens. They have hopes and aspirations just like you and I. And just like you and I they bleed when hurt. And just like you and I they can be emotionally scarred by the actions and behaviour of others.

What are we doing to ourselves by our nation’s politically motivated mis-treatment of these unfortunate people?

We are diminished as a people and as a nation.

If Mandela had been a refugee.

At last I have established the name of my one loyal reader – he wants to be known as Archie. So Archie it is.

Now Archie asked me a very valid (if hypothetical) question. What would have happened, Archie wanted to know, if the late Nelson Mandela had arrived on a boat in Australian waters under the new government’s (rather grandiosely named) operation “Sovereign Borders” policy? What if Nelson Mandela had also arrived, on this boat, with no documentation or identification?

Would he have been immediately categorized as an “illegal” immigrant; would he have been immediately transported to an “off shore” detention centre on Manus Island or Nauru? Once there, of course, on these “off shore” detention centres, as has been widely advertised, the Australian Government has sworn that no “illegal” will ever come to Australia or become an Australian citizen.

What would Australia have done with this “undocumented” Nelson Mandela? Make an exception and give him a visa; put him on a plane straight back to South Africa; keep him waiting, possibly, for years before making some determination about his character and “worthiness” as a human being?

Archie knows as well as I do that this is a hypothetical question because the very well-known and widely respected world leader Nelson Mandela is no longer with us. But it is valid for three reasons:

Firstly: the current “Sovereign Borders” policy is allegedly costing us (the taxpayers) about AUD$1.00 billion to implement (but the Australian government is claiming “poverty” and will be making drastic cuts to the budget), and

Secondly: there is currently a paucity of people prepared to do the more menial and manual jobs in the aged and disability caring roles, in the hospitality and service industries and in the agricultural sector (fruit picking etc).

Thirdly: if “Sovereign Borders” is so important why not spend the AUD$1.00 billion on foreign aid to support the countries the “illegal” boat people are fleeing from?

So to get back to the original question, if someone did arrive without identification papers and was of a similarly high calibre moral standing as Mandela how would anyone know?

What would Australia have lost? What has Australia already lost with their “Sovereign Borders” policy? Many possibly, intelligent, well educated, high calibre people desperate to leave a dangerous country and who are prepared to make the arduous and possibly life threatening voyage from Indonesia to Australia in a small, ill-equipped fishing boat?

Not only is the current “Sovereign Borders” policy incredibly wasteful in monetary terms it is also wasteful in that most important aspect of all – Human Capital. Many Australian country towns are dying – young people are moving to the “big smoke” for education and more fulfilling work.

Archie suggests, and I concur, that we should let these people in with the stipulation that they spend at least three years in a country town and work!

Don’t waste any more money or “Human Capital” (Vale Mandela).