| Last month I wrote about an article by Tana
Dineen, a licensed psychologist who no longer practices, that appeared
in the magazine, The Skeptic. Dineen is now championing the role of
curbing the pervasive influences of her chosen profession because of
the harm she sees it doing. She writes, “What I see being done under
the name of psychology is so seriously contaminated by errors in logic,
popular notions, and personal beliefs, and it is doing so much harm
to people.” A few years ago Dineen asked Sam Keen, the former editor
of Psychology Today, if he thought that psychologists might one day
begin to question the lie about the benefits of psychological services.
Keen answered, “Not a chance. There’s too much money in it.” It’s a
sad fact that much of what we mistakenly take as a concern for others
is driven more by the chance to make a buck. In November 1994, Consumer
Reports published the results of what they called a “candid, in-depth
survey.” The psychologist Martin Seligman, consultant on the project,
later became the President of the APA. Originally, 180,000 individuals
were sent surveys to which 7,000 people responded. Of those 7,000, the
study focused upon 4000 respondents, and 2900 in particular who had
claimed to have visited a mental health professional. Seligman admitted
that the response rate was very small at 13 percent. In reality, with
the focus upon 4,000 respondents the study sample was only 2.2 percent,
far lower than his very low rate. Even with this extremely low rate
of response, Seligman was able to draw sweeping conclusions to prove
his hypothesis. Although 60 percent of the respondents said that they
either felt “so-so,” “quite good,” or “very good,” before treatment,
Seligman claimed that they were “sick,” “subclinical in their problem,”
and “one symptom short of a full-blown disorder.” Seligman also came
to the conclusion that 64 percent of those people receiving six months
or less of treatment reported having their problems resolved while his
illustrative graph showed that only about 30 percent made that claim.
The study further claimed that if short term therapy was useful, long
term care was even more useful. Of this, Seligman stated, “Long-term
therapy produced more improvement than short-term therapy. This result
was very robust.” To illustrate that point, a graph was depicted that,
on a casual glance, seemed to prove that point. The graph had an upward
growth pattern that seemed to show that improvement was definitely greater
depending upon the length of therapy. This was achieved by starting
the vertical axis of the graph at 190 rather than 0. If the graph was
started at 0, it would have illustrated the fact that the greatest improvement
in mental well-being occurred within the first month of treatment. In
reality, 80 percent of improvement occurred within the first month of
treatment, with very little improvement over the next two years. Most
studies that portray psychotherapy as effective, such as the one I’ve
just described, have come into question. Dineen says that there is “no
firm proof that psychotherapy works. And psychotherapy continues to
be promoted despite the many well-conducted studies which find little
evidence of its effectiveness, and even data that suggest that is could
be harmful.” A 1986 study by M.J. Lambert found that 40 percent of individuals
improved without any treatment, 30 percent from factors within a relationship
such as love, trust, and empathy, and 15 percent from placebo effect
(often, placebo effect can account for 25 percent of improvement). This
shows that 70–95 percent of individuals will improve without any psychological
intervention. A couple of years before Seligman conducted the study
above he stated, “Making up your mind about self-improvement courses,
psychotherapy, and medication is difficult because the industries that
champion them are enormous and profitable and try to sell themselves
with highly persuasive means: testimonials, case histories, word of
mouth, endorsements all slick forms of advertising.” It is very telling
that he eventually became president of the APA. These studies tend to
show that psychotherapy is quite ineffective in treating “diseases”
of the mind. On a positive side it can be asserted that psychotherapy
is far safer than drug therapy. The effectiveness of drugs in treating
depression is difficult to ascertain. Yet I believe that the evidence
proves that they are not only ineffective but extremely dangerous. It
has been found that about 25 percent of those suffering from depression
will greatly improve within one month and almost 50 percent within a
few months without any psychiatric involvement (Lambert claims it is
much higher at 70–90 percent). Even those suffering from severe depression
have a very high rate of recovery. Seymour Fisher and Roger Greenberg
in “The Limits of Biological Treatments for Psychological Distress”
have concluded that drug treatment for depression is unjustified. They
claim that almost 40 percent of the most positive reviews by drug advocates
will show no positive difference between drugs and placebo. In fact,
the most controlled studies of the newer antidepressants show no difference
in benefit of drugs over placebo. The authors state, “although drugs
may help patients with their sleep disturbances, research shows they
are often less efficient than psychotherapy in helping patients with
depression and apathy and frequently ineffective in aiding patients
in their social adjustment, interpersonal relationships, or work performance.”
Biopsychiatrists often make very extraordinary claims about the use
of antidepressant drugs, totally rejecting the psychotherapeutic approach
of caring — which we have already seen is somewhat suspect. Antidepressants
are prescribed by biopsychiatrists and family doctors alike. In fact,
the majority of antidepressant prescriptions are written by non-psychiatric
doctors, (this is scary since these doctors are certainly not trained
in the understanding and treatment of mental illness). Recently Colorado
passed a law making it illegal for teachers to pressure parents into
putting their child on such drugs as Ritalin or other amphetamines.
But why was that necessary? As I see it, by pushing parents to get their
kids on Ritalin, these teachers were already guilty of practicing medicine
without a license. And there are stiff penalties for that action which
the American Medical Association could pursue. But they won’t because
the teachers are supporters of the very drug therapies pushed by the
AMA. As you can see the medical approach to treating depression is quite
depressing. The bright side is that there is no reason to be limited
by such ineffective treatment. If a person really wants to find relief
(and is ready to make the necessary life changes) then he or she can
seek the help of someone who has the knowledge to investigate the many
causes of the condition. As you have read, this is probably not the
medical doctor. Although it may be a difficult path, a cure is only
possible through the discovery and elimination of the cause. Richard
A. Peterson, N.D., is a Natural Health Doctor, Reiki Master & Healer,
specializing in Qigong and Reiki Healing, Nutrition, Herbs, Dreamwork,
Shamanic and Spiritual Healing, Possession, and Extractions. Appointments
are arranged by phone, 612-724-5324. Visit his website at www.geocities.com/webnd2/index.html
|
