![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 4 to 28 of 44. Go back in thread:
Posted by stjames on October 31, 2003, at 15:36:40
In reply to David D. Burns Quack MD, posted by ace on October 30, 2003, at 17:04:25
Ace, why are you asking to have these well known Qwacks as guests, on admim ?
Posted by ace on October 31, 2003, at 23:47:51
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD, posted by stjames on October 31, 2003, at 15:36:40
> Ace, why are you asking to have these well known Qwacks as guests, on admim ?
So I can try and disprove them! And I really want to know why they think like they do. For instance David burns made a comment to the liKe of 'I cure people of intense depression in 40 min session'- I really want to know what's behind that statement.but also, if we got any educated guests I reckon' it would be good, you agree?
Best,
ace.
Posted by Dinah on November 1, 2003, at 5:16:23
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD » stjames, posted by ace on October 31, 2003, at 23:47:51
> > Ace, why are you asking to have these well known Qwacks as guests, on admim ?
>
>
> So I can try and disprove them! And I really want to know why they think like they do. For instance David burns made a comment to the liKe of 'I cure people of intense depression in 40 min session'- I really want to know what's behind that statement.
>
I'm guessing that would put Dr. Bob in an awkward position professionally, wouldn't you think? Asking someone to come here only to have us try to disprove him? That's sort of what happened last time, and I remember thinking I wouldn't blame Dr. Bob if he never asked another expert to come here.
Posted by sb417 on November 1, 2003, at 10:04:35
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD, posted by Dinah on November 1, 2003, at 5:16:23
If we have another guest here, perhaps we could/should send our posts to Dr. Bob first. Dr. Bob can screen the posts and then forward the appropriate ones to the guest physician.
Posted by stjames on November 1, 2003, at 12:21:39
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD » stjames, posted by ace on October 31, 2003, at 23:47:51
> So I can try and disprove them! And I really want to know why they think like they do. For instance David burns made a comment to the liKe of 'I cure people of intense depression in 40 min session'- I really want to know what's behind that statement.
>
> but also, if we got any educated guests I reckon' it would be good, you agree?
>Qwacks are only sucessful if they get a platform to speak on. I only see this as locking up the board again.
Posted by stjames on November 1, 2003, at 12:27:07
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD, posted by sb417 on November 1, 2003, at 10:04:35
> If we have another guest here, perhaps we could/should send our posts to Dr. Bob first. Dr. Bob can screen the posts and then forward the appropriate ones to the guest physician.
Ah, right. That is a really good idea. (it is how
we have always done these guest talks). It did not stop this board flaming the Dean/Head of Dr Bobs
department (saying he was clueless about AP's) thus ending that guests "visit" here.
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 1, 2003, at 14:03:12
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD » stjames, posted by ace on October 31, 2003, at 23:47:51
Theres alot I don't believe in.. but theres alot I now believe in that I didn't used to. So now, I can be skeptical about something, but I refuse to say its impossible until I have tried it.
I never believed that ccupuncture could help anything, then tried it and found it wonderful help for both physical and mental pains for 2 years.
I never believed that CBT could help me at all, but it did, alot, and basically has saved my life.*shrugs* I am skeptical about the 40 minute claim, it seems much to short a time to me, but I would want to try it before totally wiping it off the slate.
Nikki x
Posted by ace on November 1, 2003, at 22:57:50
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD, posted by Dinah on November 1, 2003, at 5:16:23
> > > Ace, why are you asking to have these well known Qwacks as guests, on admim ?
> >
> >
> > So I can try and disprove them! And I really want to know why they think like they do. For instance David burns made a comment to the liKe of 'I cure people of intense depression in 40 min session'- I really want to know what's behind that statement.
> >
> I'm guessing that would put Dr. Bob in an awkward position professionally, wouldn't you think? Asking someone to come here only to have us try to disprove him? That's sort of what happened last time, and I remember thinking I wouldn't blame Dr. Bob if he never asked another expert to come here.My reply contained an 'AND' ie " AND I really want to know why they think like they do"... I want to try to understand their claims in addition to tastefully putting forth my views which may be in antipodes with theirs.
If we tried to disprove these people, how would that put Dr. Bob in an akward position?- After all WE are the ones trying to disprove the guest.
They should thank Dr. Bob for more exposure- giving them a chance to tell their stories.And I am sure not all others on psycho-babble would try to disprove him/her- he/she would have some supporters.
And in plus- when I mentioned the two names (Breggin, Burns) Dr Bob seemed cool with the idea.
If these people are going around making such huge claims they should be questioned and made to prove such claims. Never have I seen this happen to any extensive level. And usually they are interviewed by journalists not patients.
Don't you agree that hearing/being questioned directly from patients would be better than reading an interview with them conducted by a journalist?
Ace
Posted by stjames on November 2, 2003, at 2:40:53
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD » Dinah, posted by ace on November 1, 2003, at 22:57:50
I'll hold your feet to the fire if it blows up.
Posted by Dinah on November 2, 2003, at 7:42:31
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD » Dinah, posted by ace on November 1, 2003, at 22:57:50
Depends on the type of invitation Dr. Bob hands out. If he says, would you like to come and be the guest on my board and answer questions from the board members, I'm assuming the guest would assume he was here to help. And Dr. Bob would (or should be) embarassed if that guest was publicly embarassed.
If he says, wouild you like to come and defend your methods of treatment and claims, and also have a chance to give your side of the story, I can't imagine Dr. Bob being professionally embarassed. I also can't imagine anyone saying yes.
Why should they? Our guest experts generously donate their time, knowledge, and reputations. I think they deserve to be treated with respect.
Posted by mattdds on November 2, 2003, at 19:03:25
In reply to David D. Burns Quack MD, posted by ace on October 30, 2003, at 17:04:25
Hey Ace,
I agree that his website update is pretty hokey, and I don't really like this "Tony Robbins" feel to his self-help stuff. The only (enormous) difference, is that the stuff he's writing about (gimmicky as it may be) has been proven to really work.
I strongly disagree about him being a quack.
He won a very prestigious award on serotonin metabolism in the early 80's back when that stuff was all the hype. He has done some very scholarly research at University of Pennsylvania, and is currently doing great work at Stanford University. These are not "Tony Robbins" institutions - they are Ivy League universities.
I believe you misquoted him in saying that he claims to "cure people of depression in 40 minutes". I've read all his stuff and have never come across this claim. Better yet, he encourages patience, because it usually takes him a long time to figure out which methods work. His claim is that when he does find a method that works, things tend to progress quite rapidly. This parallels my own experience.
He does tend to be very optimistic about treating depression with CBT, but I believe that optimism well substantiated with good scientific literature.
CBT is not "positive thinking" as you put it. It's quite a bit more complicated than that. It actually tends to attack the negative streams of consciousness and rumination that are common to most mental illnesses.
Burns just tries to bring it down to an accessible level to anybody from any background. I'm all for this! Not everybody can dig this stuff out of scholarly journals, from whence it came. There are people out there that really need this type of a vehicle for learning to use CBT. I'm not bothered by this - even though I prefer to read the CBT journals that were intended for therapists. I'm not a book snob though, and I don't feel my intelligence is insulted just because someone is speaking in plain language.
Ace, I remember you saying that CBT did not work for you. But let's try to remember that different things work for different people. I was a bit put off by your implication that CBT cannot treat serious depression or OCD. This is simply not true.
Mine certainly was serious, and CBT got me 80% better, and every month gets better for me. I was intensely ill, by every psychiatric index used in research (Ham-D, Beck Depression Inventory, etc.). So, I get frustrated when people say that I wasn't "really" sick just because I responded to CBT (even though all the antidepressants of every class failed).
I'm happy for your success with Nardil - I'm thrilled! I know CBT didn't work for you, just like AD's failed miserably for me (while CBT worked miraculously). CBT is indisputibly an evidence-based therapy. And it sounds like you are trying to belittle people who might be helped by this. I know when something works for you (e.g. Nardil), it's easy to say that everything else is crap. I had this inclination at first when CBT worked for me. Let's remember - "different strokes for different folks".
Take care,
Matt
Posted by ace on November 3, 2003, at 1:07:44
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD ?ace, posted by Dinah on November 2, 2003, at 7:42:31
I think they deserve to be treated with respect.
>Absolutely...when I said 'I will try and disprove them' I did not mean being sarcastic or in any way derisive. I would keep my tone genuine and respectful. Everyone has a right to their views- just as I believe Burns is a quack someone might think his technique is great- good for them!
I would pose my objections in an respectful way.
Ace.
Posted by ace on November 3, 2003, at 1:24:29
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD ?ace, posted by mattdds on November 2, 2003, at 19:03:25
> Hey Ace,
>
> I agree that his website update is pretty hokey, and I don't really like this "Tony Robbins" feel to his self-help stuff. The only (enormous) difference, is that the stuff he's writing about (gimmicky as it may be) has been proven to really work.I've seen the statistcal techniques he uses and they are very dubious...
> I strongly disagree about him being a quack.
>
> He won a very prestigious award on serotonin metabolism in the early 80's back when that stuff was all the hype. He has done some very scholarly research at University of Pennsylvania, and is currently doing great work at Stanford University. These are not "Tony Robbins" institutions - they are Ivy League universities.
>
> I believe you misquoted him in saying that he claims to "cure people of depression in 40 minutes".He did say this...and he called all psychiatrists 'liars' and used a cuss word to describe their research. This is all in a paper by Phillip W. Long, who went to one of his workshops in Canada. The site the paper is on is http://www.mentalhealth.com - preety sure of this.
I've read all his stuff and have never come across this claim. Better yet, he encourages patience, because it usually takes him a long time to figure out which methods work.
True. I believe he has 53 methods to refute a negative (unrealistic) thought?
His claim is that when he does find a method that works, things tend to progress quite rapidly. This parallels my own experience.
I went through all 53 many, many times and none worked...in fact they made me worse in many ways.
>
> He does tend to be very optimistic about treating depression with CBT, but I believe that optimism well substantiated with good scientific literature.But he almost toatally ignores any other avenues to happiness and recovery...fair enough I guess, after all he is putting forth his avenue.
>
> CBT is not "positive thinking" as you put it.It certainly is a variant on the Vincent Peal positive thinking...
It's quite a bit more complicated than that. It actually tends to attack the negative streams of consciousness and rumination that are common to most mental illnesses.
I don't believe thoughts underlie feelings.
>
> Burns just tries to bring it down to an accessible level to anybody from any background. I'm all for this! Not everybody can dig this stuff out of scholarly journals, from whence it came. There are people out there that really need this type of a vehicle for learning to use CBT. I'm not bothered by this - even though I prefer to read the CBT journals that were intended for therapists. I'm not a book snob though, and I don't feel my intelligence is insulted just because someone is speaking in plain language.
>
> Ace, I remember you saying that CBT did not work for you. But let's try to remember that different things work for different people.Absolutely...
I was a bit put off by your implication that CBT cannot treat serious depression or OCD. This is simply not true.In my opinion, and from all the evidence I've seen, this is what I think...
>
> Mine certainly was serious, and CBT got me 80% better, and every month gets better for me. I was intensely ill, by every psychiatric index used in research (Ham-D, Beck Depression Inventory, etc.). So, I get frustrated when people say that I wasn't "really" sick just because I responded to CBT (even though all the antidepressants of every class failed).
>
it's wonderful that you resp[onded well- It is great. And I am not in anyway about to try and say you were not suffering- no way- nobody can feel what another feels.I just feel it is more geared towards exogenous depression.
> I'm happy for your success with Nardil - I'm thrilled!
Thanks!
I know CBT didn't work for you, just like AD's failed miserably for me (while CBT worked miraculously). CBT is indisputibly an evidence-based therapy. And it sounds like you are trying to belittle people who might be helped by this.No no. I am just turned off by the CBT money making machine. Not the people who use it.
I know when something works for you (e.g. Nardil), it's easy to say that everything else is crap.
I mean, I think CBT is preety worthless, but I've always stated that's my opinion. And people are free to believe what they want. If it works for someone my opinion won't mean squat. I'm not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking- I'm just expressing my views.
I had this inclination at first when CBT worked for me. Let's remember - "different strokes for different folks".
>
> Take care,
>
> Matt
>
No worries Matt- sorry If I offended you, but I have to speak my mind. I must say I don't mind some of Burns's interpersonal techniques although.All the best,
Ace.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by mattdds on November 3, 2003, at 11:51:03
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD » mattdds, posted by ace on November 3, 2003, at 1:24:29
Hey Ace,
I never meant to imply that you weren't entitled to your own opinion - I don't know where you might have interpreted that I said that. It's just that your claim that CBT is worthless and quackery is just not at all founded in anything *but* opinion. The science behind the efficacy is unequivocal.
Does this mean it's universally effective? Absolutely not, but this is true of any drug as well - yes even Nardil. Does this mean CBT is effective for Ace? Well...we know the answer to that question empirically.
>>I just feel [CBT] is more geared towards exogenous depression.
First off, the distinction between "exogenous" and "endogenous" depression is hazy at best, and an outdated relic at worst. Different people present with different symptoms. My understanding is that this idea represents pretty old-school thinking about depression. People used to diagnose "endogenous" depression by certain symptom subsets or inability to suppress cortisol with dexamethasone administration - but these methods are not even used anymore because they lack sensitivity / specificity.
It is generally agreed nowadays that *severity*, as measured by the Ham-D or BDI is the best measure we can have - calling a depression "endogenous" or "exogenous" is pure conjecture, IMO.
So if you are saying that CBT does not work in more severe depression, I'm sorry, but this is just absolutely incorrect. Here is but one study abstract - which was funded by none other than SKB (the manufacturer of Serzone) and the NIMH:
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/23/1663_53120
You're going to have a tough time arguing anything but that CBT is not effective for *Ace's* severe depression - despite the strength of your feelings / opinions. I mean, even the American Psychiatric Association has admitted that CBT is equally effective and has better long-term outcomes.
It would be much more honest and reasonable if you simply said, "CBT did not work for me".
>...I am just turned off by the CBT money making machine
I have no idea what you mean here. The CBT money making machine? Are you referring to Burns here? If so, forget Burns, and look to the overwhelming data supporting *generic* CBT. Can you explain that away with something besides "opinion"?
If you want to talk about strongly vested financial interest, I think we should first discuss big pharm. There is generally very little money to be made in CBT.
>>It certainly is a variant on the Vincent Peal positive thinking...
Umm, It *certainly* has nothing to do with Vincent Peal's work. You might want to re-read Burn's work a bit more thorougly. In the introduction, he actually says "this is not "The Power of Positive Thinking"". This represents a very oversimplified and inaccurate view of CBT. Peale's work blossomed into "positive affirmations", which don't work, but are not in any conceivable way, CBT. CBT, in fact, advises
*against* using affirmations. It concentrates on combatting *negative* rumination, as this is known through studies to initiate, perpetuate / prolong depressive episodes.You don't have to believe this, and again, you are entitled to your opinion, but studies certainly indicate that negative rumination perpetuates depression and increases the likelihood of relapse. CBT treats this rumination.
>>And people are free to believe what they want
I don't remember saying otherwise.
>>I'm just expressing my views
Again, you seem to think that I'm censoring you. I'm not. I just want some clarification and substantiation to what you are saying. Your arguments seem to contain a lot of name-calling (quack) and emotion, but perhaps a bit lacking in substantive evidence.
Again, you can say with 100% certainty, "CBT does not work for Ace". But when you say it's for "quacks", or that it's universally inferior to meds, you run into the problem of having to substantiate your claims with scientific evidence. I think you'll have a tough time doing that.
BTW, I don't know if you're aware, but I recently tried Parnate. It failed, and I also experienced a spontaneous hypertensive crisis. Does this mean I'm going to go on a crusade against Parnate? No. My own personal "experiment" does not have a large enough "n" to provide a meaningful evaluation of its overall efficacy and safety. So I'm not going to go out and incite people by saying "hey, Parnate is CRAP, look what happened when *I* tried it!". Parnate is very well studied, and a good treatment modality for around 66% to gain some relief. You catch my drift?
>>He did say this...and he called all psychiatrists 'liars' and used a cuss word to describe their research
Do you have a link to the transcript of where he said this? First off, Burns *is* a psychiatrist, and prescribed drugs to 50% of his patients (he's big on the MAOI's BTW - read his rave reviews of them in his book). So it would not make sense that he called all psychiatrists 'liars', as he lectures to psychiatrists. The dude graduated summa cum laude from Stanford medical school, did his residency at University of Pennsylvania, ran the lithium clinic at the VA in Philadelphia, did intense research on serotonin metabolism, and now is on the *psychiatric* faculty at Stanford. He originally wanted to do brain / pharm research, and was a leader in the field. But he got frustrated with his marginal results with using only drugs, so he teamed up with Aaron Beck to help develop CBT. This appears to be an exaggeration or gross misquotation. It just sounds completely out of character for Burns.
Take care ace,
Matt
Posted by irishcatholic on November 3, 2003, at 13:13:46
In reply to More Re: CBT » ace, posted by mattdds on November 3, 2003, at 11:51:03
good discussions!
I think both meds and CBT can work
God made us all different - so YMMV!
Thanks to everyone for sharing their knowledge here.
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 3, 2003, at 13:40:56
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD » mattdds, posted by ace on November 3, 2003, at 1:24:29
You might think CBT is worthless... But CBT saved my life. And I do not say that lightly.
Please just accept it wasn't the right thing for you, but is the right thing for many many other people.
And Maybe David Burns techniques work for other people.. Just because things fail for you, please don't project this onto other people. I could rant and rave for hours on why nardil is a terrible drug and no one should take it, but it works for some people, so I don't know *everything* about it.
Nikki
Posted by irishcatholic on November 3, 2003, at 14:27:14
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD » ace, posted by NikkiT2 on November 3, 2003, at 13:40:56
consider the economics too
100 bucks
that't maybe 1.3 therapy sessions or a month of name brand A/D meds?
not much downside by my calculations.....
Posted by stjames on November 3, 2003, at 17:58:36
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD » Dinah, posted by ace on November 3, 2003, at 1:07:44
>
> Absolutely...when I said 'I will try and disprove them' I did not mean being sarcastic or in any way derisive. I would keep my tone genuine and respectful. Everyone has a right to their views- just as I believe Burns is a quack someone might think his technique is great- good for them!
>
> I would pose my objections in an respectful way.
>
> Ace.So, this would meet your very specific needs.
How about the rest of the board ? Is its purpose
to invite others and then disprove them ?
Posted by ace on November 3, 2003, at 19:47:07
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD ?Dinah, posted by stjames on November 3, 2003, at 17:58:36
> >
> > Absolutely...when I said 'I will try and disprove them' I did not mean being sarcastic or in any way derisive. I would keep my tone genuine and respectful. Everyone has a right to their views- just as I believe Burns is a quack someone might think his technique is great- good for them!
> >
> > I would pose my objections in an respectful way.
> >
> > Ace.
>
> So, this would meet your very specific needs.
> How about the rest of the board ? Is its purpose
> to invite others and then disprove them ?
>
>
"someone may think his technique is great- good for them" -- Those people, who support Burns, can ask THEIR questions to Burns while I pose MY questions to Burns. I don't think this scenario is posing to my "very specific needs"
Posted by ace on November 3, 2003, at 20:33:45
In reply to More Re: CBT ?ace, posted by mattdds on November 3, 2003, at 11:51:03
> Hey Ace,
>
> I never meant to imply that you weren't entitled to your own opinion - I don't know where you might have interpreted that I said that.Your interpreting that I interpreted that. You are engaged in a cognitive distortion- mind reading. In fact, I never thought you meant to imply that I was not entilted to my own opinion.
My refrain on "everyone is entilted to their own opinion" is something I always say when I have a differing view with someone. I don't mean to say that they are implying I have no right to my own opinion but rather it is said to inveterate an overall sense of democratic free speech...it is a comment which, in a way, says "yeah it's great we have these different opinions, and it's greater we can express them"
It's just that your claim that CBT is worthless and quackery is just not at all founded in anything *but* opinion.I stated it might work for some, and furthermore I have seen Burns's statstical method which I think is fundamentally flawed. Certain follow-ups on panic disorder (and depressive) patients who undertake CBT has shown a consistent rate of relapse.
The science behind the efficacy is unequivocal.
>
Can you point me to this science?
> Does this mean it's universally effective? Absolutely not, but this is true of any drug as well - yes even Nardil.I've never stated Nardil was universally effective. Rather I believe it is extremely effective. I have seen rare cases of people who did not respond to Nardil.
Does this mean CBT is effective for Ace? Well...we know the answer to that question empirically.
>
> >>I just feel [CBT] is more geared towards exogenous depression.
>
> First off, the distinction between "exogenous" and "endogenous" depression is hazy at best, and an outdated relic at worst.All diagnosis in psychiatry is hazy, IMO. This is because, at the end of the day, we have no external proof (ie blood test) to confirm any diagnosis. Diagnosis is gleaned from the subjective impression of another human being.
Different people present with different symptoms. My understanding is that this idea represents pretty old-school thinking about depression. People used to diagnose "endogenous" depression by certain symptom subsets or inability to suppress cortisol with dexamethasone administration - but these methods are not even used anymore because they lack sensitivity / specificity.
>
> It is generally agreed nowadays that *severity*, as measured by the Ham-D or BDI is the best measure we can have - calling a depression "endogenous" or "exogenous" is pure conjecture, IMO.I still think the distinction between the two is very plausible.
>
> So if you are saying that CBT does not work in more severe depression, I'm sorry, but this is just absolutely incorrect.No, I said it SEEMED more geraed towards exogenous depression. So, I was not saying "CBT does not work in more severe depression" I just find it hard to see how it would work in severe depression, as I do not believe thoughts are the basis of our feelings and I find it hard to see how someone can change their emotional state by an act of will.
Here is but one study abstract - which was funded by none other than SKB (the manufacturer of Serzone) and the NIMH:
>
> http://my.webmd.com/content/article/23/1663_53120
>
> You're going to have a tough time arguing anything but that CBT is not effective for *Ace's* severe depression - despite the strength of your feelings / opinions."not effective for "Ace's" severe depression"??- I don't understand...please clarify.
I mean, even the American Psychiatric Association has admitted that CBT is equally effective and has better long-term outcomes.
>
> It would be much more honest and reasonable if you simply said, "CBT did not work for me".I say CBT does not work for me and I personally find it hard to see how it can work for severe depression.Although some people claim it helps their severe depression, which is great.
The fact that I personally find it hard to see how it works for severe depression -- sure, you disagree with me (which is fine), but, I mean, is this statement offensive to you? If it works for you, my opinion doesn't really matter for you, right?
> >...I am just turned off by the CBT money making machine
>
> I have no idea what you mean here. The CBT money making machine? Are you referring to Burns here? If so, forget Burns, and look to the overwhelming data supporting *generic* CBT. Can you explain that away with something besides "opinion"?Can you point me to this data?
>
> If you want to talk about strongly vested financial interest, I think we should first discuss big pharm. There is generally very little money to be made in CBT.When you say there is 'generally very little money to be made in CBT' what context are you refering to- ie in a clinical or commercial context?
>
> >>It certainly is a variant on the Vincent Peal positive thinking...
>
> Umm, It *certainly* has nothing to do with Vincent Peal's work. You might want to re-read Burn's work a bit more thorougly.I've read 4 of his books, hundreds of letters when he had a guru question section, and actually contacted him to quiz him on his method. And yes, I do see parralels with Vincent Peals work.
In the introduction, he actually says "this is not "The Power of Positive Thinking"". This represents a very oversimplified and inaccurate view of CBT.
It is more than Peals method, true, but I think it is a variant on it.
Peale's work blossomed into "positive affirmations", which don't work, but are not in any conceivable way, CBT.
There is actually 'data' that suggests positive affirmations do work- I don't believe they do personally but.
CBT, in fact, advises
> *against* using affirmations.I know Burns does, but which other exponents do as well?
It concentrates on combatting *negative* rumination, as this is known through studies to initiate, perpetuate / prolong depressive episodes.
How is it 'known' through studies? There is no clear causal relationship that can be tested (apart from subjective experience- which is internal and therefore not amenable to the scientific method).
> You don't have to believe this, and again, you are entitled to your opinion, but studies certainly indicate that negative rumination perpetuates depression and increases the likelihood of relapse. CBT treats this rumination.Is it 'known' or is their an 'indication'?
> >>And people are free to believe what they want
>
> I don't remember saying otherwise.I never said you stated otherwise.
> >>I'm just expressing my views
>
> Again, you seem to think that I'm censoring you.I didn't think you were. You're mind reading again. In fact that comment was said to try and get the point across that they are only MY views...I didn't think you were trying to censor me.
I'm not. I just want some clarification and substantiation to what you are saying. Your arguments seem to contain a lot of name-calling (quack) and emotion, but perhaps a bit lacking in substantive evidence.
I thought I only name-called once?...ie quack
I'm not too emotional about this subject, where does my tone indicate this?>
> Again, you can say with 100% certainty, "CBT does not work for Ace". But when you say it's for "quacks",I said Burns was a quack...I never said it was for quacks.
or that it's universally inferior to meds,
Never stated this either.
you run into the problem of having to substantiate your claims with scientific evidence. I think you'll have a tough time doing that.
>
> BTW, I don't know if you're aware, but I recently tried Parnate. It failed, and I also experienced a spontaneous hypertensive crisis.That's no good. I failed Parnate too- caused a preety bad depression.
Does this mean I'm going to go on a crusade against Parnate? No. My own personal "experiment" does not have a large enough "n" to provide a meaningful evaluation of its overall efficacy and safety. So I'm not going to go out and incite people by saying "hey, Parnate is CRAP, look what happened when *I* tried it!". Parnate is very well studied, and a good treatment modality for around 66% to gain some relief. You catch my drift?
Sure, but do you catch mine?
>
> >>He did say this...and he called all psychiatrists 'liars' and used a cuss word to describe their research
>
> Do you have a link to the transcript of where he said this? First off, Burns *is* a psychiatrist, and prescribed drugs to 50% of his patients (he's big on the MAOI's BTW - read his rave reviews of them in his book). So it would not make sense that he called all psychiatrists 'liars', as he lectures to psychiatrists. The dude graduated summa cum laude from Stanford medical school, did his residency at University of Pennsylvania, ran the lithium clinic at the VA in Philadelphia, did intense research on serotonin metabolism, and now is on the *psychiatric* faculty at Stanford. He originally wanted to do brain / pharm research, and was a leader in the field. But he got frustrated with his marginal results with using only drugs, so he teamed up with Aaron Beck to help develop CBT. This appears to be an exaggeration or gross misquotation. It just sounds completely out of character for Burns.It does indeed- but he said it- I'll be back with the link!
> Take care ace,
>
> MattThanks Matt! You take Care too,
Ace.
>
>
Posted by ace on November 3, 2003, at 20:40:40
In reply to Re: More Re: CBT ?mattdds, posted by ace on November 3, 2003, at 20:33:45
http://www.mentalhealth.com/mag/p53-burn.htm
There is is Matt!Regards,
Ace.
Posted by ace on November 3, 2003, at 20:44:26
In reply to Link for Matt, posted by ace on November 3, 2003, at 20:40:40
Try again!
Posted by ace on November 3, 2003, at 20:45:52
In reply to Re: Link for Matt- Attempt #2!, posted by ace on November 3, 2003, at 20:44:26
I was wrong- the cure happened in a day...
Posted by ace on November 3, 2003, at 21:09:22
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD ?ace, posted by NikkiT2 on November 3, 2003, at 13:40:56
> You might think CBT is worthless... But CBT saved my life. And I do not say that lightly.
It's wonderful that it worked so well for you- I just wish I could figure out scientifically how it would work!
> Please just accept it wasn't the right thing for you, but is the right thing for many many other people.
Your right. If something works for someone, do it!
>
> And Maybe David Burns techniques work for other people.. Just because things fail for you, please don't project this onto other people.I am just expressing an opinion. I think I even put a disclaimer...I'm sorry If I upset you.
I could rant and rave for hours on why nardil is a terrible drug and no one should take it
Don't you dare!!!! Just Kidding!
, but it works for some people, so I don't know *everything* about it.
>
> NikkiTake care and it's great the CBT helped you,
Ace.
Posted by ace on November 3, 2003, at 21:12:40
In reply to Re: More Re: CBT, posted by irishcatholic on November 3, 2003, at 13:13:46
> good discussions!
> I think both meds and CBT can work
> God made us all different - so YMMV!
> Thanks to everyone for sharing their knowledge here.I think these type discussions help too- it helps contrasting and arguing for/against certain views- that way we all benefit and are better equipped to come to our own decisions.
Like i've said, it's good that people to agree on everything- what a boring world if we did- a world of clones!
Take care,
Ace.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.