I wonder how extensive Mr. Davies' literature search was; if he needs evidence of the biological root of schizophrenia look at the life work of Professor Eve Johnstone.

I think this is a really important book. As Peter Hitchens (Mail on Sunday) put it...this "Should be read by every doctor....by everyone in politics and the media, not to mention any concerned citizen". Combine this with a longer reset at the end of the month. We update and reset our phones and laptops, and we should do the same for our bodies. A reset doesn't have to be an expensive treatment - a self-massage or an Epsom salt bath can be just as effective. I will say.. One concept that stood out to me was the difference between the disease-centered model and the drug-centered model. James Davies quotes Dr. Joanna Moncrieff as she explains the difference, “In the disease-centred model, people are assumed to have a mental disease, a problem in their brain. And drugs are thought to be effective because they rectify or reverse that underlying brain problem in some way… But the drug-centred model… rather emphasises that drugs are drugs; they are chemical substances that are foreign to the human body but which affect the way people think and feel. They have psychoactive properties, just like recreational drugs do, which alter the way the body functions at a physiological level.” (103)The book begins with a discussion of the DSM and its plausibility. Davies speaks with Robert Spitzer (a key figure in earlier versions) and others about the meaning and purpose of this diagnostic text and establishes that the categories within were not arrived at by research, but what seems to be a consensus of practitioners. Later he talks with a prominent critic of the current DSM (5) with Allen Frances, who expresses his view that many normal behaviours are now being pathologised. I've read Frances' book Saving Normal, on this topic, and it appears in both instances that, for all the valid points he makes, Frances is unable to put himself outside the thought of his profession. It has taken me a while to get around to writing this review because I felt that I needed time to do it justice. In many ways this is a scary book and I feel that I might need to read something that puts the other side of the story to really feel that I have a reasonable grasp of the issues. Patients have been diagnosed with chemical imbalances, despite that no test exists to support such a claim, and that there is no real conception of what a correct chemical balance would look like.’ (Dr David Kaiser, Psychiatric Times) I just want to play. I enjoy being out there in the week... but the fun part for me is being out there on Saturday with the boys." James trained at the British School of Osteopathy, studied Massage and Sports injuries at the London School of Massage, Tecar Therapy in Italy, Tok Sen in Chiang Mai, Thailand, and is a noted authority on laser therapy, dry needling and acupuncture, and cupping.

Having played just eight games for Scarlets since September, he's watched his side endure a turbulent campaign. You've got people going out there fighting for our country, people getting diagnosed with serious illnesses, then when you think you've hurt a joint in your body and all you're doing is missing a few games, it puts it all into perspective. Filled with sensationalist statements and hyperbole, Davies tries to expose the darker side of psychiatry and big pharma. Although he frequently references the literature, he only very briefly mentions their findings. The structure of the book is also somewhat confusing, as it is repetitive at times. The book is littered with several spelling and grammar errors. There are no other parties involved. The separation was just due to the strain of two high-profile people leading busy careers and not having enough time together." Who bites the hand that feeds? There is a huge cover-up, smoke and mirrors going on in the world of funding ‘research’ into psychiatric medicine whether in academic institutions, or with clinicians. And, gentle reader, there is even less transparency over this in the UK than there is in the States, where under the Obama administration, spearheaded by a particularly truth-and-justice campaigning Senator, Senator Grassley, some efforts to bring the Pharma hyena under the spotlight are beginning to bear fruit. But not here, where there is murk a plenty. Perhaps though, the fact that fully 56% of the panel member luminaries involved in writing the DSM-IV bible had 1 or more financial associations with the pharmaceutical industry, should begin to rip the wool from over our eyes. And, for those writing/creating the diagnostic categories, which would or course be primarily treated by pharmaceuticals, - 88% of DSM-IV panel members had drug company financial ties.from Big Pharma. And things don’t have appeared to have changed for the better in terms of ‘arms length’ involvement with the writing of the now current DSM-V.Davies seems to side with the view that some form of suffering is natural for humans and the best way to treat it is through social measures or simply managing it. He suggests a path forward for the profession which has four steps: I don't know about a better chance [of playing for Wales], but Wayne will have a better idea of what I'm like in the environment compared to what maybe Gatland had thought I would have been like.

I'm just frustrated really. It's been one of those years when I haven't been able to get a good run of games," Davies said. In other words, trainings are places where persons are socialised to uphold the values and beliefs of the particular tradition into which they are being initiated. What is good for the ‘patient’ is often less important than what will ensure the longevity of the therapeutic tribe upon which one’s status and livelihood will come to depend. So I tried to expose anthropologically the tacit institutional devices used in training to transform persons into celebrants and defenders of the tradition (often in ways, and unbeknown to practitioners themselves, that are at the expense of the ‘patient’)". After decades of trying to prove [the chemical imbalance theory], researchers have still come up empty-handed.’ Everytime we take a pill for something there will be consequences of some sort as it is not a natural way to treat our bodies. Our job is to determine whether the consequence of the drug is worse than the initial problem. The scandal is that we are often not informed about the potential consequence or alternative approaches which may be more effective and less harmful.Chemical imbalance is sort of last-century thinking. It’s much more complicated than that.’ (Dr Joseph Coyle, Professor of Neuroscience at Harvard Medical School) b) there needs to be more thorough regulation an transparency regarding psychiatry's financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry Sybil Exposed by Debbie Nathan (excellent takedown of fads in psychiatry/ how therapy can make things worse) I've read a bit around this topic over many years and wondered at first whether I really needed to have this book to read, in that the general issues: credibility of the DSM, big pharma, the increasing use of medication for dealing with the expanding label of depression and so on, are fairly well established, not that there's been much change as a response to the evidence and perspectives presented.

What we expected to find’, said Kirsch lowering his teacup, ‘was that people who took the antidepressant would do far better than those taking the placebo, the sugar pill. We couldn’t have been more wrong.’ And if you look at the graph below you’ll see exactly what Kirsch means.3 The first thing you’ll notice is that all the groups actually get better on the scale of improvement, even those who had received no treatment at all. This is because many incidences of depression spontaneously reduce by themselves after time without being actively treated. You’ll also see that both psychotherapy and drug groups get significantly better. But, oddly, so does the placebo group. More bizarre still, the difference in improvement between placebo and antidepressant groups is only about 0.4 points, which was a strikingly small amount. ‘This result genuinely surprised us’, said Kirsch leaning forward intently, ‘because the difference between placebos and antidepressants was far smaller than anything we had read about or anticipated..." Reading this book was eye-opening and pretty scary. If taken literally I can imagine that no one would be able to trust any health professional at all. He uses sensationalism in places that I felt was unnecessary to get the point across. His main point is that the health profession is turning the stresses and strains of everyday life into treatable illnesses for monetary gain. His focus is on mental health which cannot be measured biologically in the same way that physical/visible illness can. He has a valid point with 48 million anti-depressant prescriptions in England in just one year! My favourite tip is to be kind to your body. Try to find something you can do daily to relax and clear your mind. It can be as simple as going outside and looking up at the stars or lying down and taking some deep breaths. Relaxing in this way enables our 'rest and digest' mode to do its vital work. James has come up with a series of small changes that people can make to their daily lives (Image: Supplied)But "cubby boi" has had little to celebrate this season with injury finally catching up with the player known for putting his body on the line. In fact, although not mentioned by the author here; regular vigorous exercise can be as (or more) effective in reducing depressive episodes as pharmaceutical intervention, without any of the accompanying side effects. Exercise regulates hormones and neurotransmitters, reduces inflammation, increases BDNF; among many other benefits and harm reductions. I found this explanation helpful as I’ve process through the idea that the that chemical imbalance theory has yet to be proved. (“After nearly 50 years of investigation into the chemical imbalance theory, there is not one piece of convincing evidence that the theory is actually correct” (129).) If this theory were true, then chemical imbalances could be cured by intaking the right amount of chemicals (via medication). Davies’ view instead is that pills “don’t cure us - they simply change us” (99). He offers, they are “just providing a temporary and superficial distraction” (100). I can't believe that drug companies can have this type of relationship with health professionals--effectively paying them to use and aggressively promote their products to patients. Of course, the professionals are then going to prescribe these drugs, no one is immune to this kind of monetary temptation. Dr James Davies graduated from the University of Oxford in 2006 with a PhD in social and medical anthropology. He is now a Reader in social anthropology and mental health at the University of Roehampton.