![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 16 to 40 of 44. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by stjames on November 3, 2003, at 23:31:49
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD » stjames, posted by ace on November 3, 2003, at 19:47:07
In terms of Burns, I don't know anything about him, so I am neutral. Begging is another matter.
Posted by stjames on November 4, 2003, at 0:03:57
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD » stjames, posted by ace on November 3, 2003, at 19:47:07
Those people, who support Burns, can ask THEIR questions to Burns while I pose MY questions to Burns.
In terms of qwacks in general, they tend to have quick to instant cures and prey on the ill by offering what they so badly want, a quick cure &
no downsides. So, I do not see this as a fair or balanced playing field for the ill to enter into.
Posted by Emme on November 4, 2003, at 8:48:43
In reply to Re: More Re: CBT » irishcatholic, posted by ace on November 3, 2003, at 21:12:40
Hi. I'm going to throw out a way oversimplified interpretation of CBT for kicks. Go ahead and offer differing opinions for discussion. :)
To me, CBT sometimes just seems like a glorified version of a "reality check" - you know, stepping back and looking at a situation as obejctively as you can. Many of us have trouble doing that (myself included), especially when anxious or depressed and CBT just provides a *structured* way of doing a reality check. That is, provided your depression is under enough control to let you even think about it.
Whether that is enough to help with depression and/or anxiety or whether one needs medication is another issue. That depends on the individual. But maybe we could all benefit from some particular aspects of CBT, even in the absence of a mood or anxiety disorder, because we all have our own highly individualized idiosyncracies.
Fire away. :)
Emme
Posted by irishcatholic on November 4, 2003, at 9:50:00
In reply to Possible interpretation, posted by Emme on November 4, 2003, at 8:48:43
I think you're right on the money.
As Dr. Phil says: "let's get real here"
Posted by ace on November 5, 2003, at 23:51:12
In reply to Possible interpretation, posted by Emme on November 4, 2003, at 8:48:43
> Hi. I'm going to throw out a way oversimplified interpretation of CBT for kicks. Go ahead and offer differing opinions for discussion. :)
>
> To me, CBT sometimes just seems like a glorified version of a "reality check" - you know, stepping back and looking at a situation as obejctively as you can. Many of us have trouble doing that (myself included), especially when anxious or depressed and CBT just provides a *structured* way of doing a reality check. That is, provided your depression is under enough control to let you even think about it.Yeah, I'd agree. Especially about the last comment. You sometimes are in such a bad state rational thinking is impossible.
> Whether that is enough to help with depression and/or anxiety or whether one needs medication is another issue. That depends on the individual. But maybe we could all benefit from some particular aspects of CBT, even in the absence of a mood or anxiety disorder, because we all have our own highly individualized idiosyncracies.I believe the CBT may help one behave better, but I don't believe it can change your emotional state- at least for very long.
>
> Fire away. :)
>
> Emme
Posted by ace on November 5, 2003, at 23:52:05
In reply to Re: Possible interpretation, posted by irishcatholic on November 4, 2003, at 9:50:00
> I think you're right on the money.
> As Dr. Phil says: "let's get real here"I can't stand that guy! Are you a fan? If so, what does he help?
Posted by PSM on November 23, 2003, at 17:24:49
In reply to David D. Burns Quack MD, posted by ace on October 30, 2003, at 17:04:25
How can ACE not be speaking from ignorance?
If ACE has based his judgement on 4 of David Burns' books and claims Dr Burns is ignorant, then ACE must be speaking from ignorance. (That is, if ACE is right!)
I just got back from a 2 day workshop with David Burns and, if he is as bad as you claim, you'd better watch out because there are yet another 250 professionals who are now believers.
If you are familiar with one of Burns' basic concepts, the PARADOX, you must also agree that the more you criticize his work, the more valid and credible you make it.
So, only by supporting him with genuine empathy will you be able to destroy him!
Posted by PSM on November 23, 2003, at 17:29:57
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD, posted by stjames on November 1, 2003, at 12:21:39
If you really want to deprive Burns of his platform, you're about 30 years too late!
Posted by PSM on November 23, 2003, at 17:52:49
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD » ace, posted by mattdds on November 2, 2003, at 19:03:25
Thanks, Matt, for your balanced discussion of the issues surrounding David Burns and his work. I am sure he would chuckle to think that people are actually out there "defending" him while others are criticizing him. He is quite capable of defending himself, I am sure.
Prior to the French Revolution, there were are group called the "philosophes". Including the likes of Voltaire and Rousseau, they saw their mission as the "popularizing" of new ideas for those who did not have the resources (or inclination?) to study them for themselves. I see David Burns as a "popularizer", as well. The difference is, of course, that he has done the work to claim mastery of the information and methods. As well, he has spent a good deal of time in many other camps (e.g., antidepressants) and knows well of what he speaks. I would hesitate to argue with him about anything in his field as he could probably do a credible job regardless of which side he took.
Posted by PSM on November 23, 2003, at 18:52:04
In reply to Re: Link for Matt- Attempt #2!, posted by ace on November 3, 2003, at 20:44:26
Just a note on the article "30 Second Diagnosis and One-Day Cure for Depression". It is, indeed, posted on www.mentalhealth.com by Phillip W. Long.
Not knowing anything about Dr Long and the (I assume) good work he does, his work and sites offer as many opportunities for crticism and David Burns' work does.
For example, the article in question which was written by Dr Long was published by his own website, www.mentalhealth.com (which sounds like a much grander site than it is). As well, Dr Long's non-commercial site (www.mentalhealth.com) parallels his commercial site, www.mytherapy.ca, which offers products similar to those found in David Burns' "Therapist's Toolkit".
So, you see, there are always ample opportunities for criticism and negation, but it is essential that we take a calm, balanced view of the information provided and try not to waste too much time in false or unproveable accusations.
As far as I know, both of these well-established medical men are doing their best to get the information out there and bring the whole field of mental health out into the sunlight.
Posted by Dinah on November 23, 2003, at 19:41:44
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD, posted by PSM on November 23, 2003, at 17:52:49
> I would hesitate to argue with him about anything in his field as he could probably do a credible job regardless of which side he took.
Is that a good thing? I would think the knowledge of his ability to appear credible regardless of which side he took would reduce the credibility of his argument for whichever side he does take.
Posted by PSM on November 24, 2003, at 0:13:50
In reply to Re: David D. Burns Quack MD » PSM, posted by Dinah on November 23, 2003, at 19:41:44
I use the statement to illustrate his knowledge in the topics he criticizes. Of course, it would be pointless for him to, in effect, argue against himself.
But one of the other methods used in CBT is to get one side to restate the other side's stated position in a calm, precise manner. In effect, that is what Burns is doing when he relates the "other side's" argument and information.
When I entered this discussion, I had hoped I would be able to clarify and accelerate it away from picayune detailing. Obviously, I failed at that and I apologize to you for it.
But thanks for the repost. It's always good to know there's someone out there.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
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.