Saturday, November 12, 2011

Pseudoscience in Psychology

Pseudoscience definitions and characteristics

To define pseudoscience and provide the reader with some prospective I will make available a large number of good links. While (remember 72%) of clinical practitioners do not seem to read or have knowledge about reading scientific articles.  Frequently they will say that scientific evidence is available but will not sight the reference, or if there is available research (which frequently exist) they will reinterpret or add a lot of wishful thinking that is not stated in the studies, journal article, etc.  Frequent misinterpretation seem to be the biggest culprit.  Around October of 2009 (and I am sure he has done it numerous other times) Mr. Robert Marty Butcher a Florida License Clinical Social Worker. SW# 3113 who lectured [I think he likes to hear himself talk] (Mr. Butcher is no longer at the treatment center, all though he continuous to be employed by Miami-Dade County in spite of his questionable character and competency) one day stood in front of his patients and announced he was going to discuss "Self Esteem", for the first time during 5 month he stated that there was vast research in Self Esteem. Which is true, there are over 15,500 studies done mostly in the United States.  However, when he stated lecturing, I had to roll my eyes, as he began to speak in psychobabble and asserting that Self Esteem was correlated with alcoholism, addition, criminal activities etc.  None of it being true, and he just made it up with the help of a lot of Pop Psychology he probably read somewhere but never double checked the sources. As a good Clinical Practitioners, he is likely to know about science what we as a whole know about Neurosurgery.

This is an old experiment for which many professionals have heard in the 1970 and thru even today it is tought in ethics courses and much have been done since. Eventhough many psychological evaluators have been found not to change their diagnososis no matter how much new information is given to the evaluator.  
This and other judgement call are found in Dr. Howard Garb's "Studing the Clinician". Once a diagnosis is pronouce by a psychiatrist type, he rare if ever changes the diagnosis even when evidence of diffrernt syptoms or conditioons are shown to the evaluator.

This of couse is not the only issue of pseudoscience found in psychological allied professions, many examples can be found through out current practices. Specially in substance use treatment, and many conditions are not treated even though there is evidence that for example providing clean syranges to active hroing or IV drug users do stop the stread of aids.

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
(source Wikipedia )1  I strongly suggest you read the Wikipedia's article on Pseudoscience as it does make a good about all of pseudoscience issues, but specially makes good points about pseudoscience in the psychological allied professions.

Understanding pseudoscience vs. Honest Ethical Psychological Science is dominant and  in understanding that what we currently receive for mental health and substance use treatment is very pervasive and frequently useless. Not just in treatment and assessment of people who need and/or require this services, but also in the laws and policies that govern the United State.  Please understand that this is not a problem of every practitioner. That is why I make the distinction between the clinical practitioners and the clinical scientists. It is this distinction that consumers must understand for your time and money.

Pseudo psychology can be thought of as unsupported information or even superstition, which is passed off as being scientific fact. One of the best examples of pseudo psychology can be found in self-help books. While these books promise many ways that a person can make their lives better, lose weight or any number of things, rarely are they ever supported by any kind of fact or real proven information. Of course, these books are sold in the millions, and people turn to their advice almost everyday, although the actual amount of help that these books offer is minimal, and sometimes they can do more harm than good.

Pseudo psychology is, after all, 'fake' psychology by definition. Calling something pseudo psychology only indicates that the material does not adhere to the standards of psychology as a formal scientific, academic or practice-based discipline. We are all familiar with people or materials in various media that make use of 'psycho-babble' to sell products, philosophies or improvement regimens. These materials do sell, though, even if to a small degree because people have a sense of the possible, and many people do gain insight and possibly some real help by using them.

On the other hand, consumers must always be wary, especially when these materials give advice that could have important consequences. There is an example from the news several years ago of a popular sex therapist putting birth control information in a book that, if followed, would give the opposite outcome than that suggested in the book. I believe a lawsuit was brought against the author when things backfired for a reader. When questioned about it, the author (not an MD) said that anyone using these methods should of course consult an expert. Funny... It seems that is what people thought they were doing when they bought the book...
I truly welcome your questioning everything I write in this blog, inquiry about my work is important, both from professionals and from consumers.  We can no longer act as passive participants, and should just accept "trust us we are experts".  Given that most clinical practitioners have be en proving to know extremely little about science.  I am in agreement with many clinical scientist that state that at least in the psychological allied professions, one needs to be a scientist first and then a clinician.  For too long clinicians for the most part have been ignoring the science behind their practice.  They practice by their pure personal agreement with each other and not by the science that is the foundation of their field.  Too frequently they make decisions and judgments based on what is convenient to them and not on the nature of the phenomenon that lead to the effectiveness and safety for the conditions for which the patients come to treatment.

I am not implying that all of what is being done in the psychological allied profession is bogus and fraudulent. No there is some very good work that some clinical scientist are doing, even some practitioners, but the institutional intentional abuse of authority, bad faith and unethical practice specially by the 12 Step Programs assigned to the Miami Dade County area of South Florida (and most likely around the country) is way too insidious and openly hostile toward patients who questions THEIR OWN TREATMENT.   Neither the Department of Children and Family, the licensing boards nor the local or national associations of professions have proven to me not to be protecting patients against the quackery that is too frequently present in treatment.  There way to much conflict of interest, we consumers do not pay membership dues nor licensing fees.  We are really way at the bottom of the pecking order when in fact services should be provided to the patients.  Treatment is not about the practitioners, it is about the patients.  The patients should always be available for treatment;  what should never be allowed in treatment is the quackery and unethical behavior currently in existence in many treatment facilities in South Florida.  Patients need to stop feeling guilty and ashamed, outcome is always the responsibility of the clinicians and their skills.  If you have been discharged from treatment, specially if it has been the past 5 years or so, and you know that you were not treated fairly. No matter what your Clinical Notes say (they are usually written to cover their ass and not to provide treatment in the best interest of the patient.  They probably stated a hostile vigilance against you and documented information to meet their needs and not of the patients. Many of these old tricks can be questioned.  You ought to have the clinical notes evaluated.   You do have the right to get copies of all of your file.  Based on the HIPAA Federall law and under the Civil Rights you can make complains to the federal government when your consent and privacy law be vioated.

Read more in a web page I find it helpful to help us recognize pseudoscience as a whole.  After a while one begins to recognize that science is science and the human category of different field as psychology or biology, and neuropsychology for example is only but a way of categorizing and organise.  Given that science all the same science what you begin to recognized is continuity, as a science develop one will find categories so what one finds to be true in Biology for example, you will also find it to be true in Neruoscience and true in Cognitive Psychology and so on. Is like on science is the continuation of another or one will find partiy or equal infromation in other spystems of information. So do not be surprices (or at least b

A book review for the lay patient is on Crazy Therapiest yes there are some aound that got attracted to the field by their own sense of suffering, but they forgot that therapy is not about them, but it is always about the patients. Always, and I mean always.

Other definitions include:  a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific 2

Distinguishing between proper science and pseudoscience is sometimes difficult. One popular proposal for demarcation between the two is the falsification criterion, most notably contributed to by the philosopher Karl Popper. In the history of pseudoscience it can be especially hard to separate the two, because some sciences developed from pseudosciences. An example of this is the science chemistry, which traces its origins to the pseudoscience alchemy. (Wikipedia 6th Paragraph).

In the mid-20th century Karl Popper put forth the criterion of falsifiability to distinguish science from non-science.[23] Falsifiability means that a result can be disproved. For example, a statement such as "God created the universe" may be true or false, but no tests can be devised that could prove it either way; it simply lies outside the reach of science. Popper used astrology and psychoanalysis as examples of pseudoscience and Einstein's theory of relativity as an example of science. He subdivided non-science into philosophical, mathematical, mythological, religious and/or metaphysical formulations on the one hand, and pseudoscientific formulations on the other, thought he did not provide clear criteria for the differences.


All of the information below on the characteristics of pseudoscience are taken from Wikipedia and
Wiki which has consistently proven to me their credability, validity and reliability

Characteristics of pseudoscience

Fraudulent Psychiatric Diagnoses - 1 of 3

Fraudulent Psychiatric Diagnoses - 2 of 3

Fraudulent Psychiatric Diagnoses - 3 of 3

Characteristics, how to identify it and examples of such problems in Clinical Psychology and other allied professions.

One frequently use, specially in court cases. Most of this so called experts (and a good number of judges) put all of the suppose expertise in years of experience, education and suppose certifications and licenses. While it is true that for most professions this three characteristics may prove expertise in the long run.  For most cases people in the help and health related professions don't have the quantitative objective evidence like a blood test, X Rays, and other diagnosis devises. For engineering and carpentry for example, they have
very precise rules and measuring devices to see the consistency and integrate of a structure. 

Not noticeable is that psychology do not have such test device while it appear to be so.  For example a testing device such as the MMPI (the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) which have been around for over 50 or 60 years and have been substantially researched and studies for thousands of studies.  If you were to drill (and you would be knowledgeable) the majority of Clinical Psychologist who claim to understand the MMPI. You would know that they will bearly be familiar with the manual, scoring system and the interpreting scoring.  Not enough for the kinds of claims clinicians usually in courts, hearings or the diagnosis that are usually  required to match the treatment the patients needs.  Way too many of their decisions and judgements are made on Confirmations Biases (substantially studied, but ignoreded by practitioners)


1 Wikipedia

2  Merrit-Webster website

Karl Popper goes back to the Vienna Group going back to early to mid 1800 during the time of Sigmund Fraude (Freud). With great influence in on the philosophy of science.  If you like to learn about science concepts and philosophy and the require knowledge of distinguish good science I strongly recommend Karl Popper, Dr. Paul Meehl (from University of Minnesota and one of the developers of the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory), the late  Dr. Robyn Dawes from Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA, and Dr. Scott Lilienfeld from Emory University in Atlanta. My experience with them have not only been intelectually stimulating, but have tough me in the past 3 years about science what I did not know from other past 40 years after graduating with my first masters degree in 1978.  Specially to Dr. Lilienfeld and Dawes I will be eternally grateful, even though I am fairly sure they thought they were just doing their job their orientations and leads have always paid off. Only once Dr. Liliefeld "failed" me.  It was actually me who did not explained my question well enough. Turns out the information I was looking for was in one of his articles "Assault in Scientific Mental Health"
3  Popper, KR (1959) "The Logic of Scientific Discovery". The German version is currently in print by Mohr Siebeck (ISBN 3-16-148410-X), the English one by Rutledge publishers (ISBN 0-415-27844-9).

4  Karl R. Popper: Science: Conjectures and Refutations. Conjectures and Refutations (1963), p. 43–86;

"Pseudoscientific - pretending to be scientific, falsely represented as being scientific", from the Oxford American Dictionary, published by the Oxford English Dictionary

The Skeptic's Dictionary entry on 'Pseudoscience'

Larry E. Beutler, Rebecca E. Williams, Phylis J. Wakefield, Stephanie R. Entwistle (1995) Bridging Scientist and Practitioner Perspective in Clinical Psychology,  American Psychologist,    December

8.  Lutus, Paul (19 Is Psychology a Science?


Thursday, November 10, 2011

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

Interview with Bob Scott, former Captain of the Macon County Sheriff’s Office

Written by NCHRC Staff Writer Tessie Castillo 

NCHRC Note: NCHRC traveled to Los Angeles the first week of November 2011 to attend the International Drug Policy Alliance Reform Conference.   A big theme of the conference is addressing the war on drugs.  Thus we will share some articles on the war on drugs and its effects on the people of North Carolina & our neighbors.  For part 2 of our series on the war on drugs we are interviewing a member of North Carolina's law enforcement community.  The views of the people we interview are their views and do not represent the views of NCHRC.  We understand some of these articles may be controversial with our audience, but this is a topic that should be explored by us who work or are affected by US drug policy.


NCHRC Mailing Address: NCHRC, PO BOX 13761, Durham, NC, 27709

NCHRC Durham: 1005 Slater Road, Suite 330, Durham, NC, 27703 (We are located inside the ASHA office)

Bob Scott, a former Captain of the Macon County Sheriff’s Office, spent 15 years in law enforcement working to keep our communities safe, and he used his unique vantage point as an officer to speak out against America’s costly and ineffective war on drugs.

We know the war on drugs is expensive – 50-60 billion dollars a year to arrest, try and incarcerate millions of nonviolent offenders[1] – and with today’s political environment of massive spending cuts to government funded programs, it may seem counter-intuitive that the billions spent on the war on drugs isn’t called into question.

We also know the war has failed. Decades ago, when the initiative began, 1.3% of Americans were addicted to drugs. Today addiction rates remain at 1.3% and drugs are cheaper and more prevalent than ever before[2]. So why don’t politicians touting fiscal responsibility cut this wasteful spending?

“The war on drugs is all about politics,” explains Scott. “Many elected officials know the war has failed, but are afraid to speak up because they don’t want to seem ‘soft on crime’. When I worked in law enforcement I noticed that the individual police officers were often against the war on drugs, but most sheriffs supported it – as least in public. That’s because sheriff’s are elected officials and they say what they think voters want to hear, not always what is right.”
Bob Scott is involved with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), an organization of law enforcement personnel who oppose prohibition policies. “Our current laws criminalize all aspects of drug use, while ignoring the social and economic benefits of treatment,” says Scott. “Treatment for addiction is more cost effective than incarceration, and it’s better for our communities.”

Bob Scott supports harm reduction programs because they promote public health and fiscal responsibility. “Syringe exchange programs make economic sense if you think about it,” says Scott. “If people are sharing needles infected with HIV and hepatitis and they don’t have health insurance, tax payers end up with the bill for their treatment.” Studies show that medical treatment for HIV can cost up to $600,000 dollars per person[3], while hepatitis treatment costs from $100,000 to $500,000 per person[4]. Compare that to the cost of a clean syringe – about 97 cents – and harm reduction just makes economic sense.

“I think it’s time to put politics aside and start looking at reality,” says Bob Scott. “We’ve so demonized drug use for political purposes that people are overlooking the social and economic costs. The war on drugs is an idea that sounds good, but it’s not a sound idea.”

[1] “The War at Home,” by Sanho Tree, Institute for Policy Studies. Soujourner’s Magazine. May-June 2003, p20-42.
[2] “Policy is Not a Synonym for Justice,” by US District Court Judge John L. Kane, Chapter 5 in The New Prohibition: Voices of Dissent Challenge the Drug War, Edited by Sheriff Bill Masters, Lonedell, MO: Accurate Press, 2004, p45.
[3] “The Lifetime Cost of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Care in the United States” by Schackman, Bruce, PhD, et al. Medical Care, Vol 44, Num 11, Nov 2006.
[4] “Interferon treatment for chronic hepatitis B or C infection: costs and effectiveness” by JB Wong. Department of Medicine, New England Medical Center, Tupper Research Institute, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02111, USA

Friday, October 14, 2011

INTRODUCTION; Please don't call it treatment; or The treatment that isn't

(I am looking for a cartoon by Sidney Harris on Hippocratic where the readers of the documents want to return medicine back to a mystic art because a professional would be require to actually learn and study to continue to improve and become a lot more effective and safe health to their patients.


This blog is based in South Florida, but from my understanding these issues of mental health and substance use treatment crisis is nationwide.  Practitioners in the psychological allied professions seem to have forgotten that treatment is about health and not about anything they wise it would be but actually what science as supported to be effective and safe. To many practitioners have accepted at face value (the apparent worth or meaning of something, which may be better than its true worth or meaning less.  For most medical condition the latter is more frequent. Meaning that what is being offer has no true value at all and it is totally invented without evidence of its effectiveness or safety). Most practitioners continue to place the public at risk oblivious to the fact that they may be doing harm (hopefully repairable if caught) to their patients.

This problems seem to have occurred because United States general public has lag behind in science and so many European countries have taken their own scientific lead and is leaving the United States fairly behind in technical know how.  More on this on other later posts, but for now I want to establish that what we call substance use and a substantial part of mental health treatment does not meet standards of the medical science but rather something that has been developed independent with little if any evidence of it's efficacy and safety.  In fact, the practitioners are ignorant to the possibility they are harming their patients, they make the presupposition that their techniques are bening, kindly, compassionate to all patients with out the possibility of malignant effect. Not many professionals have question the wisdom under which substance use treatment is being performed. (Robert Westermeyer, Ph.D. Addiction Treatment: What On Earth Are We Doing?)  Quote from this scientific based article; "However, the field of substance abuse treatment is lagging significantly. The field of addiction has been dominated by a model that has not changed much since its beginning. I am referring to the disease model and the 12-step model of recovery."  I personally think that the 12 Step program is religious indoctrinations and it was never designed to be a treatment protocol.  Even tradition 6th, 8th, and 11th clearly give us the understanding that it was designed to be a Fellowship or a Society of man and women with a common interest to assist each other reach goal of alcohol or substance abstinence.  It clearly states that they should never lend their name to any related facility (like a treatment center), will never be professional (like the counselors in those programs) and that the 12Step program is based on attraction not promotion. Once it is made to go to meeting their is no attraction but demand

I do not expect the general public to fully understand medical science, but my task is to write with the intention of you becoming an educated consumer.  What I CAN EXPECT is that you are rational enough to understand the fairly simple explanations am about to provide you in this blog.  I do believe in full interaction with the readers, so if I am insulting your intelligence or you feel I am talking down at you please let me know. I like nothing better than writing at a level where the words I use will be a lot more accurate than an extensive explanation.  I like to explain to you that while these are widely held concerns of mine not much of it is my own opinion. I am not that original. And I am not too sure these concerns maybe opinions I think that they are a lot closer to facts that are based on scientific consensus.  The credit goes to a number of professionals that will be introducing in later post. I will give a some explanation about my concern and link you with the appropriate article that may go with the post. These professionals have been expressing my interest and worries for a lot longer than I and they have the background in science I am now only learning.

We as patients have a long history with the field of medicine. When we do not feel well the first people we usually approach is our family physician. This is a profession we literary trust with our lives. From past experiences we have counted on these professionals for all our health needs. Most physicians keep up with the latest medical development, and if your illness is beyond their expertise they refer you to a specialist. Today we enjoy the highest standard of health and life expectancy ever. No doubt greater than our grandparents ever did. As a group, the human race lives up to ripe old age.

If you are like me when we go to our physician for say an infection (for example), we can almost take for granted that the medicine the doctor prescribe us has been rigorously pharmaceutics empirically quantitative study before the FDA allows for the medication be marketed.  I can give assurance with high degree of certainty that not such research exist for most medical care in substance and mental health treatment. That is of no surprise when we note that the professionals do not read scientific articles such as those of their own professional journals (see "Purpose of the Blog" Beutler, William & Wakefield,(1993)). Psychotherapies (appear to be worldwide,but the research surveies were done in USA and Canada

When anyone speak to them it becomes clear that these professionals are not readily prepared and are terribly unknowable of the science required to produce the quality of treatment patients deserved and take their time and attention to receive.  There have been a call among the professions that clinicians should first be scientist and then practitioners. Why is it that patients for all other medical condition receive the best and latest scientific findings and substance use and mental health patients does not receive the same courtesy? 

In medicine, when microscope was developed by Galileo Galilee (amongst others who also worked on the devised).  Optical science improved not only the telescope to look at the Astros, but the microscope to look at much smaller objects such as insects, microbes, germs, infection, virus, bacteria which improved provide advantages to the science of medicine.  The development of the microscope went on to the development of the Electron Microscope which allows for us to see much smaller and smaller objects and microbes for scientific studies.  The refinement of the microscope gave scientists their first opportunity to examine animal tissue at high magnifications.  The cell theory was proposed in 1839 establishing that all tissues are composed of microscopic units call cells.  Brain cells were identified and eventually came the development of the neuroscience that done so much for brain research that is done today and its continue development. The same is true with the discovery of X-Ray machine.  The photographs you see below is the 1st Copy of an X-Ray done by Wilhelm Rontgen on his wife's hand does not take much to notice that today’s X-Rays have become digital without a need for film.  Do I need to say more? In medicine as well as in science produce and treatment improve with the advances in scientific investigation. Basically what I am saying is that honest and valid medical treatment has been based on science since the Greek Hippocrates of Kos.  The advances in medical treatment has basically been based on science and no other field like philosophy, arts, literature science, science and only science has been the major influence and standard where medicine and the therapeutic modalities are based on.  Yet, at least in the psychology allied professions, the field have been falling off and have been trying to developed treatment based solly on untested hypothesis ( a propose explanation for a phenomenon).  What patients and even clinical practioners do not realized is that eventhough there is a sizeable core of psychological scientific research, the practice of substance use treatment and mental health is prevesably based on pseudoscience and untested hypothesis.  This poor attitude of clinical practioners is kin to believe the world is flat and the sun rotates around the earth. To believe that because one has education in one of the psychological allied professions, a license and number of years of experience and disregard the science behind the field of study is like believing one is ammune to the same congnitive limitation that the rest of the human race sufferes.  This can be dangerous, and places the patients at risk, given that they are oblivious of the errors that are being committed in the name of treatment and recovery.

Although there is a substantial and significant core research based in psychology and it's allied professions.  We most stand and demand that such treatment and advances be duplicated and honestly provided to the patients.  While for decades the Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration, patient advocates as well as researchers and clinical scientist have been talking and discussing "Evidence (Research) Based Treatment".  Treatment staff in the grand majority of the facilities, clinics and private practices has been basically twirling their fingers about the science behind psychology; patients suffer from misinformation and maltreatment (malpractice in legal terms).  I think it is outright laziness that a substantial group of professionals (remember the Butler, William & Wakefield, survey that only 28% of the mental health professionals read science articles) basically ignored the science they are supposed to know.   They will imply that what they do is based on some kind of science but in fact they can not back up their methods with any actual compelling scientific findings.  Do not think for one minute that they attitude these professionals have is benign or benevolent to the patients, it is outright unethical (see Value: Competence; Standards; 1.04 Competence; 2.10 Incompetence of Colleagues; 3.08 Continuing Education and Staff Development for example in social workers but it is true for psychologist and mental health counselors   Continuing education and staff development should address current knowledge and emerging developments related to social work practice and ethics. )for any of the helping professions to ignore developments in their field.  There is questionable attitude much unethical behavior and ignorant of the science, biological, even the legal civil rights of patients IS MAJOR UNETHICAL behavior. Even the professional organizations like the American Psychological Association, the National Association Social Workers, American Mental Health Counselors Association as well as other medical and help related professions have not been very good at policing themselves. They seem to be a lot more interested in keeping the "professionals' " membership fees and other monetary monetary funds that the organization may get from "followers of quack theory" that are ineffective and even potentially harmful than the complains and concerns from you and me who are consumers of the services and unlike the professional members WE do NOT PAY THEM ANY MEMBERSHIP FEES or any other monetary benefits to the organizations.  So unless we as consumers do not place any pressure through malpractice suites and criminal conduct. So when you start suspecting unethical behavior on the part of the professionals. Document document documents
We as consumers are already on the wrong side of sanity. Most professionals are already oblivious to the fact that they are biased against us consumers we are in their arena, we are 'not professionals"<although frequently we may behave a lot more professionals than they do, who seem to be more interested in covering their assess up than to solve the problem within their staff behavior

  All patients are suggested to read and become familiar with the Code of Ethical behavior of all of the professions that are to treating you.  I assert that specially in alcoholic treatment facilities the violations of ethics is prevalent except that patients are not aware of those principles of ethics and their own patients rights. Not until patient begin to make complains of those violations to state licensing boards and professionals associations are their going to be any justice in treatment for these patients.

Those who have ever been in treatment for substance use and mental health would realize that we are doing the same and the same and the same without the benefit of development and scientific improvement.  Substance use and mental health have basically made no improvement in the past 30 years because is not based on the same science and the continuity of improvement that is required to maintain a system call TREATMENT.  What we call treatment in substance use and mental health is basically treatment by declaration as it has very little if any basis in science. In reality what we call treatment is no more than the professionals personal indoctrination of what they think the patient should do. When the patient does not respond appropriately, the patients are blamed and it is said to be resisting treatment enough reason to discharge any one from treatment (in their mind but not legally, specially when  they require treatment exist patients have the human rights to receive science-evidence based treatment rather than much of the counterfeit therapy or remedies that is currently dispence by substantial number of mental health practitioners.

I encourage your participation by not believeing any of the claims I make on this blog. I welcome your studing and your skepticism you may have in any of

The Research-Practice Gap: Clinical Scientists and Independent Practitioners Speak

Alcoholism treatment  
outcome research on AA alone has been rare, and when examinedexperimentally, its efficacy has not been well supported compared with other treatment interventions. However, some have suggested that such studies may not truly reflect the efficacy of AA (see Emrick, 1987; McCrady & Delaney, 1995), as they have relied on"coerced" samples (e.g., DUI offenders).

Mental Health

Stanovich, Keith S. "How to Think Straight About Psychology" 1998 Longman

Barry L. Beyerstein, Ph.D.  Why Bogus Therapies Often Seem to Work
short version:
Longer explanation:
Those who sell therapies of any kind have an obligation to prove, first, that their treatments are safe and, second, that they are effective.

Stephen Barrett, M.D. William T. Jarvis, Ph.D How Quackery Sells

 Quack Watch. Com
Is an organization of science based professionals
Blog Note: To be continued