Recently retired but not quite. Bachelor of Science & Nursing, 35 ish years in healthcare. As are many, I’m so confused and baffled with all the misinformation surrounding science and research. Was a bit dumbfounded to find this among colleagues. I want to understand why, so thank you Dr. Jonathon Stea. Looking forward to this.
Clinical psychologist in private practice. Previously worked in hospital psychiatric settings and trained Masters level clinical psychology students in the university training clinic. (Western Australia)
Then why has all human emotion & behaviour been pathologized & deemed in need of pharmacological intervention? I really dont see the vox populi as the originators, here.
I've been following Dr. Mercola and RFK Jr. for several years, and I can't help but note that while they are both often wrong and dangerous, THEY ARE NOT 100% WRONG. Some of the wounds they pick at are real, but they get lost, one way or the other , in the general mayhem of their writings.
Many vaccine defenders are guilty of the same approach!
There is a (tribal?) mechanism that forces certain personalities into an all or nothing mindset.
Dr. Mercola was always open minded to medical theories, procedures and supplements that were usually neutral, sometimes helpful, and occasionally harmful.
I believe history has proven Mercola right in fighting mercury amalgams, but that long battle and his objection to mercury adjuvants in vaccines (another dodgy concept in my opinion) put him in the crosshairs of some powerful establishment forces. The backlash imposed a direct financial cost on his business.
Rather than give in, Dr. Mercola doubled down. Now he seeks out and lends his megaphone to any claim or conspiracy theory that places vaccines in a negative light, particularly COVID vaccines.
RFK Jr. got there through litigating against vaccine manufacturers.
Foremost to me though is that, despite their take no prisoners approach, THEY ARE NOT TOTALLY WRONG!
Here is what I would like to see analyzed:
How does one point out, discuss and investigate one of these hot-button issues (from either side) without either becoming, or being accused of being a zealot or a sellout?
Also, how can the fringe players be brought back into productive conversations?
To me this is consequential because most of us are pushed into camps where all vaccines are bad or alternately, all vaccines are good without serious review.
Psychiatric medication is only one (fantastic) tool in a treatment plan--and I work closely with many fantastic psychiatrists to help ensure that patients receive safe and competent care. :)
Couldn't be more delighted that Dr Jonathan Stea has made the move to Substack to help build a great community here in place of the Twitter sewer. Do yourself a favour and get your free subscription at https://open.substack.com/pub/jonathanstea/p/its-time-to-mind-the-science-when?r=1nbdxm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
That is so very kind and means a lot, thank you. 😊🙏
Recently retired but not quite. Bachelor of Science & Nursing, 35 ish years in healthcare. As are many, I’m so confused and baffled with all the misinformation surrounding science and research. Was a bit dumbfounded to find this among colleagues. I want to understand why, so thank you Dr. Jonathon Stea. Looking forward to this.
I hear you loud and clear. Thank you so much for your support.
Social worker psychotherapist & psychoanalyst here, recently retired from full-time private practice, following with great interest.
Thank you. 😊🙏
Retired neuropsychologist. Post doc at residential treatment hospital for substance abuse. Cringe at pseudoscience.
Thank you for your work. Cringe at pseudoscience indeed--I’m gearing up to expose it. 👍
Clinical psychologist in private practice. Previously worked in hospital psychiatric settings and trained Masters level clinical psychology students in the university training clinic. (Western Australia)
Welcome to Substack!
Thank you!
Then why has all human emotion & behaviour been pathologized & deemed in need of pharmacological intervention? I really dont see the vox populi as the originators, here.
I've been following Dr. Mercola and RFK Jr. for several years, and I can't help but note that while they are both often wrong and dangerous, THEY ARE NOT 100% WRONG. Some of the wounds they pick at are real, but they get lost, one way or the other , in the general mayhem of their writings.
Many vaccine defenders are guilty of the same approach!
There is a (tribal?) mechanism that forces certain personalities into an all or nothing mindset.
Dr. Mercola was always open minded to medical theories, procedures and supplements that were usually neutral, sometimes helpful, and occasionally harmful.
I believe history has proven Mercola right in fighting mercury amalgams, but that long battle and his objection to mercury adjuvants in vaccines (another dodgy concept in my opinion) put him in the crosshairs of some powerful establishment forces. The backlash imposed a direct financial cost on his business.
Rather than give in, Dr. Mercola doubled down. Now he seeks out and lends his megaphone to any claim or conspiracy theory that places vaccines in a negative light, particularly COVID vaccines.
RFK Jr. got there through litigating against vaccine manufacturers.
Foremost to me though is that, despite their take no prisoners approach, THEY ARE NOT TOTALLY WRONG!
Here is what I would like to see analyzed:
How does one point out, discuss and investigate one of these hot-button issues (from either side) without either becoming, or being accused of being a zealot or a sellout?
Also, how can the fringe players be brought back into productive conversations?
To me this is consequential because most of us are pushed into camps where all vaccines are bad or alternately, all vaccines are good without serious review.
Yes, I am—by definition. 😊✌️
Well that’s just silly. I treat patients everyday. 😊✌️
Psychiatric medication is only one (fantastic) tool in a treatment plan--and I work closely with many fantastic psychiatrists to help ensure that patients receive safe and competent care. :)