I couldn't help noticing Kevin Rudd's head nodding rather a lot after he was asked if his supporters are counting numbers for another leadership challenge.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-05/deja-vu-as-federal-parliament-resumes/4502860
My blog for rants and observations about politics, especially Australian politics. Pet peeves include corruption in politics, science and medicine and the aggressive promotion of psychiatry. I've often wondered why it appears that scum rise to the top and smartest, most honest people leave or are marginalized. I'm also peeved about the victimization of asylum-seekers by the Australian govt. and the parlous state of federal politics in general. - Lili Marlene (not my real name)
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Gillard makes a predictable choice
You are the Prime Minister. You note that there is a lack of Aboriginal representation in your political party in federal parliament. Do you initiate in inquiry to find out why there is a lack of Aboriginal representation in your political party in federal parliament? Do you reform the party's preselection process? Do you consider changing party or government policies with the aim of making the party more popular with indigenous Australians? Or do you walk all over everyone and everything and parachute an Aboriginal celebrity into parliament?
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
You thought the Gillard Govt had mental health all sorted?
WRONG!
Australia needs Better Access to psychological treatment
a petition to the Hon Julia Gillard MP initiated by
Dr Ben Mullings
Change.org
http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/australia-needs-better-access-to-psychological-treatment
Alliance for Better Access
http://betteraccess.net/
Australia needs Better Access to psychological treatment
a petition to the Hon Julia Gillard MP initiated by
Dr Ben Mullings
Change.org
http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/australia-needs-better-access-to-psychological-treatment
Alliance for Better Access
http://betteraccess.net/
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Prof McGorry's pet theory loses battle with reality
I've only just found out about the online publication in late November of last year of a study by former Australian of the Year and influential psychiatrist Prof. Patrick McGorry and his research team, which tested the prof's pet theory that elevated risk for developing psychosis can be identified in young people and treated in an early intervention to prevent a conversion to mental illness.The subjects of the trial were 115 young clients of a PACE clinic in Melbourne. Two supposedly effective forms of intervention were tested: the neuroleptic antipsychotic drug risperidone and cognitive therapy. McGorry's team had planned a couple of years ago to trial a different antipsychotic drug, but that trial was abandoned after complaints from other mental health experts. In this trial only a low dose of the drug risperidone was trialed. Three different combinations of drug or placebo and talking interventions were trialed (check the details for yourself), one being only placebo with "supportive therapy". No significant difference in results was found between the three groups. The supposedly effective interventions apparently weren't found to be any more effective than placebo and a nice chat, and as any true expert in the field of trying to predict risk for developing psychosis could have predicted, a large majority of the youths that had been labelled as being at "ultra-high risk for psychosis" did not become psychotic within the year that the trial was run. Call that ultra-high risk? I certainly don't! The sky isn't falling Henny Penny, and your interventions don't work!
Patrick D. McGorry, MD, PhD; Barnaby Nelson, PhD; Lisa J. Phillips, PhD; Hok Pan Yuen, MSc; Shona M. Francey, PhD; Annette Thampi, MRCPsych; Gregor E. Berger, MD; G. Paul Amminger, MD; Magenta B. Simmons, BA; Daniel Kelly, Grad Dip (Psych); Andrew D. Thompson, MD; and Alison R. Yung, MD (2012) Randomized Controlled Trial of Interventions for Young People at Ultra-High Risk of Psychosis: Twelve-Month Outcome. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. Submitted: March 16, 2012; accepted September 13, 2012. Online ahead of print: November 27, 2012 (doi:10.4088/JCP.12m07785).
http://article.psychiatrist.com/dao_1-login.asp?ID=10008115&RSID=3876442436586
Thank you Neuroskeptic for the interesting blog post about the trial:
Neuroskeptic (2012) Neither Drugs Nor Therapy Prevent Psychosis. Neuroskeptic. December 15th 2012.
http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/neither-drugs-nor-therapy-prevent.html
Patrick D. McGorry, MD, PhD; Barnaby Nelson, PhD; Lisa J. Phillips, PhD; Hok Pan Yuen, MSc; Shona M. Francey, PhD; Annette Thampi, MRCPsych; Gregor E. Berger, MD; G. Paul Amminger, MD; Magenta B. Simmons, BA; Daniel Kelly, Grad Dip (Psych); Andrew D. Thompson, MD; and Alison R. Yung, MD (2012) Randomized Controlled Trial of Interventions for Young People at Ultra-High Risk of Psychosis: Twelve-Month Outcome. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. Submitted: March 16, 2012; accepted September 13, 2012. Online ahead of print: November 27, 2012 (doi:10.4088/JCP.12m07785).
http://article.psychiatrist.com/dao_1-login.asp?ID=10008115&RSID=3876442436586
Thank you Neuroskeptic for the interesting blog post about the trial:
Neuroskeptic (2012) Neither Drugs Nor Therapy Prevent Psychosis. Neuroskeptic. December 15th 2012.
http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/neither-drugs-nor-therapy-prevent.html
Thursday, January 3, 2013
The high price of Julia
According to demographer and former Labor senator John Black, by the middle of 2012, with most polls showing Labor's primary vote stuck at 30 per cent, Julia Gillard had cost her party two million votes.
- Maxine McKew, page three in her recent book Tales from the Political Trenches published by Melbourne University Press
This book is my pick as a summer read for Australian readers with an interest in politics. The book is part autobiography, blending with commentary and reporting on the events before, during and after the winter of 2010 when a highly popular Aussie PM in his first term was deposed by lesser beings, throwing the ALP into an abyss of voter unpopularity, pretty much the same abyss that Rudd had only two and a half years earlier pulled the ALP out of. In case you didn't know, McKew had a long and respected career in journalism at a public broadcaster before retiring and successfully later running for the ALP in the 2007 Rudd landslide federal election, and in doing so unseating the Liberal Prime Minister John Howard who till then had appeared to be unassailable. McKew was later unseated in the 2010 federal election which was a choice between political leaders that could be summed up as "dumb and dumber". So, Maxine has heaps and heaps to write about, and she's got the skill in spades to write in a clear and engaging manner. This is probably why this book drew me in, even to read stuff that I'd not otherwise find of interest. The main attraction for me in this book is McKew's debunking of many of the points in the official ALP/Gillard and Swan account of why Rudd had to be removed, and also McKew's general arguments against the integrity and competence of Gillard and Swan. Many anonymous but apparently very senior ALP sources are quoted by McKew regretting the coup of winter 2010. I can completely understand why such sources would insist on anonymity. There's also a quote from Rudd. Two and a half years later, many Australians are still feeling outrage at Gillard and Swan's disloyal grab for power. It must surely go down in Australian political history as the stupidest decision ever.
Monday, September 10, 2012
I've heard worse....
That wasn't the rumour that I've heard about Tony Abbott, Mr Marr. Did you dig deep enough?
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
The two faces of Lateline
How ironic. Lateline on the ABC last night featured an interview with Professor Patrick McGorry. He has in the past expressed his concern, as a professional mental health doctor, for the welfare of asylum-seekers imprisoned in detention centres for long periods of time, and he was again expressing such concerns last night. A less likable aspect of the professor is his insistent advocacy of routine and widespread psychiatric intervention into the lives of young people who show what could controversially be interpreted as the first signs of psychosis, including the definite possibility use of controversial neuroleptic drugs such as Seroquel/Quetiapine. Prof McGorry has been the subject of widespread and effective opposition on this front from other mental health professionals. I thought last night's interview on Lateline gave the professor a sympathetic run, with an absence of questions about psychiatric drug interventions and their negative effects. In stark contrast, apparently tonight Lateline will be running an exclusive story about the serious misuse of this same class of stupefying and damaging psychiatric drugs in nursing homes. I really do wonder whether there is a wilful lack of attention going on a the ABC. It is politically easy to question the questionable use of questionable drugs, except when a charismatic public figure says they are completely necessary.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/
I want an assurance from someone in the government that any asylum-seekers who develop mental illness or apparent mental illness while detained overseas will not be inappropriately or routinely prescribed questionable drugs, and will not be included in any trials of interventions of such a nature.
Tonight's story on Lateline looks like it will be powerful stuff, but I doubt that it will be as big as the expose of the anti-anxiety psychiatric drug Xanax that was on Seven's Sunday Night last month:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/transcripts/article/-/14243425/xanax/
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/
I want an assurance from someone in the government that any asylum-seekers who develop mental illness or apparent mental illness while detained overseas will not be inappropriately or routinely prescribed questionable drugs, and will not be included in any trials of interventions of such a nature.
Tonight's story on Lateline looks like it will be powerful stuff, but I doubt that it will be as big as the expose of the anti-anxiety psychiatric drug Xanax that was on Seven's Sunday Night last month:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/transcripts/article/-/14243425/xanax/
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Wild speculation
I wonder, is there anything at all in the idea of a split in the ALP? Would that be a case of Doc Evatt deja vu?
Saturday, July 14, 2012
A political quote to ponder from a wise ALP elder
"I've even, Paul, fought more Greens and Liberals and
Nationals than you've done media interviews." (cheers, applause and
smiles from the audience at a left-wing conference) "Why don't you
just put a sock in it for once?"
That was a highlight of ALP Senator John Falkner's reply to
union leader and ALP faceless man Paul Howe's attack on the Greens over voting
preferences. A short excerpt of Howes' and Falkner's speeches can be viewed on
the ABC TV show Insiders. In my opinion, the idea of attacking the
Greens has many risks for the ALP, and Paul Howes has demonstrated a level of
zero expertise in courting the voter.
Aston, Heath (2012) Put a sock in it, Falkner tells Howes. Sydney
Morning Herald. July 15th 2012.
It's a pity what they've done to Google Search
It's a pity they've buggered up Google search. In the good old days it would have been easy to look up this blog, just type in blond ambition, and maybe the term blog, and you probably would have seen a page from this blog in the first page of results, with no need for the use of quotation marks to bossily direct the search engine in how to do it's job. It would have stood out from all the stuff on the net with the title blonde ambition, all the girly blogs and Madonna paraphernalia, because I chose to spell this blog without the E at the end of blond, to denote the male meaning of the word blond.
But they had to screw up the perfect search engine in the quest of making it idiot-proof, and now Google search takes all manner of misspellings and also legitimate and distinctive spelling variations and makes the assumption that they all mean the same thing, and now the default search is an incredibly vague search which does allow for spelling errors, but also squashes and disregards useful and important information. I'm not sure if this is the same methodology that was used to stuff up PubMed many moons ago. I've given up trying to figure out how PubMed works, I just muddle on with it and throw as much relevant info at it as possible, and now look upon it as an unwilling servant to be beaten into submission.
So now, it appears that the best and possibly only way to quickly retrieve my political blog using Google search is to do a search that is part phrase search, part regular search, thus:
"blond ambition" blog
and there it is at numbers one to four of the first page of results. These days you've got to be a little bit smart to use the new, improved, idiot-proof Google search. That's progress!
But they had to screw up the perfect search engine in the quest of making it idiot-proof, and now Google search takes all manner of misspellings and also legitimate and distinctive spelling variations and makes the assumption that they all mean the same thing, and now the default search is an incredibly vague search which does allow for spelling errors, but also squashes and disregards useful and important information. I'm not sure if this is the same methodology that was used to stuff up PubMed many moons ago. I've given up trying to figure out how PubMed works, I just muddle on with it and throw as much relevant info at it as possible, and now look upon it as an unwilling servant to be beaten into submission.
So now, it appears that the best and possibly only way to quickly retrieve my political blog using Google search is to do a search that is part phrase search, part regular search, thus:
"blond ambition" blog
and there it is at numbers one to four of the first page of results. These days you've got to be a little bit smart to use the new, improved, idiot-proof Google search. That's progress!
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Former Liberal Prime Minister rips into current Liberal Party leader on asylum-seeker policy
“The most effective way to restore integrity and public
confidence in asylum seeker policy
is through strong leadership, myth busting and accurate information. Not to present a policy that is
the closest thing to evil you can get. A policy that is full of
misinformation."
“In 2010-11, 4730 asylum seekers arrived by boat. During the same period,
more than 13 million people crossed our borders and
arrived in Australia; 4730 out of 13.9
million is not a ''system vulnerable to abuse''."
“This is the opposite of integrity. It is inhumane and
demeans Australia. Is this the basis on which Abbott will operate if he, as he
believes he will, becomes prime minister?"
Abbott's evil policy work.
by Malcolm Fraser
Sydney Morning Herald. smh.com.au
June 18, 2012Sydney Morning Herald. smh.com.au
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbotts-evil-policy-work-20120617-20hzs.html#ixzz1y753sRAD
Monday, June 11, 2012
It's like watching tennis - Prof. Allen Frances criticizes new govt child mental illness screening program
Like night follows day, American Emeritus Professor Allen Frances, a psychiatrist and also a veteran of a past DSM revision, has volunteered his two-bob worth on the subject of the Gillard Government's upcoming program of mental health screening of three-year-olds, "The Healthy Kids Check", and true to form, he isn't being kind. According to Prof. Frances "There's absolutely no evidence at all that we can predict accurately who will go on to have a mental disorder", so it would appear that a program that aims to identify mental illness in little ones who aren't even old enough to go to big school would be a foolish enterprise indeed. Add to that the probability that the screening will do harm: "A label like 'autism' can be obviously devastating, but even less severe labels can have a dramatic effect on expectations, on the way the child feels about himself, his role in the family. I would be very cautious about labels, especially in young children, especially because they're so likely to be wrong."
The ABC are claiming that the Healthy Kids Check will be voluntary, but I have my doubts that parents will not be financially coerced by the federal government into submitting their young children to examination. In March 2012 the Australian parenting magazine Web Child reported that parents risk losing a Centrelink payment if they omit to "take their four year old for a mandatory health assessment." Is this the same assessment as the Healthy Kids Check?
All of the media stories that I have read about the planned program indicate that it is not limited at all to identifying mental illness, but is in fact very much geared to identifying supposed signs of autism, which is considered to be an incurable developmental disability or alternately a form of neurodiversity. In Australia mental health and early intervention are some of the biggest fads of the decade, so apparently to give this intrusive program appeal it is being sold as a form of mental health early intervention leading to recovery, a spin on the subject that is sure to offend many people who identify themselves as autistic but not mentally disordered.
Prof Frances is currently appearing in Perth, along with the Irish-Australian psychiatrist professor whom he has often spoken out against, Prof Patrick McGorry, at the Asia Pacific Conference on Mental Health. Clinical Professor Jon Jureidini and the federal Minister for Mental Health and Ageing Mark Butler will also be speaking at this conference.
Hall, Eleanor (2012) Expert warns against child mental health checks. PM. ABC Radio National. June 11th 2012.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-11/expert-warns-against-child-mental-health-checks/4064474
Asia Pacific Conference on Mental Health. http://www.rfwa.org.au/aspac2012/news/?post=6
Roberts, Felicity (2012) Don't miss out on family payment. Web Child. Match 20th 2012. http://www.webchild.com.au/read/news/dont-miss-out-on-family-payment
The ABC are claiming that the Healthy Kids Check will be voluntary, but I have my doubts that parents will not be financially coerced by the federal government into submitting their young children to examination. In March 2012 the Australian parenting magazine Web Child reported that parents risk losing a Centrelink payment if they omit to "take their four year old for a mandatory health assessment." Is this the same assessment as the Healthy Kids Check?
All of the media stories that I have read about the planned program indicate that it is not limited at all to identifying mental illness, but is in fact very much geared to identifying supposed signs of autism, which is considered to be an incurable developmental disability or alternately a form of neurodiversity. In Australia mental health and early intervention are some of the biggest fads of the decade, so apparently to give this intrusive program appeal it is being sold as a form of mental health early intervention leading to recovery, a spin on the subject that is sure to offend many people who identify themselves as autistic but not mentally disordered.
Prof Frances is currently appearing in Perth, along with the Irish-Australian psychiatrist professor whom he has often spoken out against, Prof Patrick McGorry, at the Asia Pacific Conference on Mental Health. Clinical Professor Jon Jureidini and the federal Minister for Mental Health and Ageing Mark Butler will also be speaking at this conference.
Hall, Eleanor (2012) Expert warns against child mental health checks. PM. ABC Radio National. June 11th 2012.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-11/expert-warns-against-child-mental-health-checks/4064474
Asia Pacific Conference on Mental Health. http://www.rfwa.org.au/aspac2012/news/?post=6
Roberts, Felicity (2012) Don't miss out on family payment. Web Child. Match 20th 2012. http://www.webchild.com.au/read/news/dont-miss-out-on-family-payment
Loner littlies to be labelled (in Australia)
See my post about this at my other blog:
http://incorrectpleasures.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/loner-littlies-to-be-labelled.html
Preschoolers to get mental health checks.
ABC News. June 10, 2012.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-10/preschoolers-to-get-voluntary-mental-health-checks/4062566
http://incorrectpleasures.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/loner-littlies-to-be-labelled.html
Preschoolers to get mental health checks.
ABC News. June 10, 2012.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-10/preschoolers-to-get-voluntary-mental-health-checks/4062566
McGorry and co get a run on Radio National
I didn't hear ABC radio presenter Lynn Malcolm ask any tough questions in this program, but perhaps they were edited out, as McGorry did address many of the issues that people have with his plans for psychiatry geared to young people in Australia, funded by the Gillard Government. He also acknowledged that there are areas of active controversy. I think the most interesting thing about this show is how readily McGorry and another professional interviewed admit that some of the most important modes of treatment delivered at their various networks of mental health clinics are not fully researched and are not supported by a complete or even firm evidence base. They are happy to admit that much more research is needed, and the big issue that I have with McGorry and co is that I believe that an evidence base should precede the offering of any medical treatment (outside of the context of a clinical trial), and not follow after the treatments are offered to vulnerable young people, and after huge sums of funding from the federal government have been aggressively solicited for and received. Demonstrating that a medical service does more good than harm should not be just an afterthought to placate the critics.
Malcolm, Lynne (2012) Young minds, the highs and the lows. All in the Mind. ABC Radio National. June 10th 2012. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/young-minds2c-the-highs-and-lows/4054982
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)