In my opinion a report: Federal Institute for Mental Health Abandons Psychiatric ‘Bible’, The misuse of psychiatric drugs is in part due to the reliance on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)—the “bible” of psychiatry, and Cathal Grant is one of the main doctors who misuse the ‘Bible’ to sell drugs you do not need.

  •  Cathal Grant is still accepting money from the drug companies which brings his total to $151,474.00 since 2010, our experience to push the drugs if you need them or not.

Patients comments about Cathal Grant related to this story:

ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY! RUN AWAY! They avoid proper diagnosis so they can keep you coming back and put you on the wrong meds for your actual condition, even sometimes prescribing meds that make you worse. This guy is a MILLIONAIRE. Wonder why?

I recommend that Grant publish an article about processing a packed waiting room into a financial portfolio that would make Madoff blush. He processed me through his throne room/office in less than five minutes, glimpsed at some medical notes his staff had written about my medical history, and then prescribed Cymbalta, a toxic drug known for its brutal side effects and dangerous withdrawal. There is Cymbalta office paraphernalia all over his office…think there may be a connection?

DO NOT go to Grant. He is a legal drug pusher who prescribes drugs notorious for their toxic side effects, including SUICIDE. If you were desperate when you went to Grant, you may be DEAD afterwards

 Federal Institute for Mental Health Abandons Psychiatric ‘Bible’ the DSM

The same ‘Bible” Cathal Grant uses to diagnose his patients, under the brain chemical imbalance theory, which has been discarded by medical science:

Diagnostic & Statistical Manual

 

Source: National Institute  of Mental Health

Transforming Diagnosis

By Thomas Insel on April 29, 2013

In a few weeks, the American Psychiatric Association will release its new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). This volume will tweak several current diagnostic categories, from autism spectrum disorders to mood disorders. While many of these changes have been contentious, the final product involves mostly modest alterations of the previous edition, based on new insights emerging from research since 1990 when DSM-IV was published. Sometimes this research recommended new categories (e.g., mood dysregulation disorder) or that previous categories could be dropped (e.g., Asperger’s syndrome).1

The goal of this new manual, as with all previous editions, is to provide a common language for describing psychopathology. While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity. Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever. Indeed, symptom-based diagnosis, once common in other areas of medicine, has been largely replaced in the past half century as we have understood that symptoms alone rarely indicate the best choice of treatment.

Patients with mental disorders deserve better. NIMH has launched the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project to transform diagnosis by incorporating genetics, imaging, cognitive science, and other levels of information to lay the foundation for a new classification system. Through a series of workshops over the past 18 months, we have tried to define several major categories for a new nosology (see below). This approach began with several assumptions:

  • A diagnostic approach based on the biology as well as the symptoms must not be constrained by the current DSM categories,
  • Mental disorders are biological disorders involving brain circuits that implicate specific domains of cognition, emotion, or behavior,
  • Each level of analysis needs to be understood across a dimension of function,
  • Mapping the cognitive, circuit, and genetic aspects of mental disorders will yield new and better targets for treatment.

It became immediately clear that we cannot design a system based on biomarkers or cognitive performance because we lack the data. In this sense, RDoC is a framework for collecting the data needed for a new nosology. But it is critical to realize that we cannot succeed if we use DSM categories as the “gold standard.”2 The diagnostic system has to be based on the emerging research data, not on the current symptom-based categories. Imagine deciding that EKGs were not useful because many patients with chest pain did not have EKG changes. That is what we have been doing for decades when we reject a biomarker because it does not detect a DSM category. We need to begin collecting the genetic, imaging, physiologic, and cognitive data to see how all the data – not just the symptoms – cluster and how these clusters relate to treatment response.

That is why NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories. Going forward, we will be supporting research projects that look across current categories – or sub-divide current categories – to begin to develop a better system. What does this mean for applicants? Clinical trials might study all patients in a mood clinic rather than those meeting strict major depressive disorder criteria. Studies of biomarkers for “depression” might begin by looking across many disorders with anhedonia or emotional appraisal bias or psychomotor retardation to understand the circuitry underlying these symptoms. What does this mean for patients? We are committed to new and better treatments, but we feel this will only happen by developing a more precise diagnostic system. The best reason to develop RDoC is to seek better outcomes.

RDoC, for now, is a research framework, not a clinical tool. This is a decade-long project that is just beginning. Many NIMH researchers, already stressed by budget cuts and tough competition for research funding, will not welcome this change. Some will see RDoC as an academic exercise divorced from clinical practice. But patients and families should welcome this change as a first step towards “precision medicine,” the movement that has transformed cancer diagnosis and treatment. RDoC is nothing less than a plan to transform clinical practice by bringing a new generation of research to inform how we diagnose and treat mental disorders. As two eminent psychiatric geneticists recently concluded, “At the end of the 19th century, it was logical to use a simple diagnostic approach that offered reasonable prognostic validity. At the beginning of the 21st century, we must set our sights higher.”3

The major RDoC research domains:

Negative Valence Systems Positive Valence Systems Cognitive Systems Systems for Social Processes Arousal/Modulatory Systems

References

 1 Mental health: On the spectrum. Adam D. Nature. 2013 Apr 25;496(7446):416-8. doi: 10.1038/496416a. No abstract available. PMID: 23619674

 2 Why has it taken so long for biological psychiatry to develop clinical tests and what to do about it? Kapur S, Phillips AG, Insel TR. Mol Psychiatry. 2012 Dec;17(12):1174-9. doi: 10.1038/mp.2012.105. Epub 2012 Aug 7.PMID:22869033

 3 The Kraepelinian dichotomy – going, going… but still not gone. Craddock N, Owen MJ. Br J Psychiatry. 2010 Feb;196(2):92-5. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.109.073429. PMID: 20118450

 

In our experience the following video is an example of how Cathal Grant MD, Bedford, Texas treats and controls his patients to keep them on the Psychotropic drugs to make his patients prescription drug addicts, all for his greed of wealth, and the credits he get with the drug companies for prescribing their drugs, which he is paid by them to push.

This video proves what we are saying in our opinion about Cathal Grant’s medical practice, it also shows how Cathal Grant does not want you to have informed consent in your visit with him , he dose not tell you the truth, as the video below shows:

“We found out that he gets paid to speak for almost every drug company out there, even if the drugs are competitors. He is out to make the money and it is apparent the way patients are herded through the practice with no regard for the patient’s needs. Beware if he tries to prescribe you a “new” drug on the market, it probably means they are paying him now. “

 

Doctors Paid Big By Drug Companies?

 

 

Becky Oliver of Fox Four News Dallas Reports on the Texas Medical Board:

Top secret meetings, back-door deals and confidential complaints are all a part of the Texas Board of Medical Examiners. The state board is supposed to be policing doctors and protecting the public but some patients complain the system is a prescription for failure.

Dallas News | myFOXdfw.com

  • Click the links below to see why nothing is done about a Doctor like Cathal Grant

Texas Report

MEDICAL BOARDS’ SERIOUS DISCIPLINARY 2008-2010

Did you like this? Share it:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*