Tip of the Iceberg: How Professionals Cling to Disease Model

I have posted on here a few times in the past about psychosocial approaches to psychosis.

I just got this article published on MIA:

Tip of the Iceberg: How Professionals Cling to the Disease Model - Critique of TIPS study

https://www.madinamerica.com/2017/04/ho ... ase-model/

This is a critique of the TIPS study published last month by psychiatrist Jan Olav Johannessen and several other authors, discussed on here recently. I found the disease model language problematic, but my central critique is around the group's asserting a very low rate of recovery for FEP (first-episode psychosis) out of the Jaaskelainen meta-analysis, and promoting this pessimistic, inaccurate and misleading statistic as what should be expected for "First Episode Psychosis Recovery".

My arguments about this also relate to what was recently discussed on this listserv around Smedslund - i.e. about whether psychology can be a truly empirical science, which I argue it cannot.

I hope others will find the discussion interesting, although I am aware that mainstream professionals may be upset by it. However, I think a louder voice from survivors questioning the disease model and critiquing the unevidenced pessimism of psychiatry - pessimism which, however inadvertently, even permeates some supposedly progressive writing such as Jan Olav's - is both necessary and important.

Haven't read the article, but I agree with what's been said. Just waiting for any big, legitimate anti-psychiatry movement to rise.