Weight Loss – The 5 Keys YOU Need For Success

Do you hate the way your clothes fit? Are you embarrassed to go out for a dinner because of the weight you have put on the past couple of years? Do you shudder when someone wants to take a picture of you? No matter what you do, you can’t’ seem to shed those extra pounds? If this sounds familiar you are not alone. If you are over the age of 30, Mother Nature might not be helping you out either. You see as we age our metabolism and other systems do not perform as highly effective as they did back when we were 23 years old! The good news is that Mother Nature can be influenced to go back in time. I want to share with you the 5 keys to get your body firing on all cylinders again. Do these 5 things and you will be back in beach wear quicker than Brad and Angelina pick up another kid.

1. Teach your body to detox:

The human body is an amazing system that has the ability to filter out a massive amount of toxins that we are exposed to each and every day. Our liver is the headquarters for detoxification. If our liver becomes overloaded, many biological functions suffer. Metabolism becomes sluggish and weight gain is common.

How can recharging our natural detoxification system help us with weight loss? You see our body is like a car. If we have old and sticky oil in the car it ends up running like a clunker! When we are loaded with toxins our lymphatic system becomes congested, and lymphatic tissue cannot move. Sweat glands cannot produce effectively either as they also become congested. If we are going to rev up our metabolism we need to get our detoxification system back in order. The most important thing that detoxification gives us is more energy and as I have said before energy is the currency of life. When we have more energy we can become more active!

So how do we get our detox system rocking again?

• Your diet is one key to detoxifying your body. Choosing a diet that is high in fruits and vegetables is important. In addition to the nutrient dense vitamins you get with fruits and veggies you also get rich fibre which is another key to detoxification. Avoiding processed foods which are loaded with chemical preservatives is also important. Finally choosing organic foods is always important to avoid additional chemical overload.
• Sweat like you were dancing all night to 80’s music! Our skin is our body’s largest organ and an extremely important vehicle to help release toxins out of our body. If you are able to get a good sweat on each day it will assist in keeping toxins at bay. Using an infrared sauna or wet sauna can assist you in getting a good sweat, but we prefer you get your sweat on through exercise.
• Grab your rubber ducky and hit the tub. Soaking in a salt bath a couple of times a week can assist you by pulling toxins out of the skin and accelerate detoxification. A warm bath with Epsom salts will do the trick.

2. Get your move on!

Exercise is critical to weight loss! There is no way around that. But how we exercise is more important than anything. We have learned over the past 5 years that short intense exercise is more effective for increasing our metabolism. Circuit training or interval training is typically described as short intense bouts of exercise lasting between 20-30 minutes. Using full body movements, one exercise after another and putting yourself in a cardiovascular zone is the key. Researchers tell us that short intense workouts accomplish two key things for us. One is that it releases more growth hormone in our body increasing our caloric burn and metabolism. Secondly is that we continue to burn calories for a long time, sometimes up to 12 hours after exercise!

This type of exercise does not have to be used every day but should be incorporated a couple of times a week. Use circuit training to get that metabolism burning and making you a calorie shedding machine. There are so many websites now dedicated to short intense exercise. Crossfit is one but you can Google interval training and learn more for yourself as there are many resources online.

3. Biochemistry 101

No you are not going to be subjected to the weird science prof who wore a pocket protector and had a noticeable twitching problem! What I am going to tell you though is that after the age of 30 chemicals change in our body. What seemed like an easy workout at 25 can leave us feeling like we have been hit by a bus at 40! This is where we can fool Mother Nature a little bit and optimize one specific chemical in our body that can help us take us back to the glory days of yester year.

DHEA is a hormone in the body that has seen monumental growth in popularity as it has been shown to be effective for weight loss and anti-aging. I am not about to say it is the fountain of youth but combined with other factors it has the ability to put you on the track to success!

In his best-selling book The DHEA Breakthrough biochemist and author Stephen Cherniske quotes ” DHEA makes weight loss easier by helping to correct the underlying metabolic defects that cause cravings, fatigue and other obstacles. DHEA appears to decrease the conversion of glucose to fat. What’s more, maintaining prime levels of DHEA can “tune up” your metabolism, making exercise easier and more enjoyable”. It is an interesting point of view as most mature adults start to consider themselves lazy and unmotivated as it is no longer enjoyable to exercise. This in turn can have a negative effect on motivation and also self-esteem, creating a viscous cycle. What Cherniske is saying is that if we optimize DHEA levels we can begin to start to feel better, recover better and in turn reverse the process and begin to enjoy exercise and its benefits again.

4. Chill out!

Like most other North American’s you probably live a life busier than Ryan Seacrest! We live in a world of running around, multi-tasking and we are constantly barraged with information from all angles. Your kids have a soccer game and then violin practice, the dog needs grooming and you have a power point to create for work. Sound familiar? Did you know that your stress level could be keeping you from your ideal body? It is true. Our body has a system of hormones that operate in a way that tries to create balance in the body. When we are under stress (no matter what type btw) our body interprets it as a violator is attacking our body. Scientists believe that this was created through evolution so that when a sabre tooth tiger was chasing us that we had a rush of adrenaline to get through the experience. Although it is rare for a good ole tiger chasing, our body is not as smart yet to identify what is a real stress and what is just minor stress.

Here is what happens in our body when it is stressed…. For example Sherri has a big project deadline at work. Her boss drops by her office and reminds her of the impending deadline. Sherri starts to think about this and her thoughts of concern and anxiety rise. Her brain sends a chemical messenger to her adrenal glands which sit on her kidneys. Those adrenal glands release chemicals and hormones like epinephrine and a hormone called cortisol. Cortisol is known as our stress hormone and it plays a critical role in our body. The problem is if Sherri is chronically stressing out her adrenal glands and releasing cortisol, then her body does some things that prevent weight loss. You see when Sherri releases cortisol it actually sends a message to her body to conserve energy and not burn fat. In fact heavy cortisol release often leaves individuals carrying extra weight around the mid-section, which we know is dangerous fat!

Ok lots of cortisol=bad…so now what?

Here is the good news. We know that finding some type of stress relieving activity like meditation, yoga, tai chi, or simply taking a walk can help greatly. Researchers have shown us that individuals who participate in stress reducing activity have better blood sugar control and cortisol regulation. Now you don’t need to sit on top of a mountain in Peru meditating for hours like Gandhi. Simply taking a few minutes each morning and evening and doing some deep breathing will often be enough to do the trick. Regardless of what stress relieving activity you participate in the key is doing it consistently.

5. Think and it shall be!

Our mind is an incredibly powerful machine and can influence physiological changes in how our body adapts. It is critical that you are sending it positive messages that envision you at your ideal weight. Take some time each day and see yourself in those skinny jeans or how good that size smaller dress you have would look like with the new Jimmy Choo’s you just bought!

Respect and be grateful for your health and body. Think of all the amazing things you can do that not everyone has the good fortune of being able too.

Do something to challenge yourself each day. Know that the human body and spirit have an infinite ability for change. Do not get stagnant…see life as an adventure.

Mostly importantly love yourself and treat yourself well and with respect. When you do this the world responds in kind.

Having a positive attitude is as important as any other thing you can do to stay young. Begin to see yourself as this positive light for you and others. Become the vibrant, youthful person that is already inside of you. I promise you that this will help change you more than you can say.

We try to cover as much as possible in the article but if you want more tips and keys to living well, opt in to our blog for TONS of content about living your best life!

Interview With Shireen Jeejeebhoy, Author of “Lifeliner – The Judy Taylor Story”

Today, Tyler R. Tichelaar of Reader Views is pleased to be joined by Shireen Jeejeebhoy, who is here to talk about her new novel “Lifeliner: The Judy Taylor Story,” iUniverse (2007), ISBN 9780595445448.

Shireen Jeejeebhoy was born in London and spent her formative years in India. In 1968, she arrived in Canada where she attended local public schools before attending the University of Toronto, earning a degree in psychology. She has also been deeply interested in medicine, her father Dr. Jeejeebhoy being the doctor who treated Judy Taylor. Her new book “Lifeliner” is about his work helping Judy. Shireen personally knew Judy and is the perfect person to tell the story of Judy and her father’s relationship trying to solve Judy’s digestive problems using Total Parental Nutrition. Shireen is an accomplished writer with many articles to her credit. “Lifeliner” is her first published book.

Tyler: Welcome, Shireen. I understand this book shows your father’s role as the doctor to Judy Taylor. Will you begin by telling us about your father and his own medical background?

Shireen: It’s wonderful to be here, Tyler. Thank you. My father was born in Burma and fled to India with his family during WWII. His grandmother, who trained as a medical doctor, inspired him, and he decided to study medicine. He was accepted into medical school at a very young age, too young to enter right away, and so he studied economics at university for a couple of years before attending Christian Medical College in Vellore, India. His training there included comprehensive studies in anatomy and physiology, which translated into him understanding the whole human body even though his specialty is in gastroenterology. This knowledge has given him a leg up on most specialists who know their one area well but not the rest of the human body; since our organs do not function independently of each other, it means he can take into account how a patient’s intestinal problems affect their liver or their heart or even their psychological functioning or vice versa.

His training also included treating patients in the community around Vellore, not just seeing them in the sterile environment of a hospital. He saw how a person’s lifestyle impacted his or her health. For example, the College is located in the south of India where the diet is vegetarian. However, in one region, there were many widows, whereas in another both men and women lived long and well. It turned out that the difference between the two regions boiled down to the fact that the area where men died young used coconut oil in their cooking; the other did not. From noticing that one fact, Dr. Jeejeebhoy’s mentors were able to research why coconut oil had a deleterious effect on a person’s heart, and he learnt how valuable what one sees in the field is to research progress. As a result, when he became a consultant, he drew from his clinical practice when coming up with grant ideas and research projects; he continued the legacy of observing trends in his patients and then looking into it. In 40 years, he didn’t have one grant rejected. His research also included basic science.

After graduating First Class from Medical College, he went to London, England, for residency and earned his Ph.D. in albumin metabolism at London University in record time. Already by that point in his training, he was interested in the basic science of nutrition and gastroenterological disease. He had always wanted to work in India, and with his wife and new baby (me), he moved to Bombay. He quickly became known for his ground-breaking research in areas such as lactose intolerance, and he started travelling the world on speaking engagements. But he found the conditions in India stifling; when he was offered a job in Toronto, he jumped at it. He passed his licensing and Specialist exams and drove to Sioux Lookout, Ontario to see patients in remote areas within months of starting as a gastroenterologist on staff at Toronto General Hospital and hasn’t looked back.

Tyler: Would you tell us more about Judy Taylor’s illness and the remedy that was created for it?

Shireen: Judy was a healthy young woman when she developed severe stomach pains. She put off going to the doctor and put off going to the doctor until she finally could not stand up for the agony. She had emergency surgery, and they discovered a small amount of her bowel had died. They didn’t know what had caused the necrosis, but felt that they had solved her problem. A week later, her pain became worse, and again they operated on her. This time the surgeons had to remove all of her intestines, leaving her with no way to digest food. Facing starvation, she begged her surgeons to help her live; fortunately, they learnt of the research Dr. Jeejeebhoy was doing on artificial feeding and sent her to him.

When she arrived on his ward, Dr. Jeejeebhoy, working with the hospital pharmacist, had to come up with a nutritionally complete solution that could be infused into her veins as she could no longer digest food. Basically, he had to find an alternative to her intestines. They had to consider protein, carbohydrate, fat, vitamin, and trace mineral requirements. His surgical colleague had to invent a permanent entranceway into her large vein in the chest that feeds into the heart. They had to figure out how to feed her this solution over 12 hours instead of 24, and then they had to figure out how she could manage this at home all on her own, far away from the hospital and the doctors. But before all that, they had to cure the rampant infection in her abdomen, for, you see, the rumps of her bowels were leaking and causing a mess inside her; they also had to ensure all her stomach juices went out of her body, instead of leaking inside it, and into a leg bag that masked any odours. Curing the infection was relatively easy; the Gastrostomy tube that went from her stomach into a leg bag never did work quite right, and they hoped for the best with this new alimentation, or TPN as it later came to be called, but when they sent her home on it, none of them knew how long she would live or what her quality of life would be like. As far as Judy was concerned though, life itself was good enough, and anyway she had no intention of lying on a couch all day. She had things to do. Dr. Jeejeebhoy had given her a second chance, and she was running with it.

Tyler: What was her quality of life for the twenty-one years she lived with the TPN? What did she do rather than lie around on the couch all day?

Shireen: After prolonged hospitalization, it usually takes one month to recover for every month in hospital. But once Judy started to get her legs under her again, the first thing she did was learn to drive. She needed to enroll her daughters in such programs as 4-H. To get them to their extracurricular activities, she needed to know how to drive. She was not a swift driver, but when she set her mind on doing something, she was going to do it.

Aside from some nutritional deficiencies in the early years that Dr. Jeejeebhoy cleared up, Judy was active, vital, and gave no hint to her neighbours and friends of having been very ill and being dependent on medical technology. Sure, she didn’t hide the fact that she didn’t eat at church dinners; instead, she would joke about it and be the first to volunteer to bring something. Most people found out about her being on TPN through the grapevine.

In addition to looking after her family, which she considered her core role, she volunteered in her community and in the hospital helping new patients adjust to TPN. She took an active role in a patient group in Toronto, travelled to the U.S. for Oley Foundation conferences, and to Sweden to talk about what it was like being on TPN and to meet the eager European press.

She boated with Cliff along the waterways in Ontario, went on road trips, and, of course, hosted her famous annual barbecues for her doctors and nurses and fellow lifeliners.

Unfortunately, the last few years of her life were not as healthy as the first: the price of being the guinea pig for TPN. And so she had to scale back her activities. However, she continued to help people in whatever capacity she could right to the end. For Judy, it was all worth it.

Tyler: How exactly does Total Parental Nutrition (TPN) work to feed someone?

Shireen: The usual method is that a surgeon implants a large catheter, referred to as a central catheter, into the veins in the neck and chest. One tip is threaded down until it is at the edge of the atrium of the heart. In that spot, the blood volume is high and fast enough to prevent clots from forming and blocking that end of the catheter. The other end is threaded out of the vein, under the skin, and finally emerges low enough down the chest for the patient to be able to see it.

The pharmacy provides a nutritionally complete solution, containing proteins, carbohydrates, electrolytes, and minerals to the patient. They also supply a fat solution in separate bags, and vitamins (and medications if necessary) in vials. The patient follows a prescribed routine to inject the vitamins into the protein-carbohydrate solution. They infuse this solution every night for about 10 to 12 hours a night into their central catheter. Following pharmacy instructions, they will also infuse the fat solution prior to the regular one on some nights. That will lengthen the feeding time by about a couple of hours. Although Judy never used a pump to push the solution into her catheter, most people do today.

Part of what the patient has to do every night is prepare the solutions and warm them up to room temperature, so that they are not cold going into the body, then connect the line from the solution bags to her own central catheter. They sleep during most of the feeding time. During the day, they must keep the catheter clear with a heparin block when the TPN is not connected up, and the skin around it clean. It took Judy only 15 minutes to do all this! Patients in other countries may have a different way of doing it, but the method devised by Dr. Jeejeebhoy is safe and allows the patient the most freedom and functionality in their daily lives. None of his patients have been invalids because of having to go on TPN. They run businesses, practice a profession, raise children, etc., and they always feel healthier as a result of going on it. For most, it means a brand new life, just like for Judy.

Tyler: How did your father, Dr. Jeejeebhoy, arrive at the idea for Total Parental Nutrition?

Shireen: The Europeans had been studying this idea for decades. Prof. Arvid Wretlind talks about this very topic in his Foreword to “Lifeliner” far better than I can. My father came into it after he settled down in Toronto, Canada. The patients sent his way were so sick, they were sometimes terminal. Since he wasn’t interested in all his patients dying on him, he looked into alternative ways of feeding them. A well-nourished body can fight disease and infection better than a starved or malnourished one.

Ever since I can remember, my father Dr. Jeejeebhoy has always had stacks of journals and photocopied articles piled on his desk. He reads slower than my mother, but he reads widely and extensively, not just limiting himself to human studies, but also animal studies and articles outside his field of specialty. From this continual feeding of his curiosity and from his drive to discover better ways to help his patients, he would have heard of what the Europeans and Americans were doing in the development of alimentation, as it was then called. He would have thought about what his patients were facing and looked for solutions in either his own basic science research in his laboratory at the University of Toronto or in the stack of medical journals. He would have asked himself if his patients’ stomachs and bowels couldn’t do the job of nourishing them, then perhaps feeding vitamins and minerals and carbohydrates and proteins directly into their bloodstream would.

He started working on this idea with his surgical colleague soon after he arrived in Toronto. His colleague wanted to nourish his post-operative patients in the short term while they recovered from their operations. That would speed their healing. Dr. Jeejeebhoy worked on doing just that. In those days, people took much longer to recover, and hospitals kept patients in much longer than they do now. Dr. Jeejeebhoy was basically still at this stage when Judy came into his care.

Tyler: I understand your father worked with Judy for twenty years through trial and error. Will you tell us a little about the process and the changes he made to TPN along the way?

Shireen:”Lifeliner” tells the big stories of the evolution of TPN from the time Judy first went on it until 1991 and of some of the nutritional discoveries made because of Judy’s experience, discoveries that would alter the composition of the TPN solutions. But in a nutshell, the process went like this: Judy would walk into Dr. Jeejeebhoy’s office and say, “Jeej, I have a problem. Fix it.” He’d say, “OK. What’s the problem?” She’d tell him, he’d send her for tests, sometimes he’d send her bloodwork to the U.S. for analysis as Canada didn’t have the facilities, sometimes he’d conduct tests most people haven’t heard of, and finally he would call her back into his office and say, “I don’t know exactly what the problem is. I’ll need to research it more and get back to you.” She would go home, joke to her friends and family about walking on pins and needles, and wait for his call back. In the meantime, she lived life to its fullest and not worried about whatever was ailing her (because of a nutritional deficiency). Jeej was looking after things, as far as she and her husband Cliff were concerned.

Eventually, Jeej would have an Ah-ha moment and ask Judy to come into the hospital where he wanted to try something out. Judy would tell Cliff, “Jeej wants me to be a guinea pig again.” Usually, Jeej’s hunch was right, and her problems would clear up, sometimes immediately and dramatically. Through this process, they made major nutritional discoveries, which we all benefit from today, and honed TPN into a much better system that fully nourishes anyone needing it.

Tyler: What was the timeframe during which your father treated Judy Taylor. How have medical treatments for Judy’s illness changed since that time?

Shireen: Judy was on TPN from October 7, 1970 until February 22, 1991. Although there have been attempts at bowel transplants, the best method of nourishing a person with no intestines remains TPN. The medication that caused her bowels to die in the first place has been refined so that now it is much safer to use.

Tyler: Tell us about your own memories of Judy Taylor. How aware were you of your father’s work during this time?

Shireen: I write in “Lifeliner” about the first time I remember meeting Judy. I was 10 years old and in awe of this woman who could bake delicious cookies yet did not eat any of them. I couldn’t imagine anyone wanting to bake something that they couldn’t eat. But Judy did, and I liked her for that.

My father had been taking me down to his office or to his lab outside of office hours since I was about 8 years old whenever he needed to pick up files from his office or check up on patients or the progress of his research. It was a way to spend time with my father even when he had work to do or his patients needed him. Even so, I stayed quietly out of the way while he was actually working (or I like to think I was quiet). I was pretty inquisitive, and he would explain things to me, sometimes to my satisfaction, sometimes not. I had some idea that he helped a lot of people and knew that he was the hub of much activity, and seeing “Lester,” the pole that Judy’s TPN hung from, helped me understand more about the kind of medicine he was practicing. As I grew older, I learnt more about nutrition through him and met more of his patients. Talking to his patients was revealing. They revered him because he had not only saved their lives, but given them back quality of life. Some of them became part of our social life, inviting my parents to weddings or parties, and I saw the positive effect he had on their lives.

Tyler: Shireen, what would you say has been your father’s influence on you. Did it interest you in medicine?

Shireen: I’m told that I became interested in medicine when my grandfather had a heart attack and he was lying in the CCU. I was 11 years old, and I remember looking at all the machines around him in awe, trying to understand what they were doing, hating him being sick.

Like his grandmother did for him, my father taught me about good thoughts, good words, good deeds-the Zoroastrian creed. He taught me about drive and tenacity, about curiosity (although I needed no lessons in that really, being constantly in questioning mode it seemed) and about broadmindedness, about reading outside your area of expertise and about finding answers in unusual places. And he always entertains with stories of life in India or stories from the lab.

I decided in the end that medicine was not for me. I was far more fascinated by psychology and really enjoyed writing stories.

Tyler: How successful was the treatment for Judy-how long did TPN prolong her life?

Shireen: I calculate that TPN prolonged Judy’s life by 20 years, 4 months, 3 weeks, and 6 days. In that it allowed her to live and to live that many more years, it was successful. In that it allowed her to meet her goals and to inspire other people and to help thousands, it was more successful than anyone could have imagined back in 1970!

Tyler: How did Judy die? Did her stomach problems get the best of her eventually despite the TPN?

Shireen: She died from infection, probably one that started in her Gastrostomy tube, a tube she would not have needed if there had been enough bowel left to connect the two ends and create a natural exit for her stomach juices. Ironically, the area around her Gastrostomy tube healed in the last few weeks. The TPN though was her friend to the end.

Tyler: I understand “Lifeliner” depicts Judy’s personal struggle along with her medical one. What lessons would you say she learned and wanted to impart about her struggle?

Shireen: She believed passionately that “living with Lester, or your pump or whatever, is a whole lot better than the alternative,” namely death. She believed that life was worth fighting for and that faith and a sense of humour got you halfway there to coping with whatever life throws at you. Her sense of humour certainly helped her cope. Being able to joke about things that made her afraid enabled her to get through them. They say laughter is the best medicine, and she certainly proved that right!

She also told people that “you’ve got to live through today, not yesterday and not tomorrow, but just through today.” Those are wise words to live by for anybody. Worrying about what has happened in the past or what will happen in the future can really paralyse a person in the present and prevent them from just smelling the roses or enjoying the challenges that the day may bring.

Tyler:Shireen, what kind of response have you received so far from readers?

(For the response to this question, please see http://www.readerviews.com/)

Tyler: Shireen, you had your own medical issues while you were in the process of writing “Lifeliner.” Will you share that struggle with us? Did you find it ironic that you underwent a medical trauma at the time you were writing about one?

Shireen: Ironic and frustrating, to say the least. I was within sight of finishing “Lifeliner” when boom, a couple of drivers drastically changed my plans. But in a way the book helped me cope. Having the book as a goal kept me at my rehab, working as hard as I could to get better. Reminding myself of the words of Rev. Ed Bentley, Judy’s minister, in particular, while I was writing “Lifeliner” brought light to the issues I was grappling with.

This period of my life all started when I ventured out into 905-land for a simple errand in early Y2K. I should have known better. A 416er, a Toronto gal, should only enter the suburbs in an armor-plated car with inertial dampers and force field surrounds. Thump… BANG… Bang! Two high-flying cars shoved our stopped car into the car in front; my brain made like jello inside its solid skull, my neck like a whip. The final tally was a neck sprain, two shoulder sprains, impairment of blood supply into right arm (and a bit into left), ulnar nerve problems in the left arm, and a closed head injury.

It was the closed head injury in particular that changed my plans for a very long time. It slowed my processing down to a crawl (even today I still respond slower than normal); it destroyed my concentration and ability to focus and refocus after an interruption; I can no longer multi-task; I went from having a photographic memory to a poor one; I had trouble communicating, whether speaking or listening; I struggled with reading and learning, me who had started reading at age 2 or 3; I developed olfactory hallucinations; I lost myself; and I became very, very tired, a fatigue made worse by any mental or physical effort.

At the time of the crash, I was writing “Lifeliner: The Judy Taylor Story.” I had completed the research and three chapters and was in the middle of writing a chapter. I was on track to finishing it that year. After the crash, I thought I’d be able to get back to it within a few months. Needless to say, I couldn’t. It took me a long time to understand fully what a brain injury meant, and although I started outpatient neuro-rehab about 8 months after the crash and about when a brain scan showed abnormalities, it was many more months, if not years, before I accepted in my heart that I really had sustained a brain injury. And, as well, as my functioning improved bit by bit over the years, leading to doing more in the day, I would then bump into new problems with my cognition. The one that made me redouble my efforts to find treatment, as opposed to just learning how to compensate, was when I discovered I had lost the kind of problem solving abilities one uses in day-to-day work or social life. That was in 2005, over 5 years after the injury. Up to that point, the medical model had taught me compensating strategies for my cognitive difficulties, suggested taking a writing course to relearn how to write, and minimally helped me adapt to my new life, my new personality, and all the losses that I’d sustained as a result of the injury. But none of this actually healed the brain; that was left up to the brain to do on its own. Exercise and some supplements I took, as well as acupuncture, may have helped the brain heal, but not enough to make it possible for me to write “Lifeliner.”

Since I thought that the brain injury felt like ADD, I started to search for ADD treatment (I had been searching for brain-injury treatment or therapy for about 2 years at this point, with no results) and found the ADD Centre in Mississauga, a city on the west side of Toronto. God must have agreed this was the place I needed to go because first, the medical doctor who does the EEGs answered the phone when I rang, which was unusual. And second, an appointment in about 3 weeks had just opened up, and so I didn’t have to wait the usual 4 months. They assessed my functioning with computer tests and a 19-point EEG, and then they devised a treatment plan, using brain biofeedback. Basically, brain biofeedback is when the client has an electrode placed on a pre-determined spot on the head and then uses their brain to manipulate what’s on the computer screen in order to promote or depress certain brain waves.

These treatments made it possible for me to write “Lifeliner.” After two years of exhausting brain biofeedback treatments, some of which was experimental and which involved two electrodes placed on the head to improve coherence between two parts of the brain, I have regained a lot of my cognitive functioning. I can focus far better, I can write more words within my limitations (I still cannot write 16,000-word chapters like I used to, but it’s no longer as low as 800 words either), I’m more alert, I’m aware, my processing speed has increased measurably, and my speech is for the most part no longer flat but has prosody. I continue to use a neurofeedback unit at home to stimulate certain brain waves, and I still have enormous problems with, among other things, my stamina and with my reading-that is, understanding what I’m reading, remembering what I have read up to the point of where I’m at, learning from what I’ve read, and synthesizing it with previous knowledge-as well as other areas. But right now I’m taking a hiatus from the treatments while I market the book; I intend to return in the fall or early 2009. We’re also seeing how much spontaneous healing will occur during this time off.

However in spite of the large strides I made with the treatments by early 2006, I still needed “human resource” help, as my rehab team put it many years ago, in order to write my manuscript. I needed someone to be my lost organizational abilities, and Miriam Taylor found that person for me. Between the time I finished my manuscript and the time I decided to go with iUniverse, I healed more, to the extent that I was able to work with iUniverse’s editors in 2007 to add more to the story under their direction. I decided to go with iUniverse because I had already lost 7 years, and I didn’t want to wait any longer to see it in print. I had also heard good things about iUniverse and wasn’t disappointed.

I am pleased with the results. I have accepted the fact that the book I wrote is different from what I had planned; I hit the highlights of Judy’s life. Plus it is finished.

Tyler: Shireen, you have had such a diverse background in science and in writing. What made you decide to focus on Judy Taylor’s story for your first full-length book?

Shireen: A friend of Judy’s and mine suggested to me that someone should write her story. A light bulb went off in my head. I had been writing short stories for a few years at that point, and Judy Taylor’s story seemed to me a good way to get into writing books. Hers was a fascinating life, I knew the characters personally, and it excited me to write on a subject that no one else had. So often we tell the same stories in different ways, but in this case no one had written about TPN for the general population, and no one had written about this Canadian pioneering duo of Judy and Jeej. I started immediately.

Tyler: Do you think you will write any more books, despite the difficulties your injuries have caused you, or what do you plan to do next in your life?

Shireen: Writing is my love and my passion. I may have limitations, but I cannot foresee a future without it.

Tyler: Shireen, how does your father feel about your having written his and Judy’s story?

Shireen: Very pleased! He was delighted and supportive that I took the trouble to do it, particularly to write the story from Judy’s angle.

Tyler: Thank you for joining me today, Shireen. Before we go, will you tell us about your website and what additional information may be found there about “Lifeliner”?

Shireen: It was my pleasure Tyler. My website is at http://jeejeebhoy.ca/ and visitors can find a wealth of information there. I have a sneak peek into “Lifeliner,” reviews, a blog, relevant links, pages on me and Dr. Jeejeebhoy, photographs of Judy and her lifeline, articles translated from the original Swedish on Judy, references, a Guestbook, and direct affiliate links to purchase “Lifeliner” at the big online bookstores in Canada, the U.S., and Europe. Visitors can also subscribe to the site to be notified of any upcoming events or news about “Lifeliner.” I update it regularly and have in the pipeline some new features I want to add, like questions for book clubs and more stories.

Tyler: Thank you, Shireen, for sharing Judy, Dr. Jeejeebhoy and your story with us. I hope it inspires many people.

Shireen: Thank you Tyler.

Interview With Niall McLaren, Author of “Humanizing Madness”

Today, Tyler R. Tichelaar is pleased to be joined by psychiatrist Niall McLaren, who is here to discuss his new book “Humanizing Madness: Psychiatry and the Cognitive Neurosciences, an Application of the Philosophy of Science to Psychiatry,” Future Psychiatry Press (2007), ISBN 9781932690392.

Niall McLaren, who prefers to be called Jock, has been an M.D. and practicing psychiatrist since 1977. Since then, he has undertaken a far-reaching research program, some of which has previously been published. For six years, while working in the Kimberley Region of Western Australia, he was the world’s most isolated psychiatrist. He is married with two children and lives in a tropical house hidden in the bush near Darwin, Australia.

Tyler: Welcome, Jock. I’m glad you could join me to talk about “Humanizing Madness.” I understand the book has grown out of years of research. Would you begin by telling us how you came to write the book?

Jock: When I began my training in psychiatry, I had completed three years as an ordinary hospital based medical officer, fully intending to train in neurosurgery, or perhaps plastics, as Royal Perth Hospital had a very good burns unit and I found it fascinating. At the end of my three years, I was given the chance of a term in psychiatry and suddenly realized that this was what I wanted, the right combination of ideas and getting to know people. I still miss working with my hands, but I do that at home. However, almost immediately when I joined the psychiatry training program, I realized there was something wrong. In one afternoon, we could have a lecture from the professor of psychiatry, telling us that all mental disorder was just a special form of brain disease, and cures for psychiatric conditions consisted of drugs to correct chemical imbalances of the brain. He would be followed by a private psychiatrist giving us lectures on psychoanalysis, with the final slot going to a behaviorist psychologist who cheerfully told us that the medical model was a load of hooey, that all mental disorder was learned and should be managed by the principles of Pavlov, or of Skinner, he was never quite sure. However, like the other two, he claimed to be teaching us the science of mental disorder.

Now my fellow-trainees soaked all this up avidly, taking reams of notes and hurrying away to the library to study the latest journals but, if this was what our education in psychiatry was to be, I wasn’t happy with it. I could not get away from the idea that there can be only one correct scientific model, not three warring models, each of which acts as though the other two didn’t exist. It didn’t stop there. During our case discussions and on the wards, the psychiatrists would jump from one theory to another with not the slightest hint of any intellectual discomfort. And something else occurred to me while I was watching all this. In any university department, there are subspecialties. For example, in biology, there were professors of zoology and of botany; each of whom supervised a number of departments, such as entomology, marine biology, genetics, ecology and so on. Now these people were all perfectly polite to each other, had morning tea together, and ignored what the others were doing. They were specialists, all contributing in their own ways to the huge, amorphous project called science. But in psychiatry, each specialty was saying not just that the others were irrelevant, but were wrong. I could not reconcile this.

So I decided the only way out of it was to know more about each field than the specialists, meaning more biology than the biological psychiatrists, more psychoanalytic theory than the Freudians and more behaviorism than the psychologists. Very soon, this led to further trouble as it was obvious that each field had its problems. For example, reading the standard text on psychoanalysis, Otto Fenichel’s classic Psychoanalytic theory of neurosis, I very quickly decided psychoanalysts couldn’t possibly know what they were claiming to know of early infantile life. It’s not enough to say the infant remembers its first few days of life when its cerebral memory areas haven’t even joined up with the rest of the brain. I didn’t read beyond page 29 and never have.

Gradually, I drifted to the side, gaining a reputation for being a disputatious killjoy, a nit-picking, hair-splitting smart alec, but I was having a good time. I quickly completed the department’s boring reading program and immediately started my own. For example, when the other trainees re-read their standard student textbooks of neurology, I devoured huge chunks of the monumental “Handbook of Neurology” edited by Vinken and Bruyn. And I have always had a strong sense of history, so I read the different authors’ original works, not just what people said they had said, and found mistakes everywhere. It was only years later that I realized I had been excluded from the life of the department. Without knowing it, I had become the trainee who was never invited to morning tea with the professor. In a small city where every psychiatrist knew all the others, I was an outsider before I graduated. I didn’t mind, I was busy with my own program and didn’t notice.

This wasn’t just in the hospitals. I joined the local psychotherapy association but not for long. They invited a psychologist who had just returned from Poona, in India, where he had joined the Orange People, to give a talk. It was incoherent religiose nonsense but the audience lapped it up. When I said he sounded like a fanatical preacher, not a scientist, he glibly evaded the question and refused to answer further questions. A few weeks later, they invited him back as people wanted to know more about his “conversion” from behaviorism to letting it all hang out. I complained, saying the committee clearly couldn’t tell the difference between religion and science. They told me I was too rigid in my thinking and ought to loosen up, so I resigned. Years later, I actually called in at the ashram when I was passing through Poona and was disgusted by their venal chicanery.

So a few days after I passed my final exams in psychiatry, I went to the medical library and decided that I would write the definitive scientific model for psychiatry. Just like that. However, the truly bizarre thing is this: nobody in psychiatry today accepts that he or she does not have an agreed model on which to base his or her practice, teaching and research. Talking of the Arab world, PJ O’Rourke said it is not so much a world as a quarrel with borders and this is so very true of psychiatry. Trouble is, psychiatrists resent being told it. I wonder why?

Tyler: Jock, why do you think the establishment, or the university where you studied, was unwilling to acknowledge its own contradictions? Do you think this is a political issue within academia and science?

Jock: Thomas Kuhn defined the field of the sociology of science and nobody has improved on his views. Politics means “pertaining to the city,” and anything to do with groups of people is political. We’re like the rest of the great apes, we are both territorial and hierarchical creatures, and this applies just as much to universities and scientific institutions as to any street gang-except the gangs tend to be more honest. The great Thomas Huxley said: “Science, I fear, is no purer than any other region of human activity. Merit alone is very little good.” In sport, men jostle to get to the top. In war, they fight to get to the top. In science, we have ideas, and the whole point of the scientific ethos is to criticize the existing ideas in order to improve on them. However, the quest for new ideas is two-fold, as Broad and Wade said: “Science has been an arena in which men have striven for two goals: to understand the world, and to achieve recognition for their personal efforts in doing so.” So if Professor Smith has got to the top by his one good idea, and some obstreperous upstart comes along and says, “Sorry, old chap, but your idea is wrong here and here,” is the good professor going to resign his chair in favour of the newcomer? Most certainly not. An out-of-date professor is the most useless thing on earth; he can’t even get a job as a gardener. He goes to the bottom of the hierarchy, and we know what happens to alpha male baboons when they are defeated. They die. So the professor does like the old alpha male; he fights, and he fights bitterly with any and every tool at his disposal. The resistance to new ideas has got nothing to do with reason and everything to do with emotional attachments to the instruments that get you to the top. In science, that means ideas. Does it make sense for a scientist simply to publish his ideas and not sign his name to them?

I’d recommend that book by Broad and Wade. It’s called “Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and deceit in the halls of science” (London: Century, 1983). It’s about the pressures that drive ordinary people to cheat to get ahead. It’s really quite scary.

Tyler: You state in the book that all the major theories of psychology are so flawed that they are beyond salvation. Will you give us some examples of what is wrong with psychology?

Jock: I use the term psychology to mean ‘a general theory of normal mental function.’ Strictly speaking, this excludes biological psychiatry, which is a theory of abnormal mental function, but biological psychiatrists also make claims about the way the healthy mind functions, so they’re included. I don’t believe anybody needs to be bothered with Freudian psychology these days. It is true that Freud made some interesting observations about certain sorts of mental problems, but it is also true that his attempts to write a general theory of normal mental life went off the rails. His theories caused a huge diversion into fantasy land for psychiatry but the worst part was the tradition of arrogance he and his fanatical followers engendered. Behaviorist psychology, in the tradition of Watson, Pavlov and Skinner, arose as a reaction to vapid mentalism. It was an attempt to forge a scientific psychology in the ephemeral world of mind, by sidestepping the immeasurable in favor of a rigid model of scientific certainty. But it was boring, a hollow truism. For about 80 years, they dominated the academic world of psychology, then they just faded away. The journals are still there, but the fire is gone. I recently asked a psychology student what he knew about conditioning but he wasn’t sure. “Something to do with Pavlov’s dog?” he asked hesitantly. Yes indeed. Pavlov’s dog died.

Biological psychiatry is the big one, all the big money is on chemical imbalances. It is a truly astounding fact that biological psychiatrists abuse psychoanalysts for building their theories on one or two chance observations, yet so do they. A paper published last week by a most distinguished neurophysiologist could only cite the discovery of the cause of neurosyphilis and of Alzheimer’s Disease, a hundred years ago (Bennett MR: Development of the Concept of mind, ANZJP, 2007; 41: 943-956). They’ve been flying on promises ever since. Eric Kandel, of Columbia University, Nobel prizewinner in medicine and physiology from 2000, recently announced that “radical reductionism” would rejuvenate psychoanalysis by tying it to biology. Trouble is, he had no idea what ropes to use, or where to tie them. It isn’t enough to say: Science will find a way. We need to know where to look. Some direct connection has to be found between brain and mind before the basic principle of biological psychiatry can be deemed a success. I’ve looked but I can’t find it. It would probably be fair to say that I have written more on the philosophy of biological psychiatry than all the biological psychiatrists in history put together, but all I have been able to do is show that there never will be a biological theory of mind. Would I like to? You bet. The person who can show exactly how to reduce mind to brain will become a billionaire many times over. I wish him well because I can’t do it.

Tyler: What value then, does psychology have?

Jock: For psychiatry, psychology is just a technology. I use the word to mean “a general theory of normal mental function.” There hasn’t been a general theory of mind yet. I’ve offered one. It’s now up to other people to look at it and find its faults; then I will either correct them and move on, or discard it and try again. But if you mean psychology as it is presently taught in universities and practiced in a wide variety of settings, I think psychology has oversold itself. In France in 2005, there were 46,000 psychology students. Why? What are they all going to do? And who’s going to pay them to do it?

Part of the problem is the intellectual vacuum in psychiatry. If we had a decent theory of psychiatry, then we wouldn’t have psychiatrists hiding in their offices, writing prescriptions for patients they hardly know, while psychologists, social workers, nurses and anybody who wishes to call him or herself a “counselor” actually talks to them. Well, I believe I’ve put up a decent theory of psychiatry, but psychologists needn’t get too excited. I never use psychologists. Or nurses, or social workers, or administrators, for that matter. The website for Georgetown University Dept. of Psychiatry (Washington DC) says they provide over 15,000 visits per year for mentally ill people. Working entirely alone, without any support services whatsoever, I provide 3,800 per year myself, at a tiny fraction of their costs. Shortly, I will be putting case histories on my website to show the types of cases I manage as outpatients.

Tyler: Jock, you don’t sound impressed with the way psychology and psychiatry are taught. What do you think is the solution to this failure to educate properly?

Jock: The failure of psychiatry and psychology to train their students is due to one thing and one thing alone: the lack of a proper model of mental disorder. In fact, this problem is now self-sustaining because medicine does not train people to be critical. In academia, it is the inevitable fate of every professor to be overthrown by his students. They don’t teach that in medical school; instead, we have the imperious professor stalking the corridors of power, dragging his retinue of adoring or terrified students after him. No professor ever said: “This is my idea and I would like to hear your criticisms.” That goes back to the sociology of science-and the emotional insecurity of most professors.

Tyler: I understand you have redefined what mental disorder is, and from that redefinition you have created a new rational basis for the theory of psychology?

Jock: That’s not entirely correct. I haven’t redefined mental disorder; it’s been around for as long as people have been around. I have offered a new model of normal mental function which serves as a basis for a general theory for psychiatry, and that’s totally new. Never happened before. From that flows a new, much more dynamic model of mental disorder. The current view is: “When the mind goes awry, there is an underlying brain disorder causing the problem” (Prof. Bennett, the neurophysiologist-cum-psychiatric expert again). I do not agree. I have outlined a mechanism by which the mind arises from the brain as a perfectly rational, natural phenomenon. This model predicts that there will be psychological disorders that are purely the result of pre-existing psychological factors. That is, people can be mentally ill yet their brains are perfectly healthy. It is simply not true to claim that all mental illness is due to a “chemical imbalance” of the brain, whatever that silly expression is supposed to mean.

Just in case there is any misunderstanding, I do believe that mental disorder is a reality. I believe there are people who, purely in the mental realm, are so disturbed and distressed that they cannot function properly. I do not believe that mental illness is manufactured, or that it is just a case of poor moral self-control, or lack of faith, or lack of social skills, or masturbation or any of those other vapid ideological stances. Mental illness is a reality. It hurts. People do not kill themselves for fun. People cannot have a panic attack just to liven a dull wet afternoon. That’s it.

Tyler: Would you tell us more about how this theory is based on your work studying the physical structure of the human brain?

Jock: The physical structure of the brain is of a high-speed, multi-channel data analyzer. That’s not quite true. It is a collection of high-speed, multi-channel data analyzers, some dedicated, some with what are called universal computing capacities. It has been said that the human brain is the most complex thing in the known universe, and I have no trouble with that suggestion. We don’t even know if it is too complex for us ever to understand, but I think we will. Now this remarkable organ generates a huge set of competencies and, from those, a series of higher-order virtual spaces that, collectively, we call the mind. There is no such thing as the mind. There is no such thing as consciousness. There is no such thing as consciousness devoid of its contents or pure consciousness because consciousness is just a name we give to those contents. This is the really interesting bit of the theory. Can we give a rational account of the emergence of mind from brain? I believe we can, but not with any of the parlor tricks that have been used in the past, like Mind-Brain identity theory, or Daniel Dennett’s glib version of functionalism. The mind has to be taken seriously. Showing exactly how we generate the sense of “being something that knows it’s something” is not going to be easy.

Tyler: Jock, what kind of response has your research received from others in the field of psychiatry?

Jock: Shithouse. Apart from one or two brief administrative matters, I haven’t actually spoken to a psychiatrist for over two years. That’s pretty normal.

On December 13th this year, it was exactly 30 years since I decided on this project. In that time, I have not received a penny from any government or any foundation or any individual or company of any sort. I have done the whole of this work from my own resources. Nobody else has so much as typed a word of it. Nobody read a word of that book before it was published. And I have never received a moment’s encouragement from anybody who understood it. Over the years, a couple of people have said: “It sounds very interesting and you should keep on with it but we don’t understand a word of it.” My attempts to get it published are usually rejected. For example, the paper that formed the basis of Chapter 12 (“Interactive dualism as a partial solution to the mind-body problem”) was rejected by the “Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry” on the basis that it didn’t represent the results of scientific research and didn’t meet their “scholastic standards.” So I had it published overseas. Yet, on Thursday last week, the same journal published a paper that talked about the historical grounds of the claim that mental disorder is brain disorder (Bennett’s paper). This paper is pseudo-science supported by pseudo-philosophy. I knocked out a rebuttal in about thirty minutes and sent it to the editor. If it is published, good; if not, it will go in my blog. But if the journal had published my paper, they would not have been able to publish Bennett’s. I have often said that it is easier to get rubbish published in psychiatry than it is to get a rebuttal of the rubbish into print.

The same goes for conferences. In 2005, I applied to present three papers at the Sydney congress of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. One paper, which was fairly mild stuff, was allocated to the last slot in the last session on the last day. Last time they did that to me, I had an audience of seven people in a hall for 700 for a paper that had taken months to write. The other two weren’t accepted, so I decided: Never again. So why not send it overseas? Same thing. If you don’t have the recommendation of a Big Name, forget it. Journals look at your address first. Some years ago, a well-known professor of psychiatry in Melboune told a patient of mine: “Any psychiatrist who works in Darwin is a drop-out.” I know him. He wouldn’t survive five minutes away from his narcissistic life support machine called a university department.

Why are psychiatrists so antagonistic to new ideas, when it is their duty as scientists to criticize their own theories? I have no idea. Ask them, but if you get an answer, please tell me. I routinely ask psychiatrists: “Please tell me the name of the theory you use in your daily practice, teaching and research, and give me three seminal references to it.” I never get an answer. Never.

Tyler: Jock, who do you view as your readers, other psychiatrists, students of psychiatry, or people who have loved ones with mental illnesses?

Jock: Henri Poincare, President of France during WWI, said: “War is too important to be left to generals.” Mental disorder affects about a quarter of the world’s population directly, and another half indirectly. Psychiatrists have had responsibility for developing a theory of mental disorder for the past 200 years. What have they come up with? “When the mind goes awry, there is a concomitant pathological change in the brain” (that’s Prof. Bennett again) or “There cannot be a psychiatry which is too biological” (Samuel Guze) or “The biology of mind” (Eric Kandel). After 200 years, the question of what constitutes a proper theory for psychiatry has to move beyond mere wishful thinking, beyond empty platitudes dressed in neuroscience at stupefying cost to the public purse.

Recently, I invited the president, the chief examiner and the chief editor of the RANZCP to a public debate on the topic: “The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists does not have a scientific model of psychiatry to guide its practice, teaching and research.” Now, this was their golden opportunity to get rid of one of their most persistent pests, so what did they do? They declined. In a letter dated October 31st 2007, the president-elect wrote: “…the Executive Officers of the College… believe that it is not a role of the College nor appropriate to debate publicly such issues. We do however encourage internal discussion and comment… and suggest you consider publication (in the College journals).” That would be good, if it happened, but it doesn’t. If they encourage internal discussion, it’s the first I’ve ever heard of it.

It is my view that the profession of psychiatry has shown itself incapable of conducting a proper scientific debate on the nature of mental disorder. Therefore, the debate must be extended into the public arena. But beware: it is not an unbiased debate. There is huge money involved and, worst of all, academic reputations. However, I have not come to do a hatchet job on the profession. There are lots of drooling journalists hoping to do it for me.

Tyler: What do you hope your book will accomplish?

Jock: I take the view that there are certain subjects a responsible citizen must notice. The arms race, climate change, political extremism, human rights, religious fanaticism, conservation and such like are major issues that we ignore at our peril. So is mental disorder. If this book becomes a sort of latter-day “Silent Spring,” taking the question from the hands of an inward-looking group with century-old ideas, and placing it on the general public agenda, then I will have done my job.

Tyler: Jock, if the psychiatric and academic establishment won’t listen to you, how do you plan to get your book noticed to get your message across?

Jock: The psychiatric and academic establishment will listen, but it might not be this week. They will listen because sociology is on my side. In essence, every rising generation wants to overthrow the establishment, every young man wants to be the new alpha male of the troop, and quite a few young ladies, as well. As time goes by, more and more trainees will read my work and decide for themselves. It’s also written for any reasonably educated person to read. Mental health is one of the half dozen issues that every thinking person should consider.

Now I’m not telling anybody what to believe; all I’ve done is set out an argument, and I leave it to the reader. Old psychiatrists might be fooled by things like the biopsychosocial model but young people won’t. James Thurber said you can fool too many of the people too much of the time, but it doesn’t last forever. For example, Prof. Bruce Singh of Melbourne said Engel’s biopsychosocial model was one of the towering intellectual achievements of the twentieth century but I said it doesn’t exist. It was never written; it’s pure propaganda, a shibboleth to fool the uninitiated. Only one of us is right. The younger generation can make up their own minds because I don’t order anybody to believe anything. It’s a bit of a joke, really; I’ll never be the alpha male of psychiatry because people can accept what I say or disregard it as they like. I don’t have a reputation or a department to defend in psychiatry so I have nothing to lose. C’est la vie.

Tyler: What are the likely long-term effects that you expect from your work?

Jock: There are likely to be at least four major effects from this work. In the first place, the direct, intended effect, is to transform psychiatry. Psychiatry is in a state of impending collapse. Due to their lack of a proper model of mental disorder, psychiatrists have been abandoning their field for a generation or more, to the point where they are no longer in charge. In fact, if they didn’t have legal responsibility for people admitted to mental hospitals, and control over psychotropic drugs, I think psychiatry would have practically ceased to exist in large parts of the world. So I am looking for major changes in the way psychiatry is taught, in the way it is practiced, and in its entire research effort.

Secondly, if my work takes hold, then the sprawling and growing field of what is called “counselling” or “therapy” will be reined in very sharply. These days, it seems that every tiny college offers courses in psychology, social work, drug and alcohol counselling, and cures for every upset in life, such as bereavement, marriage and family crisis, gambling, every kind of social, educational, industrial and health trauma and so on, not to mention the explosive growth in the sexual counselling industry. We have counsellors for the counsellors, conferences and a publishing industry second to none. With a halfway decent sort of psychiatric service, most of these would disappear.

Tyler: Jock, what do you feel the future must be for psychiatry?

Jock: I believe psychiatry is long overdue for a revolution. It needs to be dragged out of the nineteenth century, when all its major theories were formulated, into the modern era.

Tyler: Thank you for joining me today, Jock. Before we go, will you tell us where our readers may go online to find out additional information about your research and “Humanizing Madness”?

Jock: My website is http://www.futurepsychiatry.com complete with a blog. I might be going to the US in a few months for a lecture tour but, meantime, I like to hear from people. Thirty years of silence is a long time.