Talk:Daniel Amen

Attempted whitewashing

I've reverted a series of edits which made some substantial chanegs to the article. In particular, the changes to the lead completely changed the tone, and made it no longer summarise the rest of the article. Given the history of this article, it is very hard to believe this is not yet another attempt to whitewash. SmartSE (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - I looked at the Talk page but didn't look at the date to realize the pseudoscience discussion was so recent. I can understand the sensitivity. I know that SPECT and PET scans have been used clinically pretty regularly now, so I was surprised when it was criticized in the article. When I updated the page I realized that all of the criticisms were from 2012 or earlier, which is kind of a long time ago for this stuff. The newer journal articles now only discuss how to standardize the procedure (which is still an issue along with radiation), but the utility is not really argued. The Amen stub was written in a way that sounded to a lay person like he gave the patient a SPECT scan and then read the diagnosis from the SPECT. This isn't the way that it is normally used, nor the way Amen describes it. He describes it as another tool that should be used by physicians for a correct diagnosis and treatment; specifically, what in a psychiatric condition can be ascribed to legitimate brain damage or disease. The fact that he makes all patients undergo the procedure is a bit of a fishing expedition on his part, which leads to the main (legitimate) criticism about unnecessary radiation exposure, which I kept. I used his own peer-reviewed journal articles as sources. The article is written in a way that maligns SPECT as a diagnosis tool for brain disorders, which is simply wrong. I changed the article to reflect this, while maintaining the criticisms that performing it on every patient is probably unwarranted by the Amen Clinics. However, all of the articles saying it isn't ready for use in clinics are outdated, which is to be expected in science.Blacklist21 (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This edit a) added a ref that is (i) a primary source (ii) authored in part by Amen and b) added a quote without attributing who said it. Not good. Your claims in your edit note here and above are unsourced. Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Not bad either. a) (i) and (ii) are much the same, so I will answer both together. It is a primary source authored largely by

Amen, but it is from a peer reviewed journal, which is treated differently. See Policy under WP:PRIMARY (Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.) It has been scrutinized and accepted by other scientists/doctors prior to publication. If you want to know how Amen practices medicine, he tells you in the source, which is completely acceptable in this case. This change was to clarify how Amen uses SPECT, which is currently unclear in the stub. This isn't a self-published or promoted primary source. This does not violate wikipedia rules. Again, this is from a peer-reviewed journal. Regarding b) attribution is implied when the sentence starts with "Amen advocates for..." and the reference notes the author and the quote; however, a simple edit could have fixed that, without assuming bad faith. I know what I am doing when I reference Amen's papers. It is not puffery or promotion. Regarding the use of SPECT, please note the paper by Zheng at al, where in the introduction the authors state "Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) with 99mTc-ethyl cysteine dimer (99mTc-ECD) has been widely used to evaluate many types of cerebrovascular diseases and brain disorders by measuring regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF). Moreover, longitudinal 99mTc-ECD SPECT brain imaging can be adopted to monitor the changes of rCBF to support the treatment plan." This is also free. These are all peer-reviewed papers from scientists and doctors in the field in journals specific for psychiatry. Feel free to use these to change Amen's lede if you don't want to use his own (peer-reviewed) papers. However, if you choose to leave the lede the same, it is no longer NPOV. Please note, I tried to put the above references into this answer but apparently I don't know how to do it. Here are the links to the papers: (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5307251/) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3733258/) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4253641/)·Blacklist21 (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Please read MEDRS. "peer reviewed" is not enough for MEDRS, and more generally we base WP content on independent sources as much as possible.

Also please thread your posts (see Help:Talk_pages#Indentation - threading is basic etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and if you will not follow it, people will just start ignoring you. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize that when I added references it cut out half of my response. Thanks for MEDRS. In my above response, there are three secondary sources. Those took all of 5 minutes to find. Please re-write the lede using those or others like it. If you don't, I will. The current lede is still not correct with the way SPECT is used in psychiatry, or the way Amen says he uses it, or the way others (Blume et al) say he uses it.Blacklist21 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

If you are referring to the three articles linked at the end of your post above, PMC 5307251/ PMID 28251150 is a primary source; also from Hindawi which is a borderline predatory publisher, and not what we should be using. PMC 3733258 / PMID 23926462 is published by OMICS which is the poster child for predatory publishers and we will not use it, ever. PMC 4253641 / PMID 25239242 is OK. It discusses the use of SPECT in research in a couple of spots; it does not say anything close to "SPECT is accepted for use in neuropsychiatric clinical diagnosis and monitoring". It discusses SPECT in psych like the research modality that it is. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. No longer interested. I don't have the time. Enjoy the badly written article.Blacklist21 (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Do we have a policy that disallows citing predatory journals? "Predatory" doesn't necessarily equate to "unreliable". ~Anachronist (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Well besides just the common sense of it, and the basic scholarship of it, a) MEDRS specifically warns against them, and b) there are people who go around removing citations to them, since refspam in WP is a great way to drive links to these harmful journals. Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm just concerned that legitimate researchers who get misled may end up publishing good material. But I guess without peer review, there's no way to tell the good from the bad. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't help thinking that this article is written with a certain amount of bias. For example, the word "touts" introduced in the lead in July this year is pejorative. I think it was better and more neutral as "advocates". The numerous quotes from reputable psychologists condemning the procedure are enough without adding a non-neutral word like "touts". Kanjuzi (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

"Touts" is more accurate to the sources, because it's not just advocacy, its unethical selling too. "Neutral" mean aligned to sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I still say "touts" is a non-neutral word. For example, even though all the sources cited may imply that Daniel Amen is a charlatan, it would not be appropriate in a Wikipedia article to say "Daniel Amen is a charlatan" but rather: "Daniel Amen is a psychiatrist whose advocacy of SPECT scans has been condemned by many psychiatrists as unscientific" or the like. Kanjuzi (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not just (and not even so much) the advocacy, as the big business _selling_. We need to capture the sense of the sources, precisely in order to be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we have adequately captured the sense of the sources. Indeed the whole article almost exclusively quotes those sources. But concerning your reversion of the citation to an article by Amen et al, supporting the statement that he advocates the use of SPECT scans in diagnosis, if it is to a "junk source", how come Farah and Gillihan cite the same article? There is a sufficient weight of citations here condemning Amen's methods. Even though the jury may come down heavily on the side of condemnation, as it does here, a trial in which the accused is not allowed to say even one word in his own defence is a biased one. Moreover, Farah and Gillihan call the use of SPECT scans in diagnosis "premature and unproven"; they do not rule out the possibility that one day in future their use may be clinically accepted. SPECT brain scans are offered by such respected centres as the Mayo Clinic. That puts them in a slightly different category from other branches of quack medicine. Therefore to present a neutral point of view it is appropriate not to be so obvious in supporting the side of condemnation, but merely report in a neutral way, without using loaded words such as "tout", what the scientific consensus is. A Wikipedia article should present the evidence and allow the readers to make up their minds, rather than telling them which side to support. Kanjuzi (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

You are advocating WP:GEVAL, which is counter to policy. WP:PSCI requires us to label tosh as tosh. Your source was unreliable per WP:MEDRS and WP:FRIND. Alexbrn (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I still say that "touts" is a loaded word and not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. As for violating the "Giving Equal Validity" policy, it is hardly giving equal validity to have one citation in favour when it is followed by twenty or more reliable sources strongly giving the opposite point of view. I would welcome it if some other readers other than Alexbrn were to add their views. However, keep "touts" if you like, rather than "advocates", since as soon as any reader sees it they will be warned (as I was) that the article is written from a non-neutral point of view. Kanjuzi (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The language of the new version is certainly now improved. Kanjuzi (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve the article: activity scans? how cysts are diagnosed? what SPECT scans look like? Pseudoscience?

as i'm an amateur scientist and layman, after seeing the Ted talk on YouTube and then looking at this article, my initial thoughts are (and these can be directions for improving the article)

1. The Wikipedia article helped me notice the lack of scientific validation of the use of activity scanning for SPECT scans.
2. maybe some of the example cases (the athlete with a cyst) could have been detected by other types of scans! (I can look that up!)
3. What's a range of normal activity scans for a normal brain? The Ted talk shows one where the whole brain is active but is it taken the same way as the others? How much time does a SPECT scan take? What kind of image do I get from it; is it like another kind of CT scan or ultrasound where I can get the results on a CD? In the Ted talk it just shows stills.
4. is it true that other psychiatrists are "guessing" and "throwing darts at the patient" when they prescribe meds with black-box warnings when presented with ambiguous "clusters of symptoms"? Maybe psychiatry is a pseudoscience too! (I can look up psychiatry.)
5. On this talk page, of the talk combatants I'm surprised to see some chastised by a moderator and not some others. Mod?

Not making an appointment for a SPECT scan yet! Thanks Thinkadoodle (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to say, the very first thing that I wanted to find on the page is what is this SMART treatment program?? Is it just vitamins and exercise or meditation? Crossword puzzles? Some new kind of brain yoga? I can only speculate. I thought maybe the difference in result images is from when he fiddles with the knob on the SPECT machine possibly?? Ted talk at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esPRsT-lmw8 entitled "The most important lesson from 83,000 brain scans". Thinkadoodle (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear from the sources what the science says. As to the history of edits here, you'll no doubt have seen this article has been plagued by (sometimes dishonest) paid editors and PR people trying to push a pro-SPECT POV. Alexbrn (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Useful, protect content

His books and quackery are peddled uncritically in Central European countries.

This article helped me arrive at a quick conclusion what to do with these.

Let us protect it against astroturfing etc. Zezen (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Article is biased, uses cherrypicked (and small) studies, claims consensus that does not exist

This has been going on here for years now. Selected studies are used to claim "Scientific consensus" when there is none. One can make the argument that Amens SPECT studies are not fully accepted. One can not make the argument that there is large-scale (majority) scientific consensus that they are wrong.

Opinion (the jury) is "out", not "against".

That means-- Most scientists/Doctors don't know if Amen is right-- but most have not said that he is wrong either. The leade (lede in British Engish) of the article is consistently used to totally discredit Amen without any comprehensive scientific basis. Four (small) scientific studies do not equate to "scientific consensus" that Amen is wrong. Yet these four inadequate studies are put prominently in the lead to discredit Amen before any reader, the very moment they start reading the article.

The article is written like a hit piece. It doesn't cover the issue from NPOV, it targets the subject.

Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 08:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Chesapeake77: Can you please explain more about what you think the problem is? For it it to be a NPOV violation, there need to be sources which are currently omitted, not just you making your own interpretation that the article is biased. By my count, there are eight named individuals (John Seibyl, Martha Farah, S. J. Gillihan, Irving Kirsch, Anjan Chatterjee, Steven Hyman, Robert Burton, Harriet Hall ) who have criticised Amen's approach and I'm not aware of any non-connected scientists or doctors who support the approach. As to the lead, we have some leeway in summarising the rest of the article, but I don't think that it suggests that there is a scientific consensus that his approach is wrong, just that it has been criticised. SmartSE (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)