|
This page last updated Jan 26 2005
Photo: Dr John Read
(Devonport Flagstaff).
1997 - Early warnings to Read that
his "research" is flawed
As far back as 1997, John Read was
suggesting that the "staggering findings" in his research would
"suggest we can no longer deny the possibility of a causal link between
childhood trauma and supposedly biological/genetic illnesses such as
schizophrenia".
(Keane,
Sunday Star Times, Oct 26, 1997)
And even at this early stage he was warned that his methodology was shonky:
In reply he was told that "his so-called link declares an abysmal
ignorance of basic scientific tests. Theories must be testable, falsifiable, capable
of peer review, and have a known error rate. Association does not prove
causality"
(Waugh,
Sunday Star Times, Nov 2, 1997)
Another reader, who has schizophrenia told him bluntly: "People with schizophrenia need
protection from themselves and it seems also from over-zealous
academics"
(Goode,
Sunday Star Times, Nov 2, 1997)
1997 - Read responds to the criticism
Read quickly responded
(Read, Sunday Star
Times, Nov 9, 1997),
in what was to become a characteristic
theme. Those who would question his science, and conclusions, are guilty of
"not being ready to face the facts of abuse".This is a first
indication of his lack of objectivity on the subject of abuse and it's
consequences, and his readiness to resort to ad hominem attacking of those
who do not share his beliefs. .
Read did not respond to any of the serious concerns that Waugh raised.
Instead he accuses Waugh of "not wanting to accept" the (non
detailed) conclusions of 15 (unnamed) "separate studies". In response to Goode, Read claims that
(unnamed) "research shows" that Goode is wrong in her claim that it
"is common practice for people suffering with schizophrenia" to lie
about abuse "when they become deluded and over-imaginative".
Read is given another warning that his research conclusions are flawed. The COSA editorial in December tells Read
quite clearly the reasons why.
(COSA newsletter
Dec 1997). Read is taught:
(a) what psychology undergraduates typically learn in their first year:
"Just because two things appear to occur together (have some
association) it cannot be concluded that there is a causal relationship"
(b) Reports of past abuse are not the same as proven events. False reports
may be deliberate or the result of suggestive questioning
(c) Contrary to Read’s claims, people suffering from acute psychosis are more
likely than the average person to claim events that did not happen. Delusions
and being out of touch with reality are hallmarks of this condition
The editorial goes on to remind Read of other reasons why he should quickly
have second thoughts on what he publicly says.
2000 - Read becomes an
"expert" on his flawed research
Read did not thank his critics for
their quick advice. He completely ignored them, and continued to beat his
"abuse causes schizophrenia" drum. By 2000, a startled world were
wanting to check out the basis of his research - in much the same way that
Cold Fusion was an exciting possibility. Read was far from being ostracised
for his lack of scholarship. He was
off to Norway!
(North
Shore Times Advertiser, Jun 6, 2000)
The news was a shock to those who thought that the University may have
imposed some academic supervision on Read.
Gordon Waugh wrote back reminding those who were interested in Read's
claims that
"To justify his claim, Read's "research" must meet elemental
scientific standards by showing clear proof through credible external
verification, that patients studied were in fact genuinely abused, and that
no other possible cause of the disorder existed. It must clearly distinguish
between metaphor and reality, and between cause and association. His pet
theory is fatally flawed. It failed on all these counts and wrongly assumed a
causal link between abuse and a mental disorder. Parents and families of
people suffering with schizophrenia will be distressed and disgusted to learn
that Dr Read continues to promote his unsubstantiated, daft and odious
gospel."
(Waugh,
North Shore Times Advertiser, Jun 13, 2000)
2000 - Read misinterprets why his research is
"controversial"
Those who listened to Read in Norway were
obviously polite. Read reported on his
return "I was very excited about how well it was received at the
conference at Norway" Read still has no idea why his research is
controversial. Read attributes the controversial nature of his findings to
his thinking that he is "challenging the medical establishment view that
schizophrenia is a disease".
(Drent,
Devonport Flagstaff, July 13, 2000)
He appears to have no appreciation
that his research methodology is appallingly flawed.
Read would do well to go back to what he should have learnt from the COSA
editorial three years earlier:
(COSA
newsletter Dec 1997)
2002 – (January)
Read reports (again) his flawed research, and is promptly criticised
Read still beats his child abuse
drum – saying that child abuse will have played a role for a significant
proportion of people diagnosed as schizophrenic. It seems that Read’s “research” is simply
asking patients if they have been abused.
Read is still paying no attention to the advice of Waugh in November
1997 (report above) that Read’s “so-called link declares an abysmal ignorance
of basic scientific tests. Theories must be testable, falsifiable, capable of
peer review, and have a known error rate. Association does not prove
causality"
NZPA - Stuff report -
"Researchers report link"
Read’s research fails to impress
emeritus professor of psychiatry at Auckland University.
Dr John Werry, insisted that the
illness was genetic and needed medication. "Though one needs to be
cautious, the highest probability... is that it is a genetic disorder, and
that the answer will not come from
studies like Dr Read's but from molecular biology."
NZPA - Stuff report - Experts at
odds
2002 – (October)
Read involved in "training" clinical staff based on his
"research"
Read appears to have done no more
than what he reported five years earlier, referring to his "15
international studies". But he has convinced the Auckland District
Health Board to allow him to be involved in "training" clinical
staff - most worryingly in "how and when to ask patients about abuse as
a child"
(Johnston, NZ
Herald Oct 5,2002)
Gordon Waugh responds in a letter
to the editor: The glaring flaw is that accounts of abuse will not be
externally corroborated. Treatment will not be based on testable evidence of
genuine abuse. The ADHB needs its head read and its knuckles rapped for
wasting funds and staff time on this baloney. Psychiatric patients, their
parents - and the alleged perpetrators - deserve much better than this.
(Gordon Waugh,
2002)
Read responds by lying about what Waugh has said. Read: "His regurgitation of the old
myth that when distressed people tell us about awful events in their
childhoods they should not be believed is particularly sad".
(Read, NZ Herald Oct 9, 2002).
Gordon Waugh had said no such
thing. Kayleen Katene, from the Mental Health Foundation also defends
Read's "training" programmes by referring to "the wisdom of
training mental health professionals to ask skilful and sensitive questions
about childhood trauma and abuse as a routine part of mental health
assessments.
(Katene, NZ Herald Oct 9, 2002)
Read and Katene are told: "Uncorroborated reports of abuse are notoriously
unreliable. Asking psychiatric patients about abuse histories invites
inaccurate responses. Deciding treatment on the basis of unverified abuse
histories is unscientific and naïve. A little fact-finding, and a lot less
assumption, belief and ideology, would better serve their needs"
(Gordon Waugh, 2002)
2003 - Read and hallucinations
Read extends his “research”. Hallucinations
as well as schizophrenia. Same methodology. Same conclusions. Same flaws.
(Johnston,
NZ Herald Mar 14, 2003)
The last word from
(Waugh,
NZ Herald March 18, 2003):
"Read's
"research" has consistently failed to provide independent
corroboration or testable evidence of such abuse, yet has recklessly linked
abuse to schizophrenia and now links abuse to hallucinations of vision and
all other senses.
Until he can provide acceptable proof of abuse, he has again misled the
public.
This reflects poorly on academic standards at the University of Auckland"
2004 - Read's proposed book "Models of
Madness" criticised
Another year passes. Same 'ol, same 'ol. In 2004, Read continues with his
theme. "Read's research suggests
that childhood abuse is often a factor in causing schizophrenia. He cites a
Dutch study of more than 4000 people that found the risk of serious psychosis
was nine times greater in those abused as children". Read says that the book he is an editor for
will argue that "little, if any, evidence existed that schizophrenia was
a biological disease arising from a genetic predisposition - the 'medical
model'."
(Johnston, NZ Herald, March 10,
2004)
But Dr Ian Goodwin, of the
Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, says ideas in the book
"fly in the face of all scientific evidence". Dr Goodwin
goes onto say that "Read's ideas were naïve"
Nothing seems to have changed much in Read's work. He appears to regurgitate the same story -
in the seven years from 1997 to 2004. Conclusions have not advanced from the
familiar word of "suggestion" as in "Read's research suggests"
It’s a useful little word, that is able to hide a lack of real scientific
data.
This site says that Read should stop writing articles and books for a while -
long enough to do some actual research, so that seven years from now he may
have something more than vapour to suggest, or that he is professional enough
to say that he has made a professional boo boo.
This site is also extremely surprised that the University of Auckland
allows Read to continue with such shoddy academic work. It’s not a case of
academic freedom allowing a staff member to advance their own theories – it
is a case of having a staff member producing work that does not meet what
this site would expect of a so called professional. Read’s unknown professional
qualifications deserve a close examination, in light of the
information presented on this page.
|
