View source for The biggest lies I've heard during my career

<center><youtube>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml2nEOsBe0Q</youtube></center>
<center>(portuguese only)</center>

Dr. Ana Beatriz Barbosa is a famous brazilian psychiatrist. There are many psychologists and other doctors who criticize her because she spreads misinformation. She is a psychiatrist and she does have knowledge about many disorders and behaviors. However, she was accused of plagiarism and this made me rethink my opinion about her. Nowadays she has stopped practicing at her clinic and shifted to being a public figure, digital influencer and a writer. She is the author of the famous book ''"Dangerous minds: the psychopath lives next door"'' (title translated by me). In this book she makes the strong association between crimes and psychopathy, telling stories of famous criminals such as Suzane Richtofen and Roget Abdelmassih. The first is a famous brazilian girl who planned to kill her own parents. The second is a famous brazilian doctor who was a serial rapist. In the book she supports the idea that psychopaths are born with a different brain and to do so she references a scientific research by two brazilian scientists who studied the brain of psychopaths with fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging). She supports the idea that psychopaths have a low functioning limbic system and that is the cause for psychopathy, a definitive proof that psychopath's brain is different and that is the cause for psychopaths to be psychopaths. First, she is oversimplifying it and also, making a naive statement that every psychopath has the same origin. One example of a psychopathic behavior she gives in the book is to deceive to pay less to visit an exposition. I didn't research it, but the title and the cover of her book seem to be a plagiarism of Martha Stout's book ''"The sociopath next door"''.

For some time I was a follower of Cássia Rodrigues, a famous brazilian psychoanalyst which offers a psychoanalysis course at a college that bears her own name. She supports the controversial concept that every cancer has emotional origins. I think that most people agree with the relationship between emotions and cancer, but there isn't a proof that every cancer has roots in emotions. Another doctor who supports this relationship of cause and consequence between cancer and emotions is the hungarian Gabor Maté, who lives in Canada. He supports that trauma is  the cause of ADHD, drug addiction and autoimmune diseases. He is a best selling author, but he is criticized and do yourself a favor and go read what the critics say about him. Think about it: autoimmune diseases are diseases in which the patient's own immune system attacks the patient's own body. IF you merge this with psychology can very well come to the conclusion that the mind can trigger autoimmune diseases. While there is certainly a connection, how can you conclude that the mind is able to cause an autoimmune disease? Could it be reversed, the mind suffers as a consequence of the autoimmune disease? Many people out there do believe that a certain cancer was caused by the emotions, but their reasoning is devoid of scientific arguments. I'd argue this: if some cancer affects the gut, we do know that the health of the gut, what we eat and how we eat is linked to the health of the brain. Which in turn, means that whatever affects the gut has impacts on the mind.

Renato Cariani is a famous brazilian body builder and he criticizes some doctors for spreading misinformation about nutrition. He also criticized that the doctor did not ask for his permission to use his image.

Sam Vaknin has a channel dedicated to narcissism. He himself is diagnosed with narcissistic and antisocial personality disorders. He does have knowledge taken from credible sources such as Otto Kernberg. However, he cannot hide it. He is a narcissist and he does bolster himself up, likes the spotlight and also proposed an absurd therapy model called ''"Cold Therapy"''. He proposed that to treat a narcissist, one should make the narcissist suffer the consequences of his or her actions is a controlled environment. The mental shock should trigger a change and make them see that the narcissistic behavior is causing damage to themselves. I've seen him in a podcast with Richard Grannon, another guy who talks about narcissism. He just couldn't stop making jokes and stealing all the attention to himself. I don't follow them both.

Dr. Ramani has millions of followers and talks about narcissism. She does have credentials. However, many people criticize her because she is too much focused on blaming narcissists and victimizing all the victims. There are even some people who see her as deceptive and narcissist herself. I've found some articles telling that she confuses patients with wrong diagnoses and that he overcharges her appointments. One article described how she would spend a lot of time admiring her own image in front of the mirror. How much of what I've found is true I really don't know.

I was a follower of Dr. Tracey Marks, an american psychiatrist. She appeared to be a credible source of knowledge at first. However, when she recorded a video supporting the concept of ''"healthy narcissism"'' I decided to unfollow her. This concept is flawed and I disagree with it. 

Kati Morton. She has millions of followers. However, don't judge some person's reputation by the number of followers. She records videos of pretty much all areas of mental health. How can one person be an expert in all subfields of mental health at the same time? She is a controversial figure who was accused of giving unsolicited diagnoses e seemingly care more about fame than ethics.

Dr. Todd Grande. He is intelligent and has a lot of good content. However, his fame derives from recording videos discussing famous cases such as the ones involving celebrities. There are some psychiatrists who criticize him for offering diagnoses without having proper qualification to do so.

Dr. Guido Palomba. He is a famous brazilian forensic psychiatrist. A lot of what I wrote has him as a source. However, he advocates strongly against antidepressants and medication. He states that the pharmaceutical industry tries to lure people into believing that they need medication when they don't. He calls antidepressants a chemical straightjacket and he also tells people to run away from psychiatrists. Here is the point, he specialized in forensics, not in the clinic. He doesn't know how to treat mental health disorders. That's not what he trained for. Can he have erred in some of the thousands of psychiatrist reports that he has done in his career? I guess so. In one youtube video with an interview with him, somebody made a comment despising him for making a report which favored this commenter's father. This commenter was telling that his father was a psychopath and was abusing his family. This commenter's brother was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and that his father was seeking a forensic psychiatrist because he wanted to take over a company run by this commenter's brother. According to this person who made the comment, his father deceived Guido Palomba, allowing this father to further cause more harm to his own family. The rest of the story wasn't told in the comments section.

For a long time I trusted one’s popularity thinking that it’d equate to quality. Not really. Be careful! Each famous person cited above can have valuable content and information, but that doesn’t mean that they are excusable from mistakes or misinformation. ‘’’A self-critic here:’’’ psychologists and clinicians can overly express themselves. Sometimes they can exaggerate behaviors to show it. Can this be manipulative on their part? It can and most of the time it is. However, borrowing Ricardo Ventura’s words, manipulation is not always meant to deceive and doesn’t always hide malicious intent. Be careful with judging at face value! The character of a person is one thing. How they express themselves is something different. The same applies to journalists and TV hosts. Sometimes they can be seen in the middle of the eye of a storm, even though they aren’t bad people.

To give two examples: Marcius Melhem is a famous actor, comedian and director from the largest TV network in Brazil. A group of women made false accusations of sexual harassment against him. He gave interviews and explained that the environment of the TV network is one where childish or child-like behaviors are pretty common. He didn’t straight out rule out the possibility of harassment to have happened. He was being honest. In addition, scandals of sexual abuse weren’t something that was new. There were other big names which were involved in such scandals years before. In spite of a public massacre and a smearing campaign, he proved that he was innocent. Among that group of women some of them had personal reasons to attack him. Mostly related to their professional careers and wanting to be promoted. Now comes the question: Is Marcius a saint? He did prove his innocence and that the accusations were false. However, I can’t judge him. I don’t know him personally. 

Taryana Rocha is a psychoanalyst who doesn’t have a degree in psychology (in Brazil one can be a psychoanalyst without having a degree in psychology). She expresses herself in dramatic ways which can be misinterpreted as being exaggerated. Her mother is an abusive narcissist and I drew a mental connection between her and her mother, believing that Tarya had some narcissistic traits. There is one story she tells about herself in which she describes that she was going to the gym and unknowingly feeding her own ego, wanting to have a perfect body shape and gaining a lot of attention and validation from the others. She was spending a lot of money in a desire that she didn’t even knew about. Due to her behavior, does that make her a non-credible source of information on mental health? When I searched for opinions about her I’ve found people advising to not follow her and that her content was biased. One comment stated that because she never truly opened up about her narcissistic mother, one should have more doubts than trust her content. 

What would you do in this situation? Trust her or not? For starters, she doesn’t have to tell everything about her mother to her audience. It’s her choice. Second, she did study to be a psychoanalyst and she does drink from reputable sources of mental health. She is not her abusive mother and while there is heritage and genetics, she is a different person. I’ve seen before somebody telling that they seeked some PhD in narcissism because they went through an abusive relationship. That person told the others that having the PhD didn’t help them, because that PhD didn’t really meant that the therapist was qualified to understand the traumas that this particular person experienced. The conclusion is that a piece of paper called diploma doesn’t, unquestionably, guarantee that the person knows how to treat one’s specific case.

Another example of bias: the famed Dr. Ana Beatriz Barbosa always embellishes borderline personality disorder. Calling these people to be full of love to give, who are lively, who leave strong impressions and people who can be dramatic. She associates borderline personality with people who excel at acting or who are almost saints who care more about the well being of others than about their own well being. She cites celebrities or famous people such as Amy Winehouse and Mother Teresa as prime examples of how great a borderline person can be. She says that great actors and artists are often someone who has borderline personality disorder or at least traits of it. In her view, people who are borderline have a special ability of being able to transform themselves into another person. Something that goes deeper than just acting. Almost as if being borderline equals to possessing some super power. 

In an interview on a TV show she said that the famous brazilian serial killer, called the “Park’s Maniac” by the media, known by his name Francisco de Assis Pereira, was the record holder of most romantic letters received by any prisoner in Brazil. She said that most of those letters (I don’t know if the access to them is public) depict a severe borderline personality of the many women who wrote them. Here is the question: are those women aware that they are falling in love with a serial killer? We can safely say that yes. They do know what a serial killer means and is. Dr Ana Beatriz says that borderline women are often attracted by psychopaths and vice-versa because these evil criminals are alone in the world and would never abandon them. One of the strongest symptoms of the borderline personality disorder is the fear of abandonment. Her reasoning is flawed because she is resorting to the stereotype that a borderline is someone who is overwhelmed by love and because of this they are blind and would fall in love with despicable criminals. Before oversimplifying like she does, put aside the diagnosis of the disorder and focus on emotions themselves. She says that borderline is pure emotion and zero reasoning, whereas psychopaths are polar opposite, being pure reasoning and no emotions. Don’t reproduce her words like that because the way she does it makes us picture borderline individuals as irrational persons with emotions out of control, whereas psychopaths are callous and devoid of feelings. It’s never that simple.

I wrote a lot of articles which reference Mark Rosewater. Mark describes himself as a person who doesn’t suppress his emotions. If he is feeling something, he just shows it. He gives many examples from his life in his articles and I like his approach. There comes the question: is Mark’s mother a borderline? Or does she have borderline traits? For a while I thought so and this was caused by me following Dr. Ana Beatriz. However, now I see that being an artist or designer is unrelated to being borderline. Is every borderline person an extrovert and/or an artist? The answer is no. There are some borderlines with overlapping narcissistic behaviors and some are violent, cruel, disregard the safety of others and overlap with psychopathy. I was contaminated by Dr. Ana Beatriz’s bias and believed in her happy depiction of borderline as a description of wonderful human beings. Avoid such oversimplifications and biases because character is something, a personality disorder is another, different, entity.

I don’t follow Esland Delanagore, a famous brazilian neuroscientist. He shows up in many podcasts out there and he supports this idea that creative people and mental health disorders are linked to each other. He gives the example of Hollywood, stating that in there we find a high percentage of schizophrenics and bipolar individuals. This would explain why we have many creative and crazy individuals there. I disagree with him and this stereotype. We all know that portrayal of artists as being crazy, unhinged, like Vincent Van Gogh for instance. For me, portraying artists as both geniuses and crazy is the same as saying that every psychopath is a cruel criminal and vice-versa.