Dr Jessica Taylor

[Blue bunny]

I just looked at the BPS website to see if she is breaking any rules with this video but it feels very much to me like a money making scam. To be a chartered Psychologist with them, which they say

"Reflects only the highest standard of psychological knowledge and expertise"

You only need to have a 2:2 in psychology and done a bit of something postgraduate. But there is no standard you have to achieve to be classed as 'the highest', you just had to have done it and pay your £200 a year membership fee.

Chartered membership (CPsychol) | BPS

The title of Chartered Psychologist is legally recognised and reflects only the highest standard of psychological knowledge and expertise.

www.bps.org.uk

 

[CuriousTherapyCat]

This research only builds on what’s already known. That the chemical imbalance theory is weak.

When I first came across JT I was in training in psychotherapy. I quickly learnt that she doesn’t tend to say anything new and many others say things better, with more depth.

Yes, antidepressants are way overused and withdrawals can cause worse symptoms than the original presentation. (We need to do more there) But there’s a real danger with some of what she’s saying that people suddenly stop. She’s saying they don’t need them. That’s dangerous. Finding out about her lack of clinical experience makes this more concerning. Many won’t “need” them but saying this in a sound bite is unethical at best.

I also noticed the lack of solutions and I’ve been on a few of the courses/webinars.

I wish she’d listen to concerns

 

[Blue bunny]

But there’s a real danger with some of what she’s saying that people suddenly stop. She’s saying they don’t need them. That’s dangerous.

Absolutely and there is a real danger that because she has been 'proven right' about this, that people might be even more inclined to think she is right about her other claims, like bipolar isn't real. Meaning people stopping taking their meds for this and all sorts of things, considering her recent claims about autism, adhd.

 

[AccidentalAcademic]

I just looked at the BPS website to see if she is breaking any rules with this video but it feels very much to me like a money making scam. To be a chartered Psychologist with them, which they say

"Reflects only the highest standard of psychological knowledge and expertise"

You only need to have a 2:2 in psychology and done a bit of something postgraduate. But there is no standard you have to achieve to be classed as 'the highest', you just had to have done it and pay your £200 a year membership fee.

Chartered membership (CPsychol) | BPS

The title of Chartered Psychologist is legally recognised and reflects only the highest standard of psychological knowledge and expertise.

www.bps.org.uk

You need a BPS-accredited undergraduate degree of 2:2 or better to get the Graduate Basis for Chartership (GBC), but that doesn't mean you're chartered - it just means you are eligible to apply for further study or training in psychology. Chartership is obtained either through an accredited practitioner training (such as the doctorate in clinical psychology) or a research-based PhD. Jessica has chartership as a result of her PhD.

There is a lot of concern in the psychology world over the fact that 'psychologist' itself (unlike, say, 'clinical psychologist' or 'educational psychologist') is not a protected title, which leaves it wide open to misappropriation and abuse. JT uses it to imply that she has clinical/therapeutic qualifications when she hasn't, and she's not the only one. Numerous practitioner and academic psychologists have lobbied the BPS to try and stop Emma Kenny misrepresenting herself and bringing the profession into disrepute the way she does, without success, because the BPS is sadly a toothless organisation. They rely on the HCPC to regulate practitioners, which doesn't solve the problem, because people like Jess Taylor and Emma Kenny aren't qualified for HCPC registration anyway. A few years ago a group of fed-up clinical psychologists set up their own organisation, the Association of Clinical Psychologists, as a way to create a clearer professional identity for themselves in light of these problems.

 

[CuriousTherapyCat]

Absolutely and there is a real danger that because she has been 'proven right' about this, that people might be even more inclined to think she is right about her other claims, like bipolar isn't real. Meaning people stopping taking their meds for this and all sorts of things, considering her recent claims about autism, adhd.

Yes, many of us in the psychology world could say we’ve been “proven right” with this research too.
We know this, it’s not new. It’s what we do next that’s important. JT doesn’t seem to give any answers.

 

[destinyschild22]

Yes, many of us in the psychology world could say we’ve been “proven right” with this research too.
We know this, it’s not new. It’s what we do next that’s important. JT doesn’t seem to give any answers.

She’s not been proven right. She’s going beyond the data as well as over extrapolating from the findings. First, findings are null w regard to serotonin hypothesis. You can’t prove a null hypothesis. So, what do we know? At best, we retain the null. Second, the results of the review do not tell us anything about whether there is a bio basis in the brain for depression. There could be, in any number of different brain systems, but these data say nothing at all about that. Third, and most importantly w regard to JT, the results tell us nothing about the truth of her particular brand of the trauma hypothesis (which she has failed to specify on any detail that can be tested). It’s a logical fallacy to think the results shed any light of the issues she’s talking about. I’m cross that she’s not helping the public become better consumers of science or scientific thinking. If anything, it’s the reverse and she’s harming people in the process w her unscientific conclusions that she is not at all qualified to give about coming off ADs.

 

[silentobservations]

I don’t work in the psychotherapy etc field, but I am a nurse and what concerns me about JT is similar to what you point out below; that some of her words come across as encouraging people to stop them in an unsafe manner with how she demonises them and creates a stigma.

I agree, like many, that these medications are overprescribed in many cases and that more research needs to be done in the area to build on knowledge and findings we already do know (that’s another discussions in itself!); however I also see situations where ADs and APs are *needed* as part of a way for a person to live somewhat of a normal life. She largely ignores this side of it.

I’ve also seen and nursed people who could be the types to be extremely influenced by what JT says, seeing her as a seniority figure who knows what she’s talking about, and would be tempted to follow her advice (? if it can be called that) and stop their medications altogether. The way she presents herself is dangerous in the way, as you say, she has limited clinical experience but vulnerable people aren’t necessarily going to know this - people will see her as a Dr and presume she has the experience and knowledge to make these recommendations.

This whole subject is one that is important and I encourage people to talk about it, share concerns or support, debate and discuss - heck I’ll always get involved too. But I feel JT consistently lacks the depth in what she says to advance discussions, she rarely pulls on the evidence base and ignores the other side of the coin to her argument. She also never seems to want to engage in healthy, debates/discussions around the topic.

The only solutions she even hints at providing seem to be ones that fit her agenda.

To say it concerns me is an understatement.

This research only builds on what’s already known. That the chemical imbalance theory is weak.

When I first came across JT I was in training in psychotherapy. I quickly learnt that she doesn’t tend to say anything new and many others say things better, with more depth.

Yes, antidepressants are way overused and withdrawals can cause worse symptoms than the original presentation. (We need to do more there) But there’s a real danger with some of what she’s saying that people suddenly stop. She’s saying they don’t need them. That’s dangerous. Finding out about her lack of clinical experience makes this more concerning. Many won’t “need” them but saying this in a sound bite is unethical at best.

I also noticed the lack of solutions and I’ve been on a few of the courses/webinars.

I wish she’d listen to concerns

 

[alphaspagbol]

Thanks to all of you with professional knowledge posting here. I’d call myself an informed lay-person for reasons. But you have all nailed it today for me.

 

[alphaspagbol]

Emm what now. Change of tack or what?

 

[destinyschild22]

Emm what now. Change of tack or what?

I have first hand knowledge here: This is laughable and bullshit. Bring it. Show us your proof JT.

 

[FogOfWar]

As an ill-informed layperson, it’s no wonder she was discriminated against in academia - she’s so bleeping basic. Her text doesn’t even make sense - « because if so » seems to come from nowhere, and prepares a following paragraph that seems entirely unclear - and is stylistically horrid - « is stating », rather than simply « states ».

 

[Nonah]

That’s a word salad.

One of the red flags for me with JT was the anti-depressant discourse. I have been on ADs for a few years and have successfully managed to come off them only to need to start again a few months later because I have gone back to feeling suicidally depressed again.
When I first saw JT suggesting that they may be unnecessary I thought about stopping them again because at the time I still took her seriously. Thankfully I wasn’t in a vulnerable state and thought better of it and also started questioning her ‘expertise’. I worry about others who might take her nonsense at face value though

 

[CuriousTherapyCat]

Emm what now. Change of tack or what?

Again, nothing new. Discussions around class, poverty and social mobility etc and impact on mental health have been discussed for decades and beyond suggesting it’s caused by a bio predisposition. That theory was cast out a long time ago. What, rightly, remains there is theories on how mental illness can be genetic and how stress causes epigenetic changes. With that conversation remains about causes of this.

Heck, funding is given to tackle these inequalities.

She seems to be misunderstanding and out of date by decades, unless I’m reading it all wrong.

 

[Whatevesmate]

Again, nothing new. Discussions around class, poverty and social mobility etc and impact on mental health have been discussed for decades and beyond suggesting it’s caused by a bio predisposition. That theory was cast out a long time ago. What, rightly, remains there is theories on how mental illness can be genetic and how stress causes epigenetic changes. With that conversation remains about causes of this.

Heck, funding is given to tackle these inequalities.

She seems to be misunderstanding and out of date by decades, unless I’m reading it all wrong.

It's either that she's quite dim and unaware of the vast literature on all of this that already exists or she's deliberately cherry picking the piece of information that is most easily used for propaganda purposes. Or both. Either way she yet again centres herself.

 

[SavannahS]

I think it's too easy to be completely against all psychotropic mods, all the time.
I am mostly against them and quite unimpressed by most ssris but I'd also not have survived crises without some medication help from a diff class of medication.

I like the idea that these mods are overprescribed, fairly dangerous, and often given to make the prescriber feel like they're doing something.

But to say they should never be used I don't agree with.

 

[Boogs]

She’s posted the following on Facebook accompanied by a video.

Several weeks back, I quit Twitter.
I have almost 100k followers over there.

The platform is not good for human development. People get sucked into a weird and toxic set of behaviours that are pro-bullying, pro-abuse, pro-stalking and anti-discussion.

I realised that I couldn’t share my ideas about the world there, because people were not on there to hear ideas or consider perspectives, they are just there, all getting as wound up as each other, shooting their mouths off at each other. Even positive posts are about slighting someone or something else.

I’m feeling a thousand times healthier, stronger, more powerful, and more capable than I was feeling whilst being sucked into constant trolling.

My energy and my talent was being destroyed by that platform. It’s not where my ideas and my thoughts need to be.

The platforms are all so different, and I love being able to share ideas for discussion (whether you like them or not, whether you agree or not). We need thinkers in our world. We need people who are willing to ask the questions about the world, scrutinise the status quo, talk about the issues that matter despite all the backlash.

 

[CastroKahloLilith]

The sheer bleeping arrogance of this!

 

[Boogs]

Funnily enough she didn’t have a problem with using that platform for many years until she was called out on there for what she did to the survivors she exploited to make money from in her books. What a coincidence that she’s now decided it’s not for her

 

[CastroKahloLilith]

Funnily enough she didn’t have a problem with using that platform for many years until she was called out on there for what she did to the survivors she exploited to make money from in her books. What a coincidence that she’s now decided it’s not for her

Spot on, she just decided to run to less accessible platforms. A coward as well as a liar.

 

[Whatevesmate]

Funnily enough she didn’t have a problem with using that platform for many years until she was called out on there for what she did to the survivors she exploited to make money from in her books. What a coincidence that she’s now decided it’s not for her

Exactly. Like she just realised that Twitter is a toxic cesspit. Absolutely nothing to do with the fact that she has been exposed as an abusive liar and manipulator who exploits survivors.