Skip to content


media, on the path, Dr Charles Parker,

Parker Resources & References For Media Inquiry

Mission: Translating Brain & Body Insights To Improve Mind-Care In Everytown

My Perspective

I’m an outspoken proponent advocating for global improvements, yes, change, in the varieties of mind science diagnoses and treatments. Neuroscience is evolving at a rate much faster than understood by most professionals rendering psychiatric treatment with medications. With the help of informed media professionals, an informed public will improve feedback loops as they both respond better to helpful interventions and also request more careful assessments based on these new scientific discoveries.

Note Details: Parker Media & FAQ PDF For Parker-as-Guest Interviews Here & Listed Below 

Summary: Our Treatment Environment Today Changes Dramatically

We live today in a Galileo Mind Moment that begs for improved standards with biomedical laboratory/technology applications. Expensive SPECT brain scans are helpful, but provide far less information than available with cost-effective advanced biomedical testing that addresses more completely underlying medical complexity with the extensive array of biomedical variables. More precise thinking with precise targeting of biologically based medical objectives for psychiatric or psychological treatment – with added patient biomedical awareness, does confer measurable improvements to increase more predictable, more cost-effective, longer-lasting outcomes.

The new science applications do connect with “Functional Measures,” but should not be considered categorically as only Functional objectives when Traditional Psychiatric interventions so often have proved helpful if administered correctly. Aye, there’s the rub.

The formula for this new medical perspective: Functional + Traditional = Comprehensive. We must stop the polemics if we wish to advance patient care with hard data. If peer-reviewed data exists on both sides of that fence why not take down the fence, then understand and use available, cost-effective, improved data?

The ‘Standard Of Care’ Is Substandard

Today many prescribe psychiatric medications remarkably imprecisely, encouraged by the outdated assumption that human mental conditions can be adequately assessed through the diagnostic appearances of DSM-5. Critical Thinkers agree. As my erstwhile colleague & Nobel Prize Nominee, Dr. Edward de Bono has noted – our current work is Excellent, But Not Enough . Fresh maps offer multiple new options, as reported here with Guests on the Episode List on this page at CoreBrain Journal.

Yes, I’ve sounded this same theme for more than 20 years – presenting these observations in well over 1000 medical meetings with professionals both nationally and internationally. Those many meetings proved instructive for me, even while I presented the keynotes. Hearing those many professional questions, I formed strong, respectful opinions about the urgency of sharing these matters with both citizens and interested professionals.

If medical professionals remain unaware of these neuroscience discoveries, how can the public adequately participate in the clinical repercussions from guesswork? The obvious result: treatment failure, distrust, and psychiatric stigma – the current pervasive perception of psychiatric care. Those dinner meetings did serve an inarguable educational purpose: today denial continues in marked prevalence to measurable biomedical realities.

For Example: Consider “ADHD” – It’s An Obvious Target Of Misinformation

A remarkable paradoxical example exists with the psychiatric Standard of Care for ADHD assessment and treatment as it purports to treat and modify ADHD thinking – without thinking about thinking. Overlooked are 1. the variables of cognitive brain diagnosis, 2. cognitive treatment objectives, 3. specific medication expectations or clear cognitive targets for patients to assess in the first place. 

Instead, current standards are based on behavioral appearances, often marginally observable for the treatment team, and not targeted by or for the patient. This pervasively inadequate assessment and treatment process leaves patients uninformed about targets, irritated, and too often without cognitive progress even after years of time and money. They can’t assess or report on their own progress because practitioners themselves remain in the darkness of yesterday’s thinking.

This problem of ADHD misinformation and downstream mistreatment is pandemic and global.

Further, managed care uses these same inadequate standards to repeatedly deny care for those suffering from psychiatric conditions, as insurance providers fall back on those superficial assessments to question and argue with more informed medical providers.  Managed care strongly supports the use of outdated criteria and thereby encourages denial and imprecision for the sake of saving money on the front end. Their treatment incentive: remain in the darkness of denial and continue disdain for further biomedical inquiry.

Why? There’s a cost to numbers and informed data. Cost, not care is their standard for treatments.

Aside: My Managed Care Suggestion

The new mission for those of you working in managed care: get with cost-effective hard data and save considerable money by investing in peer-reviewed assessments on the front end of an evaluation to decrease the inefficiency of medical guesswork. Yes, biomedical measures are more cost-effective today.

See these examples:

Consider the Multiple Challenges With “ADHD” In These 15 Videos


Details For Discussion

Social Network

Stay Tuned In For Progress Reports