Author Contact Information: Mirsad Serdarevic, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Psychology Psychology Program Coordinator International University of Sarajevo Tel.: 061-036-716 mirsad.serdarevic@gmail.com Abstract The purpose of this article is to illustrate limitations of Dr. Thomas S. Szasz's absolutist approach in critiquing psychiatry, psychotherapy, and the concept of mental illness most famously expressed in The Myth of Mental Illness (Szasz, 1961). This article illustrates that Szasz mistook scientific proof for absolute truth. First, a comparison of scientific proof to its superior relation, mathematical proof, illustrates its theoretical short-comings. Szasz relies, sometimes subtly, sometimes quite overtly, but always selectively on "real science" to present psychiatry and the mental health fields as imposters in the field of medicine or health, while neglecting to see or discuss limitations of "science" in general and medicine in particular. Secondly, a summary of evidence supporting psychotherapy's effectiveness will be presented, the discussion of which was either consciously or unconsciously omitted in Szasz's (1978; 1988) The Myth of Psychotherapy. Third, summary of Pennington's (2002) integration of both biological and psychological basis of psychopathology through cognitive neuroscientific theoretical framework is presented as it reasonably addresses Szasz's confusion about and critique of mental illness and the mind-body problem.

Carbamazepine belongs to the class II biopharmaceutical classification system (BCS) which is characterized by a high per-oral dose, a low aqueous solubility and a high membrane permeability. The bioavailability of such a drug is limited by the dissolution rate. The present study deals with the formulations of immediate release tablets of poorly soluble carbamazepine. As model tablets for this investigation, two formulations (named "A" and "B" formulations) of carbamazepine tablets labeled to contain 200 mg were evaluated. The aim of this study was to establish possible differences in dissolution profile of these two formulations purchased from the local market. The increased crystallinity together with enlarged particle size, enhanced aggregation and decreased wettability of the drug, resulted in insufficient dissolution rate for formulation "B". From the dissolution point of view, this formulation was inferior to the formulation "A", due to the solubilization effect.