January 17, 2011


Bagwan in Nijmegen + APA makes mockery out of medicine and morality


   "The mild and the long-suffering may suffer forever in this world. As long as the patient will suffer, the cruel will kick."
     -- Sidney Smith

Yes - I am still around, but not sleeping well.

Also, such news as there was the last days doesn't make me happier - and to avoid writing much I give today mostly quotes and links only, and to register that news here, in the hope to return to both quoted texts later:

1. Translation of title and quote from an article in the NRC of 15 jan 2011
APA makes mockery out of medicine and morality

So while I do hope to have some new healing thoughts myself on the texts that follow, for the moment I rely on writing and thinking I did, and indeed that ME agenda did.

1. Translation of title and quote from an article in the NRC of 15 jan 2011

Title + subtitle:

Healing thoughts
     Chronic pain and tiredness complaints may lessen if patients learn to accept their feelings. There arrrives more and more proof that 'healing thoughts' work.

Quote (get a chamber pot ready to puke in - my bold):

Mindfulness means that you are conscious of the here and now, of your thoughts, emotions and perceptions. "We like to call it the third generation Cognitive Behavorial Therapy", Anne Speckens, professor psychiatry in the Radboud University Nijmegen and connected to the Han Fortmann Centre for Mindfulness. "The first generation is the classic BT, that is based on punishing desirable behaviour or neglecting or punishing of undesirable behaviour. The second generation does not only concern itself with behaviour but also with thinking about it. Mindfulness goes a step beyond this: it is not concerned so much with the content of the thoughts, as about somebody's relation to those thoughts."

OBSERVING People learn to no longer regard their thoughts as fixed data, but to observe them from a distance and without having a judgment about them. And to let go of their negative thoughts. Or to accept them. With some people it is that which is important, tells Speckens: that they stop resisting against their complaints. "By admitting the pain or the fear, they find that these are less bad than they thought. They 'are' not longer their complaints, they 'have' them."

You see, what witchdoctor Speckens means, I hope, for great minds like Phil Parker's and her's think alike: They now 'do' them and they were 'dûing them before, the self-ill-making layman and laywoman dumboes.

Charlatanism, bogosity ($), mystical pseudobabble, innuendo, hypocrisy and the complete betrayal of science and patients, of morality and honesty are all implicit and implied - just as I foresaw in July 2010:

Dutch moral and intellectual pretentious sick degeneracy: Popish priestly pseudo-scientific theologized psychiatry in a pop-mysical psychobabble bullshit style - as in the raving loony therapeutic Sixties at its most pretentious, phony and false.

Dutch Whores of Reason teaching pseudoscientific 'therapeutical' bullshit in the names of science and religion at once (for Han Fortmann was a popish priest), for their own financial and career benefits, at the cost of whoever is conned, flimflammed, cheated, deceived, or abused (for these days bureaucrats may force you to these medieval healers and bringers of holistic wellness "in your own interests", to their lasting financial benefit).

And mind you: All at competing if high prices - the pseudos want their talons in patients to milk them for money.

That is and was was what medical fraudulence and pseudoscience and pop-mysticism and hypocrisy and double talk, and politically correct new language: therapist doublespeak served and liberally sauced with unctiousness, sanctimoniousness and lies galore about the 'scientificality' and 'morality' of it are all about, since many centuries also: Lucian.

As long as they can milk you they will; "The mild and the long-suffering may suffer forever in this world. As long as the patient will suffer, the cruel will kick" - and see my

Lord o lord: What moral intellectual and human degenerates harbours Nijmegen and the world! Frauds in the name of "science"!


2. APA makes mockery out of medicine and morality

At this point you may think I have been overstating things, but then I should remind you I do have the degrees in psychology and philosophy and the knowledge of methodology and philosophy of science - and it seems like an intentional mockery out of medicine and morality, in Nijmegen and in the American Psychiatric Association, that has a committee that is all by itself, mostly, or at least for the most part secretly, although they pretend it's not, redefiningn psychiatry into a Soviet-style technique of manipulation and moneymaking.

Here is a link to ME agenda's DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch that I much recommend if you want to know more about these subjects: Not happy but frightening reading:

Here is the drift of it all in ME agenda's words, boldness and colouring - and I quite agree:

As I have been highlighting for some time now, under these DSM-5 Task Force proposals, all medical conditions, whether “established” general medical conditions or disorders, or conditions presenting with “somatic symptoms of unclear etiology”, have the potential for qualifying for an additional diagnosis of a somatic symptom disorder.

Precisely. The APA as lying Doctors of the Soul, where real scientists say "can't explain, as yet".

First and let me note for clarity's sake that I am not an allout opponent of either psychiatry or psychiatrists (and indeed have an excellent M.A. in psychology):

There are good (*) psychiatrists, indeed such as the chief editors of the DSM-III and DSM-IV, doctors Spitzer and Frances: See Good journalistic article on the dangers of DSM-5 with an interesting interview with Frances, and while I have read little psychiatry that I found scientifically sound and sensible (all non-psychiatrists with the requisite knowledge think the same: Feynman vs Wessely, as indeed do the most gifted psychiatrists: McCulloch vs. Wessely), and while psychiatry has intellectually and morally a very bad track record since it arose in the 1880ies, having had it wrong so many times, to the detriment of many ill or upset people, very wrong, also for very wrong and often very pretentious fundamentally unscientific and irrational reasons, it is also true that there certainly are mad, disturbed and deluded persons, and that they deserve help, and that the reasons for their madness, disturbance and delusions deserve rational and empirical scientific investigation.

That said, to quote myself from On the DSM-5TM  in the sequence it appears there:

But more seems to me to be involved, to this psychologist and philosopher: In the DSM-5, the APA seems to be thinking first and foremost not of real science, not of creating a fairly clear set of symptoms and criterions to base medical diagnoses on, not of the interests of patients, but seems to have been first and foremost concerned with securing the future incomes of psychiatrists and psychotherapists, mostly by what I only can fairly describe as psychiatric theology, that runs more or less thus:

'There are a body (soma) and a mind/soul (psyche); all diseases have both somatic and psychological sides; and to the psychiatrist/psychotherapist falls in these modern days the lot and task and mission that used to be that of the priest, the pastor or the reverend: The proper care of the soul/psyche'.

From the point of view of rational real science, this is back to the Middle Ages: In real science there only is a brain, and human experiences are processes in a living brain, that are so complex, and take place in such a badly understood complicated organ, that there hardly is a science of human experience.

In general terms, what the DSM-5 involves and tries to realize is this:

And this in fact in a project in which a bunch of psychiatrists redefines what medicine is, what illness is, what the relation between the mind and the body is, what mental illness is, with outcomes that clearly benefit their own professional group of mental health-workers, through the terminological device of attaching a mental, psychological component to any disease, in a quite similar way as medieval theologians insisted on there being a soul next to a body, for which these professionals, whether psychatrists or priests, then deserved to be consulted, to be paid, to be somehow involved for money, and indeed in many cases were and are given the medical say so about what really ails the patient, about what manner of cures are appropriate, and about which medicines, researches and technologies are appropriate to treat the ailments.

In brief: The psychiatrists and psychotherapists redefine what medicine is, what illness is, what the relation between the mind and the body is, and what mental illness is, which are issues that touch on the immediate personal interests of all persons that may be effected by it, which is most of the earth's human population as far as the influence of the DSM-5 on many medical diagnoses is concerned, but... the APA chooses to theologize medicine and psychiatry without any interference by "lay persons", notably by scientists in other, e.g. more scientific and difficult or more advanced sciences, than psychiatry (of which virtually the only really scientific part relates not to psychiatry but to pharmacology and neurology: medicines).

More specifically, also with regards to their new classification system that makes scientific rational statistics virtually impossible:

That is, in less polite terms and more politically realistic terms: The APA has done its best that its redefinitions can not be effectively rationally criticized by anyone without a direct personal financial interest in them - viz. the psychiatrists in the Work Groups, who apparently do not even affirm that they have received or read any submission by someone not belonging to their own interest group - that, let me reassure the reader, is very much financially dependent on finding patients with disorders, and therefore with a definite financial interest for the group as a whole to have definitions of disease that allow or require a paid part for the members of their own professional group of healthworkerks, so called.

So - to restate:

In fact a total change of what is involved in medical science seems to be at issue - the psychiatrists working for the APA on the DSM-5 are redefinining all manner of physical diseases as psychological diseases, that is, or redefining quite possibly only very partially known and understood bodily processes and malfunctions as if they are due to psychological processes and malfunctions, or at least interdepend with these.

Again, that is NOT modern rational science: That is medieval thinking mocked up for consumption of "laymen" and politicians and bureaucrats (incidentally also "laymen", if not psychiatrists) into modern psychiatric terminology, with a lot of added terminological and philosophical and logical confusion, for a good part intentional it seems, as well.

To turn to Somatic Symptom Disorders - and the first quote is from ME agenda:

Here the key passage is right at the beginning of the paragraph:

The Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group’s proposal to redefine “Somatoform Disorders” would legitimise the potential for the application of an additional diagnosis of “Somatic Symptom Disorder” to all medical diseases and disorders,

and the verbal trick by which is done is at its end: It is done by

dual-diagnosing general medical conditions under the guise of “eliminating mind-body dualism.”

This is a verbal trick because it is a fallacy: In fact the APA insists on what they are pleased to call the "mind-body dualism" and they do that by making all complaints that somehow relate to one's body as "Somatoform", which is to say something "like bodily". And the reasoning - damn Ockham's Razor; damn real science; damn real neuroscience - is this, essentially:

If the present state of medical knowledge can not explain one's suffering, then "therefore" one's suffering has no medical explanation, and "therefore" - the APA insists, for very clear financial reasons benefitting in principle all and only members of the APA (and other psychiatrists, of course) - the explanation must be that the patients makes the symptoms up, and accordingly lies or is deluded.

In the Middle Ages, witch-trials ran along just the same lines: If the priests cannot explain some unpleasant coincidence or strange fearful event, it "must" be witchcraft, the evil eye, or the work of the devil and his incubi and succubi, these days renamed to "complexes, somatizations, neurasthenia, dysfunctional beliefs, somatoform" etc.

This seems hard do believe in this modern age? Consider this, with two professional tricksters redefining psychiatric science abusing bogus philosophy:

(..) Joel Dimsdale, MD, and fellow Work Group member, Francis Creed, MD, reported that by doing away with the “controversial concept of medically unexplained”, the proposed classification might diminish “the dichotomy, inherent in the ‘Somatoform’ section of DSM-IV, between disorders based on medically unexplained symptoms and patients with organic disease.”

That is: Frater Maso and Pater Sado propose, very kindly and most rationally, and so as to minimize terminological problems, that whatever is not understood by the kind colleagues of the inquisition therefore is the work of the devil, as this has the great benefit for The Church of getting rid of whatever The Church does not understand: The Church understands everything, and what it does not understand palpably comes from the evil one. (QED in the APA of 2010, it seems, for the explanation I just gave for the Church and the Inquisition applies to the APA and the science of medicine, as perceived by the APA, to be sure.)

What is the fundamental moral, medical and human problem here? And namely if you or a friend or family member feels and appears miserably ill but the doctors can't find a medical explanation for it in their handbooks, and therefore decide your or your friend or your family member must be making it up, somehow:

This - and the red text is again ME agenda's and quite right:

The fundamental medical and moral problem, for doctor and patient is this (and the red text is again ME agenda's and is quite right):

Get it wrong and patients are exposed to the risk of iatrogenic disease.

Get it wrong and there will be implications for the securing of health insurance, welfare, social care packages, disability and workplace adaptations and provision of education tailored to the needs of children too sick to access mainstream school.

Get it wrong and families will be put at increased risk of wrongful accusation of “factitious disorder by proxy/factitious disorder on other”.

Get it wrong and practitioners are at risk of litigation.

For what happens when the doctor gets it wrong and tells you that you must be insane or bonkers or a neurotic because the doctor cannot explain what ails you is that your life and your chances will be damaged even more than by the disease you have: You'll be ostracized, discriminated, forced to work, denied benefits, and denied help and support of all kinds. Next to a real illness.

This is what you may find in a few years time to be the proud new state of American Psychiatry - or indeed any psychiatry where its DSM-5 is used:

That the APA has determined, somewhere between 2007 and 2010, and without admitting anybody not close to the APA to have a close look at the medical redefinitions, that it is much better for psychiatrists', governments' and health-insurers' bank-balances that you are insane or a malingerer rather than ill, if you have an unexplained disease. (And "it's the economy, stupid - but they will lie about that just as they do about their own medical omniscience.)

The Catch 22 amounts to the fact that the ill with a disease that the APA did not know of when the DSM-5 was crafted, or indeed a disease that the APA did not want to know of as disease, are considered to be mad if they say they feel ill, and sane only if they deny the testimony of their own experiences. (Besides, as soon as they start thinking or talking about their disease, or indeed 'disease', and the problems this causes for them, trained APA-specialists will tell these poor patients that the patients are indulging in - "doing, dûing, be-ing rather than ha-ving" or vice versa -  delusions, insanity, inappropriate ideas and acts, dysfunctional beliefs, and must besides be in fact too weakwilled wimps anyway, having a disease an APA-member cannot recognize, and indeed are thinking themselves ill, just as Faust got himself damned.)

In fact, while the DSM-I to DSM-III seem to have been more or less based on medical science and to be directed at arriving at somewhat objective diagnoses of the many kinds of psychiatric problems - to my way of thinking, in the end neurological processes, these days often helped by appropriate medicines such as anti-depressives or sleeping tablets - it seems to this psychologist that the DSM-IV and DSM-V are much more about the financial interests and livelihood of psychiatists than they are about real medical science or about effectively helping ill people.

For that is one thing not noted, but quite relevant: The main problem with unexplained diseases is the lack of medicines and cures - but when APA-psychiatrists "explains" one's "disease" as being some form of madness, they have no medicines or cures either. In fact, they insist for the most part that since one is mad (or whatever PC term they will use) one is not entitled to medicines, and not to health-benefits either, since one is "not really ill", according to their book of APA-definitions, and one will be forced to work or exercise, because that then will do one good, they will say, on what they pretend or stupidly believe to be "scientific grounds", but in fact are wordmagic and devilish presumption:

That if the doctor does not know of it, it cannot exist, and that the medical science of the APA covers all there is and will be known in medical science and any other science that may be relevant to medicine.

At which point one has passed far beyond what is moral, medically tenable, professionally correct, legally valid, or humane, and entered deep into the field of medical incompetence, medicalese presumption, and indeed, in some at least, of medical sadism - for money, for kicks, or both.

Finally, a little note on the existence of madmen, malingerers, and fraudulence that is not part and parcel of psychiatry:

Yes, there are madmen, malingerers, and fraudulent people, and not just in psychiatry (although psychiatry which profession has very many suicides and forced sectionings among its practitioners, and very many frauds and conmen too, as the reader may not know, but is true (**) - and this psychologist's explanation for it is that it is precisely what attracts the lesser gifted and the more wacky, problematic or lazy ones who graduated in medicine, for the really gifted etc. will very probably want to study something more demanding and more scientific, than the mass of falsehoods with a few insights that forms the library of psychiatry so far  (**) .

But malingering or madness is not a valid explanation for millions ill for many years, all with similar symptoms, and nearly all without any objective personal interest in being ill or pretending to be ill. That a certain percentage of those who receive dole must have lied about what made them eligible for dole, moreover, is not a problem of or for psychiatry but of policy, and besides, with payments for the dole as they are in the Western world very few people want to live as poorly and miserably as that allows them to live, even if they were healthy.

As I said, for the most part the above indented text is a repeat from On the DSM-5TM with a few more boldings and some phrases inserted.

There is more about the subject on ME agenda's DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch.
Much recommended.

P.S. There is a thread the DSM-5 revisal of Jan 14 on Phoenix Rising.

Corrections have to wait till later.


($) Semantical note (quoted from Bogositeit en andere zinnige begrippen):

bogosity: /boh?go?s@?tee/, n.

1. [orig. CMU, now very common] The degree to which something is bogus. Bogosity is measured with a bogometer; in a seminar, when a speaker says something bogus, a listener might raise his hand and say “My bogometer just triggered”. More extremely, “You just pinned my bogometer” means you just said or did something so outrageously bogus that it is off the scale, pinning the bogometer needle at the highest possible reading (one might also say “You just redlined my bogometer”). The agreed-upon unit of bogosity is the microLenat. 2. The potential field generated by a bogon flux; see quantum bogodynamics. See also bogon flux, bogon filter, bogus.

(*) I mean here predominantly with "good": morally good. I may disagree with Spitzer and Frances about a lot (in fact, I don't know) but at least they mean well, are honest, and are very well informed about what they fear about the disasters for patients and medicine that the DSM-5 promises to become. Also, it is good to see that they have, at their respectable age, the moral courage and decency to stand up and protest: Much appreciated, even if they and I don't agree on many things touching on psychology, philosophy or science.

In contrast, Reeves, Wessely, White, Sharpe, Chalder, Gerada and Bleijenberg I regard as utter frauds, who know they are frauds, and who are frauds for money and for kicks - and no, I can't make it any better, and am quite capable of pointing a court to the relevant literature. Real science is really totally different, both intellectually and morally, than what these con men and wome produced that I saw.

Again, that's much older than Lucian, and very menschlich-all-zu-menschlich - as is the success of frauds, conmen and bastards in general in human society, usually, and nearly everywhere. See my Causal explanation: It's malevolence, stupid!

(**) In fact, it seems in "the sciences" (as taught in modern universities) - where there is anyway more fraudulence than most believe, fraudulence for easily understood monetary and career reasons - that "the sciences" with most frauds, conmen, madmen, and bogus-sellers are psychotherapy aka clinical psychology, psychiatry and theology.

The reason is that so very much in these purported "sciences" is not really science, also if it is well intended and honest, as happens also, but more in the nature of bad philosophy, psychobabble, flimflam, or delusions.

And note this is not wholly the fault of psychologists, psychiatrists and theologians: Their subjects - if real at all - are very difficult and full of controversy, hard to study empirically, very complex, and besides filled with competing schools of thought and health frauds.

Also, most of the brain's working is terra incognita, which makes all presumptions of psychiatrists as vain and false as the presumptions of theologians to know and understand God.

As to ME/CFS (that I prefer to call ME):

1. Anthony Komaroff

Ten discoveries about the biology of CFS (pdf)

3. Hillary Johnson

The Why

4. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf)
5. Eleanor Stein

Clinical Guidelines for Psychiatrists (pdf)

6. William Clifford The Ethics of Belief
7. Paul Lutus

Is Psychology a Science?

8. Malcolm Hooper Magical Medicine (pdf)

Short descriptions:

1. Ten reasons why ME/CFS is a real disease by a professor of medicine of Harvard.
2. Long essay by a professor emeritus of medical chemistry about maltreatment of ME.
3. Explanation of what's happening around ME by an investigative journalist.
4. Report to Canadian Government on ME, by many medical experts.
5. Advice to psychiatrist by a psychiatrist who understands ME is an organic disease
6. English mathematical genius on one's responsibilities in the matter of one's beliefs:
   "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon
     insufficient evidence
7. A space- and computer-scientist takes a look at psychology.
8. Malcolm Hooper puts things together status 2010.

    "Ah me! alas, pain, pain ever, forever!

No change, no pause, no hope! Yet I endure.
I ask the Earth, have not the mountains felt?
I ask yon Heaven, the all-beholding Sun,
Has it not seen? The Sea, in storm or calm,
Heaven's ever-changing Shadow, spread below,
Have its deaf waves not heard my agony?
Ah me! alas, pain, pain ever, forever!
     - (Shelley, "Prometheus Unbound") 

    "It was from this time that I developed my way of judging the Chinese by dividing them into two kinds: one humane and one not. "
     - (Jung Chang)


See also: ME -Documentation and ME - Resources

Maarten Maartensz (M.A. psy, B.A. phi)

        home - index - top - mail