DSM-5: THE PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHIATRIC NEWSPEAK (PSYCHO-SPEAK) - P.S.
Here is the basic idea behind "Psychosomatic Medicine": What you see are an attractive doctor of psychosomatic medicine (although it wasn't called so then) briefly before giving a lethal injection to an unattractive - invalid - subhuman, for the best of financial, moral and medical reasons:
This Nederlog is just a postscript to yesterday's THE PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHIATRIC NEWSPEAK (PSYCHO-SPEAK) in which I adapted George Orwell's text on Newspeak to modern "health care" as furthered by the APA, the DSM-5-to-be, and several tens of professors of psychiatry, mostly connected to or publishing in journals of "Psychosomatic Medicine", several of whom who also finagled themselves into the editorial committees appointed to produce the DSM-5 or the ICD-11.
As to "Psychosomatic Medicine": Wikipedia informs the reader thus, in its lemma on the subject, that is very probably written by a professor in it
To me the above - and the whole lemma from which it was lifted - seems like an exercise in Psychiatric Newspeak, written by an evident medical sadist, trying to propagandize his malicious pseudo-scientific bullshit to the public, in the tradition of Aktion T4 linked in the above picture, which was an attempt of Hitler's government to achieve what now is being attempted - it seems to me, especially if the economy remains in crisis -with "Psychosomatic Medicine": Deny as many people proper health-care and a liveable income as the state-bureaucracy can get away with, to pay the debts to keep the Mr Fulds at the banks contented and extremely rich.
Then again, I fear being misunderstood, e.g. by people who don't have my background in psychology or philosophy, and/or who don't have my experiences as someone with ME/CFS for the 34th year, and all the discrimination, total lack of any help, and bureaucratic malice that comes with that, as if all that malice, ill-will and bureaucratic sadism was perfectly justified by postmodern professors in psychiatry or "Psychosomatic Medicine".
Well... here is what a kind correspondent dropped into my email-box late in the evening yesterday, very probably by sheer coincident - and the title that follows is mine (there is an endnote on it) but everything else is quoted.
To allow you to skip most of it, I have bolded the parts in it that seem to me intended - eminently usable for, as anyone should be able to see - for denying millions of people a liveable income or the help they need to get by with their illness.
If you do not think this is done on purpose, and written on purpose - the professors of psychiatric "Behavorial Medicine" flaunting their wares and their tools to whip people to submission or to pieces to state bureaucrats as so many SM-whores would, it seems to me you are totally ignorant about human history, if you don't work for them or in their kind of sick industry:
Francis Creed is a member of the "ICD-11 working group for Bodily Distress Disorders" aka "ICD-11 Revision Working Group on Somatoform Disorders" (led by O. Gureje).
The current ICD-11 Alpha drafting platform displays the following proposals for the Chapter 5 category known in ICD-10 as "Somatoform Disorders":
Dr David Goldberg is Chairman, WHO Advisory Group for Classification in Primary Care: ICD11–PHC 1 - the condensed version of ICD-11.
According to this document: Journal of International Psychiatry, Volume 8 Number 1 February 2011
Dr Goldberg was proposing the following:
"A revised mental health
classification for use in general medical settings: the ICD11–PHC 1"
By Beatrice Baiden | 28 Feb 2012
A specialist clinic for patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) in primary care can have a ‘clinically meaningful' improvement on their quality of life, say UK researchers.
The pilot study looked at 32 patients from six north-east Edinburgh GP surgeries who had multiple specialist referrals and current disease symptoms that their GP believed could not be adequately explained by physical disease.
Patients were allocated randomly to two arms - usual care or a series of four clinic appointments with a GP with a special interest in MUS – and their quality of life was assessed at baseline and after the intervention.
Both study arms showed an improvement in quality of life, but improvements were more marked in the intervention group. The differences in Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-14) scores in the intervention group were 3.3, compared with 2.2 in the usual care group, and this difference was statistically significant when one outlier was removed.
out of the 11 patients randomised to the clinic appointment reported it
had helped them deal with their problems, and study leader Dr
Christopher Burton, GP and senior research fellow at the University of
Edinburgh, said MUS sufferers often incurred substantial health
costs with repeated consultations, but the clinic results ‘are in
keeping with clinically meaningful benefit'.
costs incurred by patients repeatedly referred to secondary medical
care with medically unexplained symptoms: A cost of illness study
Some patients are repeatedly referred from primary to secondary care with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). We aimed to estimate the healthcare costs incurred by such referrals and to compare them with those incurred by other referred patients from the same defined primary care sample.
Using a referral database and case note review, all adult patients aged less than 65years, who had been referred to specialist medical services from one of five UK National Health Service primary care practices in a five-year period, were identified. They were placed in one of three groups: (i) repeatedly referred with MUS (N=276); (ii) infrequently referred (IRS, N=221), (iii) repeatedly referred with medically explained symptoms (N=230). Secondary care activities for each group (inpatient days, outpatient appointments, emergency department attendances and investigations) were identified from primary care records. The associated costs were allocated using summary data and the costs for each group compared.
Patients who had been repeatedly referred with MUS had higher mean inpatient, outpatient and emergency department costs than those infrequently referred (£3,539, 95% CI 1458 to 5621, £778 CI 705 to 852 and £99, CI 74 to 123 respectively. The mean overall costs were similar to those of patients who had been repeatedly referred with medically explained symptoms.
The repeated referral of patients with MUS to secondary medical care incurs substantial healthcare costs. An alternative form of management that reduces such referrals offers potential cost savings.
Cost of illness, MUS, Primary care, Referrals, Somatoform disorders
of Psychosomatic Research
epidemiology of multiple somatic symptoms
Tomenson Affiliations School of Community Based Medicine, The
University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Received 18 October 2011; received in revised form 12 January 2012; accepted 12 January 2012. published online 06 February 2012.
The risk factors for a high total somatic symptom count are unclear; and it is not known whether total somatic symptoms count is a predictor of impaired health status.
A prospective population-based cohort study in North West England. Randomly sampled residents (1443 participants; 58% response) completed questionnaires to determine number of somatic symptoms (SSI), health status and a wide range of risk factors; 741 completed questionnaires 1 year later. We used logistic regression to identify risk factors for high SSI at follow-up and for persistently high SSI. We used ANCOVAR and multiple regression to assess whether baseline SSI predicted health status at follow-up.
Twenty-one percent of participants scored over 25 on the Somatic Symptom Inventory (SSI) at baseline and 14% at both baseline and follow-up. Risk factors for a persistent high SSI were: fewer than 12 years of education, separated, widowed or divorced status, reported psychological abuse during childhood, co-existing medical illnesses, anxiety and depression. In multivariate analysis baseline SSI predicted health status (SF12 physical component score and health-related quality of life (EuroQol)) 12 months later. Persistent high SSI was a clinically meaningful predictor of these outcomes.
Our data support a biopsychosocial approach to somatic symptoms rather than the dualistic approach of identifying “medically unexplained” symptoms. The risk factors for total somatic symptom count were those associated with psychiatric disorders including physical illness. A persistent high somatic symptom count provides a readily measured dimension of importance in epidemiology as a predictor of health status.
Keywords: Somatoform disorders, Somatisation, Epidemiology, Health-related quality of life
3. Some useful references
I did meanwhile find some useful references. Here are three, related to the same man, Mr James Gottstein, a lawyer from Alaska
The first is a video of some 10 minutes, that shows you very much is wrong with modern psychiatry and with the laws that should protect citizens against medical frauds and medical sadism in the name of science; the second is the Wikipedia article on him; the third is to his site, where there are many pages about psychiatry and the law, and about the abuse of people with psychiatric diagnoses (that the frightening bunch of Fraudian creeps quoted above tend to accuse patients of: That they are needlessly afraid of psychiatric diagnoses and that they - these patients - are being quite unfair to psychiatrists).
This seems all very informed and well done, and it is all quite frightening - and I don't mean Mr Gottstein: I mean the stark inhumanity and indifference and obvious malice that he details.
I gave the relevant quotes on malice at the beginning, and also quoted Michael Hanlon, writing in the Daily Mail. Here is a link to the article, that is well worth reading:
And in case you missed it or are inclined to skip it, here are his last four paragraphs - and he is talking about the DSM-5:
Quite - and the most frightening bit is that all of this should be obvious to anyone intelligent, but the professors of psychiatric "Behavorial Medicine" (an oxymoron that strongly suggests concentration camps to me, or at least forced beatings, of the kind that also killed the good doctor Semmelweiss - and I do know very well what I am talking about) keep lying and pretending and smiling and denying that "No, no, no you don't understand: You are not qualified to understand us".
They even submitted that bullshit to doctors Spitzer and Frances, who led the DSM-III and DSM-IV's development, respectively: These DSM-5 shrinks, also quoted above, are extremely dangerous men, who are morally totally corrupt and push the sheerest pseudo-science, for money or for pervy kicks, with conscious lies, fallacies, rhetoric and propaganda, since that is the essence of their fraudulent pseudoscience ever since Charcot and Freud started it, and showed others how to get rich with utter bullshit.
As emeritus professor of psychiatry Szasz put it:
As to ME/CFS (that I prefer to call ME):
Short descriptions of the above:
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 understa, but nds ME is an organic disease
6. English mathematical genius on one's responsibilities in the matter of one's beliefs:
7. A space-
and computer-scientist takes a look at psychology.
See also: ME -Documentation and ME - Resources
The last has many files, all on my site to keep them accessible.
|home - index - summaries - top - mail|