` -


DSM-5: THE PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHIATRIC NEWSPEAK (PSYCHO-SPEAK) - P.S.

 

  "Malice is pleasure derived from another's evil which brings no advantage to oneself.
     (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
  "We never hurt each other but by error or by malice." 
     (Sir Robert Chambers, possibly inspired by Dr. Johnson)
   "As long as the patient will suffer, the cruel will kick."
     (Rev. Sidney Smith)
    "Now I am not one of those who believe that mental illness is a fiction; my mother worked in a psychiatric hospital for awhile when I was a child and I got to meet a lot of people suffering from real and terrible conditions such as chronic depression and schizophrenia. Madness exists, it causes misery for its sufferers and those around them and can and should be treated. But the DSM manual is bizarre and provides an explanation for the ‘disease mongering’ practised by the American shrink-industry and for the sinister habit of shoving medicine down children’s throats to make them behave.  Modern updates of the DSM have dropped some of the most egregious insanities (famously, homosexuality was dropped from its list of mental disorders in 1974) but the new rewrite, DSM 5, is if anything ramping up the disease mongering. The DSM now lists no fewer than 347 mental illnesses."
      -- Michael Hanlon, The Madness of American psychiatrists

Sections

1. Introduction
2. "Psychosomatic Medicine" (quoted)
3. Some useful references

1. Introduction

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:


Click picture for source and background:

" This poster (from around 1938) reads:

"60,000 Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from a hereditary defect costs the People's community during his lifetime. Fellow citizen, that is your money too. Read '[A] New People', the monthly magazine of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP."   "

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

   Connotations of the term "psychosomatic illness"

Psychosomatic medicine is not to be confused with the demotic and scientifically incorrect use of the phrase "psychosomatic illness" to apply to illnesses that are now called somatoform disorders. Such illness is classified as neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders by the World Health Organization in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. The field of psychosomatic medicine fell into disrepute clinically due to this incorrect use of this term, which was largely due to the influence of psychoanalytic theory on psychiatric physicians and the inaccurate application by non-specialists in the first part of the 20th century who considered this form of illness to be akin to malingering, thereby further harming the sufferer.[9] For this reason, among others, the field of Behavioral Medicine has taken over much of the remit of Psychosomatic Medicine in practice and there exist large areas of overlap in the scientific research.

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:

2. "Psychosomatic Medicine" quoted

----- quote

Michael Sharpe, Arthur Barsky and Francis Creed are members of the DSM-5 "Somatic Symptom Disorders" Work Group.

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":

05A08  BODILY DISTRESS DISORDERS

05A08.00  Mild bodily distress disorder
05A08.01  Moderate bodily distress disorder
05A08.02  Severe bodily distress disorder
05A08.03  Somatization disorder
05A08.04  Undifferentiated somatoform disorder
05A08.05  Somatoform autonomic dysfunction
05A08.06  Persistent somatoform pain disorder 
          05A08.06.00  Persistent somatoform pain disorder 
          05A08.06.01  Chronic pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors [not in ICD-10]
05A08.07  Other somatoform disorders
05A08.08  Somatoform disorder, unspecified

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"

"David Goldberg

[...]

"However, some of the ICD10–PHC disorders were equivalent to existing categories in the parent classification, and did not take into account developments in diagnostic thinking. An interesting example of this concerns ‘medically unexplained symptoms’, which appear to have fallen out of favour with our GP colleagues, who have taken the view that even some medically explained symptoms can be abnormally prolonged and accentuated. Psychiatrists have taken a similar view: the new concept of ‘complex somatic symptom disorder’ being field tested for DSM–V also draws attention not to whether somatic symptoms can be explained, but to the cognitive components that may accompany them, whether they are part of a known physical disease or not."

[...]

"Box 2 The 28 disorders to be field tested for ICD11–PHC

 
[...]

"Body distress disorders
16 Bodily distress syndrome (new – was unexplained somatic complaints)
17 Health preoccupation (new)
18 Conversion disorder (was dissociative disorder)"


[...]

"A new category called bodily distress disorders will include conversion disorder (fairly common in some lower-income countries), health preoccupation (a new disorder similar to hypochondriasis) and the less severe ‘bodily distress syndrome’. In the syndrome, the patient is both distressed and concerned and has three or more somatic symptoms in one bodily system. This is diagnosed only if the patient does not have one of the three dysphoric disorders."

[...]

"These proposals are radical indeed, and by no means all of the proposed disorders will survive the field tests. Each proposed category will be commented upon by experts who are not part of the group, as well as by the main advisory group responsible for ICD–11. Final amendments will be made by the primary care group before the revised classification is released for field tests. The field tests are likely to be quite extensive, and to involve studies in both high-income and low- and middle-income countries. A second set of revisions will be made after the field tests."

------------------------------

PULSE Today

Article

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.

Eight 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'.

------------------

http://www.jpsychores.com/issues?issue_key=S0022-3999(12)X0003-5

Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Volume 72, Issue 3 , Pages 242-247, March 2012

http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(11)00316-3/abstract   

Healthcare costs incurred by patients repeatedly referred to secondary medical care with medically unexplained symptoms: A cost of illness study
 
Christopher Burton  Affiliations Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Kelly McGorm  Affiliations Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Gerry Richardson  Affiliations Centre for Health Economics, University of York, United Kingdom

David Weller  Affiliations Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
 
Michael Sharpe Affiliations Psychological Medicine Research, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Corresponding author at: Psychological Medicine Research, University of Oxford Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX, United Kingdom. Tel.: +44 1865 226397; fax: +44 1865 793101.

Received 9 June 2011; received in revised form 13 December 2011; accepted 20 December 2011. published online 18 January 2012.

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords: Cost of illness, MUS, Primary care, Referrals, Somatoform disorders

----------------

http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(12)00025-6/abstract

Journal of Psychosomatic Research

Article in Press

The epidemiology of multiple somatic symptoms

Francis H. Creed Affiliations School of Community Based Medicine, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Corresponding author at: School of Community Based Medicine, 3rd floor, Jean McFarlane Building, University Place, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL. Tel.: +44 161 276 5331; fax: +44 161 306 7945.
 
Ian Davies  Affiliations Arthritis Research UK Epidemiology Unit, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Judy Jackson  Affiliations School of Community Based Medicine, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
 
Alison Littlewood  Affiliations Arthritis Research UK Epidemiology Unit, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
 
Carolyn Chew-Graham  Affiliations School of Community Based Medicine, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Barbara Tomenson  Affiliations School of Community Based Medicine, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Gary Macfarlane  Affiliations Aberdeen Pain Research Collaboration (Epidemiology Group), University of Aberdeen, UK

Arthur Barsky  Affiliations Department of Psychiatry, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Wayne Katon  Affiliations Department of Psychiatry & Behavioural Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

John McBeth  Affiliations Arthritis Research UK Epidemiology Unit, 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.

Corrected Proof

Abstract

Background

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.

Method

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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

----- unquote


Click picture for source and background:

" This poster (from around 1938) reads:

"60,000 Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from a hereditary defect costs the People's community during his lifetime. Fellow citizen, that is your money too. Read '[A] New People', the monthly magazine of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP."   " (*)

----- unquote

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

Lawyer Gottstein talking about modern psychiatry
James Gottstein - Wikipedia
PsychRights - Law Project for Psychiatric Rights

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:

The Madness of American Psychiatrists

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:

Secondly, it is profoundly unscientific. It cannot be stressed too highly or often enough that we really don’t have much of an idea how the brain works. We have no workable theory of consciousness, we do not really know how emotions are generated or how and where memories are stored. We don’t even know why we sleep, for heaven’s sake.

Because of this a lot of what is written about mental illness in the DSM is a sort of pseudoscience based on bogus precision and classification. The analogy would be those old maps of the world where the cartographer would colour in the unexplored regions with detailed, fanciful imagined continents and fabulous beasts.

Finally, if the DSM keeps on expanding by the time its next edition is out, everyone will find themselves diagnosed as mentally ill. And if we are all mad, then no one is and we are back to square one.  

Proper classification of brain illnesses should, as Professor Craddock says, be ‘based upon brain physiology and make sense in biological and physiological terms.” In other words, you cannot talk sensibly about a disease unless you have some working hypothesis of how that disease is caused, how it works and how to treat it. Otherwise what you are talking about is not science but witchcraft, and I am afraid that prescribing anti-depressants to a grieving widow falls firmly into the witchcraft category not the scientific.   

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:

“Psychiatry does not commit human rights abuse. It is a human rights abuse.”

“It’s not science. It’s politics and economics. That’s what psychiatry is: politics and economics. Behavior control, it is not science, it is not medicine.”

“It’s an epidemic of psychiatry that we are dealing with. We don’t have an epidemic of mental illness, we have an epidemic of psychiatry.”


(*) I am quite interested in receiving - if with real names and addresses - protests of professors of psychiatry that "as Jews we protest your comparing us to Nazis": I do gentlemen! Let me hear your protests! Tell me why persons from your background are incapable of doing evil! Tell me why I am not allowed "to do a Godwin" on men of your depraved morality! (I am asking, because I have seen this line of argument before, and let it lie in angry contempt, and shouldn't have. I despise anti-semitism, but I see no reason why I should not identify a Nazi-science as a Nazi-science because some of its proponents had fathers who survived Nazi death-camps, or believe they are any better than other rotters with another background.)


P.S.
Corrections, if any are necessary, have to be made later.

 

As to ME/CFS (that I prefer to call ME):
1.  Anthony Komaroff Ten discoveries about the biology of CFS (pdf)
2.  Malcolm Hooper THE MENTAL HEALTH MOVEMENT: 
PERSECUTION OF PATIENTS?
3.  Hillary Johnson The Why
4.  Consensus of 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)
9.
 Maarten Maartensz
ME in Amsterdam - surviving in Amsterdam with ME (Dutch)
10.
 Maarten Maartensz Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

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.
8. Malcolm Hooper puts things together status 2010.
9. I tell my story of surviving (so far) in Amsterdam/ with ME.
10. The directory on my site about ME.



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