May 21, 2012
me: ME + DSM-5
I am around but not very well because I didnīt sleep well for several nights. I donīt quite know why, apart from the fact that lack of sleep is a well-known vicious circle for me. Also, I am still in between 2 computers and 3 OSs and Windows 7 is being troublesome, and again I donīt quite know why.
Anyway... that was the part about
ME. Iīve said I would return to the DSM-5
and specifically to discussing
So I am returning to this, that already is over a week old, and to which there were several reactions and comments, of which I will name and link three:
First, there was a reaction to Dr Frances' article, linked above (and commented by me), by Ed Silverman on Pharmalot.com:
This was published on May 15, and
the question also was made into a poll, in which the answers today are:
63% yes and 35% no, with 128 votes, which suggests 2 to 1 against.
Specifically - and I quote:
(..) Frances proposes that a federal agency
ought to assume the job of developing
This may raise a different set
of objections, of course. To what extent, for instance,
After which followed the question
in the last link thatīs also the title of the article, while there are
also 15 comments, of which the first two are respectively by Dr Carroll
and by 1 Boring
These are the other two reactions I had in mind that I wanted to comment on. Their main points, in my brief summaries, come respectively to this:
I agree with both, that is, I think
it is, in moral, medical, legal and scientific principle generally a bad idea to
hand the practice of medicine
to the government, and that includes overseeing medical diagnostic
manuals such as the DSM, if indeed these are real science and have been
written in a rational, open and honest way - as is not the case with
I italized ĻprincipleĻ
because I agree with it, while also thinking that, as posed, the
question misses the real point, which comes to this, also in principle,
and indeed in that sense regardless of my relative ignorance of US law,
since in principle the same applies in general, also in other
As I said, I do not know much of US law. But the point as I made it seems a reasonable one to me, and can be supported as follows, indeed extending the argument of 1 Boring Old Man:
In case you need an explanation,
here is one, by someone qualified to know:
It is from a site called ĻMedicine in Plain WordsĻ
This contains a very interesting and quite courageous video by a former sales rep in the pharmaceutical industry called Gwen Olsen, linked above, whose site
is under the last
link, and has more videos.
So here is a third point to support
my general point that, in the case of
(purported, claimed) medicine,
there does seem to be a real
demand and place for some sort of federal medical administration that
legal correctness of
medical professional organizations and their members, and whether
they do serve the public's interests as they should, rather than their
own or of pharmaceutical corporations:
So I do think there is a strong case that some sort of federal agency should oversee the legal doings and omissions of medical professoonal organizations and their members, and notably of the APA (the American Psychiatric Association), that seems to me to be quite corrupt, for its diagnostic manuals are not based on real science; are not prepared in an open and honest way, but by secret committees with members sworn to secrecy; while the diagnostic manual they are producing is pseudoscience all the way through that seems to be expressly designed to provide psychiatrists with far more power than they have, to make their diagnoses irrefutable, and to allow them access to far more patients to mistreat according to their pseudoscientific manual for the financial interest of the psychiatrists who design the manual and, most dishonestly, pretend it is real science.
Then again, not being a US citizen I do not know how to sensibly implement this. But what is quite clear to me is that if there is no qualified, independent, legally effective control on especially medical professional organizations, the risk is very great - it has happened and is happening: see the video linked above - that these will grow corrupt in ways their own members simply cannot control, for lack of the means, the knowledge, the legal expertise, the objectiveness, and the legal clout to enforce much needed regulation of the practices of some medical professional organizations, and most notably the American Psychiatric Association, whose diagnostic manuals are not science but pseudoscience, and whose practices are not in the legal and health interests of patients but in the financial interests of psychiatrists and pharmaceutical corporations.
Besides, the government is and ought to be involved in protecting the public against quackery, medical pseudoscience, and medical dishonesty. You cannot leave that to their own professional organizations, since these do not have the capacities to do so, even if they tried, and the government also has no right to wait till harm has been done: It must act pro-actively and protect the public against medical corruption, especially in the practicians and professional organization of what is anyway mostly a pseudoscience, viz. psychiatry.
(1) the American Psychiatric Association has been doing none
of these things - take the appropriate steps to help safeguard the rights of the public to safely practiced honest and real
medicine - and in
fact seems to have been doing precisely the contrary with the DSM-5 from its
very inception onwards, and also that
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|