` -

 Previous IndexNL Next
Nederlog
  July 16, 2012                  
     
DSM-5: Medicine is a very sick business in the US - 2

 

"The Requisites of a good Hypothesis are:

That It be Intelligible.
That It neither Assume nor Suppose anything Impossible, unintelligible, or demonstrably False.
That It be consistent with Itself.
That It be lit and sufficient to Explicate the Phaenomena, especially the chief.
That It be, at least, consistent, with the rest of the Phaenomena It particularly relates to, and do not contradict any other known Phaenomena of nature, or manifest Physical Truth.

The Qualities and Conditions of an Excellent Hypothesis are:

That It be not Precarious, but have sufficient Grounds In the nature of the Thing Itself or at least be well recommended by some Auxiliary Proofs.
That It be the Simplest of all the good ones we are able to frame, at least containing nothing that is superfluous or Impertinent.
That It be the only Hypothesis that can Explicate the Phaenomena; or at least, that does Explicate them so well.
That it enable a skilful Naturalist to foretell future Phaenomena by the Congruity or Incongruity to it; and especially the event of such Experlm'ts as are aptly devis'd to examine It, as Things that ought, or ought not, to be consequent to It.

-- Robert Boyle [1]


This continues yesterday's Medicine is a very sick business in the US - that I recommend you read first, if you didn't already - and let me here also repeat some, to set the scene for a hypothesis I have:

Here is a  reference from Mother Jones, that did an article about it, that is well worth reading, even if you do not want to vomit:


where there is more footage, with the following warning:

Looking to self-inflict some lasting psychological damage? Watch this video from Advair's Las Vegas product launch on repeat. Alternately, you can fast-forward to minute three, when Advair's product manager, Jim Daly, asks the crowd, "Who wants to be a millionaire?" or minute nine, when Pink Floyd's "Money" plays as CEO J.P. Garnier steps on stage. "There are people in this room who are going to make an ungodly sum of money selling Advair," Daly tells the crowd. "And that's the way it should be."

Greed is good, you see, and ill people are the perfect targets to have their bankaccounts or insurances plundered or what remains of their health destroyed by dangerous drugs they don't need but that their physicians prescribed, because that is profitable for physicians.

What does this have to do with the DSM-5 I mentioned in the title? It gets explained here:
I think it very likely that the folks behind GSK and other big pharmaceutical corporations, working in tandem with such conscientious do-gooders as Drs Regier, Creed and Sharpe of the DSM-5, have redesigned the DSM-5 to get as much good out of it as they possibly can, namely by selling the US and world population each year billions of dollars worth of dangerous drugs the patients don't need, but the doctors have prescribed because doing so profits the doctors a lot, while the DSM-5 has been designed to allow psychiatrists to diagnose anything as psychiatric, and get away with, because only they pretend to be capable of understanding the intentionally fraudulent rot that is the DSM-5.

In the US, medicine has been redesigned, by corrupt and dishonest medical doctors themselves, from a moral practice intended to help ill people, to a fraudulent practice with the end of enriching medical doctors and pharmaceutical managers by medical fraud, on a scale the world has never seen before.

And in the case of the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5 the whole diagnostic manual has been intentionally designed so as to make the fraudulent sales of useless, expensive and dangerous drugs as extensive and profitable as possible, and so as to cover this up by carefully crafted pseudoscience designed to defraud patients or their insurances while not being found out.


That is my hypothesis, in support of which I will quote a recent column by Dr Allen Frances, the chief editor of the DSM-IV, who opposes the DSM-5 for reasons that I agree with, but who goes less far than I do - but then he is an emeritus professor of psychiatry, so that is to be expected, and I am not, and I also am without any loyalties to any psychiatrist or psychiatric interest. (*)

But then I just got to a column Dr Frances wrote in his DSM-5 in distress, in Psychology Today dated July 11, 2012, that supports my hypothesis very well indeed:
You'll find the article in the link, and interspersed with my comments below, for it so happens that this very well illustrates and supports my hypothesis - and I started with a quotation of Boyle because he was a very sensible man, and he is quite right about hypotheses and their merits, if they have any, and I think my hypothesis has the merits of an "Excellent Hypothesis" as Boyle states these in the above quote.

And this I will now show by quotation and comment - and the original text, linked above is indented and sidelined, while my comments are not indented and not sidelined, and also , unlike the original I quote from, I have made the text of the two psychiatrists blue, to make it clear it is quoted by Dr Frances and requoted by me, while the black indented text is by Dr Frances and the black unindented text is by me:





''Roel Verheul'' is a Dutch name, but otherwise I do not know anything about him, and Livesley in fact did protest earlier, but in a scholarly text that has been appropriated by Springer, so one has to pay Springer $ 37,50 or so for the - dubious because thus corrupted - privilege of reading it, which I can't afford. [2]
 
Well... that depends on one's standards:

If one's standard is the APA's, it probably is quite excellent, namely for helping psychiatrists and pharmaceutical corporations to get rich by prescribing useless and/or dangerous drugs to patients, on the basis of their medical authority and a carefully designed fraudulent diagnostic bible also known as the DSM-5. (**)

See yesterday's
Medicine is a very sick business in the US : I think that is what has happened, quite intentionally, probably engineered (a take over, as dr Spitzer in fact took over the DSM-III).

The video linked on
Mother Jones that I mentioned yesterday is vomit inducing but has the great merit of showing the greed of GSK and the enormous popularity of greed among persons who are in medicine for the money - that, human beings being as they are, may well be the larger part of current medical folks. And note that the great greed in the video is just about one drug for asthma, the sales of which got extended immorally to problems with coughing, because that is so very profitable for medical folks and pharmaceutical companies, as long as it is patented: At least 1 billion dollars a year. For that one drug alone.

Noting that he psychiatric drugs sales in the US alone must be very much larger, I think that is the - cleverly hidden - goal of the DSM-5:

Sell psychiatric drugs without limit or reason, just for profit, based on carefully contrived bullshit diagnoses that are designed to justify anything, in the end by authority: It "is" so because they say it is in the handbook, though ordinary people can't read that handbook, because it was designed that way on purpose, that is: to mislead and to be so obscure that only psychiatrists can make sense of it, or so they will pretend in courts and in public discussions.
Probably also on purpose: All these Work Groups were just window dressing - at best they served to get the votes for the proposals of the leaders, who I suspect work for pharma, if possibly not directly. (But again see the video: One may assume - with envy or contempt - that doctors Regier and Creed and Escobar and Sharpe have fond memories of "deep massages" and such aboard the yacht "Tranquillity", or of similar perks where the pharmaceutical corporations clarified to them how very kind they are to shrinks who play their game. As an example of how things are, for those who have a taste for corruption: In Holland top bureaucrats that helped the building companies to get corrupt contracts were rewarded with such things as "expensive sex workers": 10.000 euros worth of top whore for a top manager - and I personally don't see that Regier and Creed and Escobar and Sharpe can afford it morally, in their moral metrics, to sell their patients rights, lives and health for less. For the US perks for collaborating shrinks see the Mother Jones article: Cruises, Pheasant-Hunting Trips, and Political Donations: The 5 Skeeziest GlaxoSmithKline Perks Revealed.)

This is a bit interesting: That so called Work Group now is strictly local to the US: Not even merely formal support by medical folks who are not as easily corruptible as US ones seem to be by US pharmaceutical corporations. (Dr Verheul is Dutch; dr Livesley Canadian.)
This seems naive to me, but then they get paid for something like this, and I am not.
I agree: At least this is the morally right thing to do.
See above on standards, that fully applies here.
See above on standards, that fully applies here.
See above on standards, that fully applies here.
See above on standards, that fully applies here: I think again this is on purpose.

That is, they want to be able "to diagnose" whatever is most profitable for them or the pharmaceutical corporations that add so much to their own quality of life, what with
"deep massages" and such aboard the yacht "Tranquillity" or similar perks, that may well be the constant envy of most of their medical colleagues:

It all gets quite clear if you ask yourself "But how would this be profitable for the shrinks and the drugs companies?" rather than "But how could this possibly make rational scientific sense?": It doesn't, and they know that very well indeed, for it is designed to make gigantic profits by diagnostic fraudulence that is contrived to look and sound as 'evidence based medicine', while being total bullshit.

Again, the climate the DSM-5 works in - their "biopsychosocial" context, that explains so much about their "dysfunctional belief systems" - will be comparable to that in the Mother Jones video - which is in fact (see the link): evidence from the US Department of Justice - but multiplied by a 1000 or so, for that much more money and profits and corruption and fraudulence are involved in psychiatry and psychiatric drugs.

'It's all about the money, Leibowski!'
See above on standards, that fully applies here: They want the profitable diagnosis, very much rather than the rationally and morally tenable diagnosis: Truth is for fools, for do gooders, and for idiots who haven't learned yet that psychiatrists who have big pharma for their patients get tremendously rich, very easily, and who haven't learned yet that 'greed is good' is the APA translation of 'primum non nocere (big pharma)', which is the deeply moral APA-version of the totally defunct medical ideal 'first, do not harm the patient': That is not as profitable, by far, and shrinks are human-all-too-human as well.
True: The Right Thing To Do, and it is nice to see some do it.
See above on standards, that fully applies here.
See above on standards, that fully applies here.
See above on standards, that fully applies here.

And I mean:

I have an "Excellent Hypothesis", in Boyle's terms, supported by excellent - if nauseating - evidence, capable of logically explaining many puzzling facts one cannot otherwise explain as well or at all:

Assume the DSM-5 is a consciously contrived fraud to allow psychiatrists to get away with anything and prescribe and justify anything big pharma wants to see prescribed and justified; assume psychiatrists are human and are in it for the money, often, and especially in the DSM-5 leadership; and assume they want to use medical science and their bogus DSM as a pretext to make money, and...

... all falls in place that otherwise looks like stark raving insanity on the part of the APA and the DSM-5: It is big fraudulent business, dressed up as if it were "medical science", presented falsely as it existed to help ill people.

It isn't, but indeed it is not real science but pseudoscience, and namely because it is intentional fraudulence carefully contrived to look like real science in the eyes of laymen. It is charlatanerie -
bullshit - pure and simple, and it has been carefully designed that way, for profit, by deception, and by medical fraudulence.
See above on standards, that fully applies here.
Actually, I doubt it: Most men are followers, and all are capable of being corrupted. Also, one can do lots of 'research' with it: It won't be science, but it will look like it to laymen, because it is unreadable and only the specialists say they can make sense of it, so there you go: "Doctor knows better - you know you can trust such a nice doc!"

The concluding paragraph is by Dr Frances:
See above on standards, that fully applies here. And yes: I think the "experts" are experts indeed - at fraudulent pseudoscience, for that is what they want to be, because it promises to be very many times more profitable than the GSK swindle documented in the Mother Jones video was, that is in fact evidence from the US Department of Justice.
Well... it's nice they stood up and said 'No', but my explanation is far superior to theirs, and also has much better evidence and support, for I can both explain why the DSM-5 and APA do it, why they are not open  to criticism, and why they push pseudoscience: It is not because they have gone mad or don't know science - it is because they have been sung to by the sirens of GSK and Pfizer, and long ago sold their souls.

They know very well what they are doing and why: They hope to much improve the quality of their lives at the cost of the quality of the lives of their patients, with the help of big pharma and their own diagnostic bible of witchcraft called, with deceptive intent, 'evidence based medical science', while it is in fact greed induced pseudoscience.

And no: I am not going to be impressed by medical or psychiatric folks who tell me I am too cynical or mistaken:

I know that the DSM-5 is total bullshit as pretended science, and having seen
the Mother Jones video, that is in fact evidence from the US Department of Justice, I can easily understand why the APA is corrupt, and how it is possible: There is no regulation of the pharmaceutical corporations that works; the profits of pharmaceutical corporations are gigantic; and psychiatrists are human and corruptible, and anyway are in their business to make money.

Finally, to get perspectives right, two final remarks on making money and on psychiatrists:

On making money: Everybody who has a job - with a very few exceptions, usually children of billionaires - has a job to make money, and needs money to eat, cloth, pay the rent or mortgage, in brief: survive in a modern society. There is nothing wrong with that, also not in medical people: everybody has to eat.

The moral issue is whether one sells one's capacities and work honestly or dishonestly, and selling drugs by way of corrupted medical doctors who got corrupted because they share in the profits - see:
DSM-5: Psychiatry as pharmacological fraudulence - is immoral and dishonest, and plays with the lives, interests and incomes of patients, so that the doctors will get rich, even if the patients won't get helped, may get harmed, and anyway loose a lot of money, and also loose the chance of being treated by an honest medical doctor, for these also exist.

On psychiatrists: Indeed, the letter of doctors Verheul and Livesley that doctor Frances quoted, and that I commented, shows that there are honorable psychiatrists, who have the courage of drawing the line, of sticking to moral, rational and scientific principles, and of standing up to protest against the abuses of medical science and of patients - that happen all in the name of medical science and patients, because with PR firms meanwhile involved by the APA, the actual "communication" gets real sick real fast, as PR firms are firms who make their money by producing lies and propaganda for others.

Even so, I think I have made a very good case that something very sick is happening with US medicine and US psychiatry:

I think it very likely that the folks behind GSK and other big pharmaceutical corporations, working in tandem with such conscientious do-gooders as Drs Regier, Creed and Sharpe of the DSM-5, have redesigned the DSM-5 to get as much good out of it as they possibly can, namely by selling the US and world population each year billions of dollars worth of dangerous drugs the patients don't need, but the doctors have prescribed because doing so profits the doctors a lot, while the DSM-5 has been designed to allow psychiatrists to diagnose anything as psychiatric, and get away with, because only they pretend to be capable of understanding the intentionally fraudulent rot that is the DSM-5.

In the US, medicine has been redesigned, by corrupt and dishonest medical doctors themselves, from a moral practice intended to help ill people, to a fraudulent practice with the end of enriching medical doctors and pharmaceutical managers by medical fraud on a scale the world has never seen before.

And in the case of the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5 the whole diagnostic manual has been intentionally designed so as to make the fraudulent sales of useless, expensive and dangerous drugs as extensive and profitable as possible, and so as to cover this up by carefully crafted pseudoscience designed to defraud patients or their insurances while not being found out.

It is morally disgusting, it is fraudulent, it is
bullshit, it is pseudoscience, but it pays really well, and therefore it exists and will continue to exist so long as medical doctors are allowed to profit from the drugs or therapies they prescribe to patients, and as long as pharmaceutical companies are allowed to massage doctors with "deep massages", "pheasant hunting", and what not, so as to corrupt them.


Notes

[1] Robert Boyle was a contemporary of Isaac Newton, and himself an eminent scientist and very sensible philosopher of science. In case you read Dutch see my Wat meer over de menselijke ziel from 2008, from which I quote this bit of very sound philosophy of science - and what he called "natural philosophy" these days is called "science" or "physics":

"And truly... if men could be persuaded to mind more the advancement of natural philosophy than that of their own reputations, it were not, methinks, very uneasy to make them sensible, that one of the considerabelest services that they could do to mankind, were to set themselves diligently and industriously to make experiments and collect observations, without being overforward to establish principles and axioms, believing it uneasy to erect such theories, as are capable to explicate all the phenomena of nature, before they have been able to take notice of the  tenth part of those phenomena, that are to be explicated. Not that I disallow the use of reasoning upon experiments, or the endeavour to discern as early as we can the confederations, and differences, and tendencies of things: for such an absolute suspension of the exercise of reason were exceedingly troublesome, if not impossible... in physiology it is sometimes conducive to the discovery of truth, to permit the understanding to make a hypothesis, in order to the explication of this or that difficulty, that by examining how far the phenomena are, or are not, capable of being solved by that hypothesis, the understanding may, even by its own errors, be instructed. For it has been truly observed by a great philosopher, that truth does more easily emerge out of error than out of confusion. That then, I wish for, as to systems, is this, that men, in the first place, would  forbear to establish any theory, till they have consulted with (though not a fully competent number of experiments, such as may afford them all the phenomena to be explicated by that theory, yet) a considerable number of experiments, in proportion to the comprehensiveness of the theory to be erected on them. And, in the next place, I would have such kind of superstructures looked upon as temporary ones: which though they may be preferred before any others, as being the least imperfect, or, if you please, the best in their kind that we yet have, yet are they not entirely to be acquisced in, as absolutely perfect, or uncapable of improving alterations."


[2] Absolutely no one except Bill Gates can do real science if every scientific publisher requires that amount of money for a simple scientific paper, mostly paid by tax money, but that is an aside on other corruption in these corrupt times.

(*)
See the next link for an outline of my position on psychiatry: Mostly but not quite like dr. Thomas Szasz, who must be one of great medical doctors because he is so honest and clear minded: DSM-5: Thomas Szasz's ideas about psychiatry. And also let me clarify my background: I am a philosopher of science and a psychologist, rather than a psychiatrist or medical doctor, and I also never was much interested in psychiatry or clinical psychology, simply because most of what I read in these subjects seemed plain nonsense to me, or pseudoscience - with this difference, as contrasted with the DSM-5, that if it was fraudulent, as considerable parts of psychiatry were from the very start, for which see: More on Freud and psychiatry, then it was not in the nature of the present fraudulent DSM-5, and indeed not with the greedy eye on so many billions of dollars made from drugs that can be profitably prescribed by psychiatrists, in the name of "evident based medicine" that is in fact greed based fraudulence, as dr Szasz saw long ago, and described very bravely and very clearly.

(**) In fact, this is what moved dr Allen Frances, who is the chief editor of the DSM-IV, to start protesting against the DSM-5 in 2007, and since, because he was answered by the worthies of the APA in a grossly impolite way, that also totally avoided any rational answer to any of his points, nearly all well seen and well made, as you may find out by reading his 2007 essay: A Warning Sign on the Road to DSM‐5: Beware of its Unintended Consequences



                                   

P.S.     Corrections, if any are necessary, have to be made later.
-- July 21, 2012: Corrected some typos, inserted some links, added the last two starred notes.



 

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