Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog

January 13, 2013


DSM-5: The Marketing of Madness

 

  "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
  "We never hurt each other but by error or by malice." 
   -- (Sir Robert Chambers, possibly inspired by Dr. Johnson)
Sections
Introduction   
1. The Marketing of Madness
2. Review
About ME/CFS



Introduction:

Yesterday was about
Correlations: DSM & Madness, Lead & Crime. In the first part I once again stated my hypothesis of what modern psychiatry is:
My position is that psychiatry is a pseudoscience that the last decades has been  designed on purpose  to push dangerous and medically worthless or unproven drugs into and onto naive and defenseless people in the name of medical science, and that this is to my way of thinking, that agrees with Hippocrates' primum non nocere = the prime duty of medical doctors is not to do harm, a crime that deserves criminal proceedings.

What I also say is that if this does not happen, the reason is that psychiatrists and their professional associations have succeeded in convincing the public that their pseudoscience is a real science, and that they succeeded to do so not by any rational scientific argument but by the propaganda of public relations: Loads of cleverly designed manipulative lies, deceptions, frauds, and misinformation.

Well, here is a bit more about this, and an interesting video link.

1. The Marketing of Madness

As I said in the same Nederlog about my own writing about the DSM-5 and modern psychiatry:
I am not claiming any originality, other than that I do my own thinking, and many people have criticized many aspects of psychiatry, indeed ever since this pseudoscience was created.
Then again, I am rather well informed: I have an M.A. in psychology and a B.A. in philosophy, and I got interested in the DSM-5 after learning in 2009, when I just had acquired fast internet and the XMRV-saga had just started unfolding, that especially English and American psychiatrists - Wessely, White, Sharpe, Reeves, Holmes - had been writing the most amazing, sick, sadistic and pseudoscientific utter bullshit about people with ME/CFS.

As it happens, I have been diagnosed with ME/CFS four times since 1989, and have the disease since getting Epstein-Barr on 1.1.1979, that never went away, at least in the sense that I have never felt well since then.

As it also happens, I definitely gave up on XMRV as relevant to ME/CFS - having never believed it was a cause, but having believed it merited serious research, given what was in the 2009 paper published in Science - and I have recently come to see that - as I had argued was a serious logical possibilty in the last quarter of 2011 -  the Science paper is probably a fraud from the start. [1]

And by now, having learned a lot about ME/CFS
and psychiatry since late 2009, I believe psychiatry, and the decisions taken by bureaucrats or politicians based on opinions obtained from psychiatrists, are very dangerous to very many people with ME/CFS, while I have also come to see modern psychiatry as a fundamentally corrupt pseudoscience whose diagnostic manual is designed to flummox and flimflam those without a lot of knowledge about psychology, science and medicine, and that serves as a justification to push dangerous and expensive psychotropic drugs into millions of patients.

As I also have said: I don't claim any originality, except that I do my own thinking and writing, by which I mean, among other things, that I tend to research ideas or purported facts that matter to me, if I have the opportunity to do so.

And it may also need some stressing that originally I am not and never was much interested in psychiatry, clinical psychology or medicine. I got more interested in medicine because I fell ill and never got better; I studied psychology not because I was interested in becoming a psychologist but because my main intellectual interest is human reasoning of all kinds; and I never took psychiatry serious as a science since reading, at age 17, Mullahy's "Oedipus: Myth and Conflict", which is a competent review of the diverse schools of psychoanalysis, and also a book that  convinced me that psychiatry must be almost all baloney. [2]

Anyway... now for something completely different: I found a link on Phoenix Rising to the first part of a documentary film:
The first part looks OK, and indeed conforms to what I have concluded based on my own reading and studying. What is "completely different" is that I have not yet seen the rest, which I am going to do after uploading this, and may later today or else tomorrow come back to.

Here is one major motive that part 1 (of 18: It's a lot of video) mentions: It is about a third of a trillion dollars a year:
Also, while I like quoting Dr. Johnson  - or Robert Chambers - to the effect that "We never hurt each other but by error or by malice", there is a third reason, that indeed may overlap with both malice and error:
"We never hurt each other but by error, by malice or by greed."
Above - supposing the figure to be correct - you see 333,000,000,000 reasons for the APA to lie about psychiatry, science and psychiatric diagnosing: It is enormously profitable, and it is easy to take people in with pseudoscience, especially as regards their health.

More later!

2. Review

I said "More later", and here is my review: I saw it all, and it is quite interesting, but it has a few problems, from my point of view:
  • It ends with a reference to a website that I know is a scientologists' website or that is at least associated with them, so probably the documentary is scientology related, but none of this is up front.
  • No real evidence is given (though what is said rhymes with what I have concluded and written in Nederlog, while it is also true that filmed documentaries generally, at least in the main body of the film, do not  provide references to books and papers).
  • It is quite long, and I would probably have cut some: It is not boring, but the same messages could have been relayed with some cuts.
I think those are the main problems. Two minor ones I've seen elsewhere:
  • To show it is a documentary, presumably, most of the time there is a sort of frame around the sides of the screen.
  • With things spoken by the commentary voice, one often also gets served  the text printed on the screen.
The last is an example of something else that is not in this video but that I did see in some other documentaries on YouTube:
  • With things spoken by the commentator's voice, one gets served pictures of the things spoken about.
I wonder whether the last two points are merely fashionable or are intelligence related: I can view words I hear as written mentally, and I can also imagine pictorially what words mean, so if either occurs also in a filmed documentary I get an irritating surplus: I have switched off documentaries with the pictorial illustrations of spoken texts, for two reasons: I feel treated as if I am an imbecile, and also my own mental associations are disturbed.

Anyway...  I think this documentary is worth seeing, at least if one is interested in modern psychiatry, or has been recommended to take psychotropic drugs, and it makes a number of points about modern psychiatry and psychiatrists, and also about modern psychiatric drugs, that deserve being known by many more people than do know them.

The documentary will not make one happier, nor more trustful of psychiatry or psychiatrists, which is deserved: Psychiatry is not a real science, and psychiatrists lie and have lied a lot, fundamentally for money. And to take psychiatric drugs is in most cases both unwise and dangerous, and may cause far more problems than they may solve - while many psychiatric drugs in fact are probably hardly effective as advertised, and more dangerous than one is told.

And as I said: The documentary is likely somehow tied in with scientology, but it is unclear about its own background, funding, money, makers etc. (also more normal on YouTube than not) while it also is quite low, as in fact most filmed documentaries indeed are, on citing evidence.

One major point it makes, correctly in my opinion, is that psychiatrists are to blame. Here is my reason why: Psychiatrists formally are, and like to be seen as, medical doctors, and also as medical scientists, both of which come with moral and legal duties: Not harming patients and not lying to patients. The point the documentary makes effectively is that psychiatrists do harm patients, and lie to them, and do so for money, and not on a real basis of science or rational and honest health care.

The documentary is also interesting in that it shows rather a lot about how the whole scam works and how it is imposed upon the public: By huge marketing campaigns, on many levels. The FDA, the media, the GPs, the politicians, and the public are all targeted very professionally and very dishonestly. The funding is in the end by the drugs companies, and from their enormous profits.

A point touched upon, that is of wider significance, also as regards banks and bank managers: No person seems to get punished, and the drugs companies, when convicted, settle for paying damages, which in fact are small percentages of their profits. As long as persons are not personally made responsible for hugely profitable misdeeds and crimes the misdeeds and crimes will continue.

In sum, I think it is a useful documentary, that makes quite a few of the points I have arrived at myself the last 2 1/2 years; it has some weak points as a documentary, though it is not boring; and it probably is related to
scientology, which to my way of thinking is a pity, since to me that is both a crazy way of thinking and also an organization that seems to have done a lot of harm, but on the other hand none of this refutes the points that are made in the documentary.

---
Jan 14, 2013: Corrected some typos and added a link. There also is a P.S. of Jan 14, 2013, because indeed the documentary is scientology related.

Notes

[1] No, I don't have a logically valid proof from provably true premisses. I only have an "on balance of known evidence" sort of argument, but that argument seems quite strong to me, as it is the best explanation for such things as I meanwhile have learned about that 2009 paper in Science, about XMRV, about patents taken out by the Ruscettis and Mikovits, about fraudulence in science, about the WPI, and about Judy Mikovits Ph.D.

Also, maybe this is the place to point out that almost everything one believes - whoever one is - is
an "on balance of known evidence" belief, that depends on such evidence as one believes one knows, and on one's intellectual capacities to draw rational inferences from what one knows, which depend on one's intellectual talents and one's knowledge of or ignorance about logic and probability theory.

[2] I had then - I think - three main reasons for that conclusion, that I did not reach through prejudice but through reading, having started from the premiss that reading the book might help me understand myself:

First, there were many schools that were all contradicting each other on basic issues - and there is only one truth, so as is the case with religions: At most 1 can have it right, and therefore all but one or possibly all must have it wrong.

Second, they told me things about my childhood, that I could very well recall aged 17, that just were not true.

Third, they were making all manner of logical fallacies, such as invoking the workings of a subconsciousness they themselves insisted was not accessible.


Later I learned a lot about philosophy of science and logic that only supported this, and also learned a lot ab
out psychology, and especially that to this very day there is no real knowledge about how the brain produces human experience.

But I still recall quite well how amazed I was when 17 that adults took this manner of thinking and argueing that I had read in Mullahy's book serious: To me it sounded as if these psychiatrists had been making up a lot of things, and had no relevant facts, that also explained why there were so many competing schools of psychiatry.


Finally, another point that needs making: Psychiatry, already then, struck me as much more of a religion than as a science, but I was not against the practice of psychiatry. For people do get psychological problems, that may merit some sort of professional help. It is only lately, after having learned more about the DSM-5, about modern psychiatry, and about the incredible amounts of money that are made by prescribing people with problems dangerous medicines on the basis of bullshit that my position is that it were best if psychiatry were kicked out of medicine and out of the courts: These are not scientists, these are conmen, and very dangerous ones.




About ME/CFS
(that I prefer to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search machines) which is a disease I have since 1.1.1979:
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  (currently not available)

4. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf - version 2003)
5. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf - version 2011)
6. Eleanor Stein

Clinical Guidelines for Psychiatrists (pdf)

7. William Clifford The Ethics of Belief
8. Malcolm Hooper Magical Medicine (pdf)
9.
Maarten Maartensz
Resources about ME/CFS
(more resources, by many)



       home - index - summaries - mail