mankind did not
get what is right, this is not only because they did not wish what is
right, but also because they often were deceived
and misled by their
leaders in politics, religion or philosophy to wish and to do what is
not right: The bad misleading and
abusing the dumb sums up large parts of human history quite well.
1. Why I write less about
about the DSM-5 in case you may get hurt by it?
3. What else can and will I
do about the DSM-5?
4. Useful addresses for people who want to know
more about DSM-5
Actually, this is the first normal Nederlog since 2 days, since
I did not upload one on April 7, because it got lost, while yesterday I
had to explain that and was also faced by non-working internet.
Today both problems have been solved, and I will consder the DSM-5,
which I did not do for quite a while.
Why I write less about the DSM-5
The last Nederlog that mentions the DSM-5
is almost three weeks old. As it
happens, I wrote over 120
Nederlogs since 2010, and in fact wrote 48 last year, so it's not
really my negligence.
In fact, there are three reasons, mostly:
As to 1: I receive
extra-ordinarily few replies on anything I write. I do not know the
explanation, although it clearly is either due to the fact that
virtually no one writes me, although I am fairly widely read, or due to
the fact that virtually all I do receive gets removed. I have no idea,
but clearly writing over 120 papers about the DSM-5 and receiving no
reply to any of them since 2010 is not a good reason to continue them.
- I have received no
- I dislike prof. dr.
Allen Francis' position.
- The DSM-5 has been
As to 2: Allen Frances and I agree and disagree. We agree that DSM-5 is
a bad idea, but we disagree on the reasons why, and on most other ends.
I think my arguments are much better than his, while his position is
difficult to defend because he was the chief editor 
of the DSM-IV. Then again, he is a somewhat famous psychiatrist,
who worked for ca. 35 years as a psychiatrist, whereas I am a
philosopher/psychologist, who has been ill for about the same number of
As to 3: My main reason is that the DSM-5 has gotten accepted. This was
likely anyway, but given the objections of Allen Frances and of many
others, it might have not been. It's even worse than I originally
thought, but then - speaking just for myself - I will very probably not
be hit by it, since I am nearly pensionable. 
In fact, the above is only a brief review of much more that I could
What about the
DSM-5 in case you may get hurt by it?
Here the main chances for getting hurt are the US,
England, Holland, and Denmark, I think, since in other countries other
books are used, or other versions of the same book. 
My main advice is to try to refuse or else to go in with a statement.
The statement would be on the line that one does not believe in
psychiatry, at least not for one's own problems.
Then again, I doubt more than 5 to 10 % will take that option. Most
will try to brazen it out, and will not be heard of anymore if
they will be taken into a psychiatric hospital.
Then again, this may remain a fairly small percentage of those with
M.E., simply because there is little money, and there are other means
to destroy you, such as are involved in the current plans of
3. What else can and will I do about the
In fact I do not know.
The British psychologists have written about it, and are protesting
about it, but without using the word "boycott". There may have
been something organized elsewhere, but if there is, I do not
know of it.
In any case, the frightful thing is that one can't say what is going to
happen, except that at least 95% of the populations living in Western
Europe, the US or Canada is going to be poorer, and that this also may
apply to psychiatry.
The psychiatrists' "hour", that in fact took over 30 years, has mostly
passed, since not even the pharmaceutical companies are making "new"
pills for psychiatric purposes, and in fact the "new" pills that have
been used were mostly somewhat changed versions of older pills, that
have been "invented" and/or "discovered" by slightly changing old
pills, which happened not because of new ideas, but mainly because the
old pills' time of being expensive had passed.
Therefore, together with the fact that there will be a lot less money
available to maintain psychiatric hospitals, it may turn out that DSM-5
will not be very effective, also because anyway the incomes of some 95%
of the populations living in
Western Europe, the US or Canada is going to be poorer.
But this again I do not know.
So... what I will do is write some more on the DSM-5, but very probably
considerably less than I did. In case you want to know more, consider
the following last section:
4. Useful addresses for people who want
to know about DSM-5
Here are a number of
addresses I found useful:
The last is by me. The others
are, in the order given, by dr. John M. Nardo; Suzy Chapman; dr. David
Healy; and dr. Patrick Landman.
 I think that his
official title was something like "chair of the committee"
etc. which - I think - is so bad I generally avoid it. In any case, it
doesn't really matter.
 And there is also the fact that I have
a written statement by the Amsterdam dole that I need not do any work
nor need do anything else, until a week before my being pensioned (now
probably 5 weeks).
Actually, this applies also to Great Britain and Holland - except that
in practice it probably will not help you.
(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: