1. The antics of Lieberman
2. What I think of it
Well... I am still paying back my walk of three weeks ago, so I
am still not
feeling very well. (But it may be improving some.)
Earlier today, there was Part 1 of Quotations
from "Walden", but I have to upload a brief file on the DSM-5
now, that is not optimistic.
1. The antics of
Lieberman and Insel
Earlier this month,
on May 3 and 4, I had what I called on May 4 VERY good news
about the DSM-5. I
think I was right for as I explained then
dr. Thomas Insel,
who is the head of the National
Institute of Mental Health of the USA, quite completely also, and
for good reasons, said: No, thiis is not valid, we need "to
begin to develop a better system".
Well... he has retracted. As
Ed Silverman puts it in his NIMH
director does an about face on the bible of psychiatry:
Just 10 short days
after trashing the widely regarded bible of psychiatry for lacking
validity, National Institutes of Mental Health director Tom Insel has
had a change of heart. Along with American Psychiatric Association
president-elect Jeff Lieberman, he has now issued a statement saying
the forthcoming version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders, to be called DSM-5, is a valuable diagnostic tool.
Or at least... here is some
from the statement
of Lieberman (APA) and Insel (NIMH):
Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has not changed its position on
DSM-5. As NIMH’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project website
states, “The diagnostic categories represented in the DSM-IV and the
International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10, containing
virtually identical disorder codes) remain the contemporary consensus
standard for how mental disorders are diagnosed and treated.”
That is: There he is in favor
of the DSM-IV. And as the former statement ends: He now thinks "DSM-5, is a valuable diagnostic tool".
Thirteen days ago I learned that he had said, all by himself, that
While DSM has
described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary,
creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the
editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that
clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its
lack of validity.
2. What I think of it
That is why
NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories. Going
forward, we will be supporting research projects that look across
current categories – or sub-divide current categories – to begin to
develop a better system.
I think both gentlemen -
Lieberman and Insel - are lying. But then that is the normal
behavior for psychiatrists: They do not know what the self is;
they do not know how the brain manufactures conscious
experience; they do not have any valid theory that is provably
relevant to going insane or neurotic; and in fact they do hardly know
anything about how the human mind works, for nobody does, and
so they lie, for they do want to make a very well-paid living.
Mr. Insel conceivably thought around May 1 that he could do a little
less lying, and wrote then what I last quoted, but Mr Lieberman
convinced him that he must keep up front with the APA, and so
Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has not changed its position on DSM-5.
It did, but within two
weeks it doesn't. It's a great pity.
Underneath, nothing has changed - Insel will go further with his RDoC,
and Insel and Lieberman know as much as I do about the human mind:
nothing significant - but the position of the patients has been
made darker again, for nobody cares about them or at least
hardly anyone does who is a psychiatrist.
And the great pity of this is that it will make it harder for patients
to defend themselves in court.
ME/CFS (that I prefer
to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search
is a disease I have since 1.1.1979: