May 24, 2013
DSM-5: Why the DSM-5 is TOTALLY DEAD (yes, it IS)
1.  On what the DSM-5 is based, scientifically speaking - 1
2On what the DSM-5 is based, scientifically speaking - 2
3On why the  DSM-5 is INVALID, scientifically speaking
4.  Is everything lost?
5.  No, I am not mad ...
6.  ... though it is a bit late for me.
About ME/CFS


I am still somewhat paying back my walk of over 4 weeks ago, so I am still not feeling very well. But it may be improving some, and here is some proof.

Note that I am not putting you on: The DSM-5 is TOTALLY DEAD, and this is the proof, albeit in brief, which I only found today, and which is NOT due to me, but to professor Peter C.M. Molenaar, who is a methodologist and statistician, who used to be in the University of Amsterdam, but some ten years ago emigrated with his family to the United States, where he is Professor of Human Development at Pennsylvania State University.

He also is the person to whom I owe my M.A. - but I have not had contact with him the last 10 years, and do not know whether he agrees with the following, though I think he should.

1. On what the DSM-5 is based, scientifically speaking - 1

If you were to ask prof. Lieberman, or anyone else who was intimately connected to the ten years of developing the DSM-5, what is the scientific basis of the DSM-5  (and DSM IV and III), you very probably get initially a slick piece of propaganda that will contain terms like "evidence-based medicine" and such.

Now this will not do you any good, but very probably Lieberman c.s. will get away with it, because (1) very few people are knowledgeable about psychiatry, psychology or medicine, and also (2) of the few who are, again only a few are mathematically, statistically, or methodologically qualified.

I am, in both respects, which is the main reason, next to my having 35 years of ME, why I wrote the last 3 years at least 122 articles about the DSM-5.

The reason I stopped mostly with doing that are two: (1) it did get accepted, and very recently did get published, and (2) I did get hardly any replies: "It's too difficult, don't you see". (Yes, it is difficult - but it will not go away by talking on a level that the vast majority can easily follow. That is how it is, unfortunately.)

Also, as it happens, prof. Lieberman is not as qualified as I am, in statistics and methodology, at least, but then I am ill, have no university-position, and no taste for publishing anything except on my site.

However... one of the two truly intelligent persons I met in the UvA (both professors, one in pure mathematics) is prof. Peter C.M. Molenaar, whom I did mention yesterday, to whom I owe my M.A., who was in the UvA a professor in the Methodology of Psychology, and also in Cognitive Developmental Psychology.

He wrote a nice letter 11 years ago about me, but the mayor of Amsterdam at the time, Job Cohen, wiped his ass clean with it, and then threw it away without answering, which is why I could not get a Ph.D., for I was worse then than I am now, and really needed some help. [1]

Soon after that, Molenaar and his family left Holland, and went to the United States, where he already had a position at Pennsylvania State University (which is a fine university, intellectually speaking), and where he is now Professor of Human Development.

2. On what the DSM-5 is based, scientifically speaking - 2

Now I really am ill, and can't do much, so I only today found out that Peter Molenaar has found out someting abour 10 years ago, that is very relevant to the DSM-5, and indeed to psychology and medicine in general.

I'll turn to that in a moment, but for now I continue with the scientific (or if you prefer: "scientific") basis of the DSM-5, provided you could pin down prof. Lieberman long enough, and make him talk about the really scientific basis of the DSM-5.

It comes to this - and now I am talking real science, such as prof. Lieberman does not really know much about, I am afraid:

There is a body of statistical and methodological knowledge, that is basic for all psychological, psychiatric and medicinal testing of hypotheses that guarantees - probabilistically, but that we take for granted, for the moment - that the experiments on which (e.g.) the DSM-5 are based, and the experiments on which the investigations for psychotropic medicine are based, is valid (probabilistically).

And this is so, prof. Lieberman will say, if one can get him as far, apart from all the major antics that Big Pharma is playing; apart from all the hidden writing the KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders) sign willingly, for pay; and apart from any criticism one may have on psychiatry - and there are very many, though very few make them, in part for the reason that follows - and that is that, in the end: The statistical and methodological foundations of psychiatry, psychology and medicine are safe, and guarantee probabilistically that (if eveyrthing were OK, which it is not, but suppose...) far more often than not, that psychiatric, psychological, pharmacological and medicinal experiments work.

And that is the real and scientific basis of psychiatry, and of the DSM-5, and of very much more in psychology, pharnacology, and medicine.

3. On why the  DSM-5 is INvalid, scientifically speaking

Except that it is NOT, and professor Peter Molenaar has found out why, and I am now going to explain this.

The reason is, in the end, a very deep and purely mathematical theorem that was proved by Birkhoff, one of the truly great mathematicians of the previous century, in 1931, the so-called individual ergodic theorem.

Now this is a quite technical matter, so I quote professor Molenaar, from his article
"On the limits of standard quantitative genetic modeling of inter-individual variations: Extensions, ergodic conditions and a new genetic factor model of intra-individual variation", which seems to be of ca. 2010 [2], and which was then planned to appear in the Handbook of developmental science, behavior, and genetics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, and where I have added the bolding:
Until recently, analysis of intra-individual variation (time series analysis) did not constitute a prominent approach in psychology. There do not exist principled reasons for this neglect in psychology of one of the two forms of variation, only historic contingencies (cf. Danzinger, 1990; Lamiell, 2003). It was assumed without much further reflection that states of affairs at the level of a population of subjects would generalize to equivalent states of affairs at the level of a single subject’s life trajectory in case that subject belonged to the population concerned. That is, it was assumed that the structure of inter-individual variation in a homogeneous population of subjects is equivalent to the analogous structure of intra-individual variation at the level of each individual subject belonging to that population. Given these assumptions (homogeneity of subjects and equivalence of the structure of variation at the population and individual levels), it would seem to follow that it is sufficient to focus on the structure of inter-individual variation and generalize the results thus obtained to the level of intra-individual variation characterizing individual subjects. For instance, if inter-individual differences in personality obey a five-factor structure at the population level, and the population is homogeneous (i.e., subjects are exchangeable), then the structure of intra-individual variation characterizing each individual subject also would seem to have to obey the same five-factor structure.

As will be explained shortly, the assumption about the equivalence of a structure of inter-individual variation at the population level and the analogous structure of intra-individual variation at the individual level is referred to as the ergodic assumption. It is reiterated that the ergodic assumption underlies all standard statistical analyses techniques in psychology. These techniques only use information provided by inter-individual variation. As soon as results thus obtained are generalized to the level of individual subjects (e.g., in individual assessment or prediction), it is assumed that the ergodic assumption holds. Almost always the ergodic assumption is not stated or tested explicitly, but that does not mean that it is not required to make generalizations from states of affairs obtaining at the population level to the level of single subjects.

The denotation “ergodic” is inspired by the so-called classical ergodic theorems (cf. Krengel, 1985). These theorems, in particular Birkhoff’s individual ergodic theorem (Birkhoff, 1931), imply general mathematical conditions that have to be met by any measurable dynamic process in order to guarantee that the population structure of inter-individual variation can be validly generalized to the level of intra-individual variation, and vice versa.
And the problem is that it does not hold, for inter-individual processes, although it does hold - if and when everything is done correctly - for intra-individual processes.

Put otherwise and simpler but quite adequately:

Most - nearly all - of the data on which psychiatry and pharmacology and psychology have been based do NOT allow the interpretaton psychiatrists, pharmacologists or psychologists have given to them:

The data have been assumed to be ergodic, but they are NOT ergodic.

You just cannot validly generalize about persons as has been done in psychology, psychiatry and pharmacology.

4. Is everything lost?

At this point one might be inclined to think that most of psychology, psychiatry, and pharmacology is dead. Well... it is is, and it is not.

It is dead, if like the DSM-5 it consists of theories based on experiments that are by and large based on the erroneous assumption of ergodicity: These are all generalizations that do not hold. You cannot assume that these things are generalizable to different individuals.

It is not dead, though, if it is based on intra-individual variation - which most or nearly all psychiatric experimentation is not, but which could be done for some.

I do not know for how many, nor do I know how easy this would be.

I do know most of the scientific basis of the DSM-5 (and IV and III) has been FALSIFIED: These are typically generalizations - as indeed in most of psychology - that were based on the invalid assumption of ergodicity.

5. No, I am not mad...

It might be thought, e.g. by professor Lieberman, that I must be mad (I am so anyway, if professor Sir Simon Wessely is right). I beg to differ, but indeed I am ill (but not according to
professor Sir Simon Wessely).

However... I did none of the work: Professor Molenaar did it, and indeed also published
"A Manifesto on Psychology as Idiographic Science: Bringing the Person Back Into Scientific Psychology, This Time Forever" in 2004, and also works with quite a few other academics, who think like he does.

Also, there is rather a lot of work done in this field, the last 8 to 10 years, though indeed it is, so far, not widely known - but then it might get known because of the DSM-5, which it refutes, quite definitely also.

Here is an accessible collection of slides from 2010, that explains all of the above and more:
This again may be difficult to see, but it is so: In fact, this is the first time I am somewhat glad to be a psychologist, for it only now has become possible, in principle, to do really scientific work in psychology (rather than in methodology or statistics) and also to explain why so much in it was and is and always will be mistaken.

6. ... though it is a bit late for me.

Meanwhile, I am 63, and have been genuinely ill for 35 years, without receiving any help, and after 35 years of being genuinely ill, I still am only "ill", according to the bureaucracy, thanks to the last 25 years of consistent efforts of psychiatristric frauds like Wessely, who wasted the lives, the chances, and the integrity of hundreds of thousands of individual persons like me.

What else is there to say? Rather a lot, in fact, but this is the essence:

The DSM-5 is definitely passed, over, and done with, and the man who did it is professor Peter Molenaar, who did the work, and probably did not even ever think of the DSM-5, but thought instead of the troubles of psychology.

Then again, his results apply there, to the DSM-5 and do so very strongly.

The main problem is to bring this home to the field, also because most of its leaders are not and will not be honest and rational men of science.

That is how it is, alas, though it is, from now on, quite a bit more hopeful to go to court: The DSM-5 is invalid, and is provably so, and the sooner it is withdrawn the better that is.

[1] My own conviction - which may be mistaken, but it seems to me tolerably well founded - is that Van Thijn, Cohen, and Oudkerk are drugs corrupt, and know they are drugs corrupt: The whole schema by which for over 25 years each year at least 10 billions of euros of illegal drugs have been sold, all by personal permission of the mayors, is too pat, too much of a pattern for tens of millions of illegal profits by these folks (10 million euros = 1% of 1 billion euros, which is at least 1/10th of what is sold each year in Holland, and mostly in Amsterdam) and especially since I opposed it and did not shut up, in spite of being gassed while ill, and in spite of seeing dr. Oudkerk, then alderman,  pretending to be someone else. But then no Dutch journalist took up the theme, in spite of the fact that everyone of them knew since the Van Traa-report of 1995 how easy it was to be corrupt. And no Dutch judge, and no Dutch district attornney lifted as much as a finger, for over twentyfive years now. Holland is corrupt, deeply corrupt, on many levels.

[2] One fundamental problem I have is that most that professor Molenaar published on this, though not all, is behind (pay)walls of the journals in which it was published: Mostly, I only found abstracts. I am very sorry for this, but (1) I cannot pay this, even if I wanted to, since my computer got hacked in 2009, and I don't trust it to be used for banking (and also not for some other things) and (2) I do not want to pay anything for papers to journals who publish science produced by individuals who are not paid (or extremely little) and anyway work for pay from the taxes everybody pays. However, it does not make a principal difference: I still can think, and I have known Peter Molenaar some 15 years, so it is - for me - not difficult to follow, understand, and apply.

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)

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)
Maarten Maartensz
Resources about ME/CFS
(more resources, by many)

       home - index - summaries - mail