1. On what the DSM-5 is
based, scientifically speaking - 1
2. On what the DSM-5 is
based, scientifically speaking - 2
the DSM-5 is INVALID, scientifically speaking
4. Is everything lost?
No, I am not mad ...
though it is a bit late for me.
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
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
I am, in both respects, which is the main reason, next
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
- 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
statistics and methodology, at least, but then I am ill, have no
university-position, and no taste for publishing anything except on my
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
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. 
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.
On what the
DSM-5 is based, scientifically speaking - 2
Now I really am ill,
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
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,
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
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 , 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:
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.
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
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.
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
You just cannot validly generalize about persons
as has been done in psychology, psychiatry and pharmacology.
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
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.
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
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.
... 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
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
Then again, his results apply there, to the DSM-5 and do so very
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.
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.
 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.
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: