1. Twenty-five minutes of good video
is wrong with dr
Frances (and others)?
I believe I am still somewhat paying back my walk of over 5
but I also seem to be getting out of it.
Then again, I keep sleeping too little, though the last night I did 7
1/2 hours - but then I also took very little of the mB12 protocol,
notably no B12 and no MF. It's a
bit nice to know some answers that work, but it keeps being fairly
Anyway, today I am back at the DSM-5. My main reasom to do so is in the
first item, which is 25 minutes of good video, with dr. Allen Frances
and Robert Whitaker, and the other item is about dr. Frances,
whom I like more than not, but who has some ideas that cannot possibly
I end with a brief reference to dr. David Healy, whom I decided to
treat another time.
minutes of good video
First the video. It is from AlJazeera English, from a
program called Inside Stories America, of which the following
video, Redefining mental illness, is an example - and it should
start if you click the following image, which is of Dr. Frances, who
was the main editor of DSM-IV, in it:
Now I do not
put videos on, in this way, and my main reason to do so this time
is because I like it. It's a good program, more or less
regardless of your interests or concerns, though indeed it is for those
who are interested in present day psychiatry.
And I should also say that, while dr. Frances does get most text,
Robert Whitaker also is good, and makes some sound points, though I
will not discuss him.
What is wrong with dr
Frances (and others)?
My main problem with dr Frances has been exposed in
earlier Nederlogs on the DSM-5
and you'll find 129 Nederlogs that I wrote since 2010 under
the last link. It was notably exposed in DSM-5:
A few details where I wrote this:
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
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
The last point is
especially to be understood in the sense that he cannot realistically
be expected, as the former leader of the DSM-IV, to come to agree with
me (and indeed some others) - for that is quite irrealistic
given his career.
In fact, he is the main proponent of those who criticize the
DSM-5, indeed especially because, while the APA does not listen to him,
the journalists do, which again is quite natural.
However... I knew all of that since
2010. My main personal
reason to be angry with him is a phrase that also occurs in the
above linked interview, namely his claims that he knows many of those
who made the DSM-5 and they have "pure hearts".
To that my reply is: Only if you believe their IQs are lower
than 115 and you also believe that they do not get, for
the most part, paid very handsomely by the pharmaceutical
whose interests they also very clearly serve - and I do not
believe any of those propositions, as is very obvious from these posts:
Besides... there is so
much evidence on the internet (see the last linked items, for
example) about the many billions
pharmaceutical companies have made, by quite illegal means,
through the selling of psychotropic drugs,
that either I cannot believe dr. Allen Frances has missed it or I must
believe he does not use a (real) computer.
This is not quite the same as my disagreements with some other
prominent psychiatric critics of the DSM-5, but I have come to believe
that the differences do not really matter:
I am not a
psychiatrist, though I am a psychologist (sort of ),
and I am against
psychiatry - and in the end I am against it because it is a pseudoscience,
that is presented as if it is a science, with the end to
rob patients from their money, and often also of their health, by pushing
into them that usually have not been tested properly. 
And you will not hear that story from psychiatrists, not even pensioned
ones, simply because that is asking too much from them, humanly
Finally, for those who really want to get down to it, there is
this I wrote last year:
It is quite good, and it
deals with what could have been interesting questions, but it is 500
Kb, which is too long. In fact, my reasons to mention it nevertheless
are that it does give my position in most detail and it got downloaded
quite a lot of times.
But again, those who downloaded it - thousands, meanwhile - are very
probably psychiatrists, and to ask these folks to give up their
profession is simply asking too much.
Or I should have said: asking too much, from almost all of them, for there is
one, and he is dr. David Healy, who is a professor of
psychiatry in Wales, a working psychiatrist, and someone who has
criticized both psychiatry and especially - what is very important -
of modern psychotropic drugs since at least 20 years.
However, since I think I have written enough for today, I will save
discussing him till later. Meanwhile, you can yourself find out about
his many books, publications and regular blog-columns here
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 it seems this fashion, of making people
into furniture, is now diminishing a bit.)
 I say "sort of" because I had already
ca. 1980 lost my belief that psychology is a science, at least
for the most part (there are some exceptions), for which reasons my - very
fine - M.A. in it was mostly on logic, physics, mathematics and
programming, which are real sciences.
The diploma I have says that I reached the M.A. (with an average of 9.3
from 10: extremely rare) "under the auspices of the Faculty of
Psychology of the University of Amsterdam, but that I have no right to
the title of being a psychologist" - but (1) since then
that title has been made free (I must have been one of the last ones
who did get a degree under that regimentation) and (2) I knew far
more of psychology than did virtually anyone who also did reach the
M.A. in it, so I feel quite free to call myself a psychologist,
especially since (3) I both had and have anyway no desire to make any
money with it, and indeed never did while also (4) those who reached
the M.A. since I made it took only half of the things I had to take.
In fact, my two main reasons to study psychology is that my
ex-wife also studied it (and also got an excellent M.A. in it), while I
took the M.A. because I wanted the title, and had been kicked out of
the faculty of philosophy, briefly before being able to take my M.A.
there, for asking perfectly
rational questions, while I also did have a B.A. in psychology -
that I very probably would not have finished with an M.A. if I
had been an M.A. in philosophy, at least not while being ill.
For I did everything except the first half year of my studies while
 I am sorry, but that is what it comes
down to - and it is not strange very few psychiatrists dare take that
position, about their own trade. In case you want to know why I
think so, you'll have to read Nederlogs on the
DSM-5: I can formulate it simply, but I have taken a
lot of trouble to be informed, and also to inform others.
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: