Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog


 
June 1, 2013
DSM-5: A good video + what's wrong with dr Frances (and others)
Sections
Introduction
1. Twenty-five minutes of good video
2. What is wrong with dr Frances (and others)?
About ME/CFS


Introduction:

I believe I am still somewhat paying back my walk of over 5 weeks ago, 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 difficult.

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 be true.

I end with a brief reference to dr. David Healy, whom I decided to treat another time.

1.
Twenty-five 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 often 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.

2. 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 position is difficult to defend because he was the chief editor [1] 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 years.
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 companies, 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 [2]), 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 drugs into them that usually have not been tested properly. [3]

And you will not hear that story from psychiatrists, not even pensioned ones, simply because that is asking too much from them, humanly speaking.

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 - their usage 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
Have fun!
---------------------------------
Notes

[1] 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.)

[2] 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 being ill.

[3] 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.

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)

2. Malcolm Hooper THE MENTAL HEALTH MOVEMENT:  
PERSECUTION OF PATIENTS?
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)
9.
Maarten Maartensz
Resources about ME/CFS
(more resources, by many)


       home - index - summaries - mail