Anti-psychiatry wikipedia definition needs updated

[Guest guest]

Anti-psychiatry wikipedia definition...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry

This " popular " wikipedia definition needs to be updated to stress

the following anti-psychiatry supportive factors...

APA's DSM publication development funded by Big Pharma.

Recent developments concerning Big Pharma improprieties worldwide.

Recent developments concerning FDA & other regulator & legislative

improprieties.

Recent developments concerning congressional & senatorial

investigations of Big Pharma & FDA.

Current prevalence of adverse drug reactions as a leading cause of

death.

Current public opinion very low concerning psychiatry profession &

DSM as a result of Big Pharma manipulation affecting increasing

number of families purely for profit.

Inner divisional rift among two major conceptual groups within the

APA concerning validity of DSM classifications. One subgroup's

tenants has proven link to concommitant pedophilia (this subgroup

of psychiatrists themselves are arguably " ill " ).

APA's DSM publication updates history largely & repeatedly rooted in

base motivations (greed/exploitation) targeting weaker societal

segments. APA consistently & significantly retreated positionally

when several of such segments organized verbal opposition.

APA's DSM publication classifications largely scientifically

unreliable and therefore scientifically invalid.

There are approx 50 different names for essentially equivalent SSRI

drug worldwide.

APA ignores prolific scientific evidence of violent and aggressive

patient acts associated with serotonergic drugs and their byproducts

when measured in the CSF.

http://www.cchr.org/event/31anni/violence/violpg2.htm

http://www.cchr.org/issues/dsm/experts/index.htm

[EXPERTS DEBUNK DSM ...

" junk science, " according to an international poll of mental health

experts conducted in England in 2001, the DSM-IV was voted one of

the 10 worst psychiatric papers of the millennium.]

The truth is when we try to fit psychiatry into the definition of a

true science, it fails the test. The lack of science behind the DSM

gives a clear idea of why it has earned such critics as the

following small sample:

Loren Mosher, M.D., Clinical Professor of Psychiatry: " DSM-IV is

the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine

in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific

document... DSM-IV has become a bible and a money making bestseller—

its major failings notwithstanding. It confines and defines

practice, some take it seriously, others more realistically. "

And, " It is the way to get paid. Diagnostic reliability is easy to

attain for research projects. The issue is what do the categories

tell us? Do they in fact accurately represent the person with a

problem? They don't, and can't, because there are no external

validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither a

blood test nor specific anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric

disorder. "

Margaret Hagen, author of Whores Of The Court, summarily dismisses

the DSM: " Given their farcical `empirical' procedures for arriving

at new disorders with their associated symptoms lists, where does

the American Psychiatric Association get off claiming a scientific,

research-based foundation for its diagnostic manual? This is nothing

more than science by decree. They say it is science, so it is. "

Dr. Dorman, internist and member of the Royal College of

Physicians of the United Kingdom: " In short, the whole business of

creating psychiatric categories of `disease', formalizing them with

consensus, and subsequently ascribing diagnostic codes to them,

which in turn leads to their use for insurance billing, is nothing

but an extended racket furnishing psychiatry a pseudo-scientific

aura. The perpetrators are, of course, feeding at the public

trough. "

A. Schaler, Ph.D.: The notion of scientific validity, though

not an act, is related to fraud. Validity refers to the extent to

which something represents or measures what it purports to represent

or measure. When diagnostic measures do not represent what they

purport to represent, we say that the measures lack validity. If a

business transaction or trade rested on such a lack of validity, we

might say that the lack of validity was instrumental in a commitment

of fraud. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) published

by the American Psychiatric Association and used by licensed

psychotherapists throughout the country is notorious for low

scientific validity. Yet it is instrumental in securing insurance

reimbursement for psychotherapy services.... "

Herb Kutchins of California State University, Sacramento, and Stuart

A. Kirk of the University of California, Los Angeles, authors of

Making Us Crazy: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental

Disorders:

" The developers of DSM assume that if a group of psychiatrists agree

on a list of atypical [new] behaviors, the behaviors constitute a

valid mental disorder. Using this approach, creating mental

disorders can become a parlor game in which clusters of all kinds of

behaviors (i.e. syndromes) can be added to the manual. "

" …there is ample reason to conclude that the latest versions of DSM

as a clinical tool are unreliable and therefore of questionable

validity as a classification system. "

" There are indeed many illusions about DSM and very strong needs

among its developers to believe that their dreams of scientific

excellence and utility have come true…. " The " bitter medicine " is

that DSM has " unsuccessfully attempted to medicalize too many human

troubles. "

[DSM] " …cannot be used to distinguish mental disorders from other

human problems. In practical terms, this means that many people who

do not have any mental disorder (although they may have other

difficulties) will be inappropriately labeled as mentally ill and

those who have a mental disorder will not have it recognized…If the

unreliability of diagnosis were widely recognized and if there were

no scientific patina [surface appearance] " to it, " the use of

everyday behaviors as indicators of mental disorder would be more

rigorously questioned by the public. The illusion that psychiatrists

are in agreement when making diagnoses creates the appearance of a

united professional consensus. "

Professor Shorter, author of A History of Psychiatry: " Rather

than heading off into the brave new world of science, DSM-IV-style

psychiatry seemed in some ways to be heading out into the desert. "

Szasz, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus: The

Internationally renowned psychiatrist, Dr. Szasz,

writes, " The ostensible validity of DSM is reinforced by

psychiatry's claim that mental illnesses are brain diseases—a claim

supposedly based on recent discoveries in brain imaging techniques

and pharmacological agents for treatment. This is not true. " He also

says, " There is no blood or other biological test to ascertain the

presence of a mental illness, as there is for most bodily diseases.

If such a test were developed, then the condition would cease to be

a mental illness and would be classified, instead, as a symptom of a

bodily disease. "

Dr. Sydney , III, psychiatrist, neurologist:

" [The DSM] has led to the unnecessary drugging of millions of

American children who could be diagnosed, treated, and cured without

the use of toxic and potentially lethal medications. "

" The nonscientific approach used to create DSM leads to irrational

and constantly changing diagnostic criteria: a patient might be

perfectly normal according to one version of DSM and mentally ill by

the standards of the next. (For instance, `narcissistic personality

disorder'—used to describe vain people who are self-centered and

frequently take advantage of others—was a DSM `diagnosis' until

1968. It was eliminated from the version used between 1968 and 1980,

when it was reinstated. Thus, a self-centered, vain person

was `mentally ill' before 1968, normal for the next twelve years,

and then `mentally ill' again after 1980.) "

Dr. Harold Pincus, Vice Chairman of the DSM-IV task force

admitted, " There has never been any criterion that psychiatric

diagnoses require a demonstrated biological etiology (cause). "

R. McHugh, Professor of Psychiatry at s Hopkins University

School of Medicine and psychiatrist-in-chief at the s Hopkins

Hospital in Baltimore:

" ... In the absence of validating conceptions like the six

mechanisms of disease in internal medicine, American psychiatry has

turned to " committees of experts " to define mental disorder.

Membership on such committees is a mater of one's reputation in the

APA—which means that those chosen can confidently be expected to

manifest not only a requisite degree of psychiatric competence but,

perhaps more crucially, some talent for diplomacy and self-

promotion.

" The new DSM approach of using experts and descriptive criteria in

identifying psychiatric diseases has encouraged a productive

industry. If you can describe it, you can name it; and if you can

name it, then you can claim it exists as a distinct " entity " with,

eventually, a direct treatment tied to it. Proposals for new

psychiatric disorders have multiplied so feverishly that the DSM

itself has grown from a mere 119 pages in 1968 to 886 in the latest

edition; a new and enlarged edition, DSM-V, is already in the

planning stages. Embedded within these hundreds of pages are some

categories...that are dubious, in the sense that they are more like

the normal responses of sensitive people than

psychiatric " entities " ; and some that are purely the inventions of

their proponents. "

Genova, M.D., writing in Psychiatric Times, said: the " DSM

diagnostic system has outlived its usefulness by about two decades.

It should be abandoned, not revised. "

Psychiatrist Dumont: " The humility and the arrogance in the

prose are almost indistinguishable, frolicking like puppies at play.

They say: `...while this manual provides a classification of mental

disorder...no definition adequately specifies precise boundaries for

the concept...' [APA, 1987]...They go on to say: `...there is no

assumption that each mental disorder is a discrete entity with sharp

boundaries between it and other mental disorders or between it and

no mental disorder' [APA, 1987]. "

Psychologist Garfinkel, a staff member of the American

Psychological Association, said of the DSM-III-R work group: " The

low level of intellectual effort was shocking. Diagnoses were

developed by majority vote on the level we would use to choose a

restaurant. You feel like Italian, I feel like Chinese, so let's go

to a cafeteria. Then it's typed into the computer. "

Healy, psychiatrist, director of the North Wales Department of

Psychological Medicine and author of The Anti-Depressant Era: " There

must inevitably be a struggle, or a dialectical process, to

determine the meaning of physical symptoms and where the boundaries

of health and disease lie. "

J. Allan Hobson and A. Leonard, authors of Out of Its Mind,

Psychiatry in Crisis, A Call For Reform: " ...DSM-IV's authoritative

status and detailed nature tends to promote the idea that rote

diagnosis and pill-pushing are acceptable. "

Psychiatrist Al Parides: DSM is " a masterpiece of political

maneuvering. " He also observed that " what they have done is

medicalize many problems that don't have demonstrable, biological

causes. "

Elliot S. Valenstein, biopsychologist, author of Blaming the

Brain: " DSM-IV is not an exciting document. It is purely descriptive

and presents no new scientific insights or any theories about what

causes the many mental disorders it lists. "

Lawrence Diller, M.D., author of Running on Ritalin: " …[The] search

for a biological marker is doomed from the outset because of the

contradictions and ambiguities of the diagnostic construct of ADHD

as defined by the DSM…I liken the efforts to discover a marker…to

the search for the Holy Grail. " ]

Note: WikiWiki is Hawaiian term meaning " quick " .

[Guest guest]

Anti-psychiatry wikipedia definition...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry

This " popular " wikipedia definition needs to be updated to stress

the following anti-psychiatry supportive factors...

APA's DSM publication development funded by Big Pharma.

Recent developments concerning Big Pharma improprieties worldwide.

Recent developments concerning FDA & other regulator & legislative

improprieties.

Recent developments concerning congressional & senatorial

investigations of Big Pharma & FDA.

Current prevalence of adverse drug reactions as a leading cause of

death.

Current public opinion very low concerning psychiatry profession &

DSM as a result of Big Pharma manipulation affecting increasing

number of families purely for profit.

Inner divisional rift among two major conceptual groups within the

APA concerning validity of DSM classifications. One subgroup's

tenants has proven link to concommitant pedophilia (this subgroup

of psychiatrists themselves are arguably " ill " ).

APA's DSM publication updates history largely & repeatedly rooted in

base motivations (greed/exploitation) targeting weaker societal

segments. APA consistently & significantly retreated positionally

when several of such segments organized verbal opposition.

APA's DSM publication classifications largely scientifically

unreliable and therefore scientifically invalid.

There are approx 50 different names for essentially equivalent SSRI

drug worldwide.

APA ignores prolific scientific evidence of violent and aggressive

patient acts associated with serotonergic drugs and their byproducts

when measured in the CSF.

http://www.cchr.org/event/31anni/violence/violpg2.htm

http://www.cchr.org/issues/dsm/experts/index.htm

[EXPERTS DEBUNK DSM ...

" junk science, " according to an international poll of mental health

experts conducted in England in 2001, the DSM-IV was voted one of

the 10 worst psychiatric papers of the millennium.]

The truth is when we try to fit psychiatry into the definition of a

true science, it fails the test. The lack of science behind the DSM

gives a clear idea of why it has earned such critics as the

following small sample:

Loren Mosher, M.D., Clinical Professor of Psychiatry: " DSM-IV is

the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine

in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific

document... DSM-IV has become a bible and a money making bestseller—

its major failings notwithstanding. It confines and defines

practice, some take it seriously, others more realistically. "

And, " It is the way to get paid. Diagnostic reliability is easy to

attain for research projects. The issue is what do the categories

tell us? Do they in fact accurately represent the person with a

problem? They don't, and can't, because there are no external

validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither a

blood test nor specific anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric

disorder. "

Margaret Hagen, author of Whores Of The Court, summarily dismisses

the DSM: " Given their farcical `empirical' procedures for arriving

at new disorders with their associated symptoms lists, where does

the American Psychiatric Association get off claiming a scientific,

research-based foundation for its diagnostic manual? This is nothing

more than science by decree. They say it is science, so it is. "

Dr. Dorman, internist and member of the Royal College of

Physicians of the United Kingdom: " In short, the whole business of

creating psychiatric categories of `disease', formalizing them with

consensus, and subsequently ascribing diagnostic codes to them,

which in turn leads to their use for insurance billing, is nothing

but an extended racket furnishing psychiatry a pseudo-scientific

aura. The perpetrators are, of course, feeding at the public

trough. "

A. Schaler, Ph.D.: The notion of scientific validity, though

not an act, is related to fraud. Validity refers to the extent to

which something represents or measures what it purports to represent

or measure. When diagnostic measures do not represent what they

purport to represent, we say that the measures lack validity. If a

business transaction or trade rested on such a lack of validity, we

might say that the lack of validity was instrumental in a commitment

of fraud. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) published

by the American Psychiatric Association and used by licensed

psychotherapists throughout the country is notorious for low

scientific validity. Yet it is instrumental in securing insurance

reimbursement for psychotherapy services.... "

Herb Kutchins of California State University, Sacramento, and Stuart

A. Kirk of the University of California, Los Angeles, authors of

Making Us Crazy: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental

Disorders:

" The developers of DSM assume that if a group of psychiatrists agree

on a list of atypical [new] behaviors, the behaviors constitute a

valid mental disorder. Using this approach, creating mental

disorders can become a parlor game in which clusters of all kinds of

behaviors (i.e. syndromes) can be added to the manual. "

" …there is ample reason to conclude that the latest versions of DSM

as a clinical tool are unreliable and therefore of questionable

validity as a classification system. "

" There are indeed many illusions about DSM and very strong needs

among its developers to believe that their dreams of scientific

excellence and utility have come true…. " The " bitter medicine " is

that DSM has " unsuccessfully attempted to medicalize too many human

troubles. "

[DSM] " …cannot be used to distinguish mental disorders from other

human problems. In practical terms, this means that many people who

do not have any mental disorder (although they may have other

difficulties) will be inappropriately labeled as mentally ill and

those who have a mental disorder will not have it recognized…If the

unreliability of diagnosis were widely recognized and if there were

no scientific patina [surface appearance] " to it, " the use of

everyday behaviors as indicators of mental disorder would be more

rigorously questioned by the public. The illusion that psychiatrists

are in agreement when making diagnoses creates the appearance of a

united professional consensus. "

Professor Shorter, author of A History of Psychiatry: " Rather

than heading off into the brave new world of science, DSM-IV-style

psychiatry seemed in some ways to be heading out into the desert. "

Szasz, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus: The

Internationally renowned psychiatrist, Dr. Szasz,

writes, " The ostensible validity of DSM is reinforced by

psychiatry's claim that mental illnesses are brain diseases—a claim

supposedly based on recent discoveries in brain imaging techniques

and pharmacological agents for treatment. This is not true. " He also

says, " There is no blood or other biological test to ascertain the

presence of a mental illness, as there is for most bodily diseases.

If such a test were developed, then the condition would cease to be

a mental illness and would be classified, instead, as a symptom of a

bodily disease. "

Dr. Sydney , III, psychiatrist, neurologist:

" [The DSM] has led to the unnecessary drugging of millions of

American children who could be diagnosed, treated, and cured without

the use of toxic and potentially lethal medications. "

" The nonscientific approach used to create DSM leads to irrational

and constantly changing diagnostic criteria: a patient might be

perfectly normal according to one version of DSM and mentally ill by

the standards of the next. (For instance, `narcissistic personality

disorder'—used to describe vain people who are self-centered and

frequently take advantage of others—was a DSM `diagnosis' until

1968. It was eliminated from the version used between 1968 and 1980,

when it was reinstated. Thus, a self-centered, vain person

was `mentally ill' before 1968, normal for the next twelve years,

and then `mentally ill' again after 1980.) "

Dr. Harold Pincus, Vice Chairman of the DSM-IV task force

admitted, " There has never been any criterion that psychiatric

diagnoses require a demonstrated biological etiology (cause). "

R. McHugh, Professor of Psychiatry at s Hopkins University

School of Medicine and psychiatrist-in-chief at the s Hopkins

Hospital in Baltimore:

" ... In the absence of validating conceptions like the six

mechanisms of disease in internal medicine, American psychiatry has

turned to " committees of experts " to define mental disorder.

Membership on such committees is a mater of one's reputation in the

APA—which means that those chosen can confidently be expected to

manifest not only a requisite degree of psychiatric competence but,

perhaps more crucially, some talent for diplomacy and self-

promotion.

" The new DSM approach of using experts and descriptive criteria in

identifying psychiatric diseases has encouraged a productive

industry. If you can describe it, you can name it; and if you can

name it, then you can claim it exists as a distinct " entity " with,

eventually, a direct treatment tied to it. Proposals for new

psychiatric disorders have multiplied so feverishly that the DSM

itself has grown from a mere 119 pages in 1968 to 886 in the latest

edition; a new and enlarged edition, DSM-V, is already in the

planning stages. Embedded within these hundreds of pages are some

categories...that are dubious, in the sense that they are more like

the normal responses of sensitive people than

psychiatric " entities " ; and some that are purely the inventions of

their proponents. "

Genova, M.D., writing in Psychiatric Times, said: the " DSM

diagnostic system has outlived its usefulness by about two decades.

It should be abandoned, not revised. "

Psychiatrist Dumont: " The humility and the arrogance in the

prose are almost indistinguishable, frolicking like puppies at play.

They say: `...while this manual provides a classification of mental

disorder...no definition adequately specifies precise boundaries for

the concept...' [APA, 1987]...They go on to say: `...there is no

assumption that each mental disorder is a discrete entity with sharp

boundaries between it and other mental disorders or between it and

no mental disorder' [APA, 1987]. "

Psychologist Garfinkel, a staff member of the American

Psychological Association, said of the DSM-III-R work group: " The

low level of intellectual effort was shocking. Diagnoses were

developed by majority vote on the level we would use to choose a

restaurant. You feel like Italian, I feel like Chinese, so let's go

to a cafeteria. Then it's typed into the computer. "

Healy, psychiatrist, director of the North Wales Department of

Psychological Medicine and author of The Anti-Depressant Era: " There

must inevitably be a struggle, or a dialectical process, to

determine the meaning of physical symptoms and where the boundaries

of health and disease lie. "

J. Allan Hobson and A. Leonard, authors of Out of Its Mind,

Psychiatry in Crisis, A Call For Reform: " ...DSM-IV's authoritative

status and detailed nature tends to promote the idea that rote

diagnosis and pill-pushing are acceptable. "

Psychiatrist Al Parides: DSM is " a masterpiece of political

maneuvering. " He also observed that " what they have done is

medicalize many problems that don't have demonstrable, biological

causes. "

Elliot S. Valenstein, biopsychologist, author of Blaming the

Brain: " DSM-IV is not an exciting document. It is purely descriptive

and presents no new scientific insights or any theories about what

causes the many mental disorders it lists. "

Lawrence Diller, M.D., author of Running on Ritalin: " …[The] search

for a biological marker is doomed from the outset because of the

contradictions and ambiguities of the diagnostic construct of ADHD

as defined by the DSM…I liken the efforts to discover a marker…to

the search for the Holy Grail. " ]

Note: WikiWiki is Hawaiian term meaning " quick " .

[Guest guest]

Anti-psychiatry wikipedia definition...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry

This " popular " wikipedia definition needs to be updated to stress

the following anti-psychiatry supportive factors...

APA's DSM publication development funded by Big Pharma.

Recent developments concerning Big Pharma improprieties worldwide.

Recent developments concerning FDA & other regulator & legislative

improprieties.

Recent developments concerning congressional & senatorial

investigations of Big Pharma & FDA.

Current prevalence of adverse drug reactions as a leading cause of

death.

Current public opinion very low concerning psychiatry profession &

DSM as a result of Big Pharma manipulation affecting increasing

number of families purely for profit.

Inner divisional rift among two major conceptual groups within the

APA concerning validity of DSM classifications. One subgroup's

tenants has proven link to concommitant pedophilia (this subgroup

of psychiatrists themselves are arguably " ill " ).

APA's DSM publication updates history largely & repeatedly rooted in

base motivations (greed/exploitation) targeting weaker societal

segments. APA consistently & significantly retreated positionally

when several of such segments organized verbal opposition.

APA's DSM publication classifications largely scientifically

unreliable and therefore scientifically invalid.

There are approx 50 different names for essentially equivalent SSRI

drug worldwide.

APA ignores prolific scientific evidence of violent and aggressive

patient acts associated with serotonergic drugs and their byproducts

when measured in the CSF.

http://www.cchr.org/event/31anni/violence/violpg2.htm

http://www.cchr.org/issues/dsm/experts/index.htm

[EXPERTS DEBUNK DSM ...

" junk science, " according to an international poll of mental health

experts conducted in England in 2001, the DSM-IV was voted one of

the 10 worst psychiatric papers of the millennium.]

The truth is when we try to fit psychiatry into the definition of a

true science, it fails the test. The lack of science behind the DSM

gives a clear idea of why it has earned such critics as the

following small sample:

Loren Mosher, M.D., Clinical Professor of Psychiatry: " DSM-IV is

the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine

in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific

document... DSM-IV has become a bible and a money making bestseller—

its major failings notwithstanding. It confines and defines

practice, some take it seriously, others more realistically. "

And, " It is the way to get paid. Diagnostic reliability is easy to

attain for research projects. The issue is what do the categories

tell us? Do they in fact accurately represent the person with a

problem? They don't, and can't, because there are no external

validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither a

blood test nor specific anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric

disorder. "

Margaret Hagen, author of Whores Of The Court, summarily dismisses

the DSM: " Given their farcical `empirical' procedures for arriving

at new disorders with their associated symptoms lists, where does

the American Psychiatric Association get off claiming a scientific,

research-based foundation for its diagnostic manual? This is nothing

more than science by decree. They say it is science, so it is. "

Dr. Dorman, internist and member of the Royal College of

Physicians of the United Kingdom: " In short, the whole business of

creating psychiatric categories of `disease', formalizing them with

consensus, and subsequently ascribing diagnostic codes to them,

which in turn leads to their use for insurance billing, is nothing

but an extended racket furnishing psychiatry a pseudo-scientific

aura. The perpetrators are, of course, feeding at the public

trough. "

A. Schaler, Ph.D.: The notion of scientific validity, though

not an act, is related to fraud. Validity refers to the extent to

which something represents or measures what it purports to represent

or measure. When diagnostic measures do not represent what they

purport to represent, we say that the measures lack validity. If a

business transaction or trade rested on such a lack of validity, we

might say that the lack of validity was instrumental in a commitment

of fraud. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) published

by the American Psychiatric Association and used by licensed

psychotherapists throughout the country is notorious for low

scientific validity. Yet it is instrumental in securing insurance

reimbursement for psychotherapy services.... "

Herb Kutchins of California State University, Sacramento, and Stuart

A. Kirk of the University of California, Los Angeles, authors of

Making Us Crazy: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental

Disorders:

" The developers of DSM assume that if a group of psychiatrists agree

on a list of atypical [new] behaviors, the behaviors constitute a

valid mental disorder. Using this approach, creating mental

disorders can become a parlor game in which clusters of all kinds of

behaviors (i.e. syndromes) can be added to the manual. "

" …there is ample reason to conclude that the latest versions of DSM

as a clinical tool are unreliable and therefore of questionable

validity as a classification system. "

" There are indeed many illusions about DSM and very strong needs

among its developers to believe that their dreams of scientific

excellence and utility have come true…. " The " bitter medicine " is

that DSM has " unsuccessfully attempted to medicalize too many human

troubles. "

[DSM] " …cannot be used to distinguish mental disorders from other

human problems. In practical terms, this means that many people who

do not have any mental disorder (although they may have other

difficulties) will be inappropriately labeled as mentally ill and

those who have a mental disorder will not have it recognized…If the

unreliability of diagnosis were widely recognized and if there were

no scientific patina [surface appearance] " to it, " the use of

everyday behaviors as indicators of mental disorder would be more

rigorously questioned by the public. The illusion that psychiatrists

are in agreement when making diagnoses creates the appearance of a

united professional consensus. "

Professor Shorter, author of A History of Psychiatry: " Rather

than heading off into the brave new world of science, DSM-IV-style

psychiatry seemed in some ways to be heading out into the desert. "

Szasz, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus: The

Internationally renowned psychiatrist, Dr. Szasz,

writes, " The ostensible validity of DSM is reinforced by

psychiatry's claim that mental illnesses are brain diseases—a claim

supposedly based on recent discoveries in brain imaging techniques

and pharmacological agents for treatment. This is not true. " He also

says, " There is no blood or other biological test to ascertain the

presence of a mental illness, as there is for most bodily diseases.

If such a test were developed, then the condition would cease to be

a mental illness and would be classified, instead, as a symptom of a

bodily disease. "

Dr. Sydney , III, psychiatrist, neurologist:

" [The DSM] has led to the unnecessary drugging of millions of

American children who could be diagnosed, treated, and cured without

the use of toxic and potentially lethal medications. "

" The nonscientific approach used to create DSM leads to irrational

and constantly changing diagnostic criteria: a patient might be

perfectly normal according to one version of DSM and mentally ill by

the standards of the next. (For instance, `narcissistic personality

disorder'—used to describe vain people who are self-centered and

frequently take advantage of others—was a DSM `diagnosis' until

1968. It was eliminated from the version used between 1968 and 1980,

when it was reinstated. Thus, a self-centered, vain person

was `mentally ill' before 1968, normal for the next twelve years,

and then `mentally ill' again after 1980.) "

Dr. Harold Pincus, Vice Chairman of the DSM-IV task force

admitted, " There has never been any criterion that psychiatric

diagnoses require a demonstrated biological etiology (cause). "

R. McHugh, Professor of Psychiatry at s Hopkins University

School of Medicine and psychiatrist-in-chief at the s Hopkins

Hospital in Baltimore:

" ... In the absence of validating conceptions like the six

mechanisms of disease in internal medicine, American psychiatry has

turned to " committees of experts " to define mental disorder.

Membership on such committees is a mater of one's reputation in the

APA—which means that those chosen can confidently be expected to

manifest not only a requisite degree of psychiatric competence but,

perhaps more crucially, some talent for diplomacy and self-

promotion.

" The new DSM approach of using experts and descriptive criteria in

identifying psychiatric diseases has encouraged a productive

industry. If you can describe it, you can name it; and if you can

name it, then you can claim it exists as a distinct " entity " with,

eventually, a direct treatment tied to it. Proposals for new

psychiatric disorders have multiplied so feverishly that the DSM

itself has grown from a mere 119 pages in 1968 to 886 in the latest

edition; a new and enlarged edition, DSM-V, is already in the

planning stages. Embedded within these hundreds of pages are some

categories...that are dubious, in the sense that they are more like

the normal responses of sensitive people than

psychiatric " entities " ; and some that are purely the inventions of

their proponents. "

Genova, M.D., writing in Psychiatric Times, said: the " DSM

diagnostic system has outlived its usefulness by about two decades.

It should be abandoned, not revised. "

Psychiatrist Dumont: " The humility and the arrogance in the

prose are almost indistinguishable, frolicking like puppies at play.

They say: `...while this manual provides a classification of mental

disorder...no definition adequately specifies precise boundaries for

the concept...' [APA, 1987]...They go on to say: `...there is no

assumption that each mental disorder is a discrete entity with sharp

boundaries between it and other mental disorders or between it and

no mental disorder' [APA, 1987]. "

Psychologist Garfinkel, a staff member of the American

Psychological Association, said of the DSM-III-R work group: " The

low level of intellectual effort was shocking. Diagnoses were

developed by majority vote on the level we would use to choose a

restaurant. You feel like Italian, I feel like Chinese, so let's go

to a cafeteria. Then it's typed into the computer. "

Healy, psychiatrist, director of the North Wales Department of

Psychological Medicine and author of The Anti-Depressant Era: " There

must inevitably be a struggle, or a dialectical process, to

determine the meaning of physical symptoms and where the boundaries

of health and disease lie. "

J. Allan Hobson and A. Leonard, authors of Out of Its Mind,

Psychiatry in Crisis, A Call For Reform: " ...DSM-IV's authoritative

status and detailed nature tends to promote the idea that rote

diagnosis and pill-pushing are acceptable. "

Psychiatrist Al Parides: DSM is " a masterpiece of political

maneuvering. " He also observed that " what they have done is

medicalize many problems that don't have demonstrable, biological

causes. "

Elliot S. Valenstein, biopsychologist, author of Blaming the

Brain: " DSM-IV is not an exciting document. It is purely descriptive

and presents no new scientific insights or any theories about what

causes the many mental disorders it lists. "

Lawrence Diller, M.D., author of Running on Ritalin: " …[The] search

for a biological marker is doomed from the outset because of the

contradictions and ambiguities of the diagnostic construct of ADHD

as defined by the DSM…I liken the efforts to discover a marker…to

the search for the Holy Grail. " ]

Note: WikiWiki is Hawaiian term meaning " quick " .

[Guest guest]

Anti-psychiatry wikipedia definition...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry

This " popular " wikipedia definition needs to be updated to stress

the following anti-psychiatry supportive factors...

APA's DSM publication development funded by Big Pharma.

Recent developments concerning Big Pharma improprieties worldwide.

Recent developments concerning FDA & other regulator & legislative

improprieties.

Recent developments concerning congressional & senatorial

investigations of Big Pharma & FDA.

Current prevalence of adverse drug reactions as a leading cause of

death.

Current public opinion very low concerning psychiatry profession &

DSM as a result of Big Pharma manipulation affecting increasing

number of families purely for profit.

Inner divisional rift among two major conceptual groups within the

APA concerning validity of DSM classifications. One subgroup's

tenants has proven link to concommitant pedophilia (this subgroup

of psychiatrists themselves are arguably " ill " ).

APA's DSM publication updates history largely & repeatedly rooted in

base motivations (greed/exploitation) targeting weaker societal

segments. APA consistently & significantly retreated positionally

when several of such segments organized verbal opposition.

APA's DSM publication classifications largely scientifically

unreliable and therefore scientifically invalid.

There are approx 50 different names for essentially equivalent SSRI

drug worldwide.

APA ignores prolific scientific evidence of violent and aggressive

patient acts associated with serotonergic drugs and their byproducts

when measured in the CSF.

http://www.cchr.org/event/31anni/violence/violpg2.htm

http://www.cchr.org/issues/dsm/experts/index.htm

[EXPERTS DEBUNK DSM ...

" junk science, " according to an international poll of mental health

experts conducted in England in 2001, the DSM-IV was voted one of

the 10 worst psychiatric papers of the millennium.]

The truth is when we try to fit psychiatry into the definition of a

true science, it fails the test. The lack of science behind the DSM

gives a clear idea of why it has earned such critics as the

following small sample:

Loren Mosher, M.D., Clinical Professor of Psychiatry: " DSM-IV is

the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine

in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific

document... DSM-IV has become a bible and a money making bestseller—

its major failings notwithstanding. It confines and defines

practice, some take it seriously, others more realistically. "

And, " It is the way to get paid. Diagnostic reliability is easy to

attain for research projects. The issue is what do the categories

tell us? Do they in fact accurately represent the person with a

problem? They don't, and can't, because there are no external

validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither a

blood test nor specific anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric

disorder. "

Margaret Hagen, author of Whores Of The Court, summarily dismisses

the DSM: " Given their farcical `empirical' procedures for arriving

at new disorders with their associated symptoms lists, where does

the American Psychiatric Association get off claiming a scientific,

research-based foundation for its diagnostic manual? This is nothing

more than science by decree. They say it is science, so it is. "

Dr. Dorman, internist and member of the Royal College of

Physicians of the United Kingdom: " In short, the whole business of

creating psychiatric categories of `disease', formalizing them with

consensus, and subsequently ascribing diagnostic codes to them,

which in turn leads to their use for insurance billing, is nothing

but an extended racket furnishing psychiatry a pseudo-scientific

aura. The perpetrators are, of course, feeding at the public

trough. "

A. Schaler, Ph.D.: The notion of scientific validity, though

not an act, is related to fraud. Validity refers to the extent to

which something represents or measures what it purports to represent

or measure. When diagnostic measures do not represent what they

purport to represent, we say that the measures lack validity. If a

business transaction or trade rested on such a lack of validity, we

might say that the lack of validity was instrumental in a commitment

of fraud. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) published

by the American Psychiatric Association and used by licensed

psychotherapists throughout the country is notorious for low

scientific validity. Yet it is instrumental in securing insurance

reimbursement for psychotherapy services.... "

Herb Kutchins of California State University, Sacramento, and Stuart

A. Kirk of the University of California, Los Angeles, authors of

Making Us Crazy: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental

Disorders:

" The developers of DSM assume that if a group of psychiatrists agree

on a list of atypical [new] behaviors, the behaviors constitute a

valid mental disorder. Using this approach, creating mental

disorders can become a parlor game in which clusters of all kinds of

behaviors (i.e. syndromes) can be added to the manual. "

" …there is ample reason to conclude that the latest versions of DSM

as a clinical tool are unreliable and therefore of questionable

validity as a classification system. "

" There are indeed many illusions about DSM and very strong needs

among its developers to believe that their dreams of scientific

excellence and utility have come true…. " The " bitter medicine " is

that DSM has " unsuccessfully attempted to medicalize too many human

troubles. "

[DSM] " …cannot be used to distinguish mental disorders from other

human problems. In practical terms, this means that many people who

do not have any mental disorder (although they may have other

difficulties) will be inappropriately labeled as mentally ill and

those who have a mental disorder will not have it recognized…If the

unreliability of diagnosis were widely recognized and if there were

no scientific patina [surface appearance] " to it, " the use of

everyday behaviors as indicators of mental disorder would be more

rigorously questioned by the public. The illusion that psychiatrists

are in agreement when making diagnoses creates the appearance of a

united professional consensus. "

Professor Shorter, author of A History of Psychiatry: " Rather

than heading off into the brave new world of science, DSM-IV-style

psychiatry seemed in some ways to be heading out into the desert. "

Szasz, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus: The

Internationally renowned psychiatrist, Dr. Szasz,

writes, " The ostensible validity of DSM is reinforced by

psychiatry's claim that mental illnesses are brain diseases—a claim

supposedly based on recent discoveries in brain imaging techniques

and pharmacological agents for treatment. This is not true. " He also

says, " There is no blood or other biological test to ascertain the

presence of a mental illness, as there is for most bodily diseases.

If such a test were developed, then the condition would cease to be

a mental illness and would be classified, instead, as a symptom of a

bodily disease. "

Dr. Sydney , III, psychiatrist, neurologist:

" [The DSM] has led to the unnecessary drugging of millions of

American children who could be diagnosed, treated, and cured without

the use of toxic and potentially lethal medications. "

" The nonscientific approach used to create DSM leads to irrational

and constantly changing diagnostic criteria: a patient might be

perfectly normal according to one version of DSM and mentally ill by

the standards of the next. (For instance, `narcissistic personality

disorder'—used to describe vain people who are self-centered and

frequently take advantage of others—was a DSM `diagnosis' until

1968. It was eliminated from the version used between 1968 and 1980,

when it was reinstated. Thus, a self-centered, vain person

was `mentally ill' before 1968, normal for the next twelve years,

and then `mentally ill' again after 1980.) "

Dr. Harold Pincus, Vice Chairman of the DSM-IV task force

admitted, " There has never been any criterion that psychiatric

diagnoses require a demonstrated biological etiology (cause). "

R. McHugh, Professor of Psychiatry at s Hopkins University

School of Medicine and psychiatrist-in-chief at the s Hopkins

Hospital in Baltimore:

" ... In the absence of validating conceptions like the six

mechanisms of disease in internal medicine, American psychiatry has

turned to " committees of experts " to define mental disorder.

Membership on such committees is a mater of one's reputation in the

APA—which means that those chosen can confidently be expected to

manifest not only a requisite degree of psychiatric competence but,

perhaps more crucially, some talent for diplomacy and self-

promotion.

" The new DSM approach of using experts and descriptive criteria in

identifying psychiatric diseases has encouraged a productive

industry. If you can describe it, you can name it; and if you can

name it, then you can claim it exists as a distinct " entity " with,

eventually, a direct treatment tied to it. Proposals for new

psychiatric disorders have multiplied so feverishly that the DSM

itself has grown from a mere 119 pages in 1968 to 886 in the latest

edition; a new and enlarged edition, DSM-V, is already in the

planning stages. Embedded within these hundreds of pages are some

categories...that are dubious, in the sense that they are more like

the normal responses of sensitive people than

psychiatric " entities " ; and some that are purely the inventions of

their proponents. "

Genova, M.D., writing in Psychiatric Times, said: the " DSM

diagnostic system has outlived its usefulness by about two decades.

It should be abandoned, not revised. "

Psychiatrist Dumont: " The humility and the arrogance in the

prose are almost indistinguishable, frolicking like puppies at play.

They say: `...while this manual provides a classification of mental

disorder...no definition adequately specifies precise boundaries for

the concept...' [APA, 1987]...They go on to say: `...there is no

assumption that each mental disorder is a discrete entity with sharp

boundaries between it and other mental disorders or between it and

no mental disorder' [APA, 1987]. "

Psychologist Garfinkel, a staff member of the American

Psychological Association, said of the DSM-III-R work group: " The

low level of intellectual effort was shocking. Diagnoses were

developed by majority vote on the level we would use to choose a

restaurant. You feel like Italian, I feel like Chinese, so let's go

to a cafeteria. Then it's typed into the computer. "

Healy, psychiatrist, director of the North Wales Department of

Psychological Medicine and author of The Anti-Depressant Era: " There

must inevitably be a struggle, or a dialectical process, to

determine the meaning of physical symptoms and where the boundaries

of health and disease lie. "

J. Allan Hobson and A. Leonard, authors of Out of Its Mind,

Psychiatry in Crisis, A Call For Reform: " ...DSM-IV's authoritative

status and detailed nature tends to promote the idea that rote

diagnosis and pill-pushing are acceptable. "

Psychiatrist Al Parides: DSM is " a masterpiece of political

maneuvering. " He also observed that " what they have done is

medicalize many problems that don't have demonstrable, biological

causes. "

Elliot S. Valenstein, biopsychologist, author of Blaming the

Brain: " DSM-IV is not an exciting document. It is purely descriptive

and presents no new scientific insights or any theories about what

causes the many mental disorders it lists. "

Lawrence Diller, M.D., author of Running on Ritalin: " …[The] search

for a biological marker is doomed from the outset because of the

contradictions and ambiguities of the diagnostic construct of ADHD

as defined by the DSM…I liken the efforts to discover a marker…to

the search for the Holy Grail. " ]

Note: WikiWiki is Hawaiian term meaning " quick " .