Wednesday, July 28, 2010

The DSM-V: The Dumbest Senseless Manipulative Volume

I want readers to be forewarned: the American Psychiatric Association has lost the rest of its waning credibility now that the details of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is set to be published in its Fifth Edition. This volume is likely to endure more ridicule than a Bible at an atheist book club.
In the coming weeks, I am going to explore several of the more laughable aspects of the DSM-V, so that we can all enjoy the humor of this publication and develop an appropriate response to the most inane scientists our nation has to offer.

One of the most egregious stupidities involves the glaring conflict of interest of many of its authors. One example is Catherine Lord, who helped determine the new diagnostic categories of Autistic Spectrum Disorder. Of course, it makes sense to reexamine the criteria of this branch of disorders, which is relatively new to psychiatry.

However, Dr. Lord is involved in another area of Autism research; she has developed a test for the disorder called the ADOS. As Allison Bass reported, the subcategories included in her test (which, if widely used, could make her a fat paycheck) are suspiciously similar to the new criteria she proposes for the autistic spectrum disorders in the DSM-V! It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how hopelessly biased she would be in determining these criteria. If she makes the new criteria too different than her test, no one will buy the test.

This is just one small example. There are dozens of others in the DSM-V. And there are dozens of other deadly criticisms of the document that is already responsible for labeling millions of Americans with “mental illness”.

I invite every person with critical thinking skills to ask: why would anyone trust the only specialty in medicine that has achieved no cures, achieves "success" only through damaging the organ it is supposed to fix, performs no better than placebo, and constantly changes its diagnostic categories?

Next: how scientific is a decision that five symptoms is a disease, but only four is not?

No comments:

Post a Comment