Thanks, Rap.

Songwronger, you need to read more carefully. What the NIMH really said is quite far from the implications you inferred.

"The weakness" of the manual, he explained in a sharply worded statement, "is its lack of validity." "Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure."

"That consensus is now clearly missing. Whether it ever really existed remains in doubt. As one consultant for DSM-III conceded to the New Yorker magazine about the amount of horsetrading driving that supposedly "evidenced-based" edition from 1980: "There was very little systematic research, and much of the research that existed was really a hodgepodge—scattered, inconsistent, ambiguous."

And:

"Yet what the NIMH is offering as a solution the DSM's fumbles and errors is not without major problems of its own, including because of the agency's single-minded focus on biological psychiatry as the represented solution to all such ambiguities and confusions."