|
06 May 13 - 09:01 PM (#3512399) Subject: BS: The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5 From: Songwronger Just two weeks before DSM-5 is due to appear, the National Institute of Mental Health, the world's largest mental health research institute, has announced that it is withdrawing support for the manual. In a humiliating blow to the American Psychiatric Association, Thomas R. Insel, M.D., Director of the NIMH, made clear the agency would no longer fund research projects that rely exclusively on DSM criteria. Henceforth, the NIMH, which had thrown its weight and funding behind earlier editions of the manual, would be "re-orienting its research away from DSM categories." "The weakness" of the manual, he explained in a sharply worded statement, "is its lack of validity." http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/the-nimh-withdraws-support-for-dsm-5/43364 It will be interesting to see what's so offensive about this edition of the DSM. From what I've read in pre-release articles, the new edition will categorize "anti-government" thinking as mental illness. The Soviets did that and sent their "mentally ill" dissidents to the gulag. |
|
06 May 13 - 09:19 PM (#3512406) Subject: RE: BS: The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5 From: Rapparee Bull poop. As in every scientific endeavor there is disagreement...and NIMH is not the body publishing or writing DSM-5, the APA is. Please check your statements before posting. I retired three years ago. Thank you. |
|
06 May 13 - 09:32 PM (#3512410) Subject: RE: BS: The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5 From: Songwronger The NIMH is the largest organization using the book. And it is withdrawing its support. The APA will still produce the book, for those who disagree with the NIMH. Psychiatry is not science, by the way. It's guesswork. |
|
06 May 13 - 09:38 PM (#3512412) Subject: RE: BS: The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5 From: Ebbie 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." |
|
06 May 13 - 09:55 PM (#3512416) Subject: RE: BS: The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5 From: Songwronger Oh, I read it. And the full statement is more damning than merely saying the manual lacks validity. "DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure." Cheesus. That's awful. And the 1980 edition was called horsetrading. "...much of the research that existed was really a hodgepodge—scattered, inconsistent, ambiguous." Terrible. At any rate, the NIMH has relied of the manual for so long, it probably doesn't have anything better to switch to at the moment. Psychiatry will continue to drift, not moored to much except what government funding dictates. The word "genetics" crops up in the article, so I hope we're not going to return to Hitlerian psychiatry. All that eugenics stuff. |
|
07 May 13 - 12:38 AM (#3512445) Subject: RE: BS: The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5 From: Ebbie Oh, yeah, I am really concerned they might do that. |
|
07 May 13 - 01:00 AM (#3512446) Subject: RE: BS: The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5 From: Don Firth Oh, NO!! Two people in uniform have come to my door! They're going to haul me off to a concentration camp!!! Oh! No. It's two Girl Scouts selling cookies! Whew! Don Firth |
|
07 May 13 - 05:32 AM (#3512492) Subject: RE: BS: The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5 From: JohnInKansas And then there's the Congressperson who introduced the bill to prohibit peer review of proposals in determining what research should be funded by NSF research grants. He didn't say who would know better what to pick, but did include that "only research that will make great discoveries will be eligible for funds," or something like that. I wonder why I can't remember his name???? It was only a week or so ago. John |
|
07 May 13 - 07:31 AM (#3512527) Subject: RE: BS: The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5 From: JohnInKansas Just so nobody thinks the previous post was just flippancy: U.S. Lawmaker Proposes New Criteria for Choosing NSF Grants by Jeffrey Mervis on 28 April 2013, 3:48 PM New criteria. Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) is drafting legislation that would require the NSF director to certify that research met a number of new criteria. Credit: U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology The new chair of the House of Representatives science committee has drafted a bill that, in effect, would replace peer review at the National Science Foundation (NSF) with a set of funding criteria chosen by Congress. For good measure, it would also set in motion a process to determine whether the same criteria should be adopted by every other federal science agency. ... ScienceInsider has obtained a copy of the legislation, labeled "Discussion Draft" and dated 18 April, which has begun to circulate among members of Congress and science lobbyists. In effect, the proposed bill would force NSF to adopt three criteria in judging every grant. Specifically, the draft would require the NSF director to post on NSF's Web site, prior to any award, a declaration that certifies the research is: 1) "… in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense by promoting the progress of science; 2) "… the finest quality, is groundbreaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large; and 3) "… not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies." ... [end quote: read the rest at the link] Item 3 above is by itself sufficient to show that "Lamar" has no understanding of how science works. The nearest thing to a "gold standard" by which concensus can be reached is when multiple researchers repeat an original experiment and get the same result. Duplication of experiments, and funding to make duplicate research (called validation) possible, is an absolutely mandatory part of valid experimental scientific research. Based on past reputation of the author (and several other Texican Republinuts) the only thing missing from the proposal is the requirement that all reports on funded research must conclude with "Because God Said So," but of course that can be tacked on by amendment during House debate. John |
|
07 May 13 - 08:49 AM (#3512557) Subject: RE: BS: The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5 From: Greg F. Bull Poop? From ShitWringer? Whooda thunkit! |
|
07 May 13 - 06:54 PM (#3512763) Subject: RE: BS: The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5 From: Songwronger Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them. Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired's Greenberg and said the following: "There is no definition of a mental disorder. It's bullshit. I mean, you just can't define it." Finally, at the end of the Wired interview, Frances flew off into a bizarre fantasy: "Diagnosis [as spelled out in the DSM-IV] is part of the magic...you know those medieval maps? In the places where they didn't know what was going on, they wrote 'Dragons live here'...we have a dragon's world here. But you wouldn't want to be without the map." http://www.activistpost.com/2013/05/the-lying-liars-who-lie-about-psychiatry.html |
|
07 May 13 - 07:34 PM (#3512784) Subject: RE: BS: The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5 From: JohnInKansas 1. "Will not support" means only that NIH doesn't plan to contribute to the cost of publication. 2. Whether or not one or two nuts think it's all wrong, and NIH is short on funds, does not affect citations using its contents by researchers or "medical" practicioners who choose to use the terminologies defined in it. 3. The primary purpose of the DSM is only to clearly state the most commonly accepted usage for certain terminologies used in therapeutic and research practices. It has always included "commonly used" terms that it has stated should not be used because there are better ones. 4. Although fairly widely used, the DSM has no legal status and any use depends on the choice to use it by anyone who wants to use it. 5. DSM-V has been "released for review" but is probably still at least a year away from being adopted. THE ENTIRE PURPOSE of a release for review is to elicit everybody's arguments - and ESPECIALLY ALL THE OBJECTIONS. 6. Uninformed bystanders are unlikely to contribute much of anything to the process. 7. Even quite a few psychiatrists don't like psychiatry very much. 8. A copy of any DSM has always cost more than it's worth to anyone who can't take a deduction for it. John |
|
07 May 13 - 07:58 PM (#3512791) Subject: RE: BS: The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5 From: Songwronger "Two nuts" think it's all wrong. Those two particular nuts happen to be the head of the NIMH and the man who headed the DSM-IV job. Hardly nuts, and their opinions carry much, much weight. Your description of them as "nuts" points up the problem with the DSM--its subjectivity. There IS no definition of mental illness, at least not a quantifiable one, and it's time to stop pretending there is. Since the DSM-V is likely to be doomed now that the NIMH has abandoned it, maybe the flood of pharmaceutical drugs numbing America will be reduced to a trickle. |
|
07 May 13 - 10:04 PM (#3512823) Subject: RE: BS: The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5 From: Janie *sigh* |
|
08 May 13 - 09:52 AM (#3513001) Subject: RE: BS: The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5 From: Greg F. You're wasting your time, John. But thanks for trying! ;>) |
|
19 May 13 - 11:30 PM (#3516955) Subject: RE: BS: The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5 From: Songwronger INVENTOR OF ADHD'S DEATHBED CONFESSION: "ADHD IS A FICTITIOUS DISEASE" The German weekly Der Spiegel quoted in its cover story on 2 February 2012 the US American psychiatrist Leon Eisenberg, born in 1922 as the son of Russian Jewish immigrants, who was the "scientific father of ADHD" and who said at the age of 87, seven months before his death in his last interview: "ADHD is a prime example of a fictitious disease" Since 1968, however, some 40 years, Leon Eisenberg's "disease" haunted the diagnostic and statistical manuals, first as "hyperkinetic reaction of childhood", now called "ADHD". The use of ADHD medications in Germany rose in only eighteen years from 34 kg (in 1993) to a record of no less than 1760 kg (in 2011) – which is a 51-fold increase in sales! In the United States every tenth boy among ten year-olds already swallows an ADHD medication on a daily basis. With an increasing tendency. http://www.worldpublicunion.org/2013-03-27-NEWS-inventor-of-adhd-says-adhd-is-a-fictitious-disease.html#.UZYqt0R6b5c.facebook ...And after all, he served in the "Committee for DSM V and ICD XII, American Psychiatric Association" from 2006 to 2009.... ....It is this issue that the American psychologist Lisa Cosgrove and others investigated in their study Financial Ties between DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry7. They found that "Of the 170 DSM panel members 95 (56%) had one or more financial associations with companies in the pharmaceutical industry. One hundred percent of the members of the panels on 'Mood Disorders' and 'Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders' had financial ties to drug companies.... |
|
20 May 13 - 12:39 PM (#3517207) Subject: RE: BS: The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5 From: Q (Frank Staplin) The NIMH essentially said that the manual added little to the previous edition, and left out much of the most recent work. "Withdraw support?" Misleading. |