Sorry. I wish you'd read the replies to this topic, because this has been (sorta) answered by now. But please don't make me look for the quote, instead, I'll repeat the jist of it here.

1. No moving parts. Impossible to take out a part and see what's wrong with it, unlike the heart, the kidney, the reproductive organs.

2. Subjectivity. People who are ill sometimes complain. This is subjective. But the first clue in making a diagnosis in physical and psychiatric medicine is when a patient comes in and says "I feel not well." We cannot dismiss subjectivity as an insufficient proof of a disease being present.

3. Behaviour. If you see a man limping, a woman fainting, a child screaming with a thumb under the armpit of the other arm, etc., are visual, vehavioural symptoms. Very good ones, too. (My uncle once explained to me the difference between a "symptom" and a "sign" and I failed to understand him. I use them interchangeably. I apologize.) Behaviour is a very good diagnostic tool.

4. Therefore I don't think that needing physiological evidence is always or even ever necessary to establish that someone is sick.

5. Furthermore, there are many ways of establishing illness (for instance, blindness, deafness, or hebephrenic schizophrenia) without any physical measurements.

6. And this is good for psychiatry, because there are, like I said, no moving parts of the part that is supposedly ill.

7. To reply to your example of the legal system and drawing parallels, I'll draw a parallel for you between psychiatry and comp sci. If you observe two CPU chips, you don't know which is good and which is bad, if that's the case. You need to plug them into a computer, one after another, and command them to add 5 and 7 together. If one comes up with 12, you say that's a good chip, likely; if the other comes up with 8779.9999 then you know that that one is bad for sure.

If you ask a patient or rather just a person who presents, and you ask him how much is five plus seven, and he says twelve, you nod. If he says "doctor, please don't ask these racist questions" and he APPEARS sincere (and not joking) then the you, as a doctor, know that there is something wrong with the person's comprehension or hearing or associative function.

If you know of no psychological tests, that tells me a lot. A polygraph is not a psychological test, btw.

Here is a site that lists some of the tests:

http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/psychtests.htm

I am most familiar with the MMPI - Minnesota test. Yes, there are validity measures.

Nicely said, Wux.

I think you’ve really boiled that down well and I’d like to take it a step further…

In the words of Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, “Mental disorders are things that you do. Medical diseases are things that you have." In other words, all of the symptoms listed in the DSM are behavior patterns. None of them are physiological conditions. (Well, there are a few gray areas. Like “Unruly hair” - one of the official symptoms of ADD, believe it or not - which is more a “state of grooming” than a “behavior pattern”.) So behavior is not a “diagnostic tool”. Behavior is the condition. There is nothing else. That’s all the DSM contains – behavior patterns. There are no physiological conditions. Oh you may hear people claim that there are physilogical conditions. But there is no basis for that claim in the DSM. And there is no basis for that claim in any scientific tests. So the claim is either wishful thinking or just plain ignorance.

Now personally, I think that equating “a behavior pattern” with “a sickness” is one of the most damaging aspects of psychiatry in general. As I’ve said before, the number of “mental disorders” (i.e. behavior patterns that are labeled “sickness”, which can thus be treated and billed) increased from a half dozen to almost four hundred (that’s over five thousand percent mind you) in less than sixty years. So we’re now at the point where (according to APA estimates) over 25% of the entire population of the U.S. is afflicted with a “sick” behavior pattern. Which means that, from the perspective of the DSM, 25% of the U.S. population is in the same general category as convicted criminals – i.e. exhibiting “sick” behavior patterns.

But unlike the medical industry, which can actually cure physical illnesses, the psychiatric industry never cures anything. It can’t – because there is nothing to “cure”. The most they can do is control people’s behavior. After all, the “disorders” are not physiological conditions, they are nothing more than behavior patterns. So the only way the disorders can be eliminated is by changing the behavior. (Well, I guess one could say that psychiatry can “cure behavior”. But the same could be said of prison time. Or torture.)

The bottom line is this…

The most fundamental basis of the whole of pshychiatry is the presumption that all behavior is caused by physical factors.

Now first of all, that directly contradicts virtually all religious and spiritual beliefs extant in the world today. So what we have is a non-scientific, self-regulating, for-profit, government supported industry that is in direct conflict with virtually all religions, and whose sole function is to control people’s behavior. Now what’s wrong with this picture???

Secondly, the psychiatric industry would have you believe that it is on par with the true medical industry as far as objective science goes, which could not be farther from the truth. None of the disorders in the DSM has any proven cause. So the alleged physical basis for behavior, upon which the whole of psychiatry is based, is no more real than The Emperor’s New Clothes.

I don't see the logical connection that you are drawing here.

It is not written that a diagnostic tool must be measuring a physiological condition. I don't know why you insist on that. If you invoke that human judgement is fallible, then I say that a blood test or an ecg still needs to be evaluated by someone. There are signs, there are evaluations. The signs are the problem for you? If given by a machine it's okay, if given by a person it's not? Why? If you work long enough as a carpenter, you need not measure lengths of wood before each time you cut; if you're a cook, you need not measure all the ingredients all the time. If you combine the observative wisdom of literally tens of thousands of minds that observed things millions of times, why argue that they cannot be trusted? It's statistics, and there will be exceptions, buyt the exceptions will follow the rules of the established distribution. Not everyone dies during kidney surgery, but some do. Not every white blood cell count will yield a useful diagnostic datum.

If interpretation is the problem, then I especially can't comprehend your point.

Are you trying to prove that we're insane or that you are? (Joke.)

Yeah. You must be so emotionally invested in your theory that behaviour is not diagnostic tool, and you are so squeezed now, that your argument has boiled down to

"Behavior is not a diagnostic tool. Therefore behavior is not a diagnostic tool."

Which is fine. But not according to the rules of philosophical arguments or debates.

Sky,

Please do not get offended here, as this response is not meant to offend, but to better understand...

Haven't you often used the phrase "If it walks like a duck..."

Why would an experienced medical professional not have that same ability to accurately assess another based purely on their behaviour as you seem to believe that you have, especially given the tremendous amount of research which has been and is continuing to be done in that field?

I understand and share your concern and disappointment with the capitalistic based infrastructure, but honestly...

The existence of money-driven doctors does not constitute reason to believe that they all are.

Know whatta mean?

There is context to that quote, which has been left out. And since that context includes the “other end” of the connection, I cannot show you the logical connection based on that out-of-context quote because it isn’t in there. It’s in the part you left out.

In the intended context, I was never trying to make a connection between “physiological condition” and “diagnostic tool”. Quite the contrary, I have said over and over again that there is none.

Granted. That is absolutely true in the case of the DSM.

So what exactly is the objective thing, if any, that is being measured???

Well, since it isn’t physiology, the only other objective thing left is behavior.

Which puts the diagnostic tool in the curious category of “measuring behavior with behavior”.

And that is the “logical connection” that you left out of the quote.

I think I covered that pretty well above. But to reiterate…

I have never insisted that any of the DSM diagnostics must be measuring a physiological condition. I’ve only insisted that they don’t.

So really, if anything, it is the APA that has been insisting that their diagnostic tool (the DSM) “must be measuring a physiological condition”, not me.

True. But the difference between those physiological tests, and the DSM, is that with the physiological tests, the diagnosis is made based on the results of that physiological test, whereas with the DSM, there is the curious situation where the diagnosis is made based on the diagnosis.

In other words, an X-Ray is used to diagnose a condition. But the X-Ray is not a condition – it is an indicator of a condition. Whereas with the DSM, the behavior is used to diagnose the condition, but the condition itself is behavior.

Or in even simpler terms…
What is the “condition”? Behavior.
What is the “diagnostic tool”? Behavior.

Not for me. But they are for the APA. The whole of the DSM is based on the idea that the signs are the problem.

It’s not the observations that I don’t trust. It is the conclusions derived from those observations that I don’t trust.

As an example…

Up until the close of the 15th century, literally tens of thousands of minds observed things millions of times, and no one argued whether they could be trusted. But the “observative wisdom” of those tens of thousands of minds, based on millions of obsevations, led to the conclusion that the world was flat.

So yeah, I’d say that “combined observative wisdom” is not all the trustworthy.

What statistics, what distributions and who established them?

Contrary to the misleading title of the DSM (“Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) it contains no “statistics” or “exceptions that follow established distributions”. So where and what are these alleged statistics?

And more importantly, what is the logical conclusion that is drawn from them? How are they interpreted? What is the meaning assigned to them?

My problem is not with the interpretation of the symptoms. That’s a simple matter of observation and tabulation. If it waddles and quacks, it’s a duck because it matches the checklist that defines “duck”. Likewise, if matches the checklist that defines Attention Deficit Disorder, then it’s ADD. No problem at all there

One problem I do have is with the assignment of cause.

The minute one claims a cause for something, one enters the domain of science and therefore must have some objectively demonstrable evidence of a cause=>effect relationship to support that claim. Otherwise that claim is, at best, a philosophical position based on an unproven premise. Which is about the best that can be said for psychiatry.

The worst of it is that all the “interpretations” seem to end up with it being heralded as “scientific”. This is exemplified in what seems to have become the battle cry of phychiatric propaganda – “mental disorders are caused by chemical imbalances in the brain”. But the fact of the matter is that there is no known cause for any mental disorder.

The simple truth is that all the disorders in the DSM are manufactured out of thin air.

Here’s the sequence of events…
1) The DSM ask Force gathers together a list of behavior patterns
2) They vote on whether each behavior pattern in the list should be included in the DSM
3) Those behavior patterns that are voted in, are assigned names (for easy discussion) and numbers (for insurance billing purposes).
4) The new list of behavior patterns is published as “The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders” (DSM).
5) The newly created names and numbers for the behavior patterns are thereafter referred to as “Mental Disorders”.

That’s’ all there is too it. There is no “science” involved at all.

And that is exactly how the number of mental disorders grew from half a dozen 60 years ago, to almost four hundred today. The DSM Task Force simply “voted them in”.

Now the result of all this is that, according to the APA, 25% of the U.S. population now suffers from at least one of those “mental disorders”. That’s something like 75,000,000 potential patients or customers, depending on if you work in the psychiatric industry or the pharmaceutical industry.

But that figure of 75 million is really not too surprising since there are now almost 400 “mental disorders” to chose from. And if history is any indication, there are many more to come in DSM V. Who knows? They might even hit 100 million, or more, when DSM V comes out.

So the biggest problem I have with interpretation is that “behavior” is being interpreted as “mental disorder”.



If anything, the APA is trying to prove that everyone is insane (Joke also … mostly. )

See above post.

No offfense taken at all.
And yes, I have often used that phrase. And I used it again two posts back.

Absolutely no reason whatsoever. But you have to realize that the behavior is the condition. Plain and simple.

So it is very easy to observe behavior and go down a checklist to see if all the behaviors are present. Very little experience or training is required to do that.

But anyone can make up a list of behaviors and apply a label to it. And that is exactly what the DSM task force does.

The key factor is one simple fact, which I’ll let someone else state…



And therein lies the only hope. That someday (preferably before things get completely out of hand) someone will either prove or disprove, scientifically, exactly what behavior patterns (and thus, “mental disorders”) are or are not caused by exactly what physiological phenomena.

In the meantime we’re pretty much stuck with The Emperor’s New Clothes.

And I absolutely agree with that. I’m really only trying to make people aware of the amount of power held by the APA.

And if “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, there is great potential for corruption in the alliance between the APA, the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry.

And now that both the Justice system and the Educational system are involved in the mix, the potential for corruption is huge.

Mental illness......




or genius unrecognised?



The trend of over-identifying, labelling, and creating parameters of 'normal' are at the very least weak and inefficient, and at the worst terrifyingly dangerous and damaging.


This intense insatiable urge to 'control' all and sundry is the real mental illness....it's a mad mad mad 'normal' world, full of insanity and madness...and 'Asylum' is the safest place for the lateral thinkers, the sensitives, and the profoundly insightful.

I wish I could put it that poetically. Well said.

The people I have known in my life who had been labeled with a mental illness have definitely been bordering on genius, if not completely crossing over into the genius realm.

These people range from one of my own children to a past partner...with others in between. All highly intelligent, creative, multi-talented and super sensitive humans. So much so that understanding their abilities
was challenging for them, to just know things and not understand where the knowledge came from. To be very different than those around them.


Watching some become unstable from frustration, despair and medications and
in some cases eventual abuse of alcohol. Are they really the crazy ones..or are the crazy ones those who label and medicate them?

There is a thin line between insane and genius...

Having just spent three days with a highly acclaimed man of science...with multiple degrees and doctorates in the 'healing arts' of the psyche, the mind, and the neural firings of the brain...I have a clearer view of the alarming practises of these new 'Dark Arts'...

Terrifying.


The rigidity and the grasping of old and archaic methodology, ill adapted to the evolved mind, and the rapid transformative minds of the 'new' humans, is frightening.

There is no latitude within the sciences for intuition, emotion and a 'higher consciousness'....and the agitated paranoic prognosis and 'treatments' of these very special geniuses, is to sedate, conform, restrict and control....a new genocide is here...

Ive already stated it is elective.. its a choice, it is not given without permission of a patient, and is kepy primarily to specific centers who specialize in this.


There are laws all over this country which protects patients from having to recieve this against thier will.

That's right. It's a choice. It requires consent.

The VA Hospital in my city does it, btw. Other hospitals here do it too.

I already explained the basics of my experience in this field, but not the level of research I did. Here is a website that explains the physical nature of various brain disorders and how they can be diagnosed and treated. It is little different from any other organ is many ways. The biggest difference is the complexity.

http://www.amenclinics.com/brain-science/spect-research/articles/why-dont-psychiatrist-look-at-the-brain/

Begin Quote:

How can SPECT help in patient management? One often-overlooked contribution is that abnormal SPECT studies may improve treatment compliance; patients more readily accept help for something they can see. SPECT can also uncover, in clinically confusing or complex cases, the presence of forgotten brain trauma; it is common for patients to forget even significant incidents of brain injury. This may be due to amnesia surrounding the trauma, psychological repression, or the fact that the event occurred at a relatively young age. Finally, SPECT can help target medical treatment, guiding physicians to prescribe anticonvulsants if there are focal areas of hypo- or hyperperfusion in the temporal lobes; psychostimulants if there is diffuse hypoperfusion in the prefrontal cortex; antidepressants if there is hyperperfusion in the limbic system; or antidepressants with anti-obsessive properties if there is diffuse hyperperfusion in the anterior cingulate gyrus.

The following are two examples of how SPECT can be useful in the clinical evaluation of brain trauma.

Patient T, 15, exhibited severe conduct problems. From an early age, he had been hyperactive, impulsive, moody, and had learning difficulties. When he was 18 months old, he fell down a flight of stairs and briefly lost consciousness; he was taken to the hospital, where a CT scan was read as normal. However, after the incident he was never quite the same, according to his mother. By age 15, he had been arrested for shoplifting, often cut school, and was defiant and hostile toward his parents. His social development was poor. He had been treated with numerous medications without success; he had already been in two residential treatment programs and was on his way to a third when he arrived at our clinic for evaluation.

A SPECT study showed severe damage to T’s left prefrontal cortex, left occipital lobe, and both temporal lobes (see Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4). A combination of an anticonvulsant (to stabilize his temporal lobe) and a psychostimulant (to increase prefrontal cortex perfusion) was prescribed. The combination provided improved mood stability and impulse control. As a result, T was able to live at home with less turmoil. Moreover, T and his parents gained a better understanding of his problems, which allowed emotional healing to begin, and the school placed him in a program for brain-injured children rather than just labeling him with a behavioral disorder.

Let's also talk about OCD, Tourettes, Bi-polar, Depression, and Schizophrenia, etc. Let's talk about neurons and synapses, neurotransmitters and dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine levels. Let's talk about people that are bi-polar and in the hospital getting blood tests until their med dosage is correct.

I found the title of this thread concerning to begin with but have not really said anything in here.

My concern is that people want to dismiss that which they do not understand as not "real" in some way. Mental disorders are more common than people think and effect a person's life at levels a "normal" human could not comprehend.

For example, when I got sick with the MS, a part of my illness is cognitive. I forgot parts of my life, I forget things alot, I type backwards sometimes or skip words while I am typing, etc... the list is longer but just using examples here. I was accused and have still been acccused of faking it. First off, I don't know what to "fake" to make a "valid" illness?? Second, the difficulties it causes me are compounded by people who do not believe it. The people who accuse people of this have some issue inside of themselves that does not want to accept that there are things the accusor does not understand.

Why can't we just accept that we are not doctors and cannot diagnose the ill, whether it be mental or physical? And even beyond that, as I found out with my illness, doctors don't even know all the time what they are dealing with either.