Chair of DSM-IV speaks out against DSM-V

I didn't know where else to put this, so I made a thread. It's a fantastic talk; though nearly an hour long. I don't agree with a lot of what he said - especially the part about automatically drugging schizophrenics (obviously ) - but it's interesting all the same.

I wish there was something that could be done to get psychiatrists outside their narrow neurochemical disorder> DSM diagnosis > druggings, though. Eh.

Thanks. I'm listening to him right now.

Let me know what you think. I got a bit distracted by his FLUORESCENT HAIR at times.

lol... Well, I'm not watching him - just listening and doing other work here. He's not even getting my full attention. Multi-tasking.

He's multi-tasking also: lecturing with his mouth and mesmerising with his hair.

rotfl... And you said newtus was funny!



I'm headed home now. I'll listen to the rest tomorrow.

I don't think being funny is a zero-sum game. We can ALL be funny!

Really good video. I think I'll make time to watch it again with fuller attention. He's not saying anything I haven't heard before, but it's cool to hear it from an expert rather than, say, a journalist. I think it brings more credibility to the subject.

BTW, did you notice the video by Robert Whitaker off to the side? Another one where I've heard all of the material before, but it's good to hear it again.

I liked hearing it from the Head Honcho of psychiatric dipshittery, aka. the former chair of the DSM. It's a huge thing for him to come out of retirement to basically slam his profession for being label-obsessed drug pushers.

i plan on watching it later - thanks!

Very interesting.....especially since he was the one who chaired DSM IV.....wish they would listen to him more than it seems like they are especially in certain areas. Glad that the ones responsible for the DSM's at least some have those thoughts & understanding.

I'm watching this a second time. I wanted to comment about something he says. Early in the video he's examining several theories as to why rates of mental illness are increasing. He mentions environmental toxins which he says is impossible to rule out. Then he comments that the only toxins that make sense in increasing MI would be alcohol and drugs, but there's no evidence that their usage has increased.

I'd like to suggest another environmental toxin as a possible culprit: sugar. There's no doubt that sugar consumption has increased dramatically from about 20 pounds per person per year in the U.S. in the early 1800's to over 140 pounds per person per year currently.

One of the proposed theories as to why the WHO study found higher rates of recovery from sz in developing as opposed to developed countries has to do with sugar - less sugar consumed in countries with higher recovery rates.

He has a whole thing on biological testing in order to predict a psychiatric disorder. He says we're on the verge having our first test which will predict who is likely to go on to have a psychiatric disorder. The psychiatric disorder he's talking about is dementia. Personally it wouldn't occur to be to consult a psychiatrist about dementia. I'd see a neurologist I think.

Then he says that psychiatry has a remarkable cure rate - a large minority of those who consult a psychiatrist go on to get completely well. If you look at the Robert Whitaker talk I linked to above, though, he cites older resources which indicate that before the days of psych meds, it was understood that people with, for example, major depression had a high likelihood of getting better with no treatment at all! So if I see a pdoc for major depression, and I subsequently get better, did he cure me or would I have recovered without him? Do I count on his cure statistics?

He has a whole thing on biological testing in order to predict a He said that these tests were very unreliable......that most who test positive don't go on to end up with dementia.....He said that those kinds of tests would be so expensive & so invasive & also would be very inconclusive.....that they really would be a waste of money because most who would go through it wouldn't end up with the dx in the long run anyway......so there would really be no way of treating the person ahead of time.

Yes, I heard all that. I still say dementia doesn't fall under psychiatry. Why claim it? This is the only "mental illness" he can cite which is even close to having a biological test - with all the caveats and limitations you mention. Personally I'm not buying this as a psychiatric illness, so I don't see this has evidence of progress in psychiatry.

My mom is in the early stages of dementia I think. Eventually I'll have to get involved, I suppose, and take her to a doctor. It's not going to be a psychiatrist. Dementia is a true biological disorder, not a psychiatric disorder.

My father has dementia now. When he was getting it, it just seemed like his mind was wearing out like his body was wearing out. I didn't look anything like a mental illness.

I think the problem with the DSM-IV fellow's speech is that he is obviously biassed in favour of his profession and 'institutionalised' (can't think of better word) into how they see the world. I mean, I wouldn't expect anything different from one of the US's top psychiatrists.
The profession is a very long way away from acknowledging anything other than a biological role for the diseases, with maybe a minor social element.

I guess if I'd made a career of something I wouldn't want to say it's bogus either. And in fairness it isn't bogus. I know people on this forum tend to be very anti-pdoc because of awful experiences with them. I've found them to helpful. Sometimes you're desperate for help, and there's nowhere else to turn where you'll be understood. Here's someone who's seen other people going through what your loved one is going through, so they at least have more experience. They 'get it' on a level the average person doesn't. They aren't going to blame your loved one or tell them to just snap out of it. The problem I have is when they cross that line and say they know what's causing it - it's a biological disease. IMHO the jury's still out on that question. Some humility wouldn't go amiss.

I also wanted to say that the comments I made above aren't about the central theme of the talk. They're just me picking at things he said that bothered me a bit.

The talk is about how changes in diagnostic criteria can easily move people out of the normal category into a disease category. It's really a stunning admission that a group of doctors sitting a conference somewhere - funded by drug companies btw - can make a 'normal' person into a potential patient (and consumer for big pharm) by changing words on a page.

We've seen the same thing with physical ailments. Change the 'normal' values for blood pressure or cholesterol and suddenly lots more people need pills. A cash cow for the pharmaceutical companies. I believe currently about 40% of the American population is on some kind of long-term perscription med. How did we get here?

I didn't mean he was biassed in a bad way. I wouldn't expect him to go even as far as he as to criticise psychiatry . . . so I don't expect that he'll outright acknowledge all the flaws.

And the reason I'm so critical of psychiatry is not exactly because they're locked into their own little worldview. Everybody is. It's because they have coercive powers -- to compel even mentally competent people to be locked up/medicated against their will -- and they're not exactly reticent about using them. Physical-illness doctors don't have those powers.