Tag Archives: DSM

Psychiatry: The Modern Priest-Class

 “Do people suffer, do they have problems, do they experience anguish and pain, do they make choices that sabotage their own interests, do they fall victim to external circumstances, do they long for relief? Of course. But this has nothing to do with fraudulent psychiatric diagnoses. It has to do with nutritional deficits, toxic drugs, toxic food and environmental chemicals, abuse, isolation, intimidation, and a whole host of other potential factors.” – J Rappoport

Psychiatry_CartoonIn this society, psychiatrists are the primary definers of mental states. Their efforts are accepted as official science.

The Psychiatric Political State is based on myths and fairy tales about distinct and separate disorders and “good treatment.”

One of the main psychiatric mantras gaining force? “Everyone at some time in their lives will experience a mental disorder.”

But an open secret has been slowly bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.


And along with that:

All so-called mental disorders are concocted, named, labeled, described, and categorized by a committee of psychiatrists, from menus of human behaviors. Continue reading

Another Giant Nail In The Coffin Of Psychiatry

“Imagine this: “Mrs. Jones, your son has a heart-valve problem. How do I know? A few colleagues and I looked at his eyebrows, got together over drinks, and decided we should wheel him into surgery right away. Diagnostic tests? Why no. We don’t test. We chew the fat. We concur. We collude.”” J Rappoport

Psychiatry_CartoonAs my readers know, I’ve assembled a wide-ranging case against psychiatry.

It isn’t a science. It isn’t even close. It’s a hoax.

The bible of the profession, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM), lists some 300 separate and distinct mental disorders.

However, none of the 300 has a defining physical test for diagnosis. No blood test, no urine test, no hair test, no brain scan, no genetic assay.

Here’s another huge nail in the coffin. It was hammered by exactly the kind of establishment honcho people like to quote when they defend the establishment. Only this time…

On April 29, 2013, at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) website, Director Thomas Insel, the highest ranking federal mental-health official in the US, published a blog commentary: “Transforming Diagnosis.” Insel wrote:

“In a few weeks, the American Psychiatric Association will release its new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)…

“The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been ‘reliability’ – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness 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.”

Continue reading

Critics Blast Big Psychiatry for Invented and Redefined Mental Illnesses

The New American | May 13 2012

Unlike in conventional medicine where objective diagnoses and treatments are made based on observable biological evidence, psychiatrists get together every so often to decide what should or should not be considered a “mental illness.” And they do not always agree, as evidenced by the more than 13,000 professionals from around the world who recently signed an open letter demanding that the upcoming edition of the psychiatry industry’s “diagnostic manual” be put on hold and reconsidered.

As the elite of the nation’s psychiatric establishment work in the shadows to fully revise the highly controversial handbook labeling various behaviors and emotional states as “illnesses,” experts across the board are crying foul. A handful of new potential mental disorders and the revised definitions for others have caused a particularly fierce uproar among some psychiatrists and mental health professionals. At least 25,000 comments have already been submitted about the proposals.

The debate and its resolutions, of course, will have serious repercussions. Depending on the outcome of the ongoing conflict, millions of people may suddenly find out that they are afflicted with newly created “diseases,” while others — especially certain individuals diagnosed with forms of autism — may no longer qualify under the new definitions. Tens of millions more may soon be officially considered “addicts” under the revised definition for addiction, too.

The proposed changes would have broad implications affecting everything from treatment regimens to welfare programs, criminal law, and even education. But around the world, psychiatrists and mental health professionals are fighting back hard, urging the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to hold off on the revisions until more discussion and research can take place.

Known as the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (DSM), the controversial handbook is widely used around the globe by the mental health industry, governments, insurance companies, and more. If all goes as planned, the fifth edition of the so-called “Bible” of psychiatry is set to be distributed in May of next year after the first major revision in over a decade.

Continue reading