"The mild and
the long-suffering may suffer forever in this world. As long as
the patient will suffer, the cruel will kick."
-- Sidney Smith |
Yes - I am still around, but not sleeping well.
Also, such news as there was the last days doesn't make me happier - and
to avoid writing much I give today mostly quotes and links only, and to
register that news here, in the hope to return to both quoted texts
later:
1. Translation of title and quote from an article in the NRC of 15 jan
2011
2. APA makes mockery out of medicine and
morality
So while I do hope to have some new healing thoughts myself on the texts
that follow, for the moment I rely on writing and thinking I did, and
indeed that ME agenda
did.
1. Translation of title and quote from an article in the NRC of 15 jan
2011
Title + subtitle:
Healing thoughts
Chronic pain and tiredness complaints may lessen if patients learn
to accept their feelings. There arrrives more and more proof that
'healing thoughts' work.
Quote (get a chamber pot ready to puke in - my bold):
Mindfulness means that you are conscious of
the here and now, of your thoughts, emotions and perceptions. "We like to
call it the third generation Cognitive Behavorial Therapy", Anne
Speckens, professor psychiatry in the Radboud University Nijmegen and
connected to the Han Fortmann Centre for Mindfulness. "The first
generation is the classic BT, that is based on punishing desirable
behaviour or neglecting or punishing of undesirable behaviour. The second
generation does not only concern itself with behaviour but also with
thinking about it. Mindfulness goes a step beyond this: it is not
concerned so much with the content of the thoughts, as about somebody's
relation to those thoughts."
OBSERVING People learn to no longer regard their thoughts as fixed data,
but to observe them from a distance and without having a judgment about
them. And to let go of their negative thoughts. Or to accept them. With
some people it is that which is important, tells Speckens: that they stop
resisting against their complaints. "By admitting the pain or the fear,
they find that these are less bad than they thought.
They 'are' not
longer their complaints, they 'have' them."
You see, what witchdoctor Speckens means, I hope, for great minds like
Phil Parker's and her's think alike: They now 'do' them and they were 'dûing
them before, the self-ill-making layman and laywoman
dumboes.
Charlatanism, bogosity
($), mystical pseudobabble, innuendo, hypocrisy
and the complete betrayal of science and patients, of morality and
honesty are all implicit and
implied - just as I foresaw in July 2010:
Dutch moral and intellectual pretentious sick degeneracy: Popish
priestly pseudo-scientific theologized psychiatry in a pop-mysical
psychobabble bullshit style - as in the raving loony therapeutic Sixties at its
most pretentious, phony and false.
Dutch
Whores of Reason teaching
pseudoscientific 'therapeutical' bullshit in the names of science and
religion at once (for Han Fortmann was a popish priest), for their own
financial and career benefits, at the cost of whoever is conned,
flimflammed, cheated, deceived, or abused (for these days bureaucrats may
force you to these medieval healers and bringers of holistic wellness "in
your own interests", to their lasting financial benefit).
And mind you: All at competing if
high prices - the pseudos want their talons in
patients to milk them for money.
That is and was was what medical fraudulence and
pseudoscience and pop-mysticism and hypocrisy and double talk, and
politically correct new language: therapist doublespeak
served and liberally sauced with unctiousness,
sanctimoniousness and lies galore about the 'scientificality' and
'morality' of it are all about, since many centuries also:
Lucian.
As long as they can milk you they will; "The mild and the
long-suffering may suffer forever in this world. As long as the patient
will suffer, the cruel will kick" - and see my
Lord o lord: What moral intellectual and human
degenerates harbours Nijmegen and the world!
Frauds in the name of
"science"!
2. APA makes mockery out of medicine and
morality
At this point you may think I have been overstating things, but
then I should remind you I do have the degrees in psychology and philosophy
and the knowledge of methodology and philosophy of science - and it seems
like an intentional mockery out of medicine and morality, in
Nijmegen and in the American Psychiatric Association, that has a
committee that is all by itself, mostly, or at least for the most part secretly, although
they pretend it's not, redefiningn psychiatry into a Soviet-style
technique of manipulation and moneymaking.
Here is a link to ME agenda's
DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch
that I much recommend if you want to know more about these subjects: Not
happy but frightening reading:
Here is
the drift of it all in ME agenda's
words, boldness and colouring - and I quite agree:
As I have been highlighting
for some time now, under these DSM-5 Task Force proposals, all medical
conditions, whether “established” general medical conditions or
disorders, or conditions presenting with “somatic symptoms of unclear
etiology”, have the potential for qualifying for an additional diagnosis
of a somatic symptom disorder.
Precisely. The
APA
as lying Doctors of the Soul, where
real
scientists say "can't explain, as yet".
First and
let me note for clarity's sake that I am not
an allout opponent of either psychiatry or psychiatrists (and indeed have
an excellent M.A. in psychology):
There
are
good (*) psychiatrists, indeed such as the chief
editors of the DSM-III and DSM-IV, doctors Spitzer
and Frances:
See
Good journalistic article on the
dangers of DSM-5 with an interesting interview with Frances, and while I
have read little psychiatry that I found scientifically sound and
sensible (all
non-psychiatrists with the requisite knowledge think the same:
Feynman vs Wessely,
as indeed do the most gifted psychiatrists:
McCulloch vs. Wessely), and while psychiatry has
intellectually and morally a very bad track record since it arose in the
1880ies, having had it wrong so many times, to the detriment of many ill
or upset people, very wrong, also for very wrong and often very
pretentious fundamentally unscientific and irrational reasons, it is also
true that there certainly are mad, disturbed and deluded persons,
and that they deserve help, and that the reasons for their madness, disturbance and
delusions deserve rational and empirical scientific investigation.
That said, to quote myself from
On the DSM-5TM in
the sequence it appears there:
But more seems to me to be involved, to this psychologist and
philosopher: In the DSM-5, the APA seems to be thinking first and
foremost not of real science, not of creating a fairly clear set of
symptoms and criterions to base medical diagnoses on, not of the
interests of patients, but seems to have been first and foremost
concerned with securing the future incomes of psychiatrists and
psychotherapists, mostly by what I only can fairly describe as
psychiatric theology, that runs more or less thus:
'There are a body (soma) and a mind/soul (psyche); all diseases
have both somatic and psychological sides; and to the
psychiatrist/psychotherapist falls in these modern days the lot and task
and mission that used to be that of the priest, the pastor or the reverend: The
proper care of the soul/psyche'.
From the point of view of rational real science,
this is back to the
Middle Ages: In real science there only is a brain, and human experiences
are processes in a living brain, that are so complex, and take place in
such a badly understood complicated organ, that there hardly is a science
of human experience.
In general terms, what the DSM-5 involves and tries to realize is
this:
And this in fact in a project in which a bunch of psychiatrists
redefines what medicine is, what illness is, what the relation between
the mind and the body is, what mental illness is, with outcomes that
clearly benefit their own professional group of mental health-workers,
through the terminological device of attaching a mental, psychological
component to any disease, in a quite similar way as medieval
theologians insisted on there being a soul next to a body, for which these
professionals, whether psychatrists or priests, then deserved to be consulted,
to be paid, to be somehow involved for money, and indeed in many cases
were and are given the medical say so about what
really ails the patient, about what manner of cures are appropriate, and
about which medicines, researches and technologies are appropriate to
treat the ailments.
In brief: The psychiatrists and psychotherapists redefine what
medicine is, what illness is, what the relation between the mind and the
body is, and what mental illness is, which are issues that touch on the
immediate personal interests of all persons that may be effected by it,
which is most of the earth's human population as far as the influence of
the DSM-5 on many medical diagnoses is concerned, but... the APA chooses
to theologize medicine and psychiatry without any interference by "lay
persons", notably by scientists in other, e.g. more scientific and
difficult or more advanced sciences, than psychiatry (of which virtually
the only really scientific part relates not to psychiatry but to
pharmacology and neurology: medicines).
More specifically, also with regards to their new classification system
that makes scientific rational statistics virtually impossible:
That is, in less polite terms and more politically realistic terms:
The APA has done its best that its redefinitions can not be
effectively rationally criticized by anyone without a direct personal
financial interest in them - viz. the psychiatrists in the Work
Groups, who apparently do not even affirm that they have received or read
any submission by someone not belonging to their own interest group
- that, let me reassure the reader, is very much financially dependent
on finding patients with disorders, and therefore with a definite
financial interest for the group as a whole to have definitions of
disease that allow or require a paid part for the members of their own
professional group of healthworkerks, so called.
So - to restate:
In fact a total change of what is involved in medical
science seems to be at issue - the psychiatrists working for the APA on
the DSM-5 are redefinining all manner of physical diseases as
psychological diseases, that is, or redefining quite possibly only very
partially known and understood bodily processes and malfunctions as if
they are due to psychological processes and malfunctions, or at least
interdepend with these.
Again, that is NOT modern rational science:
That is medieval thinking
mocked up for consumption of "laymen" and politicians and bureaucrats
(incidentally also "laymen", if not psychiatrists) into modern psychiatric
terminology, with a lot of added terminological and philosophical and
logical confusion, for a good part intentional
it seems, as well.
To turn to Somatic Symptom Disorders - and the first quote is from ME
agenda:
Here the key passage is right at the beginning of the paragraph:
The Somatic Symptom Disorders Work Group’s proposal to
redefine “Somatoform Disorders” would legitimise the potential for the
application of an additional diagnosis of “Somatic Symptom Disorder”
to all medical diseases and disorders,
and the verbal trick by which is done is at its end: It is done by
dual-diagnosing general medical conditions under the
guise of “eliminating mind-body dualism.”
This is a verbal trick because it is
a fallacy: In fact the APA insists
on what they are pleased to call the "mind-body
dualism" and they do that by making all complaints that
somehow relate to one's body as "Somatoform",
which is to say something "like bodily". And the reasoning -
damn
Ockham's Razor;
damn real science;
damn real neuroscience - is this,
essentially:
If the present state of medical knowledge
can not
explain one's suffering, then "therefore" one's suffering has
no medical
explanation, and "therefore" - the
APA insists, for very clear financial
reasons benefitting in principle all and only members of the APA (and
other psychiatrists, of course) - the explanation must be that the
patients makes the symptoms up, and accordingly lies or is deluded.
In the Middle Ages, witch-trials ran along just the same lines: If the
priests cannot explain some unpleasant coincidence or strange fearful
event, it "must" be witchcraft, the evil eye, or the work of the devil and
his incubi and succubi, these days renamed to "complexes, somatizations,
neurasthenia, dysfunctional beliefs, somatoform" etc.
This seems hard do believe in this modern age? Consider this, with two
professional tricksters redefining psychiatric science abusing bogus
philosophy:
(..) Joel Dimsdale, MD, and fellow Work Group member,
Francis Creed, MD, reported that by doing away with the
“controversial concept of medically unexplained”, the proposed
classification might diminish “the dichotomy,
inherent in the ‘Somatoform’ section of DSM-IV, between disorders based
on medically unexplained symptoms and patients with organic disease.”
That is: Frater Maso and Pater Sado propose, very kindly and most
rationally, and so as to minimize terminological problems, that whatever
is not understood by the kind colleagues of the inquisition therefore is
the work of the devil, as this has the great benefit for The Church of
getting rid of whatever The Church does not understand: The Church
understands everything, and what it does not understand palpably comes
from the evil one. (QED in the APA of 2010, it seems, for the explanation
I just gave for the Church and the Inquisition applies to the APA and the
science of medicine, as perceived by the APA, to be sure.)
What is the fundamental moral, medical and human problem here? And
namely if you or a friend or family member feels and appears miserably
ill but the doctors can't find a medical explanation for it in their
handbooks, and therefore decide your or your friend or your family member
must be making it up, somehow:
This - and the red text is again ME agenda's and quite right:
The fundamental medical and moral problem,
for doctor and patient is this (and the red text is again ME
agenda's and is quite right):
Get it wrong and
patients are exposed to the risk of iatrogenic disease.
Get it wrong and
there will be implications for the securing of health insurance,
welfare, social care packages, disability and workplace
adaptations and provision of education tailored to the needs of
children too sick to access mainstream school.
Get it wrong and
families will be put at increased risk of wrongful accusation of
“factitious disorder by
proxy/factitious disorder on other”.
Get it wrong and
practitioners are at risk of litigation.
For what happens when the doctor gets it wrong and tells you that you
must be insane or bonkers or a neurotic because the doctor cannot explain what ails you is that
your life and your chances
will be damaged even more than by the disease
you have: You'll be ostracized, discriminated, forced to work, denied
benefits, and denied help and support of all kinds. Next to a real
illness.
This is what you may find in a few years time to be the proud
new state of American Psychiatry - or indeed any psychiatry where its
DSM-5 is used:
That the APA has determined, somewhere between 2007 and 2010,
and without
admitting anybody not close to the APA to have a close look at the
medical redefinitions, that it is much better for psychiatrists',
governments' and health-insurers' bank-balances that you are insane or a
malingerer rather than ill, if you have an unexplained disease. (And "it's the economy, stupid - but they
will lie about that just as they do about their own medical omniscience.)
The Catch 22 amounts to the fact that
the ill with a disease that the
APA did not know of when the DSM-5 was crafted, or indeed a disease that
the APA did not want to know of as disease, are considered to be
mad if they say they feel ill, and sane only if they deny the
testimony of their own experiences. (Besides, as soon as they
start thinking or talking about their disease, or indeed 'disease', and
the problems this causes for them, trained APA-specialists will tell
these poor patients that
the patients are indulging in - "doing, dûing,
be-ing rather than ha-ving" or vice versa - delusions, insanity, inappropriate ideas and acts,
dysfunctional beliefs, and must besides be in fact too weakwilled wimps anyway, having a disease
an APA-member cannot recognize, and indeed are
thinking themselves ill, just as Faust got himself damned.)
In fact, while the DSM-I to DSM-III seem to have been more or less
based on medical science and to be directed at arriving at somewhat
objective diagnoses of the many kinds of psychiatric problems - to my way
of thinking, in the end neurological processes, these days often helped
by appropriate medicines such as anti-depressives or sleeping tablets -
it seems to this psychologist that the DSM-IV and DSM-V are much more
about the financial interests and livelihood
of psychiatists than they
are about real medical science or about effectively helping ill people.
For that is one thing not noted, but quite relevant: The main problem
with unexplained diseases is the lack of medicines and cures - but when
APA-psychiatrists "explains" one's "disease" as being some form of
madness, they have no medicines or cures either. In fact, they insist for
the most part that since one is mad (or whatever PC term they will use) one is
not entitled to medicines,
and not to health-benefits either, since one is "not really ill",
according to their book of APA-definitions, and one will be forced to work or
exercise, because that then will do one good, they will say, on what they
pretend or stupidly believe to be "scientific grounds", but in fact are
wordmagic and devilish presumption:
That if the doctor does not know of it, it cannot exist, and that
the medical science of the APA covers all there is and will be known in
medical science and any other science that may be relevant to medicine.
At which point one has passed far beyond what is moral,
medically tenable, professionally correct, legally valid, or humane, and
entered deep into the field of medical incompetence, medicalese
presumption, and indeed, in some at least, of
medical sadism - for money,
for kicks, or both.
Finally, a little note on the existence of madmen, malingerers, and
fraudulence that is not part and parcel of psychiatry:
Yes, there are
madmen, malingerers, and fraudulent people, and not just in psychiatry
(although psychiatry which profession has very many suicides and forced sectionings
among its practitioners, and very many
frauds and conmen too, as the reader may not know, but is true
(**) - and
this psychologist's explanation for it is that it is precisely what
attracts the lesser gifted and the more wacky, problematic or lazy ones
who graduated in medicine, for the really gifted etc. will very probably
want to study something more demanding and more scientific, than the mass
of falsehoods with a few insights that forms the library of psychiatry so
far (**) .
But malingering or madness is not a valid explanation for millions ill
for many years, all with similar symptoms, and nearly all without any
objective personal interest in being ill or pretending to be ill. That a
certain percentage of those who receive dole must have lied about what
made them eligible for dole, moreover, is not a problem of or for
psychiatry but of policy, and besides, with payments for the dole as they
are in the Western world very few people want to live as poorly
and miserably as that allows them to live, even if they were healthy.
As I said, for the most part the above indented text is a repeat from
On the DSM-5TM
with a few more boldings and some phrases inserted.
There is more about the subject on ME agenda's
DSM-5 and ICD-11 Watch.
Much recommended.
P.S. There is
a thread the DSM-5 revisal of Jan 14 on Phoenix Rising.
Corrections have to wait till later.
Notes
($) Semantical note (quoted from
Bogositeit en andere
zinnige begrippen):
bogosity:
/boh?go?s@?tee/,
n.
1. [orig. CMU, now
very common] The degree to
which something is
bogus.
Bogosity is measured with
a
bogometer; in a
seminar, when a speaker
says something bogus, a
listener might raise his
hand and say “My
bogometer just triggered”.
More extremely, “You
just pinned my bogometer”
means you just said or did
something so outrageously
bogus that it is off the
scale, pinning the
bogometer needle at the
highest possible reading
(one might also say “You
just redlined my bogometer”).
The agreed-upon unit of
bogosity is the
microLenat. 2. The potential field
generated by a
bogon
flux; see
quantum bogodynamics.
See also
bogon
flux,
bogon
filter,
bogus.
(*) I mean here predominantly with "good": morally good. I may
disagree with Spitzer and Frances about a lot (in fact, I don't know) but
at least they mean well, are honest, and are very well informed about
what they fear about the disasters for patients and medicine that the
DSM-5 promises to become. Also, it is good to see that they have, at
their respectable age, the moral courage and decency to stand up and
protest: Much appreciated, even if they and I don't agree on many things
touching on psychology, philosophy or science.
In contrast, Reeves, Wessely, White, Sharpe, Chalder, Gerada and
Bleijenberg I regard as utter frauds, who know they are frauds,
and who are frauds for money and for kicks - and no, I can't make
it any better, and am quite capable of pointing a court to the relevant
literature. Real science is really totally different, both intellectually
and morally, than what these con men and wome produced that I saw.
Again, that's much older than
Lucian, and very menschlich-all-zu-menschlich - as is the success
of frauds, conmen and bastards in general in human society, usually, and
nearly everywhere. See my
Causal explanation: It's malevolence,
stupid!
(**) In fact, it seems in "the sciences" (as taught in
modern universities) - where there is anyway more fraudulence than most
believe, fraudulence for easily understood monetary and career reasons -
that "the sciences" with most frauds, conmen, madmen, and bogus-sellers
are psychotherapy aka clinical psychology, psychiatry and theology.
The reason is that so very much in these purported "sciences" is not
really science, also if it is well intended and honest, as happens also,
but more in the nature of bad philosophy, psychobabble, flimflam, or
delusions.
And note this is not wholly the fault of psychologists, psychiatrists and
theologians: Their subjects - if real at all - are very difficult and
full of controversy, hard to study empirically, very complex, and besides
filled with competing schools of thought and health frauds.
Also, most of the brain's working is terra incognita, which makes all
presumptions of psychiatrists as vain and false as the presumptions of
theologians to know and understand God.
|
