Added September 15, 2007 after an exchange of emails with somebody else who hadn't done their homework:
"I have done my homework on statistics and research methodology, which is why they allow me to teach research methodology in biomedical science in one university and research methodology in psychology in another. Brain scans do not produce statistics, they produce images of a largely non-descript nature some of which may indicate abnormality usually in the form of lesions. Since most respected neurologists accept that their knowledge of brain function is still limited they do not arrogantly interpret these results in a manner that supports pre-formed theories such as ADHD.
No brain scan has ever indicated pathology in ADHD. No X-ray has ever indicated pathology in ADHD. No MRI scan or PET scan has ever indicated pathology in ADHD. No tissue sample or neurotransmitter serum level measurement has ever indicated pathology in ADHD. Why is this? er... because there is no pathology, aetiology or diagnostic formulation based on any real medical science in ADHD.
Just out of interest though for those who think that brain scans are of any help, they can certainly indicate damage done when psychopharmaceutical drugs cause calcium channel blockage and exitotoxicity the way psychostimulants like Ritalin do. The problem is there is no way to treat or reverse it so the scans are largely academic.
Tell that to all the ADHD brain scan advocates who as you quite rightly say have not done their homework."
Added October 8, 2007:
"The people promoting ADHD are incapable of reason. It is nothing to do with what they call knowledge or experience, personal or otherwise it is about the ability to benefit
from knowledge or experience that counts.
There is no objective biological evidence for a pathology in dyslexia or ADHD or any of the other fabricated diseases. Pointing to a journal predicated on pre-formed and biased ideology in order to add scientific credibility to the disease model is no more 'evidence' than me pointing to Marxism Today as scientific evidence that Communism is a natural part of human evolution. (Which true Marxists of course believe)
Why do this group think that something has to be 'scientific' to have any meaning? These conditions are manifested in behaviour and ability. Since when were those human traits quantifiable in any empirical sense? Human behaviour is only in part conditioned by genetics and only in part affected by external biological factors. That is why we are Human! These selfish individuals who wish to reduce everything to genetics and biology in order to justify their own shortcomings, actually, and ironically diminish and devalue humanity itself, reducing people to a bunch of unthinking chemicals and pre-ordained biological reactions.
We are born into the human species but become people through a tortuous and prolonged process known as childhood (which is also thankfully pleasurable and to the properly balanced and reasoning individual continuous throughout the lifespan) During this process we develop into people with personalities that range right across the spectrum of human experience and we as a species react to each other and the experiences of each other in our development. There is no ideal human, there is no perfect human, there is only human.
We are unique as a species in that we can benefit from the experiences of people who lived generations before us and can visualise the experiences of those that will live many generations after we have gone. We do not achieve that by having our 'chemicals balanced' and even people with the some of the most acute genetic disorders can enjoy those abilities.
As a species our greatest strength, and the reason we are not extinct already, is variety, the wonderful differences that can be seen in human personality. Labelling and drugging children to shoehorn them into a subjective and unscientific model of normality is contrary to the welfare not only of the individual who suffers this indignity and mistreatment but to the human race as a whole. We are all diminished by this disgraceful medicalising of the human condition.
I consider those adherents to the quasi-theology of bio-psychiatry, who reduce us to this pseudo-organism composed of genetics and chemical imbalances to be a manifestation of [the] worst kind of eugenics. It should be noted that all earlier attempts by eugenicists in their fanatical urge to create the 'superman' did exactly the opposite. When bogus scientists dreamt up their image of ideal humanity they used inhuman means to achieve it and far from creating the 'superhuman' created something that was less than human.
Labelling children with ADHD creates the stigma, how can labelling and marginalising someone make them less subject to being outcast? Drugging children with powerful CNS stimulants with all the attendant adverse reactions and brain atrophying consequences does not cure them of this fabricated disorder, it causes a real one. The fanatical application of pseudo-science wrapped up in medical terminology is a blight on the development of millions of human children. History will not forgive our generation for this any more than any of the earlier examples of eugenics are now forgiven.
These people who would drug children into this idealised and subjective normality are of the same ilk as those eugenicists who went before them, they cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be educated, they are incapable of understanding.
They need to be defeated..."
Additional information from Barry Turner related to his email of August 10, 2007:
"Not a direct legal challenge to the DSM - but Holland CCHR launched a legal challenge against a foundation trying to raise funds via fraudulent advertising of ADHD as a "brain disorder". Since ADHD could not be proven to be a brain disorder, the foundation was prohibited from advertising it as such. I'm sure you'll remember this case from a few years back. (See attached documents)
Additionally - there are many who would gladly jump on board with anyone wishing to launch such a challenge against the DSM. Is it not, after all - simply a promotional guide for all such fraudulent labels???
I've listed potential recruits below:
They Say You're Crazy: How the World's Most Powerful Psychiatrists Decide Who's Normal
- by Paula J. Caplan
Ideological Reflections on the DSM-IV-R
Dept. of Applied Social Science, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, FK9 4LA
Abstract Exclusive North American reliance on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Edition-Revised (DSM-IV-R) to determine diagnoses such as Conduct Disorder or Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder occurs without sufficient critical regard for its ideologically and historically situated assumptions. The author argues for a parallel theoretical framework to guide interventions that is provided for children's practitioners through ongoing implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Right of the Child. Rather than relying solely upon the deficit labelling of the DSM-IV-R with its underlying deterministic beliefs about child development, this holistic, rights-based approach assumes young people to be competent social actors whose lives are worthy of study in their own right. The author draws upon comparative theory within the sociology of childhood, practice insights and three case studies for support.
DSM-IV-R - rights-based approach - sociology of childhood
Beyond the DSM Story: Ethical Quandaries, Challenges, and Best Practices
By Karen Eriksen, Victoria E. Kress
Dump the DSM
Dr. Genova, a clinical associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, has practiced in Maine for 21 years
DSM: Diagnosing for Money and Power
Summary of the Critique of the DSM
By: Ofer Zur, Ph.D., and Nola Nordmarken, MFT
"Diagnostic and Statistical Manual" (DSM) has "permitted groups of 'experts' with a bias to propose the existence of conditions without anything more than a definition and a checklist of symptoms. This is just how witches used to be identified." As quoted by John Cloud in Time magazine's annual 2003 health issue.
''Don't Show Psychiatrists The Money Until They Show You The Scientific Proof''
The DSM is the equivalent of the Malleus Maleficarum in the middle ages, which Spanish inquisitors used to identify, target, stigmatize and burn witches and heretics. Today's witches, heretics, and scapegoats are labeled mentally ill or schizophrenic.
While a majority of cognitive behavioural researchers and clinicians adhere to the classification system provided in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), strong objections have been voiced among behaviourists who find the dichotomous allocation of patients into psychiatric diagnoses incompatible with the philosophy of behaviourism and practice of functional analysis. The aim of this paper is to give an overview of the current debate and to analyse the tension between the DSM-IV and functional analysis along the following contrasts: inductive versus deductive, idiographic versus nomothetic, contextualism versus mechanism, social constructions versus real entities, and dimensions versus categories. Finally, some suggested alternatives are discussed. It is concluded that there is a need for alternative systems to the DSM with treatment utility.
This system is fundamentally flawed, the authors maintain, because it fails to take into account the context in which the symptoms occur. They stress the importance of distinguishing between abnormal reactions due to internal dysfunction and normal sadness brought on by external circumstances. Under the current DSM classification system, however, this distinction is impossible to make, so the expected emotional distress caused by upsetting events - for example, the loss of a job or the end of a relationship - could lead to a mistaken diagnosis of depressive disorder. Indeed, it is this very mistake that lies at the root of the presumed epidemic of major depression in our midst.
Experts Debunk DSM
Up to $40 Billion per Year in Psychiatric Fraud
Money and madness: why mental-health parity is a costly fraud! U.S. Surgeon General admits diagnoses of psychiatric mental disorders is not science - Cover Story
Insight on the News, June 24, 2002 by Kelly Patricia O'Meara
[["Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." ]]
Hillary GOODRIDGE & others [FN1] vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & another. [FN2]
March 4, 2003. - November 18, 2003.
Marshall, C.J., Greaney, Ireland, Spina, Cowin, Sosman, & Cordy, JJ.
License. Marriage. Statute, Construction. Constitutional Law, Police power, Equal protection of laws. Due Process of Law, Marriage. Words, "Marriage." Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 11, 2001.
The advancement of the rights, privileges, and protections afforded to homosexual members of our community in the last three decades has been significant, and there is no reason to believe that that evolution will not continue. Changes of attitude in the civic, social, and professional communities have been even more profound. Thirty years ago, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the seminal handbook of the American Psychiatric Association, still listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. Today, the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and many other psychiatric, psychological, and social science organizations have joined in an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs' cause. A body of experience and evidence has provided the basis for change, and that body continues to mount. The Legislature is the appropriate branch, both constitutionally and practically, to consider and respond to it. It is not enough that we as Justices might be personally of the view that we have learned enough to decide what is best. So long as the question is at all debatable, it must be the Legislature that decides."