That flush you just heard was their diagnoses going down the you-know-what, readers.
"Psychiatrists debate changes to field manual; Book revisions could introduce new disorders" by Rob Stein, Washington Post | February 11, 2010
WASHINGTON - The product of more than a decade of work by hundreds of experts, the proposed revisions are designed to bring the best scientific evidence to bear on psychiatric diagnoses and could have far-reaching implications, including determining who gets diagnosed as mentally ill, who should get powerful psychotropic drugs, and whether and how much insurance companies will pay for care....
So if you believe in truth or are a "conspiracy theorist" instead of a placid and compliant consumer of official lies and MSM bulls***, then you are nuts, right?
Even thought he laws of physics don't allow buildings to drop that way from fire (one not even hit by a plane).
Or is it the potty mouth of pain that I screech each day that troubles you?
Btw, where is your anger at the injustice, unfairness, and lies, doc? You guys are supposed to be out front on that stuff.
The proposals will be debated in an intense process over the next two years, with potentially billions of dollars at stake for pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, government health plans, doctors, researchers, and patient advocacy groups.
See: MSM Monitor Going Through Menopause
I think you see who will be writing the research, huh?Aren't our kids hooked on enough pills already?
Perhaps more important, the outcome will help shape which emotions, behaviors, thoughts, and personality traits society considers part of the natural spectrum of the human persona and which are considered pathological, requiring treatment and possibly criminal punishment.
I'd say those that order torture and mass-murdering wars over lies qualify. Also Greedy looters that destroyed the world economy while stuffing tax loot in their pockets.
There are other rungs that are lower; we can talk about those on a more local basis.
Even before being made public, the proposed changes have been the subject of bitter debate over whether the process was based on solid scientific evidence and was adequately shielded from influence by the pharmaceutical industry, and whether some critics were driven by financial interests in maintaining the old diagnostic criteria....
I'm NOT LIKING WHATEVER they come out of their conference with.
GET AWAY from ME, quack!!!!
Critics fear the new diagnoses could unnecessarily stigmatize many people and lead to the unnecessary use of psychiatric medications.
What do you mean UNNECE$$ARY U$E?
“By massively pathologizing people under these categories, you tend to put them on an automatic path to medication, even if they are experiencing normal distress,’’ said Jerome Wakefield, a professor of social work and psychiatry at New York University....
NOT a GOOD IDEA at all!
Related: The End of Riley
Just something to chew on as you see what I didn't give you:
--more--"
