Image:
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
It can fairly be said that modern psychiatric diagnosis was “born” in a 1970 paper on schizophrenia.
The authors, Washington University psychiatry professors Eli Robins and Samuel B. Guze, rejected the murky psychoanalytic diagnostic formulations of their time. Instead, they embraced a medical model inspired by the careful 19th-century observational work of Emil Kraepelin, long overlooked during the mid-20th-century dominance of Freudian theory. Mental disorders were now to be seen as distinct categories, much as different bacterial and viral infections produce characteristic diseases that can be seen as distinct “natural kinds.”
Disorders, Robins and Guze argued, should be defined based on phenomenology: clinical descriptions validated by long-term follow-up to demonstrate the stability of the diagnosis over time. With scientific progress, they expected fuller validation of mental disorders to derive from laboratory findings and studies of familial transmission.
This descriptive approach to psychiatric diagnosis -- based on lists of symptoms, their timing of onset, and the duration of illness -- undergirded the American Psychiatric Association’s widely disseminated and highly influential Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, first published in 1980. Since then, the original “DSM-III” has yielded two relatively conservative revisions, and right now, the DSM-5 is under construction. Sadly, it is clear that the optimistic predictions of Robins and Guze have not been realized.
Four decades after their seminal paper, there are still no widely validated laboratory tests for any common mental illness. Worse, an enormous number of family and genetic studies have not only failed to validate the major DSM disorders as natural kinds, but instead have suggested that they are more akin to chimaeras. Unfortunately for the multitudes stricken with mental illness, the brain has not given up its secrets easily.
That is not to say that we have made no progress. DNA research has begun to illuminate the complex genetics of mental illness. But what it tells us, I would argue, is that, at least for the purposes of research, the current DSM diagnoses do not work. They are too narrow, too rigid, altogether too limited. Reorganization of the DSM is hardly a panacea, but science cannot thrive if investigators are forced into a cognitive straitjacket.
Before turning to the scientific evidence of fundamental problems with the DSM, let’s first take note of an important problem that the classification has produced for clinicians and patients alike: An individual who receives a single DSM diagnosis very often meets criteria for multiple additional diagnoses (so-called co-occurrence or “comorbidity”), and the pattern of diagnoses often changes over the lifespan. Thus, for example, children and adolescents with a diagnosis of an anxiety disorder often manifest major depression in their later teens or twenties. Individuals with autism spectrum disorders often receive additional diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and tic disorders.
Of course, there are perfectly reasonable explanations for comorbidity. One disorder could be a risk factor for another just as tobacco smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer. Alternatively, common diseases in a population could co-occur at random. The problem with the DSM is that many diagnoses co-occur at frequencies far higher than predicted by their population prevalence, and the timing of co-occurrence suggests that one disorder is not likely to be causing the second. For patients, it can be confusing and demoralizing to receive multiple and shifting diagnoses; this phenomenon certainly does not increase confidence in their caregivers.
Family studies and genetics shed light on the apparently high rate of co-occurrence of mental disorders and suggest that it is an artifact of the DSM itself. Genetic studies focused on finding variations in DNA sequences associated with mental disorders have repeatedly found shared genetic risks for both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Other studies have found different sequence variations within the same genes to be associated with schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorders.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
37 Comments
Add CommentAs a layperson this seems to be a critical step towards the development of improved diagnostic tools for behavioral disorders. Since much of the support for these new methods seems to have arisen from studies of children with the exceedingly broadly defined autism spectrum disorders, I think it's important to note that many, including many affected but undiagnosed adults, are able to function effectively in society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suggest that many of the high functioning ASD and Aspergers symptoms may also correlate to high intellectual capabilities.
Moreover, in overcrowded educational environments those behaviors that are disruptive to the overburdened staff and their operation of the institution are likely to be identified as a mental health disorder.
I'm concerned that identification of disorderly individuals for treatment of their identified disorders may produce a society robbed of many of its most creative individuals.
How many affected individuals have made crucial contributions to science and the arts over the ages? While their atypical behaviors may have been disruptive, encouraging creativity has its benefits. I think this has been recognized in more orderly societies, specifically in Japan.
An interesting idea, but one that relies too much on genetic and biological component of things. We psychiatrists have a bit of an inferiority complex ourselves, and want our diagnoses to have the same “real” biological foundation as things like influenza or cancer. We forget that the medical model was useful for diagnosis and treatment long before we had any understanding of underlying of viruses or genetics. At its core, the medical model is pattern recognition. We say someone who comes in with a fever, body aches, and the sniffles in December has “the flu.” Whereas it is nice that we can now say that the influenza virus causes this, the diagnosis was useful long before that understanding. An 19th century physician with no knowledge of the virus could tell a patient with the flu that he had seen this pattern before, what was likely to happen, what tended to help improve things, and what didn’t help. It may have turned out that what the physician was diagnosing at the flu was in fact sometimes influenza and sometimes a different “flu-like” virus, but the predictive value of the diagnosis was still there. If on the other hand you said, “well you have a fever, which can caused by these 100 different things, and the sniffles, which can be caused by these 1000 different things,” it might be more biologically accurate, but it does little to help the patient or the doctor decide what to do next. We just need to accept that psychiatry is still in the 19th century, but that isn’t necessarily bad. Major Depressive Disorder may or may not be caused by a particular genetic or environment stress, and it may or may not have anything to do with a lack of serotonin. However, I can reliably say that people with this general pattern of symptoms have a 1/3 chance of recovering from these symptoms if you do nothing, and a 2/3 chance of recovering if you take an antidepressant pill. It might bug me a bit that I don’t really know if mechanism of the drug may have nothing to do with the underlying disorder, or even if it’s mostly placebo effect. However, regardless of the mechanism, I can identify a problem and a potential solution, which the patient can then choose to reject or accept. We should toss diagnoses that turn out not to have predictive value, but predicting clinical outcome, not genetics is what is important. Right now, the spectrum method isn't useful from a practical, clinical point of view.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI as a psychiatrist absolutely agree with everything that "Uncus" writes. I would only like to add that I and many swedish colleagues find a tendency in DSM IV towards oversimplification and superficiality compared with DSM III-R.I hopethat this tendency is not continued into DSM V.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with Uncus and Old Doctor, but I am a lay person without the specific training necessary to respond directly to Mr Hyman's scientific contentions. But as a family member and first hand observer of mental illness his argument seems largely semantic and obviously skewed towards his particular field of expertise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"On the ground", the ability to refer to an assembled group of specific symptoms to explain a terrifying change in a loved one's behavior is invaluable. These illnesses change over time and they tend to be accompanied by other mental disorders, that is fact. And just because they cannot yet be neatly explained by current genetic testing doesn't mean the current methods of diagnosing them should be called in to question. I just don't see the obstacle the current methods of diagnosis pose to the work those in neurobiology are doing.
I also have to question how many exhibiting the identified genetic markers a asymptomatic? Correlation does not establish causation, especially if even a small percentage the unaffected population might exhibit the same genetic indicators: the unaffected could even outnumber those unaffected.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have worked with autistic children, and people with TBI. My primary observation is that there is a pervasive attitude that symptoms of mental disorder must have a biochemical or purely mental cause.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAutistic children are very complex and varied. But where I have really seen interesting things is with TBIs. I think a lot of people with depression are often brain injured. I think the same is true of people with PTSD, and that a terribly underused tool is FMRI and similar scan tools.
I have also seen really remarkable improvements, over and over, from hyperbaric oxygen therapy. One of the hypotheses about prozac is that it causes dendritic sprouting, which is also what happens over the course of hyperbaric oxygen treatments.
I think there is a lot of room for radical improvements in psychiatry. I am very much in the camp that most apparent disorders have a physical or biochemical cause. And I think the two are almost always present together.
There isn't room here, but this is a start. Psychiatry is young, and in time it will get much better. It is tremendously improved from 50 years ago. We can continue to improve it more.
The brain is complex in its physical structure and allows for a comparatively large mass in a relatively small space through its evolution of multi-dimensional folding.As a multi-dimensional organ,in every perceivable aspect,it allows for separate right/left brained activities that can then interact and oscillate creating additional thought dimensions.Taking into account the neuron processes,the possibility of particles that could verify the existence of the soul,hormones in the body,environmental and genetic influence-the spirit of psychological diagnosis must,at least, make an attempt at mirroring this complexity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are stuck in a vicious cycle-practitioner reflecting the nature of the DSM-the DSM reflecting the limitations of the practitioner.This is discouraging to the client and practitioner.The dynamic essence of the individual personality from the perspective of the disorder(s) is lost.The unspoken thought hanging in the air between them is “this doesn’t feel quite right”.The concept of that thought is fairly abstract-it is difficult to deal with even though both parties’ intentions are sincere-help and be helped.
The DSM is a manual for the left-brain,almost entirely. Considering that it is a manual for understanding-diagnosing disorders of the brain,this seems terribly short sighted.Revisions have held this construct in great esteem,when they should have expanded and deviated from this solid, scholarly base.I wonder if there could be an entire section added to the DSM that is dedicated to more right-brain,intuitive representation of psychological disorders.
Multi-dimensional,visual representations of our current knowledge of disorders seem difficult,but attainable.These representations could give more intuitive,subtle understanding of spectrum disorders;overlap within and across categories,understanding of environmental variables, and a quick view of important statistical data (range, mean, prevalence, etc…).Empirical data could certainly form the basis for a more expansive,dynamic representation of brain disorders.
I think that this type of addition would be,not only useful and more descriptive,but encouraging of new thought processes and ideas on the part of practitioners over time.It would support a much faster metamorphosis within the field itself and possibly even promote a more exciting interdisciplinary process.Patients might be more encouraged by the respect for the unique interactions that create their own existence.In summary, the DSM should be a reflection of the brain rather than the other way around.
As an aside, I think the worst thing to happen to understanding the human brain is the persistent analogy of it being like a computer; able to be compartmentalized and rationally organized. It's not. I have more faith in the growing quantum analysis of living structures utilizing DNA and studying living interactions at a molecular level. While I hope it will bring us closer to understanding, I also believe we will never arrive at completeness, because life is too dynamic to describe in limited human terms. Labels have always been dangerous, and lingering. More attention to individual uniqueness is a great idea, but difficult, if not impossible to institutionalize. The worst thing to happen to psychology in general was the releasing of the mentally disabled into the general population, starting in the 60's, closing the specialized hospitals, and throwing most people in need into a chemical prison with a life sentence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is indeed that things become real once named and many a futile argument has taken place with regard to whether or not a patinet has Schizophrenia or an Affective disorder with psychotic features etc. For this reason the DSMs have caused confusion as well as having been very useful in reserach.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy own prediction is that only when the physiology of emotion and cognition is much better understood will we be free of these difficulties
Homosexuality was taken out of the DSM years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are now trying to replace it with 'being TOO outraged at pornography' and another 'religious fanatism'. NOW would ANYONE have an idea where one might look to find out the exact minute and hour homosexuality WAS taken out of the DSM and WHO 'decided' it was 'no longer mental' ? WAS it the psychiatrists and psychologists that had the majority vote ? Were the police and courts involved in this decision ? Were ALL doctors consulted ? One person one vote ? There are still doctors who are deathly afraid when a homosexual appears and needs to be treated. The 'criteria' to diagnose mental illness MUST be reinvestigated by ALL doctors NOT just a select few. One man one vote. Imho.
Here is a link to a good history of the topic:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/204/81-words
On a side note, science isn't a democracy. In 1897 House Bill #246 in the Indiana House of Representatives attempted to, by "one man one vote," determine the value of pi. Nevertheless, the number is what it is. True, psychiatry is more cultural and political than math, but it doesn't mean that disorders can be determined by voting.
Ironjustice makes a point, though I think I am going to extrapolate a meaning contrary to his intent from it. The problem with saying "DNA research has begun to illuminate the complex genetics of mental illness" as it says in the article is that by which the science progresses. They categorize a "disease" - not a pathogen - not a specific directly caused malignancy - but a simple mis-ordering of the human mind by one mechanism or another and then declare that it is a disease. By such manner, virtually any behavior that deviates from the norm could be categorized as disease, and even those within the norm could be categorized as disease.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with scizophrenia is that it has no pathology. It is not initiated by a single cause like HPV is caused by a virus or AIDS is caused by a severe reduction in CD4 T-Cells - it does not even produce all that similar symptoms considering the vast number of behaviors the human brain is capable of eliciting through the body.
To pathologize something for which there is no obvious cause and then give it an official label with a generalized checklist is that it remains nothing more than an assertion and is no more accurate or inaccurate than calling someone demon possessed.
By assuming that the wide range of symptoms that are categorized under the term "scizophrenia" represents one disease and then looking for malformations in the virtually impossibly varied human brain is that the disorder is not actually one disorder but rather a similar set of symptoms that can have multiple causes and multiple catalysts.
Still it remains without a clinical test - and therefore remains nothing more than a person's opinion based on a small division of time with which they've been seen. It seems foolish to me to try to lump sum abnormalities based on people's opinion that "this person has schizophrenia" unless an OVERWHELMING majority of those sharing that diagnosis also have the same physical malady within DNA - in which case their symptoms would not likely be as varied as the DSM calls for.
Furthermore, the truth is, whereas it is likely safe to diagnose truly disordered people as disordered, you have also opened the door for the professional dismissal of those who have been subjected to seriously traumatic incidents like organized anonymous bullying like the Scientologists are said to do. And, which the CIA experimented with during the years of MKULTRA. In this sense, the opinion of the disease becomes an object for an aggressor to duplicate in a victim - I.E. the Martha-Mitchell Effect.
As my buddy Alan says, perhaps we should pay attention to the role of insurance companies to the shaping of our diagnostic categories!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany valid points have been made and knowledge is certainly incomplete. The author deserves more credit. Traditional approaches will continue in any case as no approach is being prohibited.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am inclined to agree that we are looking a large number of genes that carry various degrees of power to disrupt mental processes. If there are 300 genes associated with schizophrenia the number of these that you possess may determine the course of your illness and how it presents. We can vastly increase research in all aspects of the brain.
I am interested in the role of neurophilic viruses and their role in recurring brain inflammation and the activity of the immune system in the CNS. Note common genes found in those with Multiple Sclerosis who are also diagnosed with with Bipolar Disorder. The role of
Vitamin D requires investigation.
Every disease will have a course specific to a given individual. I suspect that if every patient diagnosed with flu were examined at a high resolution we would see that the expression of the infection is very different across populations and how could it be otherwise?
It may be that the predisposition to mental illness is increasing over time due to many reasons including additive genetic effects. We all realize, I think, that when genetics is admitted to the discussion of any severely disabling disease serious ethical questions arise. These questions will stay with us as research continues.
I think that if you really immerse yourself in current genetic research especially as to suspect loci you will be very concerned. True, proof positive is not there now and may never be complete enough to satisfy everyone or indeed anyone. This does not mean you cannot consider your family history, your personal genome and the genome of your prospective reproductive partner.
No police state dictation is required or desired. You decide what level of risk you can manage. I think we can say that if you have a good stout case of manic depression there will be no cure, not really.
Explain why you think homosexuality is mental. I'm not homosexual, but I disagree with you. Now, if someone was mating with monkeys, I'd suggest there was a problem. And yes, I read the Bible and know what is says. I still don't think homosexuality is a mental disorder.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi Steve. You are giving-non psychiatrists too much credit. Complex systems respond in complex ways. The human body is amazingly intricate, and so are it's diseases. No two pneumonias, cancers, or gallstones are exactly alike either. The closer you look at any disease process, the more complicated it gets. All treatments are crude in comparison to the underlying physiology. An analytic look at any specialties disease manual would turn up the same problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real question is not why things go wrong with our minds, but how they go right so often. How much trouble does it take to keep your computer going, and that is far less complicated?
Doug Cassel
"An interesting idea, but one that relies too much on genetic and biological component of things. We psychiatrists have a bit of an inferiority complex ourselves"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou should have an inferiority complex because today's psychiatry is only marginally better than witchcraft. Both being dominated by the placebo effect.
In decades to come hopefully genetics and behavior will be linked and targeted treatments will be available.
You must start with correlation in order to find causation. It is usually a subset of correlation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe DSM reflects the current understanding of the brain, granted our current understanding may be primative. However, what you advocate in so many nonsense words would inject a lot of opinion or philosophy into a book meant to be a scientific reference, not a religious text.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a person experiencing a shift in symptoms I can honestly say that I'm not impressed with the current state of Psychiatry. If a connection with genetics and gene expression can be made with actual symptoms then a treatment plan that actually alters genetics or active gene expression can be made. I would much rather spend a couple of months getting underlying causes corrected than to continue my current pattern of lifetime medication with new additions every 5 to 10 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are connections between sleep disorders, mental health and heart disease. I seem to be caught in a nasty spiral with each specialist blaming the other conditions as contributing factors to what they are treating. Improvement is intermittent and decidedly gradual. Stopping any given medication brings rapid deterioration so I doubt the placebo affect in my particular case.
At any rate, anything that improves treatment is good in my book. As for psychiatry being barely beyond the witch doctor stage, no one tried to jab an ice pick through my eye socket into my brain so I'd have to say psychiatry is far and away beyond witch doctor levels and has been for decades.
the DSM should be a wiki. Honestly. The static nature of print is a hindrance, not a boon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfrom birth, i find myself in a personally confusing and hostile world. schizophrenia is my reaction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAm i mitaken that the Medical Method and the Scientific Method are substatially different not only in procedure but in application? Seems doctors are often pretending science when they don't seem to have the training for it. xcuse me. thnQ
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think a clinical caregiver is a powerful source of determination in how science proceeds with pathology. in depth knowledge is far more valuable then experience spread over an arbitraary continuum. thnx
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou are so wrong. the new drugs take me beyond some very grim walls. if you want to study me you can do it on your own time. and what kind of human image of pathology do we get out of a solely clinical environment. a clinical monster. boo!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi there is a very promising passage in the article on the multiiple vectors of mental illness necessary to genetic predisposition or even no genetic disposition. give it another read. the journalists in sciam are so cautious and self conscious the good stuff is often slipped in as an aside when it is he main thrust of the article. check it out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are certain broad descriptive categories of mental illness that seem to make some sense, e.g.:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispsychosis vs. neurosis;
neurosis vs. personality disorder;
mood disorders vs. disorders of thinking.
But even these broad categories and divisions often seem rather impressionistic, imprecise and overlapping. In contrast, the finely granular categories of the DSMs have never made much sense to me, and I've never taken them very seriously.
Homosexuality is a disease akin to cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy in which **medical** aberrations affect the **brain**.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"New study finds increased prevalence of left-handedness in children with facial development disorder"
"Overall, ten percent of the population is left-handed."
"A higher frequency has been associated with certain craniofacial malformations such as cleft lip and other conditions."
"Scientists Discover Gene Locus Associated With Cleft Lip And Palate"
"A host of studies since the mid-1990s have found common biological traits between gay men, including left-handedness and the direction of hair whorls."
"Left-handedness in borderline personality disorder"
"The brains of straight men and gay women tended to be slightly asymmetric, with the right hemisphere
somewhat larger than the left. The asymmetry was not seen in straight women and gay men."
"Remarkable similarity" between straight women and homosexual men"
"Being left-handed makes you angrier than average guy"
"The homosexual subjects in our previous study1 showed significantly higher plasma estradiol levels "
"Higher LH secretion in the homosexual subjects"
"Findings of increased left-handedness in homosexual persons are quite reliable"
"Severe bisexual conflict and confusion was discovered to be the cause of schizophrenia over fifty years ago by Dr. Edward J. Kempf and others"
"'Transsexuality Gene' Boosts Male Hormones, Medical University of Vienna Research"
You are absolutely right that medical and scientific methods have little to do with each other. It is also true, however, that engineering and science likewise involve radically different methodologies. There is in fact no scientific thinking in "rocket science", or for that matter just about anything we are taught in high school or undergraduate "science" classes. Real scientists have stopped calling themselves such, and now prefer to be called researchers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is debate about what exactly the scientific method means these days. However, there is some general agreement that it is based in experimentation and the idea that for an idea to be considered "true", there must be an experimental outcome that would invalidate it, and render it false. It is scientific to say "I believe there is such thing as mental disease X which is based in absence of gene Y. I will therefore look for people with a mutation in Y. If they manifest the same symptoms then this will support my hypothesis as a fact. If on the other hand they don’t, then I was wrong." If you are 100% sure of your facts, it isn't science.
The problem with scientific thinking is that it is a very impractical way to build a rocket or treat a patient. If we introduced radical skepticism into and experimentation into everything we did, nothing would get accomplished. Therefore medicine and engineering, which are far older disciplines than science, instead are methods for turning previously established "facts" into practical use. Engendering is using math to combine previously established "facts" in new ways. Medicine is using previously established patterns to establish what treatments to use.
In olden days the "facts" that medicine and engineering used in their thinking processes were based on theological and sometimes pseudo-mathematical dogma. For example, that certain ratios in building were inherently better than others, or that diseases that involved fever were all related to an excess of fire. At some point, however, the applied disciplines caught on to the idea that the facts that science was building led to much better results than the ones that came from other branches of philosophy. Both science and engineering therefore integrated the idea the science must underlie their disciplines also. Neither, however, is purely scientific. You use Newtonian rather than quantum physics to build a bridge even though the former is less scientifically valid. There is nothing wrong with that.
Iron Justice - again your last comment confuses the scientific idea of neurological causation and the medical and cultural idea of disease and disorder. There is undoubtedly a neurobiological "cause" for homosexuality (likely a combination of genetics and environment that leads to a particular brain structure, which in turn leads to a particular behavior.) This is true, however, of every behavior or physical characteristic. To use an example you brought up, we know that left handed people have different brain structure than right handed people. Does that make left handedness a disease? People in the middle ages thought so, but we don't. Why? Because culturally, not scientifically, we determined that left handedness didn't matter. Now there was some science behind the removal of both left handedness and homosexuality from the cannon of "disorder" in that correlation studies showed that neither was associated with other things that we culturally determine to be "bad" or "evil." This countered previous arguments that were bandied about when the inherent evil of left handedness or homosexuality. Major Depression on the other hand is still considered a disorder because it is associated with about a 10 fold chance of killing yourself, or about a four-fold chance that you won't be able to maintain a job. Society has arbitrarily determined that killing yourself or not having a job is bad, therefore the behavioral pattern that precedes it is a "disorder." If we ever find a single, unifying cause for the disorder, then it will be transformed into a "disease."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuote: removal of both left handedness and homosexuality from the cannon of "disorder" in that correlation studies showed that neither was associated with other things that we culturally determine to be "bad" or "evil."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnswer: Left handedness was a disorder ? As to homosexuality being NOT associated with "other things that we culturally determine to be "bad" or "evil." .. ?
We have THIS argument based on statistics that say CONTRARY to what the closed homosexual psychiatrists there IS an 'inherent evil' IN homosexuals AT a HIGH rate.
"News Article UK's homosexual population size revealed: Just 1.5% of Britons say they are gay, lesbian or bisexual"
THAT means since fifty percent more girls are abused by 98% of people then simple math would say .. 98% abuse 1500 and 2% abuse 1000. Soooo .. one heterosexual abuses 15 kids while one homosexual abuses 500. Sooo fifteen divided into 500 equals 33. Sooo a homosexual is 33 times more likely to abuse a kid. A little more since there are only 1.5% homosexuals.
THEN there is the old slang phrase used to describe a homosexual which is 'shteater' which refers SPECIFICALLY to the FACT they at a high rate practice or WISH to practice coprophagia.
Since the removal of the 'disorder' OF 'homosexuality' has been SHOWN to be CRIMINALLY orchestrated DUE TO the fact those who VOTED to remove homosexuality were in FACT closed homosexuals then they **had no legal right to be psychiatrists** according to the LAWS. Since the criminals did the voting then the vote was illegal. I don't believe there should be a 'statute of limitations' on such an orchestrated criminal act which places such an 'element' INTO our society. They are to be AGAIN deemed to be 'medically unfit' DUE TO either genetic mutation or environmentally induced physical and / or mental aberration. Imho.
Interesting comment. I'm a layperson, but I did experience a dramatic restoration of previous intellectual abilities in May of 2008, following some serious illnesses including heart failure and anemia from nearly a year of chemo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe recovery of my previously unnoticed diminished abilities resulted from my cardiologist's prescribing Lovaza (Omega-3) to treat very high triglycerides. Unaware of an possible 'side-benefits', within two weeks I noticed unmistakably that my ability to reason had dramatically improved.
A little research indicated that Omega-3 is thought to allow restoration of damaged myelin sheaths insulating axons. There is at least some speculation that the myelin repair improves the conductive performance of axon interneuronal communications. I have no idea whether any research has been conducted applying Lovaza treatment to other mental health problems, but I pretty sure the the potential negative side effects are most often negligible. It is somewhat expensive, but I understand that generic sources will be available this year. In my case I continue treatments for triglycerides, but I suspect that perhaps a month's treatment would provide sufficient myelin repair as long as adequate nutrition was provided thereafter. Well, I thought I could be brief...
There's a statement in this piece which boggles the mind, coming from Scientific American. Hyman says,"Twin studies generally compare the concordance for a disease or other trait within monozygotic twin pairs, who share 100% of their DNA, versus concordance within dizygotic twin pairs, who share on average 50% of their DNA." This kind of slipshod language confuses the hell out of people, like the undergrads that I teach. Any two UNRELATED human beings share 99 - 99.5% of their DNA on a nucleotide by nucleotide comparison. On that basis, in fact, humans share more than 50% of their DNA with maize! If a hypothetical gene consists of 10K nucleotides and that gene has two alleles that differ by a single nucleotide (a SNP), then the DNA of those alleles is 99.99% identical even though the ALLELES DIFFER. What Hyman presumably means to say is that DZ twins share 50% of their genes on average--a commonly-reported "fact" which is also incorrect. At best, we might say that DZ twins share, on average, 50% of their polymorphisms; and we do not yet know what percentage of our 20K genes are polymorphic. And even THAT "50%" statement is probably untrue, given that mom and dad are likely to have the same alleles at polymorphic loci in which allele frequencies in the population are lopsided. Oh, and MZ twins aren't 100% identical either, regardless of whether one is discussing DNA (nucleotide by nucleotide) or genes (enormous strings of nucleotides). MZ twins develop copy number variations (CNVs) after the fertilized egg splits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForgive the didactic tone, but again: This is Scientific American, for Pete's sake. Let's strive for some precision in language.
I have been both one who didn't respond to antidepressants and one who did respond. I'm one of those very special people who may respond so "well" that they switch into mania or hypomania. This happened 3 times over the course of decades, and I am now fully disabled by bipolar disorder with very rapid cycles and mixed moods. Giving people with bipolar disorder (diagnosed or undiagnosed) an antidepressant (or at the very least an antidepressant without a mood stabilizer) is like a game of russian roulette.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sure you wouldn't prescribe antidepressants (or at least not without a mood stabilizer) to those people. The problem is that many, if not most, doctors do not identify every person with bipolar disorder. Many are diagnosed as depressed. Even when informed about an antidepressant switch I'd experienced, two GPs and two psychiatrists both missed the bipolar diagnosis. By the time I got to a psychiatrist who recognized my problem it was too late. After three years of trying every class of drug, my ivy-league educated, NIMH honored, psychopharmacologist agreed that my disorder was treatment resistant.
I have been mentally ill my entire adult life, but I raised two children and held increasingly responsible technology positions that earned me a six-figure income. In 2007 I became disabled after a deterioration that began with an antidepressant switch triggered by Bupropion hydrochloride (aka Zyban). My last antidepressant was prescribed at the beginning of this period of disability, without a mood stabilizer, by a psychiatrist who had full knowledge of that switch. He had misdiagnosed me, again, as depressed. He was the third psychiatrist to do so in the period between 1980 and 2006.
The DSM criteria often don't yield an accurate diagnosis in the real world. Our current reliance on drugs makes that dangerous. The increasing number of disorders that are being treated with antidepressants (Restless, headaches, chronic pain, smoking) and the increasing treatment of children, means that more and more people will be damaged by treatment from well-meaning doctors.
We don't give aspirin to children or teenagers because of the slight chance (555 cases in 1980) it could cause Reye's Syndrome. Why are drug companies permitted to market antidepressants for so many problems? Why are antidepressants often the first treatment of people showing signs of depression? Bipolar disables and has the highest suicide rate. Antidepressants must be prescribed with GREAT care.
Quote: Antidepressants must be prescribed with GREAT care.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnswer: That opinion is becoming mainstream EXCEPT in those IN that very community who are relegated to PRESCRIBE them at a very high rate. THEY / psychiatrists tell the regular GP .. "no big thang" .. and so the WHOLE friggin medical system HAS to listen to them or they are BRANDED by the medical system as NOT being a 'team player'. These SAME people who decided to prescribe antidepressants willy nilly are the ones which 'decided' homosexuality is not accompanied by mental illness at a "high enough rate to warrant mentioning". ANYONE in society can tell you that they DO have obvious mental disturbance at a HIGH ENOUGH RATE TO WARRANT MENTIONING .. ?
"CALGARY — A Calgary psychiatrist who frequently provided expert opinions in court now faces 21 charges of sexual assault, most of which allegedly took place during court-ordered visits."
"Levin has been charged with 20 additional counts of sexual assault involving 20 other patients, all men."
"Levin is no stranger to controversy over his work as a psychiatrist. He faced heated accusations about his time as a military psychiatrist during apartheid in South Africa, where he earned his degree in 1963."
"He was a psychiatrist at a military hospital in the 1970s where aversion therapy through electric shocks was allegedly used in an attempt to change the sexuality of gay soldiers. Levin is mentioned in a report entitled the aVersion Project that attempted to shed light on abuses of gays and lesbians in the military by health workers."
Modern medicine defines diseases according to pathophysiology, a word I didn't see in Hyman's article. If we continue to use instead symtomatology to define disease we will continue to end up with useless and damaging DSM editions. My take on the pathophysiological basis of disease is presented here: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/diseaseconcept1aperspective/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy area of interest is addictions and in 1992 I presented a neurobiological genetic paradigm, a pathophysiology, in a paper entitled Hypoism - A Real Disease. This paper was rejected by 12 addiction journals although one editor called me and said he wanted to publish it but was overruled by his "peer reviewers." This paper has evolved over the years to a book, Hypoic's Handbook, and a web paper, Hypoism Hypothesis - http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/hypoismhypothesis/ where I define the addiction causing disease of Hypoism with real pathophysiology and real science. Despite this disease (pathophysiology) being confirmed with peer reviewed science, as late as 9/9/2009 through 9/13/2009 (see my blog for those dates: http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/currentletterstoeditors72309/) my hypothesis has been ignored and censored by the addiction and mental health field. Hypoism has not had the opportunity to be reviewed for the next DSM edition even though it presents a usable pathophysiology for addiction prevention and treatment; as well as for public understanding of addiction which would go a long way into destigmatizing this entire entity.
I gave a lecture at Brookhaven in the year 2000 on Hypoism yet Volkow, Wang, et al have failed to refer to this in any of their writings about their studies on genetic dopamine deficiency, the main issue in addiction causation written about by them. Hyman also does not refer to my writings about this pathophysiology which is a model for any mental illness paradigm for the DSM. I hope this comment allows the Scientific American readers to learn about this kind of pathophysiological basis of a mental illness so they can use it not just for addictions but for all other mental illnesses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe HIDTA located across the US there are 28 programs. They target
Large scale drug manafactioning they have the ability to mark a person with a device and have control over the humans mind.they are to listen to a persons inner thoughts,stimulate the central nervous
System. They are able to conflict life like feelings
Pain,they are able to send sounds into the persons mind. But there are three teams who work under them the one I'm talking about is the national methamaphetamines and pharamaciudical located here in Fresno ,CA.They torture mid level to street drug users into a violent state of mind.they torture them with sleep depression and mind games making the person fear for there life. They spend anywhere for two months to five months torturing the person to they break along this the person may be arrested for aggregating assault and destructive behavior after a few run INS with the law they use mainly sheriff cause they cover a whole county and stop them for drug trafficking and maybe a weapon on the person cause the torture,and mind control.
The CVHIDTA have three co parteners that deal with all other drugs on a smaller scale. They go after the mid level to the street person on drugs
There involvement uses mind control make the drug user show himself threw the fears and emotional distress form the teams that I talk about they use local law enforcement to recognize these characters to find the subject they mainly sheriffs cause of there wide area that they can cover a whole county. http://t.co/aE7qF2b click on this
Link to see the patterns of the mind control. Investigate people who have been arrested for meth or other drugs that are a felony. Talk to people around them (family,friends,love ones)
You will see or since the patterns of mind control. You might also what to investigate the the fiscal year budget for this central valley HIDTA . Figure out the tax dollar they receive for a fiscal year and the amount of drugs seized threw there CVHIDTA program.
How many personal operate under the CVHITDA?
RyanWhere does all the tax dollars that is received by CVHIDTA go
? How do they get info on the people who they investigate? What reports to federal government that benefit tax dollars to the CVHIDTA? Notice the one of the main way for them to arrest small time drug users is threw a traffic stop. But prior to this look for the patterns of mind control to this person
They use to make him noticeable for law enforcement to recognize the drug characters of the drug in use. The local law enforcement doesn't know how the info is received on the mind control but it's 100% accurate to law enforcement.Rynale@hotmail.com I'm on twitter @nale112 on Facebook. Everyone needs to speak out and let the people of the USA hear your voice.
Talk to friends and who ever you want to tell that's freedom of speech. This needs to be recognize they don't always use mind control they can just listen to your inner thoughts or listen to
What ever you can hear.
Continue.....
Ryanhttp://t.co/aE7qF2b (MIND CONTROL)
Ryan
Begin forwarded message:
From: ryan <rynale@hotmail.com>
Date: November 12, 2010 1:46:47 AM PST
To: "MEbell@FreedomAction.org" <MEbell@FreedomAction.org>
Subject: Civil rights,torture
The national Methamphetamine and pharmaceutical teams that work under the central valley HIDTA. Have a device to use to collect info on a person. They are able to mark a person with a device and then they are able to listen to that person inner thoughts. They use this device to torture the person to comment violent crimes. They are able to stimulate the central nervous system causing extreme pain anywhere in the body they choose to torture. They also can send sounds into the brain they use a high pitch sound 18000 hrz. They target mid level to street level drug users. They have been doing this for
over a decade. This is a serous issue that needs to be tackled. They do this to uptain money for the epidemic of drug relative problemshere in the central valley.
Ryan
CVHIDTA use mainly the Fresno meth task force and the sister team witch use the the same concepts but target mid level and common drug user they use mainly sheriff like MAJEC for Fresno county and so on for each county they have a sheriff from every county from kern to sacromento and each county has a special task force like magec
The CVHIDTA mark drug users with a device and they are able to listen to a persons inner thoughts they also can stimulate the central nervous system causing ( real life like humans feelings from twitching , extreme pain , numbness in any part of the body)they also can send sounds into the mind.they torment the drug users (mainly first time offenders ) and scare the drug users to fear for there life resulting pulled over by sheriffs carry weapons with drugs in the car making a more punishable crime.making it look like a regular traffic stop.the physical mind games to the torchering threw nervous system.my name is Ryan Matthew Nale they have had a team on me since 2006 to now 24/7torchering me they also have plain clothes personal who help interact with these tactics and I can describe some of them
I have sent this to the FBI, the Whitehouse,the US Supreme courts,US district attorney and there are program that uses the same concept for mid level common street people using drugs
My name is Ryan Matthew Nale I know
This because they have had a team of roughly 20 people on me 24/7 since 2006. I'm sending you this letter because this is a major problem it come down to the suppervision who allow this to take place. I have contacted the FBI and many other top government agency informing them how I know how they operate and I have seen some of there personal
These are some of my thought on how they operate because I deal with them on a 24/7level since 2006
Ryan