Are We All Crazy?

On May 18, the highly anticipated fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—aka DSM-5—was released by the American Psychiatric Association at its annual meeting. There has been no shortage of critics of this new edition, including Thomas R. Insel, MD, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).

Insel damns it with faint praise: “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.” But then he quickly adds, “The weakness is its lack of validity.” Insel is rightly concerned that DSM diagnoses depend strictly on a consensus of particular clinical symptoms, rather than any objective laboratory measure.

As he said, “[S]ymptom-based diagnosis, once common in other areas of medicine, has been largely replaced in the past half century as we have understood that symptoms alone rarely indicate the best choice of treatment.”

That’s why NIMH has launched the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project to transform diagnosis by incorporating genetics, imaging, cognitive science, and other levels of information to lay the foundation for a new classification system. Insel minces no words: “[I]t is critical to realize that we cannot succeed if we use DSM categories as the gold standard.”

Another prominent critic is none other than Allen J. Frances, MD, who chaired the DSM-IV (the previous editions used Roman numerals) task force. His anti-DSM-5 soundbites have been all over the Web, and are summarized in an article he wrote that appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine last month, entitled “The New Crisis in Confidence in Psychiatric Diagnosis.” Frances is concerned that the door is open to “[H]igh-prevalence diagnoses at the fuzzy boundary with normality.”

To wit: Normal worries over an illness become “somatic symptom disorder”; grief can be classified as “major depressive disorder”; forgetfulness in old age can become “mild neurocognitive disorder”; temper tantrums could be “disruptive mood dysregulation disorder”; overeating is now “binge eating disorder”; and the ever-popular attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) will become a more frequent diagnosis, based on loosened criteria.

Ironically, one of the leading proponents—if not the outright inventor—of ADHD, Leon Eisenberg, MD (1922-2009) stepped way back from his brainchild. In 2012, the magazine Der Spiegel ran a piece in which the famous psychiatrist was interviewed seven months before his death. He never would have thought his discovery would someday become so popular.

“ADHD is a prime example of a fabricated disorder,” Eisenberg said. “The genetic predisposition to ADHD is completely overrated. Instead, child psychiatrists should more thoroughly determine the psychosocial reasons that can lead to behavioral problems. Are there fights with parents, are there are problems in the family? Such questions are important, but they take a lot of time,” Eisenberg said, adding with a sigh: “Prescribe a pill for it very quickly.”

So, here are three world-class psychiatrists whose enthusiasm is under control for the current state of affairs. You might bear that in mind while you discover that, according to our own CDC, “[I]t is estimated that 13 –20 percent of children living in the United States (up to 1 out of 5 children) experience a mental disorder in a given year.”

If you pore over the more than 13,000-word CDC report “Mental Health Surveillance Among Children—United States, 2005–2011,” you will encounter this little disclaimer, toward the end:

Changes in estimated prevalence over time might be associated with an actual change in prevalence, changes in case definition, changes in the public perception of mental disorders, or improvements in diagnosis, which might be associated with changes in policies and access to health care.

Absorbing all this, and noting that the US is said to consume an astonishing 60 percent of the world’s psychotropic meds (dubbed “Pharmageddon”), just how skewed is conventional health care critic Mike Adams’ description of modern psychiatry?

Here’s how modern psychiatry really operates: A bunch of self-important, overpaid intellectuals who want to make more money invent a fabricated disease… By a show of hands, they then vote into existence whatever symptoms they wish to associated… Thus begins the call for treatment for a completely fabricated disease. From there, it’s a cinch to get Big Pharma to fabricate whatever scientific data they need in order to “prove” that speed, amphetamines, pharmaceutical crack, or whatever poison they want to sell [will treat the disorder].

My take is that if we really do believe that one in five of our children are “mental,” then we ARE crazy.

About these ads

4 responses to “Are We All Crazy?

  1. MUCH madness is divinest sense
    To a discerning eye;
    Much sense the starkest madness.
    ’T is the majority
    In this, as all, prevails.
    Assent, and you are sane;
    Demur,—you ’re straightway dangerous,
    And handled with a chain.

  2. As a budding scientist in high school in the 1960’s, I studied a concept called the ‘operational definition’. It is a particular method of defining a term that is well-suited to empirical and laboratory science. It’s requirement is that the term is defined in the context of a specific operation which can have alternative outcomes, and that the operation and results are independently replicable by different investigators. In an operational definition, an “apple” could be defined as a fruit produced by a fertilized blossom of a tree of the genus Malus (which would have to be defined elsewhere). Presumably anybody with access to the definitions of ‘fruit’, ‘blossom’, and ‘tree of the genus Malus’ could examine an object in hand and determine whether or not the specimen satisfied all the criteria of the definition.
    It is to the detriment of the entire field of ‘mental health’ that they find it necessary to redefine their terms every few years, inviting multiple generations of equivocation errors.

  3. The gist: All behaviour is a disorder.

  4. luisadownunder

    Many foods can affect a child’s behaviour. Normal colours and flavours found in all natural food can lead to hyperactivity.
    My second child seemed to behave differently whenever I fed him certain foods: strawberries, red apples, green apples, tomatoes, chocolate etc. He also took a particular liking to enjoying a cup of tea with me in the mornings.
    I was referred to a child psychiatrist who diagnosed a behavioural disorder and asked me to put in place a particular schedule of denial and gratification. I demurred.
    I knew that, although natural, all food contains chemicals. My research helped me to understand what it was about these chemicals that had this effect on my son.
    I modified his diet, ensuring I did not omit essential food groups, and his behaviour changed dramatically. Simples.
    It tool time and it took a little courage. Saying ‘that’s ridiculous” to an expert was my saving grace but not something most people are want to do.
    It also requires a little time and thought on the part of the parent. Perhaps today’s parents aren’t willing to invest their precious time in their own child’s life.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s