And anyone with a disorder is a patient.
Akin what happens when you drive your car in a garage for an oil change. Anything that can be billed will be, never mind if there's nothing really wrong.
A patient has to be cured. Plain business model. No patients, no income.
What happens next is a downright scam.
No one in the mental health trade has an objective clue of how the mind operates. Nope.
Just check meager results despite billions invested in artificial intelligence. It's not a question of computing power. The brain is not really that much of a super computer.
All leads to conclude that no one really understands the algorithms of reason, creativity, wisdom and so on. Yep. No matter how many times dissected and studied, the brain remains a well guarded blackbox.
So how psychiatry acquires knowledge without objective sources ?
Much is based on religion. Historically, mental patients were possessed by demons. That's how it all started.
Peer reviewed huh ?
Yes indeed. Results, theories, hypothesis, any trusted scientific (?) information undergoes a review process before publishing.
Review by reputable peers, respectable colleagues who guarantee that the contents are scientifically and ideologically correct.
Here's where all goes horribly wrong.
Scholars and anyone after a professional career and titles, including in mental health, depend on their publications. The more, the better.
Publish baby publish, tenure is in sight. Right. Never stop publishing. No matter what.
Scientific magazines have to fill their pages and sell the contents. The more, the better.
The peer review process is supposed to keep all in check. In reality it's actually a pretty worthless instance.
Try for yourself. Damn easy, a word processor and the DSM is all it takes. With the right document templates you should be done in less than a week's take of spare time.
Periodic stings demonstrate the unreliability. Like this recent one, where a group of scholars deliberately created and submitted totally nonsensical papers for publishing.
In total the team of three researchers wrote 20 hoax papers on a field of study loosely defined as ‘grievance studies’.
These papers – seven of which were accepted and four published online – were based on just ‘nutty or inhumane’ ideas that they ran with.
One paper, published in Gender, Place & Culture, claimed to be based on a year observing sexual misconduct among dogs in a US park.
The paper said that parks were "petri dishes for canine rape culture'' and said people needed to be aware of the way dogs were treated depending on their gender.
The year before they had published a paper called 'The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct,' in the journal Cogent Social Sciences. They even associated male anatomy with climate change.
Another paper published in the journal Fat Studies claimed that body building is 'fat-exclusionary'.
They published a paper in the Journal of Poetry Therapy about feminist spirituality meetings. It was written by an algorithm.
Another paper published in peer-reviewed journal 'Affilia' was a rewrite of a chapter from Mein Kampf which was accepted despite going through a double peer review.
Authors claim their prank shows that higher education's fixation with identity politics has created 'absurd and horrific' scholarship.
The question "should you trust your psy" delves in a murky politically correct swamp.
- Has never demonstrated objective knowledge of it's main topic, the mind
- Employed (and to some extend, still does) barbaric means on patients
- Gathers knowledge thru vested interest driven potentially unsafe publications
- Exchanges results and best practices at congresses and gatherings openly sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry
- Is not accountable for it's own ignorance and mistakes
No comments:
Post a Comment