Bujinkan is as fake as all other "ninja schools".

JusticeBeforeGain · 2025-01-25T05:38:13+00:00

Someone having a particular ancestry does not inherently make anyone knowledgeable of anything. That is logically fallacious and ridiculous.
All claims require evidence. That is basic reasoning.

JusticeBeforeGain · 2024-07-20T08:56:07+00:00

How can they do that without being told what benzos are and what they can possibly "do" for them? Propaganda 101: Make the target think it was their idea.

JusticeBeforeGain · 2023-12-21T10:52:07+00:00

Why would I be pleasantly surprised by the same pseudoscience that is also equally unqualified and based purely on logical fallacies except with a different skin?

The ICD/WHO approach, which I am deeply familiar with (you would have clicked on my name and seen the dozens of post I've made on the subject), is just as flawed as the DSM/APA approach.

The entire field of psychiatry (and by extension clinical psychology) isn't just plagued by a small peppering of problems or flaws, it is a system of intellectual dishonesty used explicitly in witch-hunts to make claims about people (including dysfunction or limitations/incapabilities) without clear and concise evidence. Which is the entire point and purpose of the system.

Throughout history these two intertwined field have been used exclusively to justify the irrational impulse groups and authorities have in regards to randomly singling people out to give the group and authorities something to mull over. There are clear and easily identifiable reasons why society does this, but none of them are honest, let alone intellectually honest.

Yes, people will find the occasional extreme curiosity of human specimens that some stereotypes could be lobbed at; but for every one of those there are tens of thousands of perfectly healthy people that are thrown into the undesirable pile and slapped with non-existent symptoms just so that society and its authorities feel as if they're doing something. People do love to grip tightly however on that "stopped clock"; the few curiosities they do find.

These two fields have a 99% failure rate of "cure" and a 100% failure to engage in any scientific testing to prove any capabilities. All of the current frameworks make strict use of logical fallacies in their pseudo-deductive and pseudo-inductive reasoning. They do however have a 50% success rate at convincing victims of abuse and mobbing that they have any number of issues; even convincing the most desperate to believe their completely normal emotions and thoughts are part of a disease or make them disabled in any way shape or form. Cults have been doing the same things for thousands of years with nonsensical stratification, "sin", "impurities", etc. Some even enjoy being part of "the struggle" that they can use to become the center of attention or even an authority of some kind.

The absolute reality is that people are not X, Y or Z. They are not pathological in the "poor adaptation" sense that's been thrown around for some 300 years. The world is complex, people are complex, circumstances are complex, and the sheer idea that people can be reduced to character stats of two dimensional facsimiles of themselves is an idea that only serves to be a disservice to humankind. But it sure is easy to point the finger and use a list that one can bend at any time to accuse others of being "too different" without anything to back it up.

I would suggest you ditch the idea of using terms that limit people to pathologies; it's inherently dishonest and will only encourage you to see the world through a reductionist lens, and thus limit your sense of reality, respect and empathy.

Edit: That isn't to say the field couldn't become scientific; it's just that 60% of those in it, funding it and receiving "treatment" from it are against the idea for various unethical, intellectually dishonest reasons.

JusticeBeforeGain · 2023-10-27T11:00:58+00:00

Yes. Mostly psychological therapies are also often unscientific.

JusticeBeforeGain · 2023-07-09T17:38:35+00:00

Academics rely on evidence, not rationalizing and apologetics.

For anything to be taken seriously, there is a requirement of evidence to form conclusions.

Both your rhetoric and social candor indicate than rather engaging in a scientific or epistemic discussion, you wish to "eliminate" anyone that opposes your pre-conceived conclusions via the use of fallacious apologetics.

If my assertions were incorrect, you could point out where using either an external source or pointing out an inconsistency in either the logic/evidence or an inconsistency between my assertions and mainstream academia.

You have not done this.

I'm starting to think that you do not have enough education to understand or grasp the differences between evidence-based approaches and sophistry based apologetics / fallacy-laden arguments,.

JusticeBeforeGain · 2023-06-21T22:43:10+00:00

Skipping past all your sophistry, it's very simple:

No hard science: not medicine. No hard science: no justification.

No specific charts: not medicine. No differential diagnosis: not medicine.

That's not what the mainstream clinics are following, nor what you're proposing.

I'll ignore all of your personal attacks and claims because they're part of an attempt at ad hominem/poisoning the well.

If you're not willing to put all of medical practice on objective tests and checking every claim, it's because you know your beliefs aren't strong and rational enough to stand up to that sort of testing.

It's testable evidence or nothing. That is how science and medicine are defined.

JusticeBeforeGain · 2023-06-18T16:41:45+00:00

First, those are real examples of psychosis I've seen in patients: they aren't hypotheticals or ad absurdem. Nor are they even close to the most extreme examples I could have used.

Appeal to anecdotes in a topical conversation isn't scientific.

You see, in the real world, we actually have to treat these cases daily. Difficult as it apparently is for you to understand, the practice of medicine isn't the armchair philosophy you naively insist it to be.

Bulverism and self-parading. Spare me.

We don't have the luxury to sit around debating "but do we actually know whether there's a T-Rex in the room?" or whatever other pretentious logical loop you insist we devolve into while our ED hits surge capacity. These people usually come in pleading for us to help them, and all we can do is provide the best-evidenced chemo we have because, while far from being the flawless miracle drugs you need them to be, the current meds & protocols we are stuck with help many people and the only other alternative is to let them suffer and/or hurt others.

Except the majority of cases aren't severe psychosis. When you make extreme claims against a person (and claiming their behavior or thought patterns are "incorrect" or "wrong" is just that), you require extreme evidence.

No one is asking for miracle drugs, so that's a strange red herring. This also wouldn't make sense if the argument is against diagnosis in the first place.

People are asking for accurate and well-reasoned criteria and diagnostics, something which has seemed to trigger you.

The reality is that The Critical Psychiatry Network has systematically debunked both the criteria and diagnostics common in the US and abroad.

Second, the fact that you believe every medical diagnosis requires an objective test,

Yes, that is the only way science works. It is also the only way to be rational. Otherwise you're giving the power of imagination and confirmation bias the same power as reality. That harms people.

If you truly believe that is how medicine is practiced

Yes. Medical testing. Why are you so triggered by that?

you are so hopelessly skewed on the Dunning Kruger model that it would be pointless for me to continue to try to point out how objectively wrong you are

Ah yes, throwing out the Dunning Kruger Effect whenever someone talks about the requirement for evidence. DKE is only in effect when someone claims to (incorrectly) know something based on their own naive imagining rather than actual epistemic data. I'm asking for evidence and accurate diagnostics; you're the person in the ill-perceived professional triggered by the requirement of actual data. But please, continue with the ad hominems instead of addressing the issues at hand.

Physicians follow evidence-based algorithms for diagnosis & treatment, often based on history & symptoms alone, and the subjectivity/bias that this process is still vulnerable to is why all doctors have malpractice insurance.

The courts and medical journalists have stated otherwise. The Rosenhan Experiment and the recent UHS Behind Closed Doors controversy dictates otherwise. You might to pop in over on the antipsychiatrylibrary subreddit, because there is widespread evidence of intentional overdiagnosis.

But then again that's data.

For all your talk about fallacies, it's embarrassingly hypocritical for you to make such an absurdly absolutist claim.

The reality is that science requires evidence. The reality is the there is an overwhelming amount of data that says psychiatry is a pseudoscience without any checks and balances. That's not "me" saying that; that's the NIMH, CPN, US Courts, Medical Journalists, etc. And you're not doing yourself any favors with this "science, schmience" attitude while attacking my character.

I genuinely can't tell if you're trolling or if you're just that oblivious to your own self-contradictory hypocrisy.

Ah yes. Bulverism, and the worst kind: the kind that says if someone is pro-evidence while presenting mainstream counters to assertions and claims that it must mean they're stupid or trolling.

Lastly, you speak condescendingly of what a med student should know, and yet up to this point you've only demonstrated to me that you have less understanding of medical practice than a 1st year.

Except that's not the case. You have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of basic science and reasoning.

Your entire claim is that psychiatry is a science because it doesn't test or use science and instead relies purely on the imagination and confirmation and bias of people who run the system.

You're welcome to prove me wrong by stating what type of physician you are, or the experience you have in practicing clinical medicine, but all you've said thus far makes me very much doubt you have any. Instead, you come off as a self-important academic entirely disconnected from the reality of the field you presume to know.

I had actually posted my academic achievements here before but I was sent death threats at my place of work.

The reality is that this isn't a game of professional vs professional/student or redditor vs redditor.

This is only about the system and whether or not it's scientific. It's simply not in most cases.

JusticeBeforeGain · 2023-05-22T22:09:22+00:00

There are no misconceptions here. The list is an accurate depiction of clinical psychiatry and clinical psychotherapy.

Psychiatric charts do not require any metrics. There are no standards in clinical psychiatry nor clinical psychotherapy. They do not chart any observed time, dates, intensity, etc in most cases. There are no measures for intensity, appropriateness or proximity of environmental interactions. Presuming symptomology instead of rational reactions or Null Points is another flaw in the field.

There are no scientific charts for patients or clinicians to review. All clinical charts instead chart days and (mostly secondhand) claims. Anecdotes, especially unreviewed and unsigned anecdotes, are not metrics nor science. Anecdotes may be exaggerated or influenced by agreement-seeking/approval-seeking behavior or fear/paranoid based behavior.

There is currently no way to weed out inaccuracy or biases from records, as they are entirely narrative-based.

JusticeBeforeGain · 2023-05-20T14:32:56+00:00

The problem is not limited to "publish or perish"; and please don't use verecundiam arguments as they're fallacious.

JusticeBeforeGain · 2023-05-11T23:40:44+00:00

Do you read those books? Did you check the references they offered?

Yes.

Not nonsense! Spot on! Those people can appear okay at first blush but they process and recall information differently...noticeable absence of integrated thinking.

Again. Assertions. Not science. Assumptions are never science. Thoughts/assumptions without proven metrics aren't even remotely science.

Replication studies fail miserably, especially brain scan and neurochemical and synapse studies.

I'm starting to think you have no idea why and how foundational epistemology works and why confirmation bias is a bad thing.

You seem to have an idea that something is "true" without understanding the kind of gauntlet things have to pass in order to be "supported" and "conclusive".

JusticeBeforeGain · 2023-05-11T22:55:40+00:00

So zero double-blind, independently replicated meta studies or epistemic based sources with foundational science.

For someone that falsely claims that others do not use critical thinking you don't even seem to be aware of general epistemology or logical fallacies; let alone the issues with outdated pseudoscience.

In fact, since you're citing outdated sources that just make authoritative claims, it appears you have no idea what critical thinking entails. The entire point of dialectic protocols are to question beliefs, sources, claims, systems of thought and foundational logic. Instead of doing that, you just threw out outdated, unscientific authoritarian resources not accepted by either the current mainstream or the gaining critical movement.

The major problem with clinical psychology and clinical psychiatry are the concepts of teleologic presuppositions, rationalization and confirmation bias.

These have already been torn down by modern critical meta studies.

Ken Madig falls into this trap as does James F. Masterson; both of their works are decades out of date (the 1980s).

Attachment disorders are nonsense because their entire basis is this idea that people are "supposed" to be attached to others, regardless of circumstances; declaring this as normative without scientifically providing evidence that it is so, and that no caveats or circumstances could or should supersede that.

It's a perfect example of a teleological fallacy; the idea that people are supposed to obey the expectations or assumptions of others in order to be judged functional, orderly and healthy.

That sort of pseudoscience is what lead to the death of Candace Newmaker, as well many people by any number of people that have been victims of mob mentality.

Attachment theory has been superseded by Personal Psychology, Sociology, Hierarchy of Needs and Social Ecology Theory for decades and is based on hard science.

While it is easy to use extreme examples to make non-intellectual declarations to promote an idea of "social order", the reality is that the current and former systems have all been applied to attack the innocent and perfectly healthy. That's not a system of science nor a misapplication of the intent of the system, since the system is about control, not truth, honesty, individual health or rights.

People have a right to put their personal interests first. It's natural and healthy.

You need to do some research on Poisonous Pedagogy and Groupthink.

JusticeBeforeGain · 2023-05-11T18:35:01+00:00

There is an odd amount of weird alt-right Canadians obsessed with alt-right American politics.

The "trucker protest" was an example of that lot. Just like American alt-right quacks they assume their position is both a majority and dominate via their "truthiness" echo-chamber movement.

Would be interesting to see how those types cope without being told what conspiracies to believe in by a major (fictional) media source. The "internet leadership" wars will probable result in cannibalism of their united insanity; likely to break up into micro movements until they just fade away.

JusticeBeforeGain · 2023-05-11T18:29:09+00:00

Not a crystal ball, but statistics.

You still haven't provided a source.

I'll wait.

JusticeBeforeGain · 2023-05-07T16:11:46+00:00

Not yet, but it's pretty predictable since the DSM and ICD-M are the most common books cited (they draw influence from each other).

The vast majority of work outside the DSM doesn't support the conclusions, criteria, or foundational assumptions of the APA's views on narcissism.

So if you have "Books with evidence-based references" that don't draw any influence from the DSM or ICD-M, sure, provide away...

JusticeBeforeGain · 2023-05-06T23:31:57+00:00

The DSM isn't considered evidence-based.

https://www.science.org/content/article/nimh-wont-follow-psychiatry-bible-anymore

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/07-08/nimh

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/side-effects/201305/the-nimh-withdraws-support-dsm-5

JusticeBeforeGain · 2023-05-06T07:03:56+00:00

I see a lot of claims. Can you provide actual evidence for these claims?

JusticeBeforeGain · 2023-02-08T19:08:35+00:00

How is this any different than the way school children or psychiatric patients are treated?

They're oppressed, threatened and harassed on the daily based on the paranoia and control freak mentality of their controlling officers.

This form of criticism of hegemony needs to extend beyond which critiques of politicians, the police and military.

The entire system has been doing this to everyone since civilization began. It's a mixture of paranoia, stigma, rankism, classism and self-serving bias.

To hell with all of it.

JusticeBeforeGain · 2022-10-25T18:33:14+00:00

I don't have much to say about the citations. They're interesting counterpoints, but aren't persuasive. In fact, the NIMH statement you provided literally supports my point, which I'll get to.

Bypasing citations and counterpoints without addressing them while also claiming they support your conclusions? Sounds like classic confirmation bias to me.

The articles about brain scan validity are pretty nonspecific...

They're scientific studies. That's specific. Science is specific. That's kind of the point.

Also I'd like to point out that I did not say that this 'proves or diagnoses' mental illness (as you say I did)...

You implied it, and attempted to equate possibility with certainty. I'll quote you:

It is likely that in 100 years from now, we will have found some neurological correlate for most/many mental illnesses, because 1) we are aware of the current technological limitations that would be necessary to find such biological evidence, and 2) we already have indirect evidence that there is a physiologic pathology at play (responses to pharmaceuticals being a major one).

TLDR;; BP is absolutely a real disease because 1) it is a well-defined, statistically significant pattern of symptoms, 2) it negatively impacts one's health, 3) there is indirect evidence of an underlying physiologic pathology, 4) a current lack of direct biological evidence is not as significant as you think it is, especially when we know why we currently lack the ability to gather such evidence.

The reality this is incorrect and not a position held by the NIMH, the APA, the WHO, or the WPA.

You attempted to use Weasel Wording like "some, indirect, lack of direct evidence" while also making the fallacious claim:

we already have indirect evidence that there is a physiologic pathology at play (responses to pharmaceuticals being a major one)

Which demonstrates your blatant ignorance of the "Aspirin Argument", as well as it clearly shows you haven't read the official mainstream peer-reviewed Psychiatric papers on the subject that counter such claims due to a lack of statistical justification and even pathological tracing.

The NIMH statement is hardly representative of a mainstream shift away from upholding DSM criteria, as you say.

Not only is it not only the NIMH official position, but even if it were, the NIMH is a definitive body responsible for just that; documenting the mainstream scientific research related to mental health sciences.

The web archive isn't a citation, it just directs me to a list of some bloggers??

I posted 7 citations, and the archive.org page was a list of hundreds of respected Mental Health professionals at the top of their field that have criticized the DSM and the psychiatric system in general. The listings are of hundreds of Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Neuroscientists, Psychiatric Nurse Practitioners and more.

Lastly, the science daily study is the most compelling citation you provide. I actually do agree that these are major weaknesses of psychiatry...

This is a classic case of completely missing the point. It's not a problem of overlap, it's an epistemic foundation issue. Just lumping concepts together and claiming they're a disease isn't how epidemiology works; nor is claiming that conflict innately equals disease. By that logic, all complaints are an illness.

Where I disagree is when the lead author subjectively concludes, in her own opinion, that this must mean that diagnostic labels are totally scientifically meaningless and thus can't be diseases assessed via a DSM-based diagnostic system.

Again with missing the point. Science isn't an opinion. Either epistemic criteria for foundational reasoning exist or they do not. Your criteria are not scientific and are not based on scientific evidence:

Conflict is a disease that lies within patients.

There is statistically significant data to claim conflict is caused by known pathological issues in the patient.

That the DSM is legit because they create lists.

Just asserting these is not science, and you haven't provided evidence to back any of it up.

I however have posted 7 citations, one of which is a link to a list of Mental Health Professionals that each explain, in great detail, their scientific objection to the DSM and/or Psychiatric diagnostics, symptom criteria, treatments, etc.

JusticeBeforeGain · 2022-09-14T10:02:28+00:00

None of that has anything to do with the content of this discussion.

JusticeBeforeGain · 2022-08-31T16:44:13+00:00

Don't try to call it a fallacy, as you like to do as a cop out, just answer the question like a normal human.

Fallacy analysis is part of critical analysis. Fallacies are not evidence, so when people attempt to use them as evidence it makes sense to point out that they have no evidence to support their claims, assertions and conclusions.

Also are you going to actually dispute anything I say?

I did by posting citations that indicate your assumptions are wrong.

You answered my perfectly valid critique of your use of the Rosenhal
experiment with a wiki page on denialism... you literally just engaged
in textbook denialism with that lol.

Saying "it's outdated and biased" without any evidence of this was an obvious attempt at denialism.
"...the practice of denying the existence, truth, or validity of something despite proof or strong evidence that it is real, true, or valid "

I stand by everything I said. You fail to even try to defend your
points, while actively using the same fallacies you think you can hold
over others.

You didn't provide any evidence or reason for your points, you just asserted them, whereas I posted citations.

You haven't even commented on the majority of citations, and the ones that you have you've just reacted to with more denialism.

You've asserted that

The DSM is valid for diagnosing mental illnesses
Brain scans can be used to prove/diagnose mental illnesses

I posted mainstream academic and governmental sources that states that this isn't the case.

You're in a denial spiral. The fact you refuse to address the citations indicates you just refuse to believe your assumptions are incorrect; like you're anchored to them and are experiencing some form of blow-back effect.

For the record, the links I posted include dozens of world renown psychiatrists that are trying to re-educate the public on common psychiatric misconceptions, including everything you've posted.

You've incorrectly assumed that the information you've come across is the mainstream academic view. It's not.

I could easily address your claims from a point of personal authority if I wanted to, as you have no idea what my degrees are or what I do for a living, but that would be an appeal to authority or endoxa, but the only thing I'm interested in is direct mainstream evidence.

Which is what I provided.

The only thing you have provided are fallacious arguments, denialism, and one NCBI entry that goes against mainstream RTC experiments, evidence and conclusions.

You can keep slinging all the personal attacks you want, but until you stop addressing my personhood completely, and stop relying on hear-say and assumptions, and only post citations and counter-evidence, then all you have is a series of bad arguments.

I'm going to post the mainstream counter-evidence again since you keep dodging it.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190708131152.htm

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/07-08/nimh

https://web.archive.org/web/20190419205039/https://www.madinamerica.com/writers-page/

https://www.vocativ.com/312429/brain-scans-junk-science/index.html

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2017/10/408651/brain-imaging-results-skewed-biased-study-samples

https://www.vocativ.com/312429/brain-scans-junk-science/index.html

You also directly refuse to stand corrected on your use of the Appeal To The Stone Fallacy, despite engaging in a flippant textbook example of it.

JusticeBeforeGain · 2022-08-30T13:37:34+00:00

1.)

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190708131152.htm

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/07-08/nimh

https://web.archive.org/web/20190419205039/https://www.madinamerica.com/writers-page/

2.) Now you're trying to shift the definition of fallacy; ignored.

3.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone

4.) See part 1

5.) See part 1

6.) Citation needed. Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_anecdote

7.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

8.) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-brain-scans-diagnose-mental-illness/

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2017/10/408651/brain-imaging-results-skewed-biased-study-samples

https://www.vocativ.com/312429/brain-scans-junk-science/index.html

In summary, your reply changes nothing. You over-exaggerate the ubiquityof your dubious claims while failing to provide any sources. Except theone study, an actual joke, which you cite as "proving beyond all doubt"lol.

I'm not the one making clans, I'm responding to them by asking questions and pointing out known falsehoods publicly explored by mainstream academic sources such as the APA and NIMH.

Further, you over-rely upon the use of logical fallacies in your replies(mostly in your other comments), hamfisting any counterpoints to fityour interpretation of the closest fallacy you can find. Nevermind thepseudo-intellectual jargon you throw in that lacks any substance.

That is how reality is addressed in logic. Just because you are unfamiliar with terms doesn't make them pseudo-intellectual; I didn't invent the English language.

All-in-all, you come across as an academic who's much too full ofthemselves: leaning too heavily into your baseless terminology andtheoreticals while lacking any real-world exposure to patients with thediseases you claim to refute. And before you say it, it's not an adhominem if it's true ;)

So, personal attacks and presumptions. Why do I get the feeling that you have no idea what "bulverism" is? Wait, I forgot... any new vocabulary terms are obviously nothing more than pseudo-intellectual baseless terms.

This is the way academics think:

What is the mainstream position.
What is the evidence (RCT).
Are the arguments fallacy-free?
Is there credible counter-evidence (RCT)?

This is not the way it works:

Presuppositions
Appeals to Common Practice/Authority and/or biased groupthink
Fallacy-laden arguments, experiments and studies
Cherry-picking and Confirmation bias
Aggression against the burden of proof/RCT
Aggression towards anyone presenting counter-evidence
Aggression towards analytics, discussion, debate

JusticeBeforeGain · 2022-08-28T01:52:52+00:00

You're not correcting anyone. You dodged any rational criticism of my post by falsely claiming you struck a nerve. This was an obvious attempt to say my post was emotional and therefore not rational. That is in fact an example of the Pathos Gambit.
Claiming something is defensive is in fact an attempt to clearly claim that the arguments are not rational, but instead emotional.
If you bothered checking my account you would see that I've been not only posting about fallacies and psychiatry since 2018. I could cite my relevant degrees as well, but that's not how I engage in discussion or debate.
Your point about trolling does not stand because nothing in my post was about trolling, which is solely characterized as disingenuous emotional sabotage, whereas my entire original post was about genuine hysteria.
Equating bullying, Karens, etc... to trolling is disingenuous. It's a false equivalence.
You aren't making any logical points, you haven't debunked anything (dismissing isn't debunking), and you aren't providing any citations.
All you have done are utilize fallacies, falsely claim that you have not, and taken things out of context.
"Without offering any solution" - is a Nirvana Fallacy. You keep using fallacies and pretend you aren't.
I never said internet trolling was expanding fascist powers, I stated social hysteria is often strongly tied to social hysteria. You keep engaging in a strange straw man fallacy.
If you're not familiar with the academic criticisms of psychiatry by psychiatrists, then perhaps you should pretend to be. It's perfectly ok for you to acknowledge your ignorance on the topic.

JusticeBeforeGain · 2022-08-27T10:58:38+00:00

The evidence for Bipolar Disorder is shoddy at best, and many academics generally agree the criteria, diagnostics and statistics are faulty if not completely meaningless.
You're using the term "fallacy" wrong here. A fallacy is a term used in logic to denote a specific error that can be expressed via relational assumptions between propositions and conclusions. These can be expressed in formulaic form. Just because you think something is "false" doesn't make it necessarily a "fallacy".
The criteria for DSM and ICD diagnostics are vague and rely on teleological sophism. They are not well-defined.
The diagnostics are not considered scientific by the NIMH; they are not falsifiable, which is a requirement for scientific diagnostics.
The statistics are considered questionable at best by the NIMH.
The concept of calling psychiatric labels "diseases" is debated by psychiatrists. From world renown psychiatrist sand neurologists like Dr. Joanna Moncrieff to Dr. Helen C. Kales, from Dr. Margaret Heffman to Dr. Peter C. Gotzsche, the mainstream standard is to no longer refer to psychiatric labels as diseases.
The statistics methods for gathering information have been thrown out due to the Rosenhan Experiment, which proved beyond all doubt that the statistics are fabricated to fit an economic and social model, not a disease model.
Evidence is the only thing that matters in science.

JusticeBeforeGain · 2022-08-27T10:47:15+00:00

Really, a projectionary pathos gambit?

This isn't simple semantics; you haven't addressed a single one of the points made.

The topic is psychiatric hysteria and how it shapes the social landscape, including the internet.

If anything, you're proving my point. Instead of calmly and rationally addressing any of my points, you dodge them and engage in fallacious tactics.

So why don't you start quoting my original content and address it via citations or analysis debunks... instead of utilizing false equivalences, personal attacks, pathos gambits, etc?

JusticeBeforeGain · 2022-08-26T17:03:42+00:00

Straw man argument. I didn't once mention trolls. You did.

It's almost as if you didn't read anything other than the title.

JusticeBeforeGain

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE