The Economist Unwraps the DSM

By
-
1
112

The Economist, in its upcoming edition, says of the DSM “No other major branch of medicine has such a single text, with so much power over people’s lives. And that is worrying. Because in no other branch of medicine is the scientific reality underpinning the pronouncements of doctors so uncertain… the current over-reliance on one point of view in this extremely uncertain science is healthy neither for psychiatry, nor for those it treats.”

Article →

Previous articleRise in Suicides Baffles Military
Next articleA Critical Analysis of the Validity, Utility & Effects of the Biomedical Model
Kermit Cole
Kermit Cole
Kermit Cole, MFT, founding editor of Mad in America, works in Santa Fe, New Mexico as a couples and family therapist. Inspired by Open Dialogue, he works as part of a team and consults with couples and families that have members identified as patients. His work in residential treatment — largely with severely traumatized and/or "psychotic" clients — led to an appreciation of the power and beauty of systemic philosophy and practice, as the alternative to the prevailing focus on individual pathology. A former film-maker, he has undergraduate and master's degrees in psychology from Harvard University, as well as an MFT degree from the Council for Relationships in Philadelphia. He is a doctoral candidate with the Taos Institute and the Free University of Brussels. You can reach him at [email protected].

1 COMMENT

  1. Kermit,

    Thanks for this and so many other posts exposing the scam of the DSM and validating our reality with so many great articles invalidating the DSM instead, finally! You have done a superb job of providing a wide variety of articles from diverse sources and keeping us right up to the minute on this latest developments in psychiatry, the APA, NIMH, BIG PHARMA and related topics.

    If you did not see it on the recent ECT article you posted, I want to repeat what I said here. I noted while you were gone things were not the same at MIA in my opinion because it seemed that things got somewhat stagnant without your more constant expert guidance and your knowledge of and access to so many resources. I know you were still involved on a more limited basis when you were away, but it wasn’t the same.

    If that doesn’t make it clear or you dare to take it as a criticism, I will put it more bluntly:

    You were greatly missed while you were gone and it made your usual great, wise, experienced, empathetic contributions all the more obvious. Thank you for that.

    Report comment

LEAVE A REPLY