XPost: alt.psychology   
   From: rrufiange@cfl.rr.com   
      
   "Critter"  wrote in message   
   news:lWBGb.134217$8y1.412128@attbi_s52...   
   > The Fast for Freedom in Mental Health wrote on 28 July 2003:   
   >   
   > "WE ASK THAT YOU PRODUCE scientifically-valid evidence for the   
   > following, or that you publicly admit to media, government officials   
   > and the general public that you are unable to do so:   
   >   
   > "1. EVIDENCE THAT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES the validity of 'schizophrenia,'   
   > 'depression' or other 'major mental illnesses' as biologically-based   
   > brain diseases.   
      
   The APA clearly could have produced the criteria for diagnosing such   
   conditions, as they are long-established as documented mental illness.   
   There should be written criteria circulated inter-practice to back up   
   individual diagnoses.  I fail to see how the APA could fail to   
   satisfactorily respond to this question.   
      
   Depression and Schitzophrenia are "textbook" conditions which can clearly be   
   provided diagnosis criteria, even in some college-level textbooks.   
      
   > "2. EVIDENCE FOR A PHYSICAL DIAGNOSTIC EXAM -- such as a scan or   
   > test of the brain, blood, urine, genes, etc. -- that can reliably   
   > distinguish individuals with these diagnoses (prior to treatment   
   > with psychiatric drugs), from individuals without these diagnoses."   
      
   There is NO physical diagnosis which can give you an accurate determination   
   of mental illness.  Such diagnoses require sessions with a psychologist or   
   psychiatrist, often multiple sessions, and require research into family   
   histories, environmental concerns, etc..   
      
   The APA would have been perfectly accurate in not providing such evidence   
   for item #2.   
      
   > The APA Statement's fourth paragraph states:   
   >   
   > "Research has shown that neurobiological disorders like schizophrenia   
   > reveal reproducible abnormalities of brain structure..." Without   
   > any citations, these statements cannot be supported, qualified, or   
   > rejected.   
      
   Scientifically, research without citation is merely a theory, until it is   
   proven scientifically as fact.  By the APA's own admission, this has not   
   been done, therefore the research is irrelevant.   
      
   > However, in the fifth, sixth, and eighth paragraphs, the APA Statement   
   > admits to the absence of "discernible pathological lesions or genetic   
   > abnormalities" in mental disorders. This admission contradicts the   
   > previous assertion of "reproducible abnormalities."   
      
   No it doesn't.  "Reproducible" doesn't mean what the author believes it to   
   mean.  It refers to the discovery of like symptoms or conditions in like   
   patients.  Generally, such are held to be unrelated to the issue unless   
   proven otherwise, and thus are called "reproducible abnormalities".  They   
   don't belong there, they show up quite often, but we don't know for sure   
   what causes them, so there you are.   
      
   > Without evidence of brain pathology no basis exists to call emotional   
   > distress, disturbing behavior, or unusual thoughts or perceptions   
   > "neurobiological disorders." This and similar terms negate the   
   > sufferer's distress as reaction, protest, or adaptation to his/her   
   > position in the personally relevant social context. A person is   
   > understood in terms of personal history and social circumstances.   
   > A neurobiological disorder is understood differently. The choice   
   > of labels is of great consequence.   
      
   Not entirely accurate.  While true that without evidence there is no basis   
   for a conclusion, it is not true that without pathological evidence   
   something cannot have a biological element to it's roots.  Microbial   
   concerns, much too small and intricate for us to see, might be at work here.   
   However, the whole of the APA's statement wasn't given here, so we can't see   
   what they said, only what the poster wants us to see.   
      
   Without evidence to back it up, nothing is fact, merely theory.   
      
   > Moreover, finding reliable biological markers would be only a first   
   > step toward concluding that mental disorders are essentially   
   > neurobiological. For example, blushing, an obviously physical   
   > reaction, is not biologically caused. Its effective cause is acute   
   > embarrassment. Biological processes make blushing possible but they   
   > do not cause blushing.   
      
   Finding "reliable" biological markers would presumably make a mental illness   
   into a "neurobiological disorder".  Although it is a first step, it's a very   
   telling first step.   
      
   > Even total congruence between biological processes and psychological   
   > events does not show that the former cause the latter.  Psychiatric   
   > research is far from showing any reliable connections between mental   
   > disorders and biological measurements, much less revealing anything   
   > definitive about the nature of mental disorders.   
      
   So says the author.  Also without evidence to support his or her claims, I   
   might add.   
   However, congruence implies pattern, and pattern implies form.  It can   
   successfully be argued as evidence that one causes the other.   
      
   > Aware of this shortcoming, the APA cites migraine headache and   
   > hypertension to illustrate that the lack of biological markers (and   
   > thus of physical diagnostic tests) is not unique to mental and   
   > behavioral disorders. It is true that medicine has yet to find the   
   > biological cause for these two disorders, though it has developed   
   > a very reliable physical measurement for blood pressure.   
      
   The author's point is what exactly?  Migraines are an excellent   
   illustration, as is hypertension.  I'm unaware of how the ability to measure   
   blood pressure invalidates the APA's citations.   
      
   > However, in other branches of medicine such disorders are exceptions.   
   > In psychiatry they are the norm. Psychiatry is the sole medical   
   > specialty that treats only disorders with no biological markers.   
      
   Gee, I wonder why a psychiatric doctor would treat non-biological   
   conditions?   
      
   > Moreover, hypertension is regarded as a symptom of physical disease   
   > because hypertension can degenerate into frank physical disease,   
   > even death. No such parallel exists in psychiatry. For example,   
   > people diagnosed with schizophrenia or major depressive disorder   
   > often are physically healthy: unless their social circumstances and   
   > neglect interfere negatively, they may live long lives and die of   
   > the same physical causes as other people.   
      
   Hypertension can degenerate into mental disorder as well.  The author just   
   goofed, again.   
      
   > The APA confirms in paragraph six that, in the absence of biological   
   > markers, mental disorders are defined by "a variety of concepts":   
   > "distress experienced and reported," "level of disability," "patterns   
   > of behavior," and "statistical deviation from population-based   
   > norms." Precisely. The APA should therefore explain how such   
   > sociological concepts -- which easily define conditions such as   
   > poverty, discrimination, or war -- substantiate the existence of   
   > "neurobiological disorders."   
      
   Paragraph 6....that we haven't seen?  The author, in yet another goof, fails   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)