Promising but never delivering on scientific research
For 52 years, psychiatrists have promised, with each new edition of the DSM, scientific research backing up their claims for all their newly invented "mental illnesses" listed in the DSM.
In 1952, the American Psychiatric Association published the first edition of the DSM which had about 60 different mental disorders. In 1968 they published the DSM II. The first two editions of the DSM categorized mental illness into psychosis and neurosis -- "psychosis" being considered the more severe break with reality, and "neurosis" being defined as a distortion of reality.
In 1980, the DSM III came out, having adopted a supposed "medical model" (chemical imbalance theory) for mental illness and adding more categories. However, no clear definition of the cause of these many different "mental illnesses" were provided or defined. In fact the DSM III had this to say:
"For most of the DSM-III disorders . . . the etiology [the cause or origin of a disease] is unknown. A variety of theories have been advanced, buttressed [supported] by evidence not always convincing to explain how these disorders come about."
The APA admits it has no idea of what causes these supposed "mental illness" while at the same time it feels completely confident in its ability to diagnose and "treat" these same "illnesses". If you're starting to think this sounds a bit weird, it is.
Revising and re-revising the DSM
In 1989 the APA's propaganda machine boasted that the new revised DSM would be "improved" over the unscientific DSM III. It would have a solid empirical base and would be called the DSM III-R.
Author Paula Caplan's 7th chapter of "They Say You Are Crazy" says it well:
"My observations of the DSM process have taught me that far too little science goes into producing the handbook. Far more than being based on careful research, the handbook's contents are determined by the powerful DSM leaders' gatekeeping-unscientific decisions about which diagnoses will be allowed through and which will be kept out of the handbook. To the untutored eye, and even to many mental health personnel, the DSM appears grounded in science, although many features that give this impression turn out on inspection to provide only a veneer of scientific sheen rather than genuine, carefully supported research."
Dr. Rosenhan, professor of psychology Stanford University, admits that psychiatrists know the DSM diagnosis are not reliable:
"The facts of the matter are that we have known for a long time that diagnoses are often not useful or reliable, but we have nevertheless continued to use them. We now know that we cannot distinguish insanity from sanity."
David Rosenhan, professor of psychology Stanford University, in "On Being Sane in Insane Places," Science 179 (1973): 250-258
Still no medical proof these "illnesses" exist
It is noteworthy that after 52 years of publishing the DSM, they still cannot show one single scientific marker for any of their so called "mental diseases." For example, if it is genetic, where is the gene? Not one scientific paper has unequivocally identified a gene responsible for any mental illness. Similar non-results have been the case with other theories about the source or cause of the "mental illnesses" they invented.
The lead psychiatrist over the formulating of the DSM V openly admits that there is little or inadequate "scientific research" done to back up the diagnostic claims in the DSM.
"A primary purpose of this group then, was to determine why progress has been so limited and to offer strategic insights that may lead to a more etiologically-based diagnostic system. The group ultimately concluded that given the current state of technological limitations, the field is years, and possibly decades, away from having a fully explicated etiology- and pathophysiology-based classification system for psychiatry."
Michael B. First, M.D. A Research Agenda for DSM-V: Summary of the DSM-V Preplanning White Papers. Published in May 2002.
And more of the same in the proposed DSM V
The APA is planning for the next revision of the DSM, the DSM V, which, is to be published in 2011. They have called for scientific papers on the etiology of or basis for the DSM diagnostic categories or labels. The long lead time to publication is so the research can be done. This public call for papers is an admission that they have no proof and they need scientific research on the source and cause of the so called various "mental Illnesses" in the DSM.
And where did the labels come from in the first place? Psychiatrist, Peter Breggin points out the ludicrous nature of the selection process for the "mental diseases" in his book, "Toxic Psychiatry".
"Only in psychiatry is the existence of physical disease determined by APA presidential proclamations, by committee decisions, and even, by a vote of the members of APA, not to mention the courts."
Peter Breggin, psychiatrist