IN MY CONSTANT NEED
JULY 8, 2011. In my constant pressing need to examine false advertising and point the finger at high-IQ androids, and also to demonstrate that my attacks against the foundation of psychiatry are on the money, I recommend that:
the next time you see a shrink—whether in an office or at a cocktail party or an ATM or next to a dumpster or at a rocket launch or in a sushi joint or in the Sahara Desert, you ask him what unambiguous diagnostic tests exist to prove that the 297 listed official mental disorders are real.
Such tests would have to involve drawing blood or scanning the brain. They wouldn’t involve committee discussions in conference rooms among said high-IQ androids hashing over so-called reports or rumors or gossip.
See what happens. Take a chance.
And if the shrink does try to pawn off some nonsense about the existence of actual tests, call for the citations from published studies.
Give him your email address so he can send the cites your way.
Odds are you’ll never hear from him again, which is not a bad thing.
In the presence of a psychiatrist or a pediatrician, narrowing your focus, you could work the same gambit vis-a-vis autism. What is the unambiguous physical diagnostic test which defines and confirms a case? (Note: neurological damage is not the same thing as autism.)
I like to hammer on this issue (See my BIGGEST BULSHITTER IN AMERICA? post) because it wakes some people up. They believe it’s impossible that a whole profession could be lying through its teeth, until they look below the surface.
Analogy: A rocket is about to be launched into space with five astronauts on board. Pressed for a statement, the head of NASA says, “Well, we built this ship from the parts supplied by two hundred companies. We don’t actually know the names of the companies, and we’ve lost the specs for the parts, so we don’t know how well they were machined. We assembled the ship by forcing pieces together that didn’t fit.”
Beware: don’t fall for the “we’re doing the best we can” argument from shrinkoid types. You may counter with, “In that case, put a label on every bottle of drugs sold to treat these so-called disorders. WE’RE NOT POSITIVE THE THING-A-DOODLE FOR WHICH THIS DRUG IS THE REMEDY IS REAL.”
I’m all for honesty in advertising.
THIS PIECE OF CRAP MAY FALL APART IN TWO WEEKS IN YOUR KIDS HANDS.
WHILE DRIVING YOUR NEW CAR OUT OF THE LOT, SOMETHING MAY GO WRONG. RETURN TO POINT OF ORIGIN.
HEY, WE DIDN’T INTEND IT TO LAST FOREVER.
SO TRY TO SUE US. YOU CAN’T. THERE IS LAW AGAINST SUING A VACCINE MANUFACTURER FOR DAMAGE DONE TO YOUR CHILD. HA-HA.
And here’s a nice one. On July 3, 2000, Michael Connett, of the Fluoride Action Network, interviewed Dr. William J Hirzy, senior VP of EPA’s Headquarters Union, about the safety of fluorides. Hirzy asserted that tests on rodents fed fluorides turned up enough cancers to cause alarm. In fact, he stated, if the government hadn’t stepped in and downgraded the test findings (arbitrarily), sodium fluoride would have had to be labeled a carcinogen, in which case, that would have been the end of fluorides in drinking water. This, from an EPA chemist, blowing a very loud whistle.
JON RAPPOPORT