Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop

The DSM manual
As a relative newcomer to Wikipedia who is slowly learning how to understand the policies, my opinions in this talk page should be considered tentative. However, if I now understand policies correctly, a truly NPOV article may include dissenting views if they come from reliable sources.

I have iterated elsewhere about some reliable sources and do not want to repeat once more those arguments here (FDA; European Medicines Agency; Commission of European Communities; World Health Organization studies on neuroleptics; dissenting opinion from notable psychiatrists such as a former psychiatrist in the National Institute of Mental Health or the editor of the American Journal of Psychiatry, today’s most influential psychiatric journal. My objections to the Biological psychiatry article have already been explained in my user page User talk:Cesar Tort/discussion.

In the recent Workshop dispute a most important fact has not been brought to our full attention yet. This fact refers to the latest edition of the official mainstream psychiatric manual, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM-IV-TR, published by the American Psychiatric Association. Nowhere in the DSM it is claimed that the major mental disorders are biomedical entities (much less the more controversial child DSM behaviors such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and many others). The claim that the disorders are biomedical is not a DSM claim. It is the claim of corporations: a multi-billon dollar pharmaceutical industry.

Anyone knowledgeable of the laws that govern a market-driven society can grasp the simple fact that biopsychiatric publicity presented as science in our societies is similar to the biopsychiatric publicity in the former Soviet Union, where for political reasons an enormous quantity of the citizens were labeled schizophrenics and “treated” with neuroleptics (called “neurotoxins” by notable psychiatrist Peter Breggin). Something similar is happening today in the West: millions of sane children and rebellious adolescents are being “treated” with methylphenidate.

The present Biological Psychiatry article seems to represent the interests of corporations rather than the interests of science, for example, what is clearly stated in the DSM manual: that the biomedical etiology of the major DSM conditions is unknown.

More to the point, nowhere in the DSM psychiatric drugs are recommended for the DSM conditions (in sharp contrast to the pro-drugs pronunciations in the Biological Psychiatry article as it stands today). —Cesar Tort 12:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The primary goal of the DSM is to create diagnostic criteria for various mental disorders for the purposes of standardization. Treatment recommendations are outside of the scope of the DSM.  Just because psychiatric drugs are not mentioned in the DSM doesn't automatically mean that bio. pscyh. is inherently flawed.  Andrew73 21:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

But it means something. Neuroleptics are cited in DSM indeed —only to identify the nervous diseases that neuroleptics cause! (something totally missing in the Biological Psychiatry pov article). BTW, the Wikipedia Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders article contains about a third of criticism, starting form here. Why shouldn’t the Biological Psychiatry article contain a quarter of such criticism? —Cesar Tort 00:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To put it more simply, speaking strictly in terms of diagnostics, biological psychiatry is an oxymoron. In terms of 'treatment', biopsychiatry is an invariably neurotoxic art, at best, that verges on pseudoscience.  The fact is, the mere mention of Peter Breggin disappeared completely from the article, as did any real semblance of a critique of the subjective and utterly unscientific state of current psychiatric diagnostics, and so did all reference to the historical reality of how industrial dye derivatives, used primarily to sedate and control rather than heal, became the first blockbuster revenue generators for the nascent psychiatric drug market.  These striking deletions alone justified the pov tag.


 * Unfortunately, collegial discussion of dissent is all too often discouraged on medical article talk pages, via vehement rhetoric from the Wiki's medical lobby. Despite that lobby's disciplined capacity for drowning out discussion of dissenting or contrarian views, Cesar has eloquently presented hard and compelling evidence regarding the lack of scientific evidence supporting the use of chemical interventions (which should be expected of a profession that prescribes drugs at the rate of about a trillion dollars annually, with neuroleptics the most lucrative) while he has built an irrefutable case for why the article should be tagged.


 * Since wordsmithing on such contentious articles, rather than rational analysis, often plays a greater role in determining that which constitutes an npov 'consensus', and because of the frequent lack of collegial demeanor exhibited by the Wiki's medical lobby towards dissent (which appears to be culturally ingrained), and while Cesar continued to articulately present his case, further intervention on the talk page was contraindicated.  Intervening again would have involved risking the probability that vehement off topic condemnation would ensue from the Wiki's medical lobby.  Sadly, Joema apparently did not cool down.  The same thing happened last All Souls Day, when Jfd launched an RfC over a content dispute concerning links to the noble whistleblowing of Whale.to.  Attempts to absolve Jfd of responsibility for such behavior, as perhaps resulting from overexposure to the medical establishment's authoritarian culture, were dismissed out of hand by Jfd, purportedly as a 'personal attack'.  In many cases, American English utilizes pronouns in a manner quite different than on the other side of the Atlantic, but tolerance for such nuances does not seem to be Jfd's strong suit.  Instead, ever since then, Jfd has rarely seemed to avoid conflict, while perhaps inadvertantly making the spectre of 'discussion' ever more onerous.  Going to bat on behalf of Midgley, whose editing has been far less commendable than Cesar's, is just asking to raise more suspicions about what sort of traumas are experienced by disciples of the medical establishment during their hazing rituals.


 * Joema's off the wall threat of launching an RfAr killed off any hope for collegial discussion in the near term, and actually launching the case, despite the fact that the tag was merited, only further poisoned the well. The actions are emblematic of the authoritarian acculturation that has sustained the medical industry's hegemony for centuries.  However, with all due respect to Fred Bauder, article tagging does not involve actual text edits, so restoring a tag denoting highly suspect article content does not really fit the diagnosis of 'aggressive edit warring'.  Especially in view of the repeated and inexcusable removal of a valid tag, the only real aggression at issue here is the pursuit of quite unwarranted sanctions.  Ombudsman 19:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Earth to Ombudsman... this rant is objectionable on several bases. Producing it here suggests a lack of .. well, call it willingness to engage in colleagial activities if you like ... and of situational awareness.  The medical establishment has authority, something commonly used in producing reference books, but I think Ombudsman mistakes responsibility for authoritarianism, if indeed it is anything more than one of a succession of buzzwords larding an almost disconnected narrative.  I suspect that, as many articles as Ombudsman starts, there is a net loss of work to WP from the effort of correcting them. Midgley 22:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For some reason or other, Ombudsman seeks out opportunities to engage in angry rants and diatribes in a misdirected effort to gain influence by slandering those who disagree with him (most of the rational, English speaking world, it seems) in an incoherent blizzard of adjectives. He insistently declares that he knows that those who disagree with him have been "brainwashed" and inculcated by an evil oppressor into the apparantly pernicious practice of using a bit of common sense coupled with some education in formulating opinions.  I take this to indicate that Ombudsman is secretly begging for help in his efforts to escape the perverse programming of some pseudoscientific cult or that Ombudsman is overtly seeking to become the master of an oppressive and punitive cult.  I mean, really, he does seem to do a lot of projecting and what he is projecting is a lust for control beyond reason.


 * Yeah, this comment of mine may appear to be a bit aggressive but I'm just trying to keep true to the spirit of Ombudsman's spittle strewn inanities. It's tough keeping up this sort of hateful absurditiy, though.  He clearly has a lot more tolerance for BS than I could ever manage.  Ande B 00:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Neurologist Fred Baughman
Neurologist Fred Baughman’s (FB) interview excerpts about the 2006 book DAGGERS OF THE MIND: PSYCHIATRY AND THE MYTH OF MENTAL DISEASE by Gordon Warmé, M.D.:

FB: More and more are awakening to the totality of the fraud and oxymoron that is “biological” psychiatry. Dr. Warme, a psychiatrist who has not gone along, not jettisoned the science that made him, first, a physician, is to be applauded—and read. A total awakening, however, requires that “biological” psychiatry be seen, not as misguided, poor, science, but a complete, knowing, willful fraud which has just as completely, knowingly, willfully, made patients out of normals (including infants, toddlers, children and declining elders) by the millions and then poisoned them, adding to the “disease” lie, coercion where necessary, including conscription of government and the courts to achieve this. What’s more this crime is very much in full swing today and it must be spoken of as such. Charges, indictments and sentences must be part of any full awakening where it concerns psychiatric “diseases” and their “treatment” especially, their “involuntary” treatment for the “good” of the patient [...].

FB: In the 50’s psych drugs were beginning to be synthesized, marketed, it was here that psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry married and gave birth to the disease/chemical imbalance lie—a market strategy, not science at all and they know it but cling to it for the millions it allows them to make into “patients” to drug [...].

FB: What they have done is to assassinate the human character, claiming all emotional and behavioral problems are due to diseases—genetic and biochemical when not an iota of such proof has been demonstrated since the fraud began in the 50’s. It is all based on the big lie—the incessant repetition with others who profit from this making patients of normals—neurology, pediatrics, family physicians joining in. Every bit of it about profit motive, there is no science at all [...].

FB: Yes, psychiatrists are physicians, they have a background in science and specifically in what is normal, what is abnormal (disease/pathology) and how to tell the difference. When they embrace the pseudoscience of “biological” psychiatry, a belief system, they jettison all of the science they ever knew and are legally responsible [...].

Other summary reviews of Dr. Gordon Warmé’s DAGGERS OF THE MIND: PSYCHIATRY AND THE MYTH OF MENTAL DISEASE can be seen here. —Cesar Tort 17:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you trying to do here, Cesar? Show that you are capable of original research or do you just want to post opinion and make appeals to authority?  OR is not appropriate for WP and appeals to authority are not legitimate or convincing as arguments. You're sounding like a broken record (though I admit anyone born after the era of vinyl may not grasp the analogy). Ande B. 17:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Neurologist Baughman’s comments on biopsych are not OR (nor the psychiatrist’s 2006 book). Baughman has been publishing and debunking the field for many years. —Cesar Tort 18:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You do understand that I was saying it was you, not Baughman, that was providing original research for our perusal? And I would expect you to understand that by doing so you are appealing to authority, which is not a legitimate form of argument.  Your further description of Baughman makes it sound as if he is an activist or advocate who meets with your approval.  These quotes make you appear to be more biased and POV than ever.  Ande B. 18:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Rather that appealing to authority I was trying to show that there are many professionals in the mental health field who repudiate biopsych for the very reasons I posted my first tag in article. —Cesar Tort 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Cesar, it doesn't matter how many people you quote, it does not remove your position from the small minority. I don't know why you continue to make these quotes.  We are all aware of a divergence of opinion.  That does not mean that the article, as written, misrepresents the nature of biopsychiatry or that there is inadequate coverage of minority views.  Minority critcs are well represented, I would suggest, even over-represented in the current article.  Ande B. 23:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat here what I’ve just posted elsewhere: Have you re-read my “Third Content Assertion”? . There’s no substantial criticism in biopsych article; only cosmetic criticism. Bauder’s suggestion (25% for real criticism) doesn’t contradict WP policy. Your suggestion does. The strongest of my assertions, Raul’s razor, vigorously attest for that. —Cesar Tort 23:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My suggestion cannot violate any policy since it is not, in fact, a policy suggestion. Set asides do violate standard policy. Ande B. 00:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)