Reddit Reddit reviews Saving Normal: An Insider's Revolt against Out-of-Control Psychiatric Diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the Medicalization of Ordinary Life

We found 5 Reddit comments about Saving Normal: An Insider's Revolt against Out-of-Control Psychiatric Diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the Medicalization of Ordinary Life. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Health, Fitness & Dieting
Books
Mental Health
Saving Normal: An Insider's Revolt against Out-of-Control Psychiatric Diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the Medicalization of Ordinary Life
William Morrow Company
Check price on Amazon

5 Reddit comments about Saving Normal: An Insider's Revolt against Out-of-Control Psychiatric Diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the Medicalization of Ordinary Life:

u/ohgeeztt · 22 pointsr/CPTSD

The DSM 5 is so bad the architect of the DSM 4 wrote a whole book on how trash it is.

u/secretlightkeeper · 4 pointsr/starterpacks

> gain attention by speaking out against the DSM

I wasn't aware of his speaking out against the DSM, but if he has, then he's in pretty good company

This is a worthwhile read on the subject: https://www.amazon.ca/Saving-Normal-Out-Control-Medicalization/dp/0062229265

u/CrazyPersonPills · 4 pointsr/canada

You should read this book: https://www.amazon.ca/Saving-Normal-Out-Control-Medicalization/dp/0062229265

It's pretty damn enlightening

u/FuckedYouInHalf · 1 pointr/LivestreamFail

Hey man thats great. If you can find me any study that suggests that majority of healthcare practitioners who deal with mental health use DSM i will concede that point. Feel free to respond with a source.

before the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual #5 of the American Psychiatric Association was published in May 2013 the National Institute of Mental Health had decided not to fund any research that uses DSM 5 categories. NIMH finds the DSM system to be invalid for most diagnosis. Most of the criteria are vague and matches most humans in this planet.


And you didnt counter my point with any study suggesting the accuracy and reliability of the DSM at all. You just dismissed all of the studies and articles questioning the validity of it with conjecture. Like I said with DSM V there was next to no field testing done because they had to rush out the release before they went over budget.

Where are these thousands of studies on the DSM? Oh thats right they dont exist and you are just talking out of your ass.

Hell an author of the DSM 4 wrote a book pretty much admitting that the whole thing is bullshit.

https://www.amazon.com/Saving-Normal-Out-Control-Medicalization/dp/0062229265

Here are more studies that rightfully question the reliability of the DSM.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2922387/


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4060802/

https://www.mdrnyu.org/2016-fall-the-dsm-and-its-flawed-use-in-modern-day-psychological-diagnosis/

https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-11-202


http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2013/12/10/medethics-2013-101762

I would love to see these thousands of studies that shine the reliability of the DSM in a positive light.

> Not even comparable, sugar is totally different to a lot of psychological illnesses. To think you're that ignorant to compare sugar something which is grown to psychological illness. Let me say sugar has a direct reason to be lied about, it's a product. For many illnesses in the diagnostic criteria, there's only one form of treatment and it's the person working on their issues. Psychologists (who main use the DSM-V), can't prescribe medicine, so from a motivation standpoint, your whole theory doesn't make sense.

You took my comment completely out of context. And thats irrelevant because the pharmaceutical industry has literally invented diseases (ironically most of which are in the DSM) to sell drugs. The whole fucking pharmaceutical company is selling drugs as products just like sugar. you just arent acknowledging that.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1122833/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1369125/

u/Chillyw · -1 pointsr/psychology

But if my performance is low and I would like it higher does it have to be a medical condition? Couldn't it be due to a lack of skill, practice, or natural talent? 50% of people perform below average and the vast majority of them want to be in the top percentile. I guess what I'm saying is this: it doesn't make sense to turn suboptimal performance into a medical disorder. This is an opinion shared by some former APA members (such as the chair of the DSM4 taskforce): http://www.amazon.ca/Saving-Normal-Out-Control-Medicalization/dp/0062229265