Posted by SLS on July 2, 2012, at 6:58:09
In reply to Re: Why There Has Been an Explosion in Bipolar Diags?, posted by huxley on July 2, 2012, at 6:08:14
> > You and this article are about 12 years too late.
> >
> > If anything, the diagnosis of BP is now on the decline and seeking a level more representative of the actual occurrence of the disorder.
> >
> > I don't usually bother with this type of stuff anymore when it is posted. I find it to be nothing more than propaganda to fit an agenda, which, of course, is an irony. One thing though, it is NOT the entire field of psychiatry that uses the fractional naming schema for categorizing bipolar disorder subtypes. It is the naming system of one doctor only - Hagop Akiskal (a devotee of Kraeplin*). His nomenclature has not been embraced by psychiatry in general, despite the fact that much of his work has been very important. The article you cited portrays as fact that Akiskal's naming system is already in general use. This is false. I find the rest of the article to be equally representative of the truth.
> >
> > * Emil Kraeplin (1856 - 1926) is the person who first described "manic depression" and differentiated it from schizophrenia. So, indeed, Akiskal was aware of the phenomenological advantages of the concept of "manic depression" over "bipolar disorder" when he attempted to produce an all-inclusive diagonistic scheme. I am not a big fan of the fractions, though.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott, the white knight of big pharma lobby groups.I can draw conclusions only from the information I am presented with. However, I must ultimately judge the sources. I just don't see conspiracy as I turn 360° all around me. That would be naive at best, and cynical at worst. Either way, I believe it is not representative of reality.
> You really are a little naive for someone who seems quite intelligent.Perhaps you are naive to my lack thereof. Actually, I can pretty much guarantee it. You really ought not to define people with having such little information about them.
> I guess you have to keep believing what you believe
I refine my beliefs moment by moment. I am a work in progress, as is most of the rest of the world.
> its what you are.
I am not what I was before I wrote this post, so how can you pin stasis on me when my being is dynamic?
Huxley, I am disappointed that you should reduce your arguments to some sort of ad hominem name-calling.
- Scott
Some see things as they are and ask why.
I dream of things that never were and ask why not.- George Bernard Shaw
poster:SLS
thread:1020594
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120630/msgs/1020671.html