Before I go any further, I just want to state for the record that I think Scientology is a joke. There is an urban legend that Scientology is the result fo a dare between Heinlein and Hubbard; even if it isn’t true it is more plausible than anything in Dianetics. So, Tom Cruise joke in the title aside…
I find it incredible that the over half of the doctors who contribute to the DSM are in the pocket of drug companies. This pretty much destroys the credibility of the DSM, and of any medication therapy recommended within its paid for pages. I found this shocking:
“Cosgrove said she began her research after discovering that five of six panel members studying whether certain premenstrual problems were a psychiatric disorder had ties to Eli Lilly & Co., which was seeking to market Prozac to treat that very problem.”
When you have a problem with your car, do you take it to the mechanic or do you take your problem to a salesman at a car dealership. Who do you think is going to give you a more honest answer? Do you really think the salesman can be objective and free of interest conflicts? Salesmen are not mechanics, governments should not write history books, and corporate shills should not write diagnostic manuals. One doesn’t have to know the history of psychology to see that the writers of the DSM are not beyond reproach or above suspicion. I’m not saying that every psychologist/psychiatrist is corrupt; but when doctors rely on the DSM to keep up to date with recent advances and that information is tainted their treatments will be tainted as well.
“I am not surprised that the key people who participate have these kinds of relationships,” Steven Sharfstein said. “They are the major researchers in the field and are very much on the cutting edge and will have some kind of relationship — but there should be full disclosure.”
While the conflict of interest may not always be directly financial, Steven Sharfstein inadvertently raises the point of another type of interest conflict. If a researcher has dedicated years of work to a specific drug or treatment regime can you be absolutely sure they will be objective when on a panel deciding whether to promote that treatment in the industry bible? It’s not like researchers ever have egos, or get political about promoting their own solution to a problem…
The process of defining such disorders is far from scientific, Cosgrove added: “You would be dismayed at how political the process can be.”
Ah, yes… Let’s trust the future of our brain chemistry to ego tainted researchers who will use politics to promote a treatment. Street drugs are worse than this how?