In my opinion Pathologising unhappiness , the DSM the book of fraud labels and conditions voted into existence and not one part based on true medical science.

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

By Sam de Brito   August 29, 2013


The Book of Woe, The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry by Gary Greenberg


“Greenberg is certainly not the first to call attention to the social nature of disease, either in terms of origins or medical interpretations. But he may be among the first to get The DSM’s former editor, Allen Frances, on the record as saying, ‘there is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit’.”

Last month I wrote about the subject of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and the philosophy of the  Stoics, both of which may be incompletely summed up by the saying “nothing  is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so”.

Ever keen to challenge my own assumptions, I came across a fascinating  article that argued against this mode of thinking, an interview  by Guernica magazine’s Katherine Rowland with psychotherapist Gary Greenberg.

Greenberg, who is also a contributor to The New Yorker, is the author of 2010’s Manufacturing Depression and this  year’s The Book of Woe, The DSM and the Unmaking of  Psychiatry.


The DSM, of course, is The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of  Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association, described by  Greenberg as being as important to shrinks “as the Constitution is to US  government or the Bible is to Christians”.


Writes Rowland: “According to Greenberg … The DSM is not  a medically or scientifically valid text, but rather a ‘strange chimerical  document’ whose definitions of pathology change with shifting social values – as  was evidenced by homosexuality’s overlong tenure on its pages.

“Greenberg is certainly not the first to call attention to the social nature  of disease, either in terms of origins or medical interpretations. But he may be  among the first to get The DSM‘s former editor, Allen Frances, on the  record as saying, ‘there is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s  bullshit’.”

That’s a pretty startling admission from a man who oversaw “the Bible” of  psychiatry, but Greenberg argues this characterisation is especially  pertinent when referencing depression and anxiety, which affects three million  Australians, according to Beyond  Blue.

“People come to think of their unhappiness as a disease, rather than as a  result of the material conditions of their world,” says Greenberg who sees much  depression as a normal, if not healthy, response to living in an insane  world.

Greenberg says The DSM is both “unpopular” and “held in  universal contempt” by mental health professionals, but this doesn’t mean it’s  not vastly influential in the way mental disorders are diagnosed,  saying “you can have the importance and the authority without the  faith”.

He criticises the “fictive placeholders” in The DSM that attempt to describe different types of human suffering,  yet also admits they fulfil a very human yearning to name things.

“We’re hungry for myth, and as impoverished and deracinated and downright  uninteresting a mythology as it is, The DSM is a mythology,” Greenberg  says.

“It provides a framework for understanding mental suffering. Myth is a kind  of knowledge that helps people negotiate the world, and the particular kind of  myth-making that The DSM is engaged with is one of the oldest forms of  myth-making in western civilisation, which is naming things.

“Go back to Genesis: God tells Adam to name the plants and the animals. This  is a very primordial way of attempting to know the world, to name and to  distinguish among the phenomena with which we’re presented. What that really  means is that when you name something you are in some way claiming to know it,”  Greenberg says.

The problem with naming such a “widespread and amorphous” condition as  depression a “mental disorder” is that once someone has been “diagnosed”, it  often becomes their identity and takes on a life of its own, even when  an individual is reacting quite naturally to stress, financial problems, loss of  a loved one, or just simple confusion about a complex world.

“There is no way to draw the line between mental health and mental illness,  and to do so has always been more about ass-covering than anything else,”  Greenberg says.

“If you could come up with that definition then you could have valid mental  illness. You would be able to say this set of symptoms is a disease because it  meets the criteria for the disease.”

Of course, once you have a disease or “disorder”, then drug companies  and doctors – specifically psychiatrists and psychologists – can  charge you to “cure” it or at least pretend they know what’s going on, when  often they do not.

“It’s not that complicated, just be honest with people. Do the same thing  that any doctor does when you go to them with migraine or lower back pain. Say,  ‘I don’t know what’s going on, but here’s what helps’.

“Lower back pain: rest, ice, the occasional narcotic. With the case of  migraine, same deal: find out what triggers them. But there’s no claim there  that we know what’s going on.”

“Psychiatry doesn’t have any slam dunks,” says Greenberg, opening up the  question whether it’s the expectations of doctors, patients or both that  insists complex mental issues can be neatly summed up by a visit or 10  visits to a shrink.

That said, Greenberg concedes most mental health professionals and drug  researchers are coming from a good place.

“I’ve yet to meet one who wants to manipulate people’s consciousness, who’s  really rubbing their hands in glee when people get sick. They’re basically as  humane as the next guy. So what’s really going on for me is ideology at  work.

“Some of it has to do with the idea that unhappiness is a disease. But the  ideology that’s really at stake in all of this is how all of our suffering can  be understood as being caused by something biological.

“That belief has to do with scientific mastery and the wish for immortality  and the desire not to suffer, that our psychology has secrets to yield and when  they yield they’re going to be yielded to doctors.”

Another part of the ideological matrix is the widely-held Western assumption  that to be a good citizen, a success, someone worthy of emulation, you need to  be “confident, resilient, happy, optimistic”.

By positioning this set of character traits as the ideal, we’ve cast the  millions of people who don’t fit that mindset into the turbulence of not  belonging, not fitting in, perhaps being abnormal.

Says Greenberg: “There have been studies using a different approach to  measuring what anti-depressants do, that instead of looking at mood have looked  at personality.

“And they come up with … that their main effect is personality – not  chemistry – and the reason that they have a positive effect when they do is that  people like themselves better. And why do people like themselves better?

“Well because the things that it does to personality are much more in keeping  with our expectations of what you’re supposed to be: confident, resilient,  happy, optimistic.”

Greenberg says the ideological re-orientation extends to CBT:  “Cognitive behavioural therapy sees anything other than resilience and optimism  as pathology.

“The idea behind it is that changing how you think about something, changes  the nature of the thing. Nothing is good or bad, but thinking makes it so. I  know that it wasn’t an American who said that, but that idea is very consistent  with the whole enterprise,” Greenberg says.

It’s a very interesting article and I strongly encourage you to read the  whole thing.

It left me asking myself if it’s actually become socially unacceptable to be  unhappy and whether the almost universally accepted mantra of “talk to someone”,  “get some help” isn’t just part of this new delusional denial of human  suffering?



1. Studies in numerous countries reveal that between 10% and 25% of psychiatrists and psychologists admit to sexually abusing their patients.

2. Germany reported that 50% of registered psychologists and psychotherapists are unacceptable as practitioners because they have more problems than their patients.

3. The so-called ethics system used by psychiatrists has been universally attacked as soft and inadequate.

4. A 1997 Canadian study of psychiatrists revealed that 10% admitted to sexually abusing theirs patients; 80% of those are repeat offenders.

The real truth about the money paid to Cathal Grant by the drug Companies


Notice Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas is paid by Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, Cephalon, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer to push their drug in our opinion it is clear what Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas is doing, prescribing drug if you need them or not.


Doctors Paid Big By Drug Companies?

One patient statement about Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas:

“We found out that he gets paid to speak for almost every drug company out there, even if the drugs are competitors. He is out to make the money and it is apparent the way patients are herded through the practice with no regard for the patient’s needs. Beware if he tries to prescribe you a “new” drug on the market, it probably means they are paying him now. “


In our experience Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas, does not tell you one big fact that you the patient has and that is Informed Consent, Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas, does not discuss this or wants you to know about this, in our experience so he can get you hooked on psychotropic medications so you can do nothing but feed you greed for money, and you do not care at all what you do to the patient’s life.

This video proves what we are saying in our opinion about Cathal Grant’s medical practice, it also shows how Cathal Grant does not want you to have informed consent in your visit with him, and he does not tell you the truth, as the video below shows:





Did you like this? Share it:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *