NYT: Arguments Among the Brain Experts (fun to watch)
Mort Zuckerman
lPick...@cdc.gov, Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu,
gary_w...@nymc.edu, scientifi...@ostp.gov,
pkru...@princeton.edu, Stanle...@fiu.edu,
emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu, saint....@sbcglobal.net
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov,
richar...@yale.edu, harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu,
inq...@aldf.com, ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: NYT: Arguments Among the Brain Experts (fun to watch)
Date: Jun 12, 2010 10:49 AM
ARTICLE BELOW
=========================
1) THE ETHICAL:
The first error in the argument
is the presumption that DSM diagnoses
are incurable diseases, unlike all
the rest of diseases.
No human has the right to make such
a future prediction about another human;
no one has the right to state that
another human will not give up their
bad ways. We all see this in ourselves
and in other people all the time. None of
us are who we were when we were 20.
The second error is that they're asking
what are the degrees and range of evil
behaviors - or the degree of diabolical
possession. Even an addiction like to alcohol
or drugs is a degree of diabolical possession.
"One cedes one's control, bit by bit..."
with each self-satisfying, self-aggrandizing
act.
Lies or verbal deceptions (like telling
half-truths) are the signs to look out for,
and so as regards who is right and who is
wrong (below) - The Question: Does this
Psychopath Check List have predictive value
and did the author of the checklist even infer
that?; the defensiveness of the authors of the
critique of it are a clue. The defensiveness
being a sign of guilt.
Because they're all this psychiatric type,
they'll never admit they're wrong, which
is the wrongest of the all the world's
wrong-doing.
They "get" (label for life) children with
their diabolical self-aggrandizement. They
begin ruining the childrens brains with (Dx)
lies and drugs at a very young age. DCF are
their drug-enforcement assistants.
I think this is report is decent insight into
their brainscramble because it reminds of the
infamous Park Dietz, who made up testimony
in his little pin head about Andrea Yates
(and others), yet he was never charged
with "psychotic" - despite Dietz behavior
being the marker of it:
http://www.actionlyme.org/andersonpenisbiter.htm
Let's concede that there *ARE* paranormal
phenomena:
Qi Powers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mphZWXxyNfs&feature=related
TAPS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciHf4WXKY4E
A Demon Summoned (Kabbalah):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zux1BYC0U6U&feature=related
Pictures of what happened at Fatima:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uT6tdzXZsM
Zietun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKHaNMTRF1o&feature=related
It makes me wonder how anyone who
doesn't acknowledge evil would
be an expert on evil. One of the
TV channels claims to showcase
criminal profiling ("Criminal Minds")
but if you watch enough of it, you
see them *approach* the topic (of evil
and the paranormal), but then back off.
This ^^^ is the most fascinating aspect of
that television show.
2) THE SCIENTIFIC:
They also have a young man on the show
(Criminal Minds) who they purport to be a
genius with PhD degrees in Physics and Chemistry.
I *guarantee* that such a person would not
be involved in this kind of nonsense after
having been exposed to the rigors of Scientific
Validity. Such a person would be looking for
the fulcrum or the grand theory of How Stuff
Works, because their minds are meant to
frame it into a system - and not rely on
the former proposals of the failed "humanist"
theorists of the past - the Modernist,
"Enlightened" Era. They've been 60 years
at it.... Today we find the MS version
of Lyme is caused by LYMErix and not
"Antibiomania."
Today we find that psychiatrists who said
"There will be no more spirochete-like discoveries"
could not have been wronger. The "spirochete-like
discoveries" were the keys to nearly every, if
not *every,* major disease.
The "spirochete-like discoveries" were even the
keys to the kinds of mental illnesses that psychiatrists
even admitted all along were real illnesses: Alzheimer's
and the like.
Now the entire Medical World - BigPharma and
the FDA - are hysterical about it:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703627704575298783153884208.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories
"We don't know what we're doing,
but we *have* to stop screwing up
like this!!"
Meanwhile, psychiatry dawdles over the
false accusations they make against each
other (below).
http://www.actionlyme.org/DSM_VI.htm
"Paranoid types of disorders ***have been reported more often among
psychiatrists, followed by obsessional and borderline types of
disorders,*** compared with general physicians."
Meanwhile *we* know they're dangerous to
each other (and us), and *THEY* know they're
dangerous to each other (and us)... but nobody
attempts to parse that phenomenon!!
It's scarier than the damned psychopaths. It's
also remarkably close to the true nature of evil.
Why don't they (the APA or the Medical Boards)
make the psychopath psychiatrists and the ones
with their other mental disorders (all a degree of
possession) wear Dx-bands on their arms or labels?
They label their victims but they don't allow us to
know who among them is *known* to be an evil nut!
The truth about these brainscramblologists
and labeling them, truly, with some sort of
a marker for what Degree of EVIL they are, would
level the playing field. And then, well, again,
they'd have to go back to pushing the carts at
Walmart with the "judges":
http://www.actionlyme.org/andersonpenisbiter.htm
and the littler hoes who are their brain-damage
enforcers:
http://www.actionlyme.org/BUNNEY_YALE_BRAIN_DAMAGE.htm
Here we see them bicker among themselves
for 3 years because the authors of the
critique say what the author of the
Checklist says he never intended to say:
"Psychiatric BS has no predictive value."
Oh.
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
http://www.relapsingfever.org
==================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/health/12psych.html?hpw
Academic Battle Delays Publication by 3 Years
By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: June 11, 2010
*
E-Mail
* Send To Phone
* Print
*
Reprints
Academic disputes usually flare out in the safety of obscure journals,
raising no more than a few tempers, if not voices. But a paper
published this week by the American Psychological Association has
managed to raise questions of censorship, academic fraud, fair play
and criminal sentencing — and all them well before the report ever
became public.
The paper is a critique of a rating scale that is widely used in
criminal courts to determine whether a person is a psychopath and
likely to commit acts of violence. It was accepted for publication in
a psychological journal in 2007, but the inventor of the rating scale
saw a draft and threatened a lawsuit if it was published, setting in
motion a stultifying series of reviews, revisions and legal
correspondence.
“This has been a really, really troubling process from the beginning,”
said Scott O. Lilienfeld, a psychologist at Emory University and a
collaborator with one of the paper’s authors. “It has people
wondering, ‘Do I have to worry every time I publish a paper that
criticizes someone that I’ll get slapped with a lawsuit?’ ” The delay
in publication, he said, “sets a very dangerous precedent” and censors
scientific discourse.
The inventor of the clinical test, Robert D. Hare, an emeritus
professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia, sees a
different principle at stake.
“The main issue here is that these authors misrepresented my views by
distorting things I said,” he said in a telephone interview. “I have
been doing this work for 40 years and never seen anything like it.”
For its part, the psychological association maintained in a statement
that it had never refused to publish a paper because of a threatened
lawsuit but that it had “a responsibility to all parties to evaluate a
legal claim.” The paper’s authors — Jennifer L. Skeem of the
University of California, Irvine, and David J. Cooke of Glasgow
Caledonian University in Scotland — also had lawyers, and the Scottish
university did an extensive review of its own, people familiar with
the process said.
“All I can tell you is that delays in the editorial process come from
multiple sources,” said Gary VandenBos, the psychological
association’s publisher.
The paper — “Is Criminal Behavior a Central Component of Psychopathy?”
— was circulated widely among forensic psychologists well before
publication. Experts say the scientific issue it raises is an
important one.
Dr. Hare’s clinical scale, called the Psychopathy Checklist, Revised,
is one of the few, if not the only, psychological measures in forensic
science with any scientific backing. Dr. Hare receives royalties when
the checklist is used; he called the income it generated “modest”
compared with providing paid expert testimony — which he said he does
not do.
Dr. Skeem and Dr. Cooke warned in their paper that the checklist was
increasingly being mistaken for a complete definition of psychopathy —
a broader personality construct that includes deceitfulness,
impulsivity and recklessness, though not always aggression or illegal
acts. The authors contended that Dr. Hare’s checklist warps that
concept by making criminal behavior a more central component than it
really is.
Dr. Hare maintains that he has stressed “problematic, not antisocial
or criminal, behavior” and that his comments were distorted.
Dr. Skeem said she was “just worn out” by the prolonged dispute.
“When we first wrote the paper,” she said, “we saw it simply as a call
to the field to recognize we were going down a path where we were
equating an abstract concept with a checklist, and it was preventing
us from looking at the concept more closely.”
The report appears in the June issue of the journal Psychological
Assessment — that is, along with a rebuttal by Dr. Hare, and a return
response from Dr. Skeem and Dr. Cooke.
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci