[bdeaner]

113 posts and we finally got you to own up to your motivations. It has been clear since post 1. Get some help with it, you'll be more effective in your work.

You said it, not me. It's sadly too often the case. And again you can't hold to a valid line of argument without resorting to an ad hominem attack. It's sad, really. Kind of pathetic.

[gusopol3]

But of course, you'd find the MD out to lunch with the pharmaceutical representative, because that's the kind of people that go into medicine, they're more interested in that ham sandwich than they are in the well-being of their patients. >sarc

[bdeaner]

own up to your motivations

Since when does a person's motives for looking for the truth reveal something about the truth in itself? You don't mean to tell me you are some idealist philosopher type, who thinks the world conforms to a person's thoughts and motives? Even if I had the worst intentions, and I do not, the facts remain the facts. My intentions or motivations cannot change the facts; they are irrelevant to the matter at hand. That you refuse to engage me on the merits of the facts, says all that needs to be said; it demonstrates unequivocably that you have no argument--and no counter-factual claims based on empirical evidence--to counter the facts I have presented. If I am wrong, then show me the facts that counter my factual claims.

Do you have evidence that anti-psychotic drugs are effective in the long-term for treatment of psychosis, as compared to a no-treatment group? Do you have evidence that schizophrenia, per DSM-IV diagnosis, is a reliable and valid categorical description? Do you have evidence that this diagnostic category can be reliably and consistently linked to underlying brain abnormalities that cannot be explained by the effects of psychiatric medication? I don't think you can produce it, nor do I think you are capable of mounting a rational, empirically-based argument to defend any of these claims.

You cannot, apparently--so you aimlessly attack my character or the rhetorical style of my posts -- all classic diversionary tactics. All you've got is fallacious rhetoric. Case closed, I guess.