Replies

I'm going to ignore the ad hominem remarks. At least you have something, a citation, this time -- at least some attempt to support your opinion -- rather than nothing but ad hominem remarks.

Unfortunately, your quotation fails to support your charges that I mischaracterized daementia praecox. The Charney and Nestler quotation supports my above statement on Dementia praecox: Notice they say "many" but not "all" schizophrenics fit Kraepelin's description of dementia praecox, which is precisely what I said! So, bizarrely, you accuse me of arrogance and deceit, then go on to support this personal attack by citing a quotation that states exactly the same thing I said -- which by your logic, would make you arrogant and deceitful I guess.

In your original statement, you conflated the two conditions -- assuming that dementia praecox is the same condition as schizophrenia. It is not. I explained to you the fact that Dementia praecox only explains some individuals with schizophrenia -- those who are hebrephrenic and whose condition is degenerative, which is exactly how Kraepelin described it. MANY cases of schizophrenia, per DSM-IV criteria, do not fit this description. The symptoms described by Kraepelin are a sub-set of the category of schizophrenia -- and not really, techically a sub-set, because it is an outdated concept that has long been invalidated -- which is why Eugen Bleuler developed a new categorical definition, which is "schizoprenia" as we know it today.

The framers of the DSM dropped the dementia praecox diagnosis, because it was not valid -- there were all kinds of problems with Kraepelin's model. That's why they adopted Bleuler's "schizophrenia" designation instead as the diagnostic category of choice.

Students pay a lot of money to hear me teach them this history. I know what I'm talking about. You can quote the history books, and you'll find nothing that contradicts what I have said. But, if you think you can, sure, give it a stab. So far, you have struck out.

ad hominem ?

your entire presentation throughout has been ad hominem. That "BIG PHARMA" has poisoned brains in pursuit of profit, that MD's sticking pharmaceutical rep whores' sandwiches in their mouths with one hand have mindlessly written prescriptions with pharmaceutical -supplied pens with the other , etc. , etc. You bet I'm being ad hominem , you've chosen the weapon.