Then, out of curiosity, why the hell are you talking about homeostasis and trauma?

Traditionally this have been an either/or debate. It doesn't have to be. Something can be a contributing or triggering factor without being the sole causative agent.

Sources?
Again, when you start adding double blind peer reviewed sources behind your every statement, I will as well.

If you're going to try to claim that everything the APA rules is invalid, you're going to have to do a lot better than some bullshit hand-waving about how you think they're not "effective" at "curing diseases" - and your choice of words is so incredibly inaccurate that it suggests you have no clue what you're talking about, but I'll assume that English isn't your first language.

The other thing, however, that suggests you don't have a clue what you're talking about, is your claim that psychologists think that hormonal cycles are not related to brain function; do you honestly think that the APA doesn't know what hormones are?

I never claimed that everything they had was invalid, but its a very young discipline. They know what hormones are, but when it comes to treatment they use crude methods. Their understanding is far more elegant than their treatment protocol. Its like having a locksmith draw you a diagram of the inside of your lock and then knock the door open with a hammer. The knowlege is not centralized. Certain psyco-neuroimmunologists are well aware of how digestion effects mental states, but they will not be called in unless its an immune problem. Simply because knowlege is published doesn't mean that anyone reads it particulary if it is found outside of your scope of practice. Well designed studies contradict each other. There are countless variables with human beings. Do you know how many treatment protocols used in hospitals around the world have been invalidated by research that has come out nearly a decade ago? Simply because something is written doesn't mean that it is read and we are certainly not finding what we are not looking for. Were I to do a dissertation on homosexuality as a disease I would very likely not get my PHD on political grounds. So...it won't be studied any more than eugenics after the nazis.


It is, actually, when the medical journals provide the data and analysis of experimental observations and tests that support what they're proposing. I didn't see any double-blind studies in the Bible.

I never claimed that everything they had was invalid, but its a very young discipline. They know what hormones are, but when it comes to treatment they use crude methods. Their understanding is far more elegant than their treatment protocol.

My point is that you find double blind research to be inallible

As far a modern medicine is concerned placebo is faith healing, no one knows why it works yet this is held as some sort of constant to be measured against

what double blind placebo controlled trials did Freud base his work on?

This is more like religion or philosophy.

The reasons behind who get them and why are not sound unless based on certain religous values.

Assuming this is all true, what does any of it have to do with their removing homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses? Does any of this mean that specific decision was wrong?

No. But it does remind us to take what they say with a grain of salt. Most of what is known is based on hypothesis and guesswork, very little is based on fact. I have a science book from the 1800s. The scientific method had been established and yet, by today's standards its entirely false.

I don't find double-blind studies to be infallible, and never implied otherwise. Any study is only as good as its methods, controls, analysis, and results. Double-blind is only one aspect of it.

That's not true in the slightest (placebo is a known and researched field of medicine and regarded as a legitimate and understood treatment or part of treatment), and has nothing to do with what we're talking about, which is same-sex marriage - or, at the moment, whether or not homosexuality is a mental illness.

If it is understood, then what is its defined mechanism? Is it any coincidence that placebo is 50% of the time on a scale which is measuring 100% that[I AM TOO STUPID TO USE AN APOSTROPHE]s a pretty strong "maybe" on something without a defined mechanism. Knowing that it occurs half the time without knowing what it is or how it works or how many mechanisms contribute to it creates a pretty big question mark. For all we know seeing a certain colour of hearing a certain frequency causes placebo healing....no one knows. Too many variables for humans.

None. Which is why Freud's work is bullshit, and not science, and why his "theories" are outdated and invalid.

And yet, much of the diagnostic criteria are based on his theories. No more of less valid than any other tradition 100 years old based on a holy man or shaman.

Not at all. The study of illnesses and their treatment is medicine. It is science - arguably, the very most practical and "hard" kind there is.

Having studied for years under MDs, done clinical internships and had my own private clinic and currently collecting research for the approval of new medicines I must disagree. The Merk medical manual defines medicine as a a tradition of patient care. It uses science, but it is not science. Its more of an art. Almost nothing used in medicine is based on scienfitic law. At the best, theories and hypotheses. Trials, lab work etc introduces medicines, but the long term "tradition" of using them in hospitals becomes part of the patient care. By dressing in lab coats people think its science or because scientist also practice medicine, then they think it is science...its the equivalent of saying that looking at porn is a science because researchers partake in it. Within Allopathy there are two main philosophies being Virchowian and Oslerian. Neither is based on scienfitic law. Medicine is not microbiology, although microbiology is a great asset to medicine.

That's the problem, though. Secular institutions of marriage should not be based on religious values at all.

No. But it does remind us to take what they say with a grain of salt.

Most of what is known is based on hypothesis and guesswork, very little is based on fact.

If it is understood, then what is its defined mechanism?

Knowing that it occurs half the time without knowing what it is or how it works or how many mechanisms contribute to it creates a pretty big question mark.

And yet, much of the diagnostic criteria are based on his theories.

No more of less valid than any other tradition 100 years old based on a holy man or shaman.

Almost nothing used in medicine is based on scienfitic law.

what values do not come from religion or are not analagously seen in them?

what more is a religion than a set of values?

So you're admitting that you have no grounds to say that the APA's declaration that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, is wrong?

I never said homosexuality was wrong, but rather based on an imbalance. I believe the same of ADHD and dyslexia. Some people eat dirt. Its seen as a disease. Other places on Earth people eat dirt for health purposes. Imbalance? It depends whom you ask. Some people eat their own shit, its also in the merk as a disease. Yet monkeys and many animals do it as well. I believe that these are the arguments for homosexuality as "natural" and therefore healthy. I don't buy it. Maybe there is a place on Earth where homosexuality is the norm. In my world putting your dick in a man's butthole is as silly as eating poo or eating dirt.

Hypotheses are based almost entirely on facts; anything that's only "guesswork" is not known by definition (otherwise we wouldn't be guessing, would we?).

I don't think you know what a fact is. These "Facts" you are referring to change, particularly in medicine. You want to believe some kind of infallability because you are afraid that if you get sick you will be in the hands of someone else and you prefer to believe they know what they are doing. The only fact is that all medicine is experimental and that every time you repeat the experiment with no guarantee. There are so many variables in humans with everything from the weather, sleeping patterns, mental states and diet affecting drug interactions.

It is sort of understood.. In fact even better in journals of psyconeuroimmunology. Again when I said "they don't know" I wasn't referring to researchers, but those in practice who don't bother to read. Otherwise treatment protocols would change and they don[I AM TOO STUPID TO USE AN APOSTROPHE]t. Nsaids and opiods will both counter the body's ability to have a "placebo effect". oops. Well if they know, then they are cruel and/or lazy. With a little digging they could do both. I know how and I have. I have also taught patients to engage their own placebo effect for years now with great effect. Its called qi gong and in other countries particularly in asia, it is studied. Specific postures use the diaphram to massage the adrenal glands..to stimulate...cortical hormones. Other techniques help produce seratonin. This is based on Qi Bo saying 3,000 years ago that the heart and kidneys have a mutially dependent hormonal cycle and that "when the heart is serent pain is negligible. But...I shouldn't mention any such savagery, because the tests haven't been done on US soil and therefor don't exist.

We know what it is, how it works, and roughly how many mechanisms contribute to it - at the least. I also still have no idea what this "half the time" thing you're repeating means.

Not even close, otherwise min medications would be used and more emphasis would be placed on the body's own healing system. Placebo occurs roughly half the time. There are more mechanims than they have found and it goes deeper, but for the time being I will have to let the savages call an airplane a metal bird.

Are you talking about the DSM-IV? Because I can't find any criteria there that's based on Freud; those criteria are medical criteria and so they are all determined by experimental process and observation - not Freud's untested guesswork.


The DSM4 is filled with diagnostics which are not based on endocrine levels so much as tendencies toward behavior. (medical criteria) as you put it means nothing. It does not represent a value of any kind. The framework from which they have been observing is based on freuds and others' work as early psycologists. After being trained to think like psycologies founders they then went and observed through this lens. Look up Amok disorder. Besides being orientalist, the diagnosis is basically that some asian men get insulted and be freakin out. Clearly the hard scientific work of "medical criteria"

Yes. And those traditions are also bullshit, and are also not part of our diagnostic criteria.

So they are bullshit after observation over time, but ours, being 100 years old are sound?
what you choose to observe are based on assumptions, culture and values.

Except for creating it. Because medications and treatments must undergo rigorous experimental verification to ensure they work and how they work. Oops.

I'm very familiar with what medications must go through to get authorised. Its part of my job. It is still not based on scientific law. They must demonstrate a mechanism, however, which mechanism a substance has (there are plenty) depends largely on marketing. Take my mum as an example. They must pass guidelines for safety, efficacy and demonstrate efficacy mechanistically. You make the assumption that because anatomy can be seen to a very detailed degree that the interrelationships within the body are understood to an equal degree, they are not. Physiology as taught to French MD's is different than in the US. There are many different theories about physiology. This will affect what people observe and how they observe it. Oops. How many drug applications have you filled out? You have a lot of blind faith in medicine and believe all aquired knowlege to be fact and yet know very little about it. Don't worry, you aren't alone. We've barely scratched the surface.

The United States Constitution. And "analogously seen in them" is irrelevant here.

False. The United States Constitution was based on the men who wrote it who came from a Judeo-Christian/Deist background. This fundamentally guided their sense of right and wrong.

A set of specific beliefs in unverifiable supernatural phenomena which are not part of the shared objective experience of reality, and therefore are not applicable to all human beings - and which are specifically prohibited from being woven into our government to certain degrees.

I never said homosexuality was wrong, but rather based on an imbalance. I believe the same of ADHD and dyslexia.

In my world putting your dick in a man's butthole is as silly as eating poo or eating dirt.

I don't think you know what a fact is. These "Facts" you are referring to change, particularly in medicine. You want to believe some kind of infallability because you are afraid that if you get sick you will be in the hands of someone else and you prefer to believe they know what they are doing.

Again when I said "they don't know" I wasn't referring to researchers, but those in practice who don't bother to read.

The DSM4 is filled with diagnostics which are not based on endocrine levels so much as tendencies toward behavior. (medical criteria) as you put it means nothing. It does not represent a value of any kind.

Look up Amok disorder. Besides being orientalist, the diagnosis is basically that some asian men get insulted and be freakin out. Clearly the hard scientific work of "medical criteria"

They must demonstrate a mechanism, however, which mechanism a substance has (there are plenty) depends largely on marketing. Take my mum as an example. They must pass guidelines for safety, efficacy and demonstrate efficacy mechanistically. You make the assumption that because anatomy can be seen to a very detailed degree that the interrelationships within the body are understood to an equal degree, they are not. Physiology as taught to French MD's is different than in the US. There are many different theories about physiology. This will affect what people observe and how they observe it.

How many drug applications have you filled out?

The United States Constitution was based on the men who wrote it who came from a Judeo-Christian/Deist background. This fundamentally guided their sense of right and wrong.

And yet married people are rewarded and sodomy was illegal as was usery. I'm sure this had nothing to do with the Torah.

Homosexuality marriage is not a illegal thing....