National Institute of Mental Health Tosses the Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) Out the Window

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), a few weeks before the release of the Fifth edition of the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – often called the “bible” of The Psychiatry Industry.

This manual is nothing more than a listing of symptoms with assigned numbers that then offer both the patient and insurance companies a method to reimburse mental health providers.

This next edition, due for release in a few weeks, is listing common human experiences, like grief, with a diagnostic code number. America is coming to a time where we are all mentally ill – which means none of us are – but that’s another post.

According to the NIMH:

“The goal of this new manual, as with all previous editions, is to provide a common language for describing psychopathology. While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. …It became immediately clear that we cannot design a system based on biomarkers or cognitive performance because we lack the data. In this sense, RDoC is a framework for collecting the data needed for a new nosology. But it is critical to realize that we cannot succeed if we use DSM categories as the “gold standard.”

The National Institutes of Mental Health’s stance denouncing the DSM-5 will replace much of what kooky-therapies have done to harm psychiatry and psychology. A fresh voice of logic and reason will go far to restoring credibility, honor, and ethics to a profession that drove itself off the cliff and in so doing, took many patients and their families with them particularly regarding endorsement of multiple personalities though the diagnostic category: Dissociative Identity Disorder, codified 300.14.

Both psychotherapists and patients who support the existence of multiple personalities rely heavily on the DSM as evidence and proof that this mental malady is legitimate. The NIMH’s rejection of the DSM will force therapists diagnosing and treating multiple personalities to be scrutinized scientifically – which they have largely escaped.

Thank you, NIMH, for helping to restore the professions of psychiatry and psychology to one of compassion, ethics, and common sense. Mental health care consumers will be able to go to the NIMH for solid information about treatment options.

related links:

NIMH Transforming Diagnosis by Thomas Insel

Science 2.0  NIMH Delivers Kill Shot to DSM-5 by Hank Campbell

Psychology Today The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5

Live Science: Federal Mental Health Agency to Drop DSM Use 

Huggington Post National Institute of Mental Health to Drop DSM Use

Scientific American Psychiatry in Crisis


Leave a comment


  1. Jeannette Bartha

     /  05/07/2013

    Riddance could take another decade, at least the NIMH is putting the DMS where it belongs and that’s not as a front runner.


    • Sheri J. Storm

       /  05/15/2013

      If funding (ie: insurance payment$) of all $ort$ were discontinued today, imagine how readily the practice of recovering memories or treating patients harboring “alters within”, would cease.


      • Jeannette Bartha

         /  05/15/2013

        Sheri, it would likely slow down a little, but most DID therapists don’t bill for treating DID. They bill for treating PTSD, eating disorders, anxiety and the like. Insurance providers would have to dig deeper into therapists notes etc to find if they are actually treating DID. I doubt much would change.

        The belief that DID is valid would change making the argument that DID exists a little weaker. I think, however, that those who support it would continue to fight for its legitimacy.


        • Sheri Storm

           /  05/16/2013

          You’re right Jeanette. Anything and everything can be neatly tucked away under the PTSD diagnosis. Making the distinction between DID and Post Trauma per patient would be far beyond impossible, due to the sheer volume of claims. Additionally, it would not be my wish to disregard non-iatrogenic PTSD in cases that cannot or could not be prevented.


          • Jeannette Bartha

             /  05/16/2013

            Remember too, they developed c-ptsd which is specific to sexual and betryal trauma as I understand it. It’s on my to do list so I haven’t read much about it. It seems to be the ISSTD proponents pulling away from combat and other PTSD not associated with childhood sexual abuse. They are usually calculating and a always planning how to influence the system and keep “their diagnosis” alive.


  2. Sheri J. Storm

     /  05/05/2013

    Good riddance to bad rubbage.



What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: