Homosexuality was eliminated as a mental disease in DSM III

Post Reply New Topic

I am restarting this thread after consulting with a moderator. I am not trying to offend any LGBT people either on the Spectrum or that are NT. I am also not saying or implying that homosexuality is a disease. I made a comment that the American Psychiatric Association was looking for new revenue when Homosexuality was eliminated as a mental disorder when DSM III was published in 1989. Take a look at this link:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... ealth.html

Despite what anyone may think, Big PHARMA controls about 99% of what gets published in the DSM for their own profits. Most psychiatrists don't have a clue about the harm they are inflicting, no thanks to all the sloppy research and outright conflicts of interest that occurs in this, as well as ANY profession. What gets me is if any of us that went to college pulled these kinds of stunts, we would have been expelled for academic dishonesty.

I'm not saying that psychiatric drug are totally useless, as some people do quite well on them. IANAD, so this is just my opinion. But trying to make those of us on the spectrum neurotypical should be listed as a crime against humanity. Those of us on the spectrum are the next victims to the corruption that is rampant in the APA. Take a look at Robert Whitaker's book, Anatomy of an Epidemic or read his blog on either the Mad in America Website or the Psychology Today website to see how not only the APA and Big PHARMA have not only duped those of us on the spectrum, but the NTs and the Federal Government.

I totally agree with you. I worked briefly in the public health sector here in Australia, in admin. $$$$ and greed driven without a doubt!

What does the reference to homosexuality have to do with the topic?

The DSM III was published in 1980, not 1989, and homosexuality had already been removed in a revision of the DSM II in 1974. I'm still not sure what this has to do with your other two paragraphs.

My apologies with the publication date. That was a typo.

My understanding was that the APA completely eliminated Homosexuality as a mental disease starting with the publication of the DSM III. From what research I have seen, and I am not a doctor of any kind, the mental health community was pretty much making its living off what is now known as the LGBT lifestyle. They turned to "normal" people and depression in order to make up for lost revenue.

Now, sadness is just a part of life as as any other emotion. It may take some people longer to "snap out" of it than others. Other people never snap out of it. Matter of fact, some of the world's greatest figures, like Sir Winston Churchill, Giuseppe Verdi, Vincent Van Gogh, Martin Luther, John Wesley, suffered a lot from depression. They at their most creative and their best inspiration between episodes.

Did you know that the DSM is the only medical reference where mental disorders are voted on and created by committee, without any kind of scientific proof?

Did you also know, that with the publication of the DSM 5, that grief will now be considered as clinical depression if it lasts more than 2 weeks?

I normally don't agree with the Scientologists, but I do agree with their distaste of psychotic medications to cure what something that is individual.

Are you saying depression is just sadness that most people snap out of? I take it you've never actually experienced depression, then?

As far as Vincent Van Gogh, it's believed he may have had bipolar disorder. In addition to depression, it features periods of mania or hypomania, and such states are associated with increased creativity. It is also believed that Van Gogh committed suicide, which is unfortunately common with bipolar, with rates up to 20%, and up to 50% attempting it at some time or other.

Yes I have suffer depression. I am currently on SSDI because of Bipolar disorder. The medications made my situation worse. However, and this is my personal opinion, based on research, that some people respond better to CBT and DBT than medication. I would have preferred talk therapy first over medication.

Part of my issues were upbringing. My family wasn't exactly keen about talking about their problems, nor did my parents trust psychologists. Maybe if I had the proper coping skills, I might not have had the issues I have.

Unfortunately, in the behavioral health industry, it's cheaper to prescribe a pill than to go through CBT or DBT.

As another example, my youngest brother's NT stepson is about to enter counseling because of the difficulties of having his two youngest on the spectrum, as low functioning autistics. With what they went through with the autistic son, and the hell they went through at the psychiatric hospital, from what they tell me, they don't have any faith in psychiatry. Of course, this is only an individual case.

Like I said, this is only my opinion.

I also agree that many in the mental and behavioral health fields believe it's cheaper to medicate someone than try other therapies that might actually be more effective, but can take a long time. I know that in my case when I had depression, the only time I was suicidal was when I was on a SSRI drug, as regular therapy is what really worked better for me. Even now, I would rather go and talk to a therapist if the need came up than even consider another psychiatrist again. Unfortunately, health insurance companies seem to prefer the medication route because it's cheaper than paying for sessions with a behavioral therapist. That's why if I need therapy again, I'm doing the sliding fee scale thing so my insurance company won't suggest medication again.

I've even heard where those who are anti-gay actually believe that the DSM should never have removed homosexuality as a mental illness because they really believe that. I hate to say it, but if there were a genetic test for homosexuality, those who want abortion banned would suddenly be the biggest supporters of abortion so they could terminate a pregnancy if there were a positive test for homosexuality.

Zoloft has effectively resolved my anxiety entirely, and mitigated my depression sufficiently that it is more controllable. Different people respond to different treatments. I actually have it on a fairly low dose, however. Every time I've ever taken a "normal" dose of an antidepressant it has had bad side effects, to the point I was unwilling to try anything new for some time.



I guess I question the assumption that pills are automatically bad.

As far as depression goes, I don't find it to be "sadness." Sadness doesn't make me want to kill myself or keep me stuck in bed. Being sad doesn't put me at the point where hospitalization is a serious possibility.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what homosexuality specifically has to do with anything here, but i'll address the big pharma part.

I understand, and to some extent agree that the business of profiting from peoples suffering is abhorrent. On the other hand, I have been depressed, and as much as I despised the side effects associated with the medication, it along with a therapist and subtle lifestyle changes (mainly diet and exercise related) pulled me through a pretty horrific time. "Sad" isn't close, even "depressed" doesn't cover how all intrusive this condition is, and I totally support whatever it is people need to do to get through it, even if that means caving in to the money hungry corporations.

That said, I believe doctors do over prescribe medication, and people may be taking pills they don't need, but pharmaceuticals make the little things in life possible for so many people, there really is nothing more to this than businesses profiting in areas where there is money to be made. It's not ideal, it's a little disturbing, but then so are lots of things. If it makes even one persons life a little easier, I can ignore the negative aspects and appreciate the good it brings them.