[8] This is documented in the complaints, and a copy of my own is available on request.
[9] Unpublished 2012 complaint by Paula Joan Caplan, op cit.
[10] In fact, when a publisher asked me to write a book about DSM-5, to be published when that edition of the manual appeared, I declined partly because I had seen the editors of the previous editions keep secret until publication whatever contents of their editions they chose.
[11] The letter is in my DSM archival material, which is in Radcliffe's Schlesinger Library.
[12] There are many other examples, albeit less dramatic ones, of statements conflicting directly with his claims about the scientific process he followed, including but not limited to Frances, 2013, 21, 73.
[13] By March, 2013, the public was up in arms: A google search turned up more than 10,000 items about this subject.
[14] In spite of this perceptive description, Wakefield more recently co-authored a paper with one of the DSM-IV editors, in which they mistakenly described DSM-IV as having had a bereavement exclusion, part of their argument about what they presented as the DSM-5 editors' alleged elimination of the exclusion that they claimed was present in IV (Wakefield & First, 2012).
[15] http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rl1q8 was the URL while the broadcast remained posted
[16] Greenberg (2013, 278) compellingly describes Frances's technique of branding those who raise legitimate questions and concerns about his work as "anti-psychiatry," but elsewhere in his book, Greenberg applies the term "anti-psychiatry" to some who in fact take care to say that some individual psychiatrists do fine work.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
