Talk:Biological psychiatry/Archive 1

message: First of all, biopsychiatry is not a term used entirely by detractors. It's just that one of them (a detractor, that is) wrote this article. Second of all, medicine has its basis in the natural sciences (e.g. biology, chemistry) and it is a widely, if not universally, accepted fact that medical (and by extension, psychiatric) problems arise from some tangible source. In other words, medicine attempts to look for the cause of the problem. Psychological counseling neither diagnoses nor specifically treats any underlying physical (whether it be anatomical or phsyiological) illnesses. See the article called "chemical imbalance theory" for an explanation of why this [flawed] conception of biopsychiatry exists. 
"...which they believe places undue emphasis upon biological theories and psychiatric drug treatment, rather than objective diagnosis of medical pathologies and psychological counseling."
First of all, who are these critics? Scientologists, no doubt. Second of all, what is "objective diagnosis" in the context of psychological counseling? The answer is, it doesn't exist. Psychological counseling and diagnosis of medical pathologies are diametrically opposed. Psychology is not (currently) a science, nor is it objective, by any means.
Lastly, let me point out that without "biological theories" medicine would cease to exist. Without these theories, we simply wouldn't have the sort of advanced technology that we do. Let me end this by saying: All medical problems have a biological basis, whether we know what it is or not. With conditions of an unknown etiology, remember that: Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.
- Fuzzform (not logged in, using school computer) Mar. 3rd, 12:31 EST.
----
I've removed the following paragraph, as it is highly misleading and totally against all notions of NPOV. I think it should, at most, be used in a "Criticism" section, definitely not as a main description of this field. More partisan stuff will show up in this section.
:"...used mainly by critics of mainstream mental health practice to describe what opponents of psychiatry believe are unproven and subjective diagnostic and treatment practices in modern psychiatry. References to biological psychiatry are used specifically by critics to denote the biological model of mental health, which they believe places undue emphasis upon biological theories and psychiatric drug treatment, rather than objective diagnosis of medical pathologies and psychological counseling."
----
This entire article is pretty much worthless right now. I moved the criticism out of the initial description and into the "Criticism" section. The entire article is criticism. No neutral references to the discipline whatsoever. And certainly no rebuttals to or reasons for any of the criticism. The article starts denigrating biopsychiatry before the reader even knows what it is. One neutral sentence isn't quite enough. I'll keep working on it, and if it changes drastically, please leave any comments on this page (especially relating to edits). Fuzzform 00:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is currently worthless 

message: The article is indeed POV.  However, I removed the “disputed” tag since I cannot see factual inaccuracy in the article.
The article can be saved introducing in the first paragraphs biological psychiatry as the psychiatric profession views it.  Only after that the controversy could be presented (there is no need for another article; the recently re-written Anti-psychiatry article is enough).
On the other hand, there are errors of logic in the “Rebuttals to criticism” section.  The sort of reasoning “If it responds to medication it must be biological” has been refuted by psychiatrist Colin Ross in his article “Errors of logic in biological psychiatry”.  I read Ross’ article in a book he co-edited with Alvin Pam.  When I bought “Pseudoscience in Biological Psychiatry” ten years ago I only paid $50.  It now costs $165 in Amazon Books! .  However, it is worth reading Ross and Pam’s critique of biopsych.  (Of course, you can see for free Ross’ web page .)
Though the initial paragraphs in the Wikipedia article are anti-psychiatry POV, the last paragraphs are pro-psychiatry POV.  This makes the article no less POV but more POV!  Consider the last paragraph:
:It is also worth noting that all medical conditions are caused by biological factors, whether those factors are anatomical or physiological. A disorder with unknown etiology is still rooted in biology (despite the fact that the origin is unknown - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), whether the problem is a product of somatic of neural malfunctioning.
I have written a whole article about this sort of tricky argument.  Though it has not been published (I live in Mexico and don’t have editorial connections with other countries), an English version of it can be read in my own web page.  Please take a look at it .  Cesar Tort 17:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only one tag removed 

message: "Criticisms of mental health marketing practices and pharmaceutical treatments have seemingly had little impact on the growing solidarity between the pharmaceutical industry and the mental health professions.  Instead, the influence of 'biological psychiatry' appears to actually be strengthening, as evidenced by the growing political and economic clout of the industry."
Needs work, or abandoning.  Midgley 03:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote for abandoning.  —Cesar Tort 06:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague, uncited, POV.  Parked here 

message: ..."rather than objective diagnosis of medical pathologies and psychological counseling."
However one spells counselling, I suspect this clause has deeper troubles, starting off from a POV forumulation, and continuing through an absence of the demonstration of objective diagnoses of _psychiatric_ medical diagnoses where the question is begged.  In short, I doubt that this represents the polar opposite of the first clause in the sentence in which it lies, still.  Midgley 21:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaky clause 

message: If no objections, with the help of other editors I will unmercifully cull and re-write this article as I did with the Anti-psychiatry article.  —Cesar Tort 10:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cull 

message: :Yes Midgley, please correct my English when you feel it necessary.  Spanish is my native language so my phrases need syntactic correction and clarification.  (BTW, Breggin studied psychiatry in Harvard; has written a dozen of psychiatry books; founded the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology; founded the only peer-reviewed journal I know devoted exclusively to criticize biopsych, and has been called to Congress to talk about the dangers of Ritalin.)  As I said above, to make the article NPOV we could first present biological psychiatry as mainstream psychiatry perceives the field.  A paragraph may be needed above the “Critics” section.   —Cesar Tort 13:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Caesar's English is very good.  Ratehr than correcting anything I might strip some redundancy out of sentences, something I do to any writing, except my own.  Midgley 14:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breggin 

message: "rv: cursory examination of Midgley's edits indicates insertion of pov, spin, or worse; even the copy edit re: reference vs references, after consideration of context, is dubious at best"  I am displeased by this unWP:CIVIL [[WP:NPA|personal attack.  I am unsurprised that a large reversion by User:Ombudsman comes with no discussion or justification on this talk page because it is his common practice.  What can be done to restrain this?  Midgley 22:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ombudsman's edit 

message: The article may still need changes, additions or modifications.  As I said above, English is not my native language.
However the re-written article looks NPOV to me.  Any objections to remove the NPOV tag? —Cesar Tort 15:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better.  I've made an edit to the opening paragraph that is seeking precision rather than a change of meaning. Midgley 17:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag removal? 

message: I see the article has been significantly improved from the earlier state, which is great. I have a fair amount of additional info (definitions, history, etc) I'd like to add. Is that OK? Wikipedia says "be bold", but I didn't want to surprise everybody if I add a bunch of stuff. Joema 23:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you can contribute!  The only rule is that the edition should be NPOV.  —Cesar Tort 23:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add further info? 

message: As previously discussed, I've integrated a lot of new material. It's essentially a total re-write. I hope it's obvious it was an ambitious, laborious project.
My goal was to produce an article worthy of an encyclopedia (that's what Wikipedia is, after all): scholarly, neutral, informative, and well-referenced.
I'm not a healthcare professional, and am completely agnostic about biological vs behavioral determinants to mental health. However an encyclopedia should prioritize describing the topic, not debating it, critiquing it, or editorializing on it. This descriptive-oriented approach is standard practice at of other encyclopedias, and for good reason. To do otherwise damages the scholarly impartiality, usefulness and ultimately the very legitimacy of the encyclopedia. 
Please discuss any questions, issues or problems here.  (remark by Joema)  (Please sign with 4 tildes Midgley 19:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cleaned up the references quite a bit. Some names of authors and journals need further editing, as they are incomplete. Access dates are also needed for all web-based sources. Also, I've added a few "citation needed" tags to uncited pieces of information. Fuzzform 20:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll work on that. Joema 21:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss changes 

message: Biological psychiatry is a pseudoscience like phrenology and Lysenkoism, as can be demonstrated in the writings of several non biological psychiatrists and mental health professionals: , , , , , , , .  There is even an entire peer-reviewed journal devoted exclusively to debunk bio-psychiatry .  The totally re-written article is pro-psychiatry propaganda.  —Cesar Tort 04:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that the short NPOV article edited by Midgley and me replace the existing long POV article and then try to work together on a NPOV basis if the article edited by Midgley and me is going to be extended.  —Cesar Tort 16:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, I agree with you Midgley that alternative medicine is rubbish.  As stated above, I am a fan of CSICOP and the skeptics (I even contributed with a note in Skeptical Inquirer to debunk the “wall face” appearances of Belmez, Spain).  However, criticism of phrenology, Lysenkoism or biopsych is not “alternative medicine”.  —Cesar Tort 17:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is NOT pro-biological psychiatry, any more than the article on abortion is pro-abortion or the article on evolution is pro-evolution. The main purpose of an encyclopedia article is to describe the topic. Think of it as an elaborate dictionary. Describing the topic and the underlying basis DOES NOT equate to a pro position on the subject. The NPOV tag is entirely unwarranted. Joema 23:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not alone in this opinion.  In his 17:59, 13 April 2006 contribution to the article, Ombudsman wrote: “this article has become a poster child for extreme ivory tower pov pushing”. —Cesar Tort 23:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, evolution is real science; biopsych is not. —Cesar Tort 23:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like you have very strong feelings against this topic, and claim it's not real science, millions have strong feelings against evolution and claim IT is not real science. From an encyclopedia standpoint, that makes no difference. The purpose of an encyclopedia is describe and explain the topic. Doing so does not equate to taking a position on it. I understand you may want to convince others of your position, and that's fine -- but not in an encyclopedia article. I sincerely entreat you, please do not continue this. You have many avenues to persuade others of your position. Please don't use an encyclopedia article for this. If necessary this can be escalated, but I beg you -- please save everybody the time. Put anything you want in the anti-psychiatry article. Or create your own specific anti-biological psychiatry article. But please, please don't continue putting that into this article. Joema 00:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I could say exactly the same about the article Midgley and I edited and you took over: please, don't continue putting that into this article. —Cesar Tort 00:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to have to side with Joema on this one. The critics of biopsychiatry are criticizing certain aspects of it yes, but I have yet to see any claims that it is a pseudoscience. Perhaps you came to this conclusion abrubtly due to some unpercieved bias - I surely hope you are not another Scientologist seeking to smear the notion that perhaps there is a biological basis for all medical conditions. After all, we are just a gigantic complex of molecules, organized into cells, tissues, and in the end, the organism - humans. So if you would like to debunk something, try psychology. After all, that wasn't considered a science until fairly recently, and it still incorporates incorrect and non-empirical conclusions in varying degrees. If you would like to include a "Criticism" of biopsych, feel free to add a section toward the end. But please don't change the intro to say "biopsych is a pseudoscience" or anything of that nature, because it is no more a pseudoscience than psychology. (P.S. you do realize the article already incorporates criticism of biopsychiatric theories?) Fuzzform 04:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Citation number 17: all of the contributors to this journal are in the fields of "divinity", "psychology", "psychoanalysis", "spirituality", "author", "survivor" (those last two greatly puzzle me), "mind-body medicine", "phenomenological psychology". All of these draw conclusions through deductive reasoning. None of them use empirical, or inductive reasoning to come to conclusions. Biopsychiatry does use empiricism as its basis; using MRI, EKG and many, many other quantitative methods, the physical/biological nature of mental illness can be investigated. Ergo, psychology is a pseudoscience, biopsychiatry is not. But still, feel free to add criticism, if you can find specific examples. Fuzzform 04:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: I realize that a lot of work has been done on this article during the last month or so.  Still, it has organizational problems that we should be able to remedy by doing a bit of re-shuffling.  Right now, the article is organized to reflect its "historic" development.  I think this is a mistake.  Most readers don't want to know the history from Hippocrates forward, they want to learn the current scope and understanding of the field.  So I suggest that we move the historical information toward the end of the article so that we don't lose readers before they get to the real substance.  
There are two other concerns I have about the organization.  The first is that the lead-in starts with a bulleted list.  These types of lists are helpful but they pose a barrier to understanding when placed up front.  That first section would benefit from a slight re-orientation of the paragraphs.
The other, perhaps more difficult to resolve issue is the amount of space devoted to some sort of back and forth argument about the physiological basis for the effects of MAOIs when used to treat depression.  Treatment of depression is a considerable issue by itself.  In this article, it sort of ambushes the reader, making it appear that, because we do not yet fully understand the mechanisms by which MAOIs work, treatment with MAOI is suspect, regardless of its clinical efficacy.  And it fails to acknowledge any of the many other treatment modalities for that condition or any other condition.  I suspect that some of this material was written in response to prior versions of this article which were, for lack of a better word, total bunk.
I suggest that the MAOI material be reduced or merged into a more appropriate article, such as Monoamine oxidase inhibitor, depression or anti-depressants, where it could get the attention of readers trying to understand that class of drug.
For this article, it might work better if there was an overview  section(s) titled something along the lines of "specific psychiatric problems and their treatments."  Then provide a quick summary of each major diagnosis alnog with a synopsis of the types of treatment modalities currently employed.   I think that Joema has been working on much of this and might be the best person to streamline the material.
These are just my thoughts after wading through a couple comparative versions of this article.  Ande B 16:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are all very sensible proposals and i support them. I think it also helps to point out that length does not equal quality. Since much of the information here is covered in article like Monoamine oxidase inhibitor and anti-psychiatry, there is a strong argument for placing a link saying 'Main article: Anti-psychiatry' then just a brief overview of that POV here. Rockpocket 17:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with all of the above proposals. Your assessment is correct and the suggestions for improvement right on target. I'll start on that. Joema 17:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: “I suspect that some of this material was written in response to prior versions of this article which were, for lack of a better word, total bunk” (Ande B). This article has been re-written three times, including the present one.  Is Ande B talking about the first or the second article?  If s/he refers to the article I edited with Midgley, is this comment fair?  Midgley earned Wikipedia’s Ruben Pseudoscience Barnstar “for heroic defense of reality against those who would impose the pseudoscience of their belief system”.  And once we re-wrote the biased article Midgley, not me, removed the NPOV tag of that article that Joema nuked a few days ago. —Cesar Tort 23:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Cesar. I appreciate that you tried to put togethor an article on this topic.  I also appreciate that there seems to be some type of on-going edit dispute about both the content and form of the piece that was going on long before I got here.  I actually have a hard time comparing your edit with the latest ones since they both have serious, though quite disparate, difficulties.  The earliest versions (which seem to be your work product)  were quite clearly written and, although neutral in tone, had a misplaced emphasis on criticsim of the topic rather than elucidation of it.  The discussions on this talk page suggest that you have a misunderstanding of what consitutes evidence for purposes of establishing the scientific legitimacy of this field of medicine.  This is what leads me to believe that the current condition of the article relects the efforts of someone(s) trying to answer the arguments put forth on this talk page but, unfortunately, having the opposite effect of what may have been intended.  The current article's problems stem largely from unfortunate word choices, a style that gives the impression of being original research, and a misguided effort to providedetailed covereage of issues that side-track the article.  And Cesar, I apologize for mistaking some of the later edits for being your work rather than someone else's  Ironic, isn't it?  Ande B 01:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Your reply is a total non sequitur.  I was merely referring to Ande B’s comment.  —Cesar Tort 00:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Cesar, I see that some of the dynamics here have not been very productive to the cooperative spirit.  I hope I don't end up making things worse. No-one is well served by the current state of affairs and if we don't get past some of these talk page arguments, we'll never get this project to resemble a professional article. Ande B 01:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well: I think I can agree with that :) Cesar Tort 01:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major reorganization is needed

message: *Joema, I hope you don't mind that I broke of your progress report into a fresh section.  I'm hoping it will make it easier for everyone to folow along and track contributions.  You certainly seem to be hard at work! Ande B 18:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I just put up a rough cut based on your suggestions. Take a look and please comment. Joema 02:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How the heck did you do all that editing in a single day?  Joema, I think this is looking good. I hope you have not dumped your previous drafts because they did contain a lot of good info that can be adapted for other uses.  Are you going to move some of the MAOI material into another article?  It was pretty detailed and I think those interested in that medication would be interested in reading about it.  Ande B 02:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia software maintains all previous versions in non-deletable form. Just by pressing the article "history" tab, then clicking on the date/time, those can be examined. You're right some of the removed information could probably be used in the "chemical imbalance" article. After we're done here, I'll examine that. Let me know your thoughts on the current version. Joema 08:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Joema, yeah, I know that wiki saves our work, so I really don't know why I said that!  It was just a way of saying that your previous material should not be tossed aside never to be used again, there was alot of  good work there that can be put to good use.  Hope you have a good Easter break.  Ande B 18:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress reports

message: This message is meant to be a tension reliever.  If you don't like satire, don't read the following or click the link to the New Yorker.
I think that Fuzzform has sugested we all sit down and have a cup of tea.  I think this is a good idea.  There are plenty of dog biscuits and chew toys to go around.  And I'd like to introduce everyone to this guy whose dog is really Tom Cruise.  Hahahahah, what?  Yeah! Could hardly believe it myself but I did the research, and this dog, great dog, is really Tom Cruise.  You say can't be...lots of people disbelieve the truth and believe lies instead.  Lies about Scientology, lies about biological psychiatry, lies about this guy's dog, who is truly Tom Cruise.  But I've done the research.  And taken the vitamins.  It's just  hahahahah I feel so great, totally because, well it's really Tom Cruise.  Meet him at the New Yorker:
From New Yorkermagazine: My Dog Is Tom Cruise
Ande B 02:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated above, I am not a scientologist; and I don’t think this discussion is getting rational or fair.  —Cesar Tort 02:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Properly written, an anti-biological psychiatry article is no more a POV fork than having both evolution articles and creation-evolution controversy articles, or both abortion and abortion debate articles. The idea is describe the biological psychiatry controversy, basis and history. Possibly a better name would be "Biological psychiatry debate". However if you're uncomfortable with that, there are already psychiatry and anti-psychiatry articles. You could create a section in the anti-psychiatry article for anti-biopsychiatry, or integrate that material into the anti-psychiatry article. Joema 03:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW,  Vaughan (a  neuropsychologist) made some corrections/additions to the first section. Joema 03:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Vaughan's edit  was quite good.  We are lucky to have such a qualified editor. Ande B 06:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: ?  Vaughan's edit was a good one, it changed and improved a section I had worked on briefly and that had been edited previously.  I never heard of him before and prior to a few days ago, I never chatted with the people struggling to make this article work.  Did you have a point?  Ande B 00:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for tea and biscuits

message: Cesar/Ombudsman: as I explained above, if you didn't stop POV-tagging the article, mediation or arbitration would be needed. You haven't responded to that request, so I had no choice but to file an arbitration request. If you wish you can respond here: , and put any supporting evidence for your position here: .
Likewise anybody involved with this dispute can (and should) add their comments on the above pages.
I regret having to do this, which is why I begged and pleaded with Cesar to stop. Assuming the Arbitration Committee accepts the case, it's out of our hands. They may require edits neither party wants, or may restrict access to the article temporarily or permanently, or may outright ban certain users from Wikipedia. Joema 23:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actual arbitration request page is here: WP:RFAR Joema 01:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I don’t have the faintest idea what arbitration means, I very much doubt I violated a Wikipedia policy (as I said, I have not made any edits to the article for days; only discussed in the Talk Page).  —Cesar Tort 05:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbitration generally refers to a process where a knowledgeable third party with settlement authority determines the solution for certain types of disputes.  Anyone who might have an interest in the outcome needs to receive notice.  I don't think the practice on Wikipedia is to limit talk page discussions, unless those discussions are libelous, scandalous, or otherwise grossly inappropriate attacks on other members (e.g. racist or sexist or foul language).  As I understand it, Joema is seeking guidance on the issue of whether the POV tags can be attached to these pages as they are currently drafted.  I'm willing to take Ceasar's word when he says he won't re-tag the article.  But Ombudsman hasn't made such a statement, in fact, hasn't responded to much of anything other than to re-post the tags.  This crazy back and forth stuff needs a firm resolution so we can all go forward with the article knowing what the ground rules are.  If the arbitrators tell us that the neutrality dispute tag is valid, well then I will have to rethink my understanding of the issue.  Aaaarrrrgh!  Bureaucracy!  Ande B 05:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining it!  —Cesar Tort 05:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunetly the explanation isn't quite correct. Arbitration generaly focused on users behavior. What User:Ande B. describes is medation. FWIW I doubt a case will go forward with respect to User:Cesar Tort. I'm not at all certian what will happen in respect to User:Ombudsman. With regards to limits on what can be talked about on tlak pages the talk should be diretly related to dealing with editing the article rather than to general principles around the article.Geni 01:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments re arbitration vs mediation.  Ande B 00:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration request filed 

message: - as usual not on the discussion page: "why do mere facts, like the reality that the era of 'modern' psychotropic snake oils started w/ industrial dye derivatives (& the pov tag for that matter), keep getting deleted?"
I'll make a stab at answering that (apparent) question:-
# Because the rationale behind adding them is not made part of the collaborative process of writing an article - by presenting them here;
# Because they may well be irrelevant even when factual - molecules are molecules, and the industrial dye trope seems simply to be a smokescreen - as common in irrational "arguments" in anti-scientists, anti-vaccinationists and less reputable anti-gonists - it is technically a magical argument; 
# because they are not made out to be factual and WP:CITE notes that unreferenced assertions be they presented by the most reliable and respected editors of all should nonetheless be removed - to the talk page ideally;
# because they are undeniably not facts, but assertions - such as the POV tag - or are parts of compound statements that mix together things of one sort and those of another as though they were all th same and added together into an argument capable of swaying opinion.
I think that is probably it, if there is anotehr reason we may yet be informed of it.  Midgley 23:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Ombudsman]] asked (in an edit summary) 

message: Once again Solo999 has tagged this article while it is undergoing arbitration for just such tagging.  This looks like a bad faith edit if there ever was one.  The arbitrators will render a decision soon enough.  Tagging in the interim should subject the tagger to being banned from editing this article.  Ande B 23:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User Solo999 continues to make bad faith edits while issue is in arbitration

message: :"With some disorders it appears the proper imaging equipment can reliably detect neurobiological problems which correlate with a specific disorder.[15][16]"
This claim seems a bit suss to me - I don't think there is good evidence (and the references certainly don't show) that you can really detect subjects with schizophrenia from their activation patterns.  These sorts of studies are hypothesis generating and cannot be used to claim real diagnostic validity until they are replicated with blind raters - which they won't be, currently they are just circular, we all know you can pick a particular area of activation to distinguish two groups, but that is overfitting until it is independently replicated. --Coroebus 17:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tend to agree with you, Coroebus. Rockpocket 17:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the phrasing is misleading as to the current status of these images' diagnostic capabilities.  It might be better phrased to say that there is some "promise" in the technique, which has shown some correlations.  But you're right, the current statement over-reaches.  I'm kind of reluctant to make substantive changes while arbitration is going on but if I get the time I may post some suggested alternatives on this page. Ande B 18:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: as far as I am concerned, I think the ArbCom case argument does not overrule that the text should be factually correct and as such, I think it should be changed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, give it a try.  I'm just not comfortable doing so myself because I'm one of the people in the Arb.  Still, I suggest giving a preview on the talk pages first so we can get more input and avoid adding to the difficulties. (I want to note, however, that most of us from the Arb case are getting along quite well outside of those pages.)  Ande B 18:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Coroebus is misreading the statement in the article. He says "I don't think there is good evidence (and the references certainly don't show) that you can really detect subjects with schizophrenia from their activation patterns". The article doesn't say you can. It simply says neurobiological problems that correlate with a specific order can apparently be detected with the proper equipment. The references clearly state that, e.g, "These differences are detectable with fMRI and may have clinical utility" (Whalley). That does not mean the methods are non-experimental or ready for clinical use on a broad scale. They are clearly just experiments. In one case a 3 tesla MRI was needed, which is a high end research machine. However I agree it could be better worded. Since I wrote the original statement, I'll change it. Let me know what you think. Joema 23:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand, Joema, but i also appreciate how the ambiguity could lead some to believe that it currently used as a diagnostic, rather than experimental, procedure. I'm sure a language tweak would solve it. Rockpocket 23:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that a little tweaking should clear up any ambiguity. Ande B. 00:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you've already tweaked and it looks okay to me.  Ande B. 00:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dodgy Claim