Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nisko
This is pure propaganda coming out of perfidious albion :
Quote:
In addition to suggesting the possibility that Hitler had a hormone-disrupting congenital condition called Kallmann syndrome, the documentary examined rumors that the dictator had Jewish ancestry and looked at whether he had a genetic predisposition to certain mental health conditions. Called “Hitler’s DNA: Blueprint of a Dictator,” the documentary premieres Saturday on Channel 4 in the UK.
However, the findings shared in the documentary haven’t been reviewed by other scientists in the field or published in a scientific journal, making it hard for experts not involved in the project to evaluate the validity of its assertions. King said that the analysis had been submitted to a “high-profile” journal and said she hopes the work will be published soon.
No genes for 'mental disorders' have been found. When you go into a mental hospital they give you no biological or genetic tests :
Psychiatric insiders have openly admitted the lack of science to their area of operations. Allen Frances (cited in Whitaker and Cosgrove 2015: 61), for example, has recently stated that the mental disorders given in the DSM are “better understood as no more than currently convenient constructs or heuristics that allow [psychiatrists] to communicate with one another.” This has included the classic constructs of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (formerly manic-depression), of which the mental health researcher Joel Paris at the Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, has admitted “[i]n reality, we do not know whether [such] conditions … are true diseases” (cited in Whitaker and Cosgrove 2015: 61). Even National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) director and strong advocate of biomedical psychiatry, Thomas Insel (cited in Masson 2015: xii), announced on the release of the DSM-5 in 2013 that the categories of mental disorder lacked validity and NIMH would no longer be using such diagnoses for research purposes.
Despite the claims to “progress” made by official historians of psychiatry such as Lieberman and Shorter, there is no evidence for the supposed “science” of psychiatry. There is no test for any mental illness, no proof of causation, no evidence of successful “treatment” that relates specifically to an individual disorder, and no accurate prediction of future cases. Thus, the claim that psychiatric constructs are real disease has not been proven. Consequently, it is necessary to utilise the existing evidence to more accurately theorise the real vocation of the psy-professions in capitalist society. As the faulty knowledge claims of the DSM are summarised by Burstow (2015: 78, emphasis original), “reliability cannot legitimately function as a validity claim and no studies have established validity”; therefore, “it follows that … no foundation of any sort exists for the DSM categories. This is a serious issue that calls into question the power vested in psychiatry.” It necessarily leads us to consider such institutions as moral and political enterprises rather than medical ones (Szasz 1974: xii) because psy-professionals make historically and culturally bound judgements on the “correct” and “appropriate” behaviour of society’s members. This is a point summated by Ingelby (1980: 55, emphasis added) when he states that
what one thinks psychiatrists are up to depends crucially on what one thinks their patients are up to; and the latter question cannot be answered without taking an essentially
political stand on what constitutes a “reasonable” response to a social situation.
In the same manner, British psychiatrist Joanna Moncrieff (2010: 371) agrees that a “psychiatric diagnosis can be understood as functioning as a political device, in the sense that it legitimates a particular social response to aberrant behaviour of various sorts, but protects that response from any democratic challenge.” Even Shorter (1997: viii) accepts that the profession is responsible for policing social deviance when he remarks that “[p]sychiatry is, to be sure, the ultimate rulemaker of acceptable behaviour through its ability to specify what counts as ‘crazy.’” Likewise, the concept of “health” within the mental health system is understood as whatever counts as “normal” within a specific historical epoch and cultural setting. Sayers (cited in Christian 1997: 33–34) states of this relative concept of “health” that
[t]he society and the individual’s role within it are assumed to be normal (that is to say, “healthy”: “normality” is a common synonym for “health” in psychiatry as in other areas of medicine). Indeed, the prevailing social environment is made the very criterion of normality, and the individual is judged ill insofar as he or she fails to “adjust” to it.
From the book Psychiatric Hegemony : A Marxist Theory of Mental Illness by Bruce M.Z. Cohen
How “Garbage-In-Garbage-Out” Academic Psychiatry Research Has Become Even More Ridiculous, and How Taking It Seriously Impoverishes Critical Thinkers By Bruce Levine, PhD :
https://www.madinamerica.com/2025/09...ical-thinkers/
Out of all the mental illnesses Schizophrenia is thought to be the most 'provable' :
Searching for the “Psychiatric Yeti”: Schizophrenia Is Not Genetic
After decades of study, billions of dollars spent, and thousands of studies conducted, the failure to identify any genes for schizophrenia should definitively put to rest the notion that schizophrenia is a genetic disorder, according to E. Fuller Torrey.
https://www.madinamerica.com/2024/01...renia-genetic/
Now they did not claim Hitler had a predisposition to a mental illness but a rare condition that affects puberty. This was not a finding of a team of international scientists and the plan to publish but it is well established that most published scientific research is false :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Mo...ings_Are_False
