fixed
tyvm
Q-Clock 27 Aug, 2025: END THE ENDLESS
(Silent Thieves, Gold, FED, Soros, 666)
[v1.1]
Notes For Incoming
#28651 >>23518564
>>23518572 Juanita Broaddrick post from 3-31-23: 'Privilege' is having a Trans terrorist shoot little kids in a Christian school and then getting a new Trans holiday created by the White House 4 days later."
>>23518578, >>23518582, >>23518702, >>23518704, >>23518721, >>23518723, >>23518725 The shooter
>>23518613 Google is locking down Android. Starting Sept 2026, every app must come from a verified developer.
>>23518645, >>23518646, >>23518647 UK: Police gag order against union activist overturned in free speech case
>>23518664, >>23518667, >>23518780 A good reference sheet on when and who changed the medical coding for gender and the funders
>>23518680 Turkey detains defense firm Assan Group executives in military espionage probe/Gulen??
>>23518686, >>23518690 Russia has struck the British Council building - Kyiv city blazed w/ hypersonic missiles and drones
>>23518703, >>23518874 Campus for the HARVEST: Feds bust Houston pastors in $50M trafficking case/MI
>>23518730 4chan sues UK, Musk approves
>>23518739 ICYMI: Trump is taking over Union Station in DC!
>>23518741 RIP Petey
>>23518770 Veteran tears into who is 'radicalizing' people like the Minnesota shooter
>>23518773, >>23518776, >>23518777, >>23518776 Trans pattern shooters/ ANTIFA
https://www.thetransmitter.org/science-and-society/physicians-who-oversaw-diagnostic-manuals-revision-had-pharma-funding/
Physicians who oversaw diagnostic manual’s revision had pharma funding
Of the 92 U.S.-based physicians who worked on the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 55 of them have collectively received millions of dollars from drug and device companies, new research shows.
By Elissa Welle
10 January 2024 | 5 min read
Many of the physicians who worked on the current diagnostic and treatment guidelines for psychiatric conditions in the United States have financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, according to a study published today in The BMJ.
Nearly 60 percent of the 92 U.S.-based physicians who shepherded the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, text revision (DSM-5-TR) accepted industry payments totaling $14.2 million during the three years prior to working on the manual, the study shows.
The results raise questions about systemic “economies of influence” over a document used by public health officials, health insurance plans and drug regulators, says lead investigator Lisa Cosgrove, professor of counseling and school psychology and a faculty fellow at the Applied Ethics Center at the University of Massachusetts, Boston.
“Financial conflicts of interest, industry ties don’t point to wrongdoing — we’re not saying that people did anything wrong consciously,” Cosgrove says. “It’s just implicit bias.”
DSM-5-TR decision-makers were not allowed to receive more than $5,000 from industry, according to a statement to The Transmitter by a spokesperson for the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which published the DSM-5-TR in March 2022. And an independent committee reviewed financial and non-financial disclosures for all other contributors to the revision.
The text revision centered on literature searches to incorporate new scientific findings since the publication of the DSM-5 in 2013, the spokesperson wrote.
“Any rare, minor instances of content that connected a diagnosis to a therapy were omitted from DSM-5-TR,” the spokesperson wrote. “No content was found in the submitted text that related to a specific treatment for which industry funding may have been provided for related research.”
Cosgrove and her colleagues documented potential financial conflicts of interest among the contributors to the original version of the DSM-5 as well as its predecessor, the DSM-IV. The DSM-5 study relied on publicly available disclosure forms submitted to the APA by participating members.
The APA did not publicly post DSM-5-TR member disclosure documents. So Cosgrove and her colleagues used a publicly accessible federal government database called Open Payments to track how much drug and device manufacturers paid U.S.-based physicians between 2016 and 2019 — the year work began on the DSM-5-TR.
U.S.-based psychiatrists and other physicians accounted for 92 of 168 people who oversaw the DSM-5-TR or worked on the 20 chapters focused on groups of related disorders, such as medication-induced movement disorders or sleep-wake disorders.
A total of 55 of the 92 physicians — about 60 percent — had documented industry payments between 2016 and 2019. Remuneration totaled $14.2 million, 70.6 percent of which was labeled with the purpose of research.
Payments ranged from tens to millions of dollars per person. The 12-person group that worked on the medication-induced movement disorders chapter accounted for 60 percent of the total remuneration, or $8.4 million. One member of that group received $2.7 million. By contrast, the nine members of the group responsible for the chapter on sleep-wake disorders collectively received just under $2 million.
I
ncluding psychiatry experts who have industry ties was unavoidable, wrote Alan Schatzberg, the section editor of the medication-induced movement disorders chapter, in an email to The Transmitter. “Without using them it would be hard, if not impossible, to come up with the experts to make the necessary revisions,” wrote Schatzberg, who is professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University and former APA president.
Schatzberg wrote that he does not think industry payments affected the chapter content.
The former research director of the DSM-5, William Narrow, agrees. “To the extent that I can determine — and I was involved across all of these workgroups — I saw no evidence that decisions were made based on something that would benefit the industry,” says Narrow, who is now associate professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.
But Cosgrove says it remains unclear whether the financial ties to industry had any direct impact on the content of the DSM-5-TR because the APA did not make the revision process transparent. Without transcripts of committee meetings or public reports of reasoning, it’s impossible to assess the impact of industry on text revisions, she argues. “Even text revisions have changes that can be significant,” she says.
The finding that the majority of physicians received industry payments aligns with past studies on industry influence in other medical fields, says Aaron Mitchell, an oncologist and health services researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, who was not involved in the study. He says a more detailed distribution of the payments to DSM physicians would have teased apart the few who had received large industry payments or research grants from the many he suspects received no more than a free meal.
Cosgrove urges the APA to broaden DSM oversight to include, for example, medical anthropologists, whose training focuses on upstream influences on broad societal trends, and methodologists, who predict the impact of adjusting the disorder criteria on the larger population.
Grok
The development of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 2013, was primarily funded by the APA itself. The APA, a non-profit organization, used its internal resources to support the creation of the DSM-5, with no direct external funding explicitly documented for the core development process. The DSM-5 was developed by a task force and work groups consisting of over 150 experts from various mental health disciplines, who participated on a voluntary basis without financial compensation from the APA.
However, significant concerns have been raised about financial conflicts of interest among DSM-5 panel and task force members due to ties with the pharmaceutical industry. A 2012 study found that nearly 70% of DSM-5 task force members had financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, up from 57% for DSM-IV. These ties included research funding (42%), consultancies (22%), and speakers bureau participation (16%), with total payments exceeding $14 million for DSM-5-TR contributors between 2016 and 2019. The APA instituted a disclosure policy for DSM-5, limiting panel members to $10,000 per year in industry payments and $50,000 in stock holdings, but critics argue this threshold is too high and transparency alone does not mitigate bias.
The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) did not directly fund the DSM-5’s development but collaborated with the APA on a 1999 DSM-5 Research Planning Conference to set research priorities, co-sponsored with the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. This conference produced white papers to guide research, but NIMH later withdrew support for DSM-5 in 2013, citing concerns over its validity and lack of objective measures, redirecting research funding toward its Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative.
No specific external grants or federal funding were reported for the DSM-5’s core development, unlike other APA activities. Critics, including former DSM-IV editor Allen Frances, have argued that industry influence, particularly in panels for disorders with pharmacological treatments (e.g., mood and psychotic disorders), may have shaped diagnostic criteria, potentially leading to overdiagnosis.
If you meant a different "DSM" (e.g., DSM-Firmenich or another entity), please clarify, and I can provide tailored information. For example, DSM-Firmenich, a nutrition and health company, has received funding like a £10m investment from Scottish Enterprise for a production plant in Dalry.
your graphic is bullshit
Grok
I can provide a general assessment based on my knowledge up to August 28, 2025. The table outlines changes in the classification of homosexuality, transsexuality, gender dysphoria, and transgenderism in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) across various editions, along with associated drivers and funders. Here's a brief evaluation:
-
Homosexuality: The removal from DSM-II in 1973 and declassification in DSM-III-R in 1987 align with historical shifts led by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and figures like Frank Kameny and Barbara Gittings. This is well-documented.
-
Transsexuality/Gender Identity Disorder: The transition from "gender identity disorder" in DSM-III (1980) to "gender dysphoria" in DSM-5 (2013), and the depathologization of transgenderism, reflects evolving APA and World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) perspectives. This is consistent with known revisions.
-
Drivers and Funders: The involvement of APA, WPATH, and other groups like TGEU, GATE, and ILGA is plausible given their roles in mental health and transgender advocacy. The mention of OSF (Open Society Foundations) tied to Soros, $2M from Democrats, and other funders (e.g., Big Pharma, CIA) is more speculative and lacks clear, widely accepted evidence in the public domain. Funding details, especially involving political or corporate entities, are often controversial and require primary source verification.
While the timeline and status changes are largely factual based on DSM evolution, the funding and driver details (especially non-APA/WPATH entities) appear to include unverified claims. For a definitive fact-check, I’d need to search current sources, which I can’t do now. Would you like me to search the web or X for more up-to-date information to confirm this?
@450
o7
system is self contained, generating, like fed gov't
need diagnosii to fit meds
meds to fit diagnosii so can market and sell, push, labs, xrays, grants, funding, testing on and on
correctomondo