You might find some (or all) of the following quotes interesting:
“There is no reason to believe that DSM-5 is safe or scientifically sound … The science simply isn’t there now……A research dead end.” Professor Allen Frances, Chair of DSM IV Task Force
“… we might be in the very strange position of admitting, as one psychiatrist has pointed out, that psychiatry is ‘something very hard to justify or defend—a medical specialty that does not treat medical illnesses’ …” Dr. Peter Breggin (1993, p. 505, Toxic psychiatry. London, England: Fontana)
“Let’s say you have a drug that provides a relief of symptoms in 20% of people. In placebo it’s 10%. How many people in that study do not benefit from the drug? Nine out of 10. How many people are exposed to the adverse effects of the drug? 100%” Robert Whitaker (author of Anatomy of an Epidemic), interviewed by Derek Beres for his Earthrise podcast.
‘ADHD is thus ideally placed as a convenient diagnostic ‘dumping ground’ allowing all of us (parents, teachers, doctors, politicians) to avoid the messy business of understanding human relationships and institutions and their difficulties.’ Sami Timimi, Making and Breaking Children’s Lives, PCCS Books
“Our current study here shows that regardless of diagnosis (schizophrenia and affective psychosis), participants not prescribed antipsychotic medication are more likely to experience more episodes of recovery, increased GAF scores [which measure functioning], and are less likely to be rehospitalized. Further, participants not on antipsychotic medication were approximately six times more likely to recover than participants on medication, regardless of diagnosis status, prognostic index, race, sex, age, education, and other factors.” Prof. Martin Harrow and Dr. Thomas Jobe, “Twenty-year effects of antipsychotics in schizophrenia and affective psychotic disorders”, published in Psychological Medicine.
“The statistical method shows the facts in the light of the ideal average but does not give us a picture of their empirical reality. While reflecting an indisputable aspect of reality, it can falsify the actual truth in a most misleading way. This is particularly true of theories which are based on statistics. The distinctive thing about real facts, however, is their individuality. Not to put too fine a point on it, once could say that the real picture consists of nothing but exceptions to the rule, and that, in consequence, absolute reality has predominantly the character of irregularity.” Carl Jung, The Undiscovered Self
“… we cannot usefully direct mental health services to the dogged pursuit of particular outcomes until there is a broader consensus on which outcomes really matter. Where service users, professionals and different professions already appear to be pulling in different directions – each blaming the other for their dissatisfaction with the current system – that kind of approach would simply create further antagonism. It is also clear that some sort of reconciliation is urgently needed. Unfortunately, any serious reflection on desired outcomes from mental health services quickly leads us away from unthreatening technical discussions to much bigger questions about the purposes of health and care services.” Ben Collins, Outcomes for mental health services: what really matters?
“… a lot of research in psychology is about individuals, but little about people; a lot about behaviour, but little about actions; a lot about emotional states, but little about subjectivity; a lot about cognition, but little about meaning; a lot about responses and actions, but little about intentions and human beings’ self-determination.” The views of Prof. Tor Johan Ekeland, as described in Beyond Best Practice: How Mental Health Services Can Be Better, p. 6.