But she has an agenda. She wants more people diagnosed with what others on the same page are calling "shadow diagnoses". What she wants will lead to many people who do not have a mental illness but are going through some trauma or personal stress getting a psychiatric label and psychiatric medications. The label will follow them the rest of their life and the medications may harm them and won't help since they don't actually have a mental illness.

Okay, I did read the byline and after she called me a disgruntled patient in the Weekly Standard without ever meeting me, yeah, I don't like the woman. But I didn't like her before that. This is the same woman who spoke at University of Virginia and said that segregated hospitals weren't so bad, author of the "I'm a Racially Profiling Doctor", who blames lesbians and feminists for domestic violence and who is undercutting support for returning veterans with PTSD.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That's all this is.

I didn't look at the byline before I read it either (or even before I emailed the link to you). When I did I was kind of surprised that she could seem so moderate and admit that there was so much that wasn't known. Is she actually admitting that there is a lot of ambiguity involved in psychiatry?

I too was shocked when, after reading the piece, I saw that it was Satel. But it still shocked me that she thought these things somehow justify more treatment and loser diagnoses. But then the last thing I read by her was that piece about how addiction is not a medical, genetic disease. I had the same sort of agree with her thoughts while uneasy about her conclusion reaction I had to this piece. (as an aside, I resent that she has co-opted my first name, though she may have been using it longer)