R4: health sickness and exploitation

[WarriorN]

Start the week - lots of discussion around diagnosis of conditions that are now no longer seen as a diagnosis etc

Religious bias, personal bias, homosexuality was a diagnosed condition.

Number of correlations with the current state of GD/ ideology.

So far I've not heard them mention it, nor do I think they will, but so many parallels...

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0018nnr?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Not listened to this yet but looks interesting thanks.

Have you come across the book Cracked by James Davies? It outlines how arbitrary, biased and unscientific a lot of the process of defining psychological diagnoses still is. Don't think it covers gender and for all I know the author may be someone who chooses not to engage in wrong speak for (understandable) professional reasons. But, as with your program, the parallels are clear to see.

I haven't, but sounds similar.

I did however see a v recent gender a wider lens podcast around a similar idea, that diagnoses are being created by current Gender ideology ideas alongside social media (eg tiktok.)

Easier to access via Twitter link

twitter.com/widerlenspod/status/1540293419565817856?s=21&t=LYd6ZdNj1ekABOuxNwzEmw

Yes, I heard this and it was very interesting. Will investigate the book.

Jacquet and Montague's pieces are the most relevant. Though GP Francis makes comments about diagnosis's not always being relevant longer term, esp mental health.

Jacquet has written a satire on how corporations can avoid annoying scientific truths which will crash them (eg asbestos, tobacco) mostly in the context of climate denial.

"Normative inappropriate dissent"

Corporate jargon which means denying the evidence in front of you.

She gives an example of one company that makes tasers and they support the diagnosis of (and research of?) the psychological diagnosis of "excitable delirium." As it's not the taser that kills them, the diagnosis does.

She mentioned Tyrone Hayes/ haze? A Scientist hired to research effect of a herbicide on frogs. He found that it was an endocrine disrupter and reported to the firm that hired him - they asked him to re run the experiments, delaying for many years etc. They then hire a pr firms to go after him. He became paranoid etc. however evidence came out later that showed he was actually being heckled and investigated, doxxed etc.

Mostly in the context of climate change but illustrates how corporations and companies need economic power over "science."

She's asked at the end by Rutherford: How to get around annoying scientific evidence?

Her answer: Hire a big PR firm.