> Actually performing such a trial, with an effective treatment agent, tends to produce strong results for a few patients, and null or actually harmful results in the rest. Nothing is wrong with the treatment, when applied to the patients who should get it, but the trial fails to produce a positive result.
Do you have any actual data to support this assertion, or is it just a weak sophism, same as used to support ineffective "integrative medicine" practices?
What sort of data do you imagine would convince you? Or is this just a reflexive rejection of change?
Insisting on data that demonstrates invalid RCTs while assuming that DSM diagnoses precisely distinguish causes, on the basis of no data at all, puts the cart before the horse.
Do you have any actual data to support this assertion, or is it just a weak sophism, same as used to support ineffective "integrative medicine" practices?