You are, I admit, quite boorish to argue with. I have disproven your arguments many times at this point, yet you persist in making the same arguments, merely in a somewhat rewording manner. When I note and critique your dishonest and comradery behavior when conversing over this subject, you simply deny you ever do such actions, and then proceed to repeat said behavior soon after.
While I do certainly apologise if I may have samed harsh or even belligerent in my tone and wording, what I said is not simply name-calling; it is not an insult to call somebody who perfectly meets the definition of a term that term. Likewise, I call you a conspiracy theorist (or atleast somebody who promotes a mindset which produces conspiracy theories) because you have openly supported, and indeed acknowledged, that you promote the "Big-Pharma" conspiracy theory. To quote you in your own words:
"[...] some of my points are conspiracy theories"
I have no interest in further debating somebody who promotes destructive conspiracy theories. Whenever I have disproven you on your claims, you have not even attempted to concede that you are incorrect (not even on points which you are clearly unable to defend), and merely just retreat back to claiming (with some variation in your wording) that Scientists who research mental health and disorders, and people who apply said research, physiatrists, are totally untrustworthy and false because they are paid off by "Big-Pharma", and you will futhermore promote, or spread material which promotes, the idea that anybody who is aware of the nature of mental disorders or heeds proven research are simply just "shills", and are part of a cult of "Scientism".
No matter how much you are disproven, you will always retreat to your metaphorical bunker of "Big-Pharma" conspiracy and "Scientism". You and others of a similar view are a regressive force for the development of science. I have no further interest in repeatedly refuting your fringe and widely-disproven arguments, therefore, in this comment, I shall directly adress only the few arguments you have made that I have not already disproven.
Adressing your arguments
"How are my arguments "anti-science"?"
Why are you an Anti-science conspiracy theorist, you ask? Simple, you repeatedly undermine the importance of people who possess a tangible, educated understanding of these topics, namely scientists, simply because they fail to adhere to your false understanding of these topics. Furthermore, whenever I present to you proof that psychiatry is overwhelmingly supported by science, and then tell you those reasons, you simply dismiss them and concoct a story about a plot by "Big-Pharma" to brainwash scienists and turn them all into Neoliberals or 'Globalists", and such.
You are attempting to, perhaps unknowingly, destroy the very materialist basis in which Scientific Socialism is formed on, simply to ensure that it complies with you false views and clear bias. If you truely cared at the material basis of these matters, you would understand that psychiatry is largely vaild, and is simply being used by the ruling class, as so much else has. Rather, you try to make the reserach and material findings conform to your ideal of, what is effectively, Anti-science, in other words, your arguments are not those of a educated and principled Marxist, but an idealist, particularly one that seeks to extract simple answers from complex social and economic relations; you don't want to understand how this field is being used in the context of a Capitalist society, instead, you just look at what is most clear to you: you blame psychiatry, not what abuses it.
This is clearly a false notion, for to use a metaphor, while at first, a computer may look like a soild blob of metal and plastic, inside its case lies a conplex body of arcane components. This is how we must view this, you are blaming the blob of metal, whereas I understand the parts within this metaphorical computer. Do not direct your anger againist psychiatry, direct it against Capitalism - the system which turns something that could be helpful (and is being used to help in Socialist States), and turns it into yet a new weapon to support the opressive ruling class.
"Ok, but there is a potential conflict of interest. What about studies that are not done by psychiatrists?"
What conflict of interest in particular? Why would somebody wish to become a specialist in this field to being with? Likely for altruistic intents, perhaps. If I understand what you are arguing correctly, most other studies in this topic yield the same proven result, regardless of what sort of specialist performs it.
"Can you cite those "decades worth of studies…"? I can't find any instance where mental disorders have attempted to be disproved through objective testing."
Like all forms of science, the evolution in our understanding in things such as autism, ADHD, and other mental-related topics has taken decades to develop, with each researcher doing more research, which other researchers in the future use to do an even greater and complex degree of research. This process is not only iterative, it is the very nature of how human innovation goes forth; the building upon others' work, to create a better work, and progress humanity forwards.
"This claim is just incorrect; psychiatric drugs are placebos and they have been proven to be so."
By Whom? Why do you insist upon citing the same fringe sources? If psychiatric drugs were merely placebos, why are they still used commonly? I suspect that if this were to be true, *somebody* have figured out that such drugs are useless, as the placebo effect can only go so far, particularly when a mental disorder is of particular severity. I have looked at your sources many times, and they all are from the same discredited people, who repeat the same discredited assertions, yet, even if I did not, I still, from logic alone, understand that this is impossable.
"This is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. It does not matter if the topic is related to science; the learner must understand science to apply it properly."
"Also, psychiatrists study to be psychiatrists, not be scientists."
You ignored an entire paragrapth which explained how you are false, and effectively repeated the same argument again. I agree that people who work in such a profession must understand science, and indeed, they do, as I have already proven.
You similarly ignore what I said in the second sentence. I particularly explained how the relationship between science - the regimented study of a topic - and being a physiatrist - using the knowledge from the study of a topic in a applied context - is similar to the relation between medical specialists; just because a physician does not commonly engage in research in the topic they apply to people does not mean that physiology is no longer a science.
"Ad hominem; and also Psychiatrists do extract wealth from the labourer, whether in value or money."
Are you unable to read what I said? Pardon me for my tone, but I do not enjoy it when I write an paragrapth which disproves your absurd claims about these medical specialists being the ones who exploit surplus value or being as bad as the bourgeoisie, only for you then to just repeat the same argument, nearly word-for-word, which I disproved. No, psychiatrists do not own the means of production, they do not employ workers, and are almost always paid in wage labour, and are proletarians. If you are attempting to tell a joke, I have yet to find it funny, I would like to say. I am begining to suspect that you are repeating these disproven assertions simply for the sake of making your comment longer, as to make it seem more impressive, or perhaps to turn people away from reading it.
"It's likely possible that most scientists who engage in Psychiatry have been bribed by the capitalist."
"Psychiatry is likely practice[sic] because it forms a useful political tool for oppression; it has manage[sic] to permeate the majority populations[sic] as a psuedoscientfic field under scientific appearances."
I am not sure of how you are expecting me to accept your claims about you not being Anti-science, when you totally disregard science as a "tool" that has "managed" the "majority population". You do not even cite any sources for this conspiracy theory (not that your currect sources have been meaningful). I have no reason to heed your Anti-intellectual claims regardless. There is no proof that "most" who work in psychiatry have been "bribed", in a similar way to how the "Deep State" or "New World Order" has not bribed the climate scientists to make-up climate-chage, as climate change has been undeniably proven, nor are harmful psuedosciences used in society on a mass-scale, as that would clearly be destructive and turn people against the Capitalists, considering that the Working Class are not moronic, and can identify such things. This is why, for example, Reiki or "Faith Healing" are not commonly used, as the working class understand that they do nothing useful, and can often be harmful. Why is psychiatry used if it is so, as you claim, detrimental to people?