"By this logic, Marxists are inherently conspiracy theorists. We argue that the bouregoisie regularly makes secret plans to ham the proletariat. So what is wrong with conspiracy theories in this case?"
That is false. The Marxist understanding of society is inherently in contradiction with conspiracy theories. The bourgeoisie do not "regularly make secret plans to harm the proletariat", they instead pursue their own class interests, or other yielding actions which will help them maintain power, not to "harm the proletariat". The ruling class does not regularly "meet up" in a office every week to discuss things such as "how can we murder more workers today?", instead, they will do actions that may seem well and good relative to them, but bad for the wokers. The bourgeoisie, like other classes, did not appear because a group of "bad men" began to gang-up with eachother two-hundred years ago, but out of the development of society which resulted in the small-lander owners, traders, ect. moving in to social and economic positions of power, which was further caused by the bourgeois revolutions.
Dialectial and Historical materialism are not conspiracy theories, but vaild topics of study within sociology and economics. If you, for all this time, thought that Marxism is a conspiracy theory (and agreed with that percived conspiracy theory), I do not think you can call yourself a Marxist, or not an educated one, at the least.
"Funding from bouregois aligned organizations."
"Funding from the drug industry capitalist."
As I have asked before, where is this proof that all of these researchers are being "funded" by "Big-pharma"? There are many medical specialists, and paying them the amont of money needed to become full "shills" (if such a thing is possible) will require a large transfer of money, where are these payments?
"[my sources are from] Independent researchers."
Whatever. These "independent researchers" are little more than a small collection of conmen and conspiratorialists that are of highly dubious academic backrounds. They prove nothing.
"I asked you to cite those studies."
Why do you require me to cite studies to prove that, for example, anxiety exists? If you wish to, you can study the orgins of our understanding of these commonly-known mental topics. I do not need to cite common knowledge.
"How are my sources fringe?"
They contain widely-discredited assertions and are not supported by most of academia.
"Because the drug industry capitalists profits off psychiatric drugs; so they are heavily promoted to the masses through a psuedoscientific institution."
Then why is not Faith Healing widely used? If "the masses" are such fools as you imply them to be, how would they be able to understand the false nature of Faith Healing? That is not how any of this fuctions anyways; you cannot just "promote" placebos, not in the manner that you claim. Placebos do not work to solve most mental health issues, people would know that if these happened to be "useless" or "harmful" as you assert. If what you were saying was true, Anti-psychiatry would be a massively popular movement, why? Because few, if any people want poison to be put in their bodies by megacorporations, however, psychiatric drugs are largely useful, as I have proved already.
"They did; but you ignored them under being "discredited"."
Merely because a small group of conspiracy theorists "discredits" something does not mean that such a thing is no longer a science. There exists a esoteric community of Flat-Earthers who would swear that Earth is flat, and the Moon Landings were a hoax, but does that mean that it has been "proven" that Earth is flat, or that the Moon Landings have been "proven" to be fake, of course not. Similarly, it is of common consensus that psychiatry is a science, and is atleast somewhat useful.
"How are those people discredited? How are their assertions discredited? because the authors of the studies I cited seem pretty credible to me."
They are discredited in this matter because, not only have they been criticised many times, their claims go directly against the proven understanding of a topic, making (among other reasons) their assertions false. Perhaps you should be more critical with the authors you read.
"Yet you still keep asserting that people can understand science by learning a science related topic (which isn't true). I didn't ignore your paragraph; you just repeated your argument, which I already argued against; so I repeated mine in response."
Firstly, in order to better reach an understanding (if you think that none exists), you ought to better make clear in what particular way In which I failed to understand an argument you were making. Secondly, you are false. Learning science (did my wording "related topic" confuse you?) does commonly result in one understanding science. Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that if somebody learns of particular field of science which you personally disagree with, it no longer counts, because you dislike it. This is, needless to say, not how one applies and improves science. I see no reason why you wound contest me here.
"You did not prove that psychiatrists understand science. You just assumed that a learner already knows science and therefore understand science; which is a circular argument."
To respond to this claim, I will first have to ask two questions; what does "know" mean? To be aware of something through observation or information. What does "understand" mean? To have comprehension of something. They practically mean the same thing in this case. You are merely using words to attempt to disprove my argument for the sake of disproving my argument. I have proved to you that psychiatrists UNDERSTAND science.
"Right; however science requires that explanations can be objectively falsified and tested through objective analysis."
"Psychiatric diagnoses lacks objective falsification and testing; Psychiatry is based on psychiatric diagnoses; therefore Psychiatry is not a science."
Indeed, science does require that, and psychiatry does provide testing and such.
What do you mean "psychiatric diagnoses lack objective falsification and tested"? For a mental disorder to be classifed in the first place, it require years or decades of debate, testing, and so on. A diagnoses is based on a personal scale, not between entire collectives of scientists.
Psychiatry is not "based" on psychiatric diagnoses, but is based on many other scientific fields. Psychiatric diagnoses are simply the main way in which psychiatry is applied.
"However, Psychiatrists still steal wealth from the "patient", and produces no commodities in return. How are Psychiatrists any more proletarian than workers that produce material commodities?"
What do you mean "steal wealth"? They do not hire them are workers, nor pay them wages. If you think that paying for a psychiatrist is a waste of money, that still does not mean they are bourgeois in regards to their economic relations. Your absurd attempts to lie and vilify people who work in that field are not only trival to disprove, they are becoming tiresome on me personally.
"I did not disregard science as a tool."
You said it was being used as a "tool". This require no additional dispute.
"Also, you don't cite any sources for most of your claims. You keep claiming that mental disorders have objective testing; yet you don't cite any sources for this claim."
I showed you a large number of sources which prove my words. I suggest you read them.
"New World Order wouldn't benefit to make-up climate change; making up climate change would show their hypocrisy when trying to argue that capitalists just made-up climate change to promote alarmism."
There is nothing productive found here, however, atleast I now am aware that you adhere to the "NWO" conspiracy.
Conclusion
To conclude, I have nothing more to say to you. I have disproven all of your claims and conspiracy theories, many times. My orginal position stands: This article should remain based upon facts and scientific consensus, not the fringe, conspiratorial opinions of a single editor.