*grin* 'tis true that I find the diagnoses described in the book more than a little absurd, since it appeared that the doctors making the diagnosis were basing it on what sounded like typical behavior that might happen in the wake of a father's death and a their mother's decision to work 60 hrs a week. She describes that decision as one made out of choice, not the circumstance of needing the money. At any rate, you can google it.
Meanwhile, I was reading more, bothered by claims that books like Petersen's are anti-technology. I was bothered because the evidence she has corralled details a world of pharmaceutical research that flips the bird at scientific research. Whatever these people are doing when they do research, it's more like marketing -- not science. They invest millions in r&d on drugs for heartburn and joint pain, modifying only slightly an already existing drug, and then engage in what the pharmaceutical marketing industry calls "blockbuster marketing" in order to create huge demand for something "new" that isn't new at all, but a slight twist on something that already exists.
meanwhile, their slight twist, something small enough to allow it to bypass patent regulations, can actually prove dangerous. Baycol is an example. It was more dangerous than drugs just like it that were already treating the problem.
Another very interesting aspect to all this is that the claims that drug makers must spend exorbitant amounts on research, which is said to account for the high price of drugs, is horse shit. Basically, a couple of senate hearings have revealed that drug makers consider spending on marketing before a drug has been approved a research cost. So, when they pay doctors to be 'consultants' traveling around the contry to pump up a drug that hasn't been approved yet, this is considered "research". There are more examples but i have to run off to work!
shag