Don't be upset people are bashing your article. You need thicker skin (and more facts) if you want to make it in this game.

It's pieces like this that keep me from renewing a subscription to Salon. How can a publication that features meticulous people like Glen Greenwald publish something so one-sided and misleading? Just read some of the comments here for factual reasons why this article comes to several false conclusions.

It has a feeling to it that Dr. Parikh was assigned this topic, and told what conclusions to reach.

Just because a person is a physician doesn't automatically qualify him or her to write on every topic.

Yes, I read the article, now maybe you should. Though 72% of cases where there was no mistake made by the doctor resulted in no payment, 28% of the cases did!! Didn't you get that? And you say the legal system works? I wonder if you'd feel that way if you were a physician among the 28%.

You were on a jury? That's scary. I'd have liked to have overheard your insightful comments during discussion.

And for all your faith in the jury system, let me mention one name:

OJ Simpson

Yeah sure. Juries work.

Ask any lawyer who defends physicians why the cost of malpractice insurance is so high, or why physicians order so many defensive tests, and he/she will answer with one word:

Juries.

The jury system is the real problem. Plaintiff's attorneys know that all they need is a sympathetic jury, and some slick "medical experts" on the payroll, and they can win any case, no matter how innocent the doctor may be.

That's why doctors order so many tests and procedures, often expensive radiology or lab tests.

Med mal cases need to be taken away from juries, which are comprised of six clueless people off the street, who cannot possibly digest the nuances of a complex medical case. Instead, a panel of judges or arbitrators need to be used, perhaps mixed with retired clergy, lawyers, and medical personnel, all trained to sort out such cases.

As long as juries are involved, nothing will improve.

...who criticized my first post--since English is apparently not your primary language, let me re-explain it to you.

First, I never said PTSD isn't real. I said it's not a true disease. It can't be, because, as it's defined by the DSM (look it up), it's just a syndrome of symptoms of uncertain cause. So proving someone has it, or doesn't have it, is moot, because "it" is intentionally artificial.

That said, there clearly are emotional and perceptual damages from going to war. But as the legal precedent stands, they are not an excuse for murder. So to say, as this article does, that the US army is somehow responsible for the guy getting drunk and beating a woman to death, is ridiculous. Now, if the defense can show he was temporarily insane, by the legal definition, then he might go free. But temporary insanity is a completely different entity from PTSD.

Also, it's easy to show that the military and VA diagnose boatloads of people with PTSD, the vast majority of whom never go insane and kill anyone. So committing murder is not the expected action of a guy with PTSD.

As for the elaborate description of a flashback given earlier, it might be true, but the poster sounds nearly psychotic himself, so it could also be a delusion. But even if true, if the friend had killed someone, he'd still be on trial for it, just like Needham, and no one could blame the Army.

Instead, it's a syndrome. It's a group of observed symptoms only. It does not have a universally-accepted set of symptoms or causes. It's just another wastebasket term, like "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome," made up to give a label to something that's not understood.

Now I'm not saying there's not something wrong with this guy. I'm not saying his Iraq experience didn't cause it. But it's also quite possible that going to Iraq just brought out pre-existing problems in his behavior and personality.

The article goes too far defending him though. PTSD "flashbacks" are only one step above the Twinkie Defense in terms of plausibility-there's pretty clear precedent for that in the courts. But if you get drunk and angry, and you kill someone, you still have to face the music.

Right to the allergist's door.

Think about it: It's the only group of doctors for whom allergies are required. No wonder then that almost everyone who visits one is found to have an "allergy."

Skin testing? Unreliable for foods, but big $$$.

Repeat visits. More $$$.

Ask anyone who works in an ER just how often true anaphylaxis is seen. I can tell you it's rare, and when it is seen, is usually due to an insect sting. Not foods.

Now ask how many people THINK they're having anaphylaxis, but aren't. It's most of them. Most are having panic attacks, or in older folks, a rapid or irregular heart rhythm.

Anyone remember the episode of "All in the Family" when Gloria claimed she was allergic to lima beans, and Mike makes her eat one? She imagines she develops anaphylaxis, but of course in the end, she was just imagining it. The power of suggestion.

So to all you parents of pan-allergic kids out there--you're beliefs don't carry much weight. Show me a letter from an ER doc or a pulmonologist that your kid was anaphylactic, and I'll believe it. But not till then.