The risk of accepting a psychiatric diagnosis is illustrated by the variant of ‘depression’, which is due to excessive inhibition in unequal relationships. Medical training conditions doctors to focus on the individual, but psychiatry requires a wider view of family and colleagues. Administrators have a bureaucratic wish to oversimplify what is complex. Psychiatrists have exaggerated consensus about psychiatric symptoms, through failure to control intimations between the diagnosing psychiatrists, which suggests perspectives outside the individual patient. A study of 10,025 patients over twelve years in 360,899 consultations showed diagnostic stabilities of 37.4% for mood disorders and 42.4% for schizophrenia. The unlikelihood that brain scans or brain waves will find anything of diagnostic specificity continues to be confirmed.

Psychiatric diagnosis is subcultural. Diagnosis emphasises similarities at the expense of differences, which suits the subculture of people who are not skilled at detecting differences because of their limitations with intimation and vocalisation. What is sonic to some, is ultrasonic to others, which may reflect neuroanatomical variations.

Most medical research that requires masking procedures is flawed by the presumption that the masking procedures have been successful, without proof. Do not accept a supposedly innovative treatment, such as lasers, without that proof.
The failure to test supposedly masked procedures increases the likelihood of a false positive result, and thus the likelihood that you will be given a treatment that has injurious side-effects but no therapeutic effects. You would think that the Health Research Authority and the General Medical Council would want to distance themselves from this consequence, by asserting formally the need for a test of supposedly masked procedures as a condition of ethical approval of a research project. Perhaps the issues are too complex.

A false positive result makes the researcher appear to have made a new discovery while the patient is given a treatment that is ineffective at best. Why does the medical profession not try to avoid a false positive result by testing to see if the researcher actually knew which patient was receiving which treatment, and was therefore able to bias the results in favour of self-advancement at the expense of the patient? So much for the peer review system: herd impunity, with an evolutionarily stable strategy driven by personal aggrandizement and financial gain.
When a reference was made in Wikipedia to the failure to test for successful masking, it was removed within a week.

Humans are not alone in turning their backs to achieve false positive results. Grey squirrels with nuts turn their backs on watching grey squirrels while digging, so that the watchers do not know if the nuts are actually being buried, or if they are just being kept in the mouth, to be enjoyed shortly, after leaping off.