Response by Thomas A. Ban

Thomas A. Ban’s response to Hector Warnes’ response to Thomas Ban’s reply to Warnes’ comment

Professor Warnes positive intepretations about Neuropsyhopharmacology and the Forgotten Language, go far beyond than warranted by the text. This short E-Book does not have a “lengthy preamble to amass to a working hypothesis” but a sketchy outline of history that lead to the establishment of a foundation for psychiatry in psychopathology and nosology. In reviewing history, it simply shows that during the second part of the 20th century these two disciplines were abandoned (“Forgotten”). Hence, it suggests “nosologic homotyping” to derive populations exclusively based on psychopathology and psychiatric nosology to be able to test the usefulness of these two disciplines before they are summarily dismissed. Since in his response to my reply to his comment Professor Warnes inadvertently confounded what nosologic homotyping is and nosologic homotypes are, in the following, both concepts will be briefly defined.

Nosologic homotyping is based on structural psychopathology, a branch of psychopathology in which Wernicke’s “mental structure” is combined with 20th century psychopathology. Thus, in structural psychopathology the three components of Wernicke’s “mental structure” (psychosensory, intrapsychic and psychomotor), are extended into three “psychic structures”, the “afferent-cognitive”, the “central-affective,” and the “efferent–adaptive”. Nosologic homotypes are identical in “elementary units”  of mental illness (psychopathological symptoms) and are assigned to the same position in the “nosologic matrix”, constructed with consideration of the three classifying principles of psychiatric nosology, i.e., “totality, (“universal” or “partial”), “temporality” (“continuous” or “episodic”), and “polarity” (‘bipolar” or “unipolar”). Each pharmacologically valid distinct “nosologic homotype” provides a potential diagnostic concept for a mental disorder.


Thomas A. Ban

July 30, 2015