Comments by "Zudabaker" (@Vyrus36) on "Daily Mail World" channel.

Nah, this the dude who gets kicked out because he argues with your girlfriend that water isn't wet.
6
He did give a medical opinion in a court case based on public knowledge. You can talk about the traits, you can name the traits, but you can't tie them to a specific disorder. And yes, he is splitting hairs, that is the issue here, is your not allowed to comment on a diagnosis, or to link it to the disorder. You can name the traits you can give your expert opinion of those traits. But as soon as you attempt to link that information to a diagnosis or give an opinion to what that represents, you're guilty. Haha, no he isn't just trying to tell it like it is, he's backpedaling, because he did the wrong thing. By alluding the traits to narcissistic personality by calling them "narcissistic personality traits" and not letting the lawyers ask about the traits and their association to any disorders. That's the difference. He needs to be held accountable.
2
@smithdawn1 yeah, he's an expert in treating and diagnosing the elderly. Imagine if he described your nanna as an idiot without ever once talking to her...
1
@scottyakahouse His specialty is treating and diagnosing geriatric patients. No wonder he used a cognitive exam that scores Alzheimer's and didn't use one that actually tests the disorder they are looking for. This is why I'm trying to work on a more standardized form of preliminary psychological review and testing. You can add mental status to the evaluation before doing it. It's pretty damn simple.
1
@stylishboy004 yeah, just because you are human doesn't mean you know what you are talking about when you are supposedly an expert in your field. And yes, psychological "experts" like him desperately need to be weeded out. Him and the toxic positivity bunch as well.
1