[_Nat_]

If you want to say someone's toe hurts because they stubbed it, you can refer to it as "stubbed toe pain". Even if "stubbed toe pain" isn't an official diagnosis in some health organizations, that doesn't mean it's junk science.

I don't get why the article's attacking the term "excited delirium" in the first place, though. I mean, do the authors think that the correctness of police-brutality hinges on whether or not there's such a thing as "excited delirium"? Do the authors think that, if there's such a thing as "excited delirium", it'd justify police-brutality?

[in_cahoots]

The question isn’t whether the authors think that, it’s whether the police think that. If you thought a suspect had superhuman strength and was impervious to pain, wouldn’t you use more lethal means to control them?

[_Nat_]

Did you read the article as critiquing the belief that some suspects have superhuman strength and imperviousness to pain?

I mean, I Google'd "drug-induced strength". Among the first few hits were [this video][1] and [this article][2], which seem like reasonable evidence of those two symptoms existing together.

The article's logic was disjointed, but I read it as primarily focusing on terminology. If it was instead an argument against the existence of those symptoms, that'd be a tad confusing given stuff like the YouTube video.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV6FnGeYUOE&t=24

[2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/1...