I can't understand most of your post either. It is long, rhetorical, and oblique.
Your original post is objecting to hearing that evidence has been found that certain parts are the first to deccline and that knowledge might be a useful in developing traetments. What is wrong with hearing that? i can understand that you want to hear about social factors too, but surely not by ignoring other evidence?
Yes, rigid labelling can be unhelpful and obscure individual details. But categorising patients is a step toward finding ways to help them, by using techniques which have been successful in similar cases.
"Science and the media come together" Largely, science does research and reports the results and unscientific media writers then pick out a sensational morsel from the report and blow it up into an inaccuracy. They could come together more and be more effective, but researchers are not media-savvy, and the media are mostly scientifically illiterate.
"even the sickest patients will be guinea pigs and be participants in studies that they may or may not be made aware of." No. Patients are enrolled in studies after the purpose and methodology has been explained to them. If you know of cases where this has been abused, you should be informing the BMA.
I don't know the details of the cases you partly quote about mental health patients, so I can't make much comment.
Yes the " shame and social stigma" of mental illhealth needs to be removed (and the media could help more with that) - but stopping the research into and publicity about another diagnostic tool doesn't help that. They are two different paths of the treatment of these conditions. Some people do one, some the other. It is not either/or.