Fwd: [SSRI-Research] QUESTIONABLE SCIENCE — BY FORCE

[Guest guest]

SSRI-Research

FastForFreedom

Thu, 28 Aug 2003 05:53:04 -0000

[sSRI-Research] QUESTIONABLE SCIENCE — BY FORCE

 

http://www.redflagsweekly.com/extra/2003_aug28.html

 

August 28, 2003

 

SECOND OPINION

 

A FAST FOR FREEDOM IN MENTAL HEALTH

 

A hunger strike challenges international domination by

biopsychiatry and the forced drugging of patients

 

QUESTIONABLE SCIENCE — BY FORCE

 

Seventh In A Series (Sixth HERE)

 

By RFD Editor, Nicholas Regush

 

Day Twelve. Yesterday the MindFreedom hunger strikers in

Pasadena, California held a face to face meeting with Dr. Marcia

Goin, President of the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

No, they weren't exactly invited over for some coffee and cake,

but they say they didn't meet with too much resistance either

when they decided to take a short trek from strike headquarters

to Goin's Los Angeles office. They did call first.

 

It wasn't a meeting that will make the record books in terms of a

real breakthrough, but for the strikers it was breakthrough

enough, for now, as Goin appears to have indicated a reserved

willingness to explore the possibility of having a meeting

between representatives of MindFreedom and the APA.

 

The issue, as I have explored in previous columns in this series,

is mainly about the dominant psychiatric agenda in play these

days: biopsychiatry. The MindFreedom hunger strikers are

asking the APA and the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill and

the U.S. Surgeon General to provide solid scientific evidence for

the " biological basis of mental illness. " One reason, aside from

the obvious, for their demand is that there is an increasing

pattern of forced drugging across the U.S. as the lynchpin of

so-called community programs. This is the direct result of a

strong belief — and I emphasize the word, belief, in the

biological theory of mental illness. And it therefore follows that

such a belief system will inevitably lead to a policy of forced

drugging, requiring many psychiatric patients to accept drug

therapies as a passport to community life.

 

One reason why this hunger strike is extremely important is that

it points to a widespread pattern in our culture to accept

less-than-adequate science as the basis for clinical care. I've

been reporting on science and medicine for more than 25 years

and it has always been very clear in my mind that what often

passes for wisdom and pragmatic policy is highly primitive

information. Only, health professionals, including psychiatrists,

lack the humility to understand that they are dealing with a tiny

fraction of what will be known five years or ten years from now.

This is especially true of brain science. Psychiatry has leaped

into the so-called " era of the brain " with the sophistication of a

" gnat. " It also jumped right in holding hands with the drug

industry, which has the social consciousness of a " zit. "

 

Over the many years that I have been reporting on health, I have

interviewed many scientists, for both print and television, and

among them have been Nobel Laureates and winners of this

and that. I have found that the people who are trustworthy and

willing to explore ideas are definitely in the minority. But they

stand out as having the deep understanding that we live on a

primitive planet with still primitive ideas. The other side — those

who pretend they have answers to everything — also stand out

as geniuses in their own minds. Upon careful scrutiny — and

sometimes in the act of interviewing — I have had an extremely

easy time of it, exposing the incredible low level knowledge that

some of these pedestal movers and shakers really have. When

they snort away with their theories and facts in front of people

they feel they can control, they seem to have the upper hand. But

when they must detail their views in an orderly fashion, they often

break down. This is one reason why as a columnist I have

issued numerous challenges — most recently one to the APA —

to debate me on substantive issues. While I can never be sure of

winning by a knockout, I have enough experience behind me to

know just how incredibly vulnerable some of these bigshots

really are. And that includes their lack of knowledge of the

wide-scale science surrounding their chosen profession.

 

In the case of the APA, I sincerely doubt whether any of their

researchers or other representatives could possible emerge

with happy faces from a well-organized encounter with critics of

the biological theory that lines and drives psychiatry. Is this why

an APA president would probably not be too willing to get

involved in a debate? Probably. Because the APA would look like

a horse's ass once the debate got going. Frankly, I'd give a lot to

witness such a debate or even participate in one. I would also

love to see the APA hold one with representatives from the drug

industry assembled in the audience as " spares " just in case the

APA gets into trouble. And why not, it would be expected and the

tag team would be just the perfect image for a profession that is

losing credibility worldwide, day by day.

 

MIND FREEDOM