Fwd: SECOND OPINION FROM REDFLAGSDAILY.COM, AUGUST 27, 2003

[Guest guest]

Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:37:30 -0700

SECOND OPINION FROM REDFLAGSDAILY.COM, AUGUST 27, 2003

" Nicholas Regush "

 

 

AUGUST 27, 2003

 

http://www.redflagsdaily.com

 

 

 

SECOND OPINION

 

This is part seven of a MAJOR SERIES that is being made available to all RFD

visitors and members.

 

(See below the column for other notices)

 

***

 

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

 

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.

 

GO TO THE RFD HOME PAGE FOR THE OTHER PARTS OF THE SERIES

 

 

 

MIND FREEDOM

 

****

 

NOTICES:

 

Sometime in September, SECOND OPINION will take on a new look and take a new

turn.

 

***

 

NEW FROM RFD:

 

FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, ORGANIZATIONS AND WEBSITES:

 

INTRODUCE YOURSELF

 

CARDS OF INTRODUCTION