EXTRA!

August 22, 2003

SECOND OPINION

A FAST FOR FREEDOM IN MENTAL HEALTH

A hunger strike is challenging international domination by biopsychiatry and the forced drugging of patients

A MINDFREEDOM SCIENTIFIC PANEL SOCKS IT TO THE ARROGANT AND EDUCATIONALLY-CHALLENGED APA

Second In A Series (first HERE)

By Nicholas Regush

Day Six. He sounds a little lightheaded and wired. That’s what a hunger strike does to you. David Oaks, having had a restful day at hunger strike headquarters in Pasadena, is feeling "jazzed" because the scientific panel established by MindFreedom, the organization he heads, has produced a stunning rebuttal to an extremely arrogant memo from the American Psychiatric Association. When MindFreedom asked the APA to provide evidence that "emotional and mental problems are primarily a biologically-based brain disease," Dr. James H. Scully, Jr., the APA Medical Director suggested that Oaks, his fellow hunger strikers, group members and supporters read a report from the Surgeon General of the United States and an introductory "user-friendly" textbook of psychiatry — just perfect for those "being introduced to the field of psychiatry."

Big mistake. Though Scully is on vacation, the APA will shortly be receiving the MindFreedom report that suggests to me — and it comes as no surprise — that the APA is educationally challenged on the key issues of what constitutes a mental illness. In fact, the APA is so out of touch with the science that there should be a Congressional investigation to determine the role the drug industry has had in shaping uneducated viewpoints and policies at APA central. I’m not kidding. There is such a lack of fit between what the established agenda has going for it and the available neuroscience that this is no longer just a matter of tweaking the so-called experts to get their house in order; no, it is now a matter requiring a high-level investigation. Lives are at stake; they always have been, and the situation has gone totally out-of-control. The kind of psychiatry supported by big drug money and its associate, the APA, has more to do with profit and career enhancement than it has to do with patient care. And I’m being very nice.

The panel that MindFreedom set up has 13 PhDs and MDs. This is no B-team. I’d put these people up against anything the APA would have to offer in the way of an actual debate. In fact, it already seems at this very early point in the hunger strike that the panel has scored a major coup, revealing how absolutely ridiculous Scully’s reading recommendations turned out to be. Again, I say, "Big Surprise."

The panel decided to look at the Report of the Surgeon General on mental health and notes that the report is explicit when it comes to discussing specific pathophysiology. For example, "few lesions or physiologic abnormalities define the mental disorders, and for the most part their causes remain unknown." I wonder if Scully knows this. Or does Scully know that, "the diagnosis of mental disorders is often believed to be more difficult than diagnosis of somatic, or general medical, disorders, since there is no definitive lesion, laboratory test, or abnormality in brain tissue than can identify the illness?"

Does Scully know that, "the precise causes (etiology) of mental disorders are not known?" The mantra for MindFreedom should be: Does Scully Know? I mean, didn’t he read the Surgeon General’s Report?

On to that "user-friendly textbook." Here’s a good one from the panel’s report:

"Although reliable criteria have been constructed for many psychiatric disorders, validation of the diagnostic categories as specific entities has not been established."

I suppose we can go on. But let’s put a stop to the carnage for the moment. Tomorrow, I’ll take a closer look at the response to MindFreedom from the National Alliance For The Mentally Ill. That’s worth waiting for.

TO BE CONTINUED