EXTRA!

August 25, 2003

SECOND OPINION

A FAST FOR FREEDOM IN MENTAL HEALTH

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

A CHALLENGE TO THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION

Fifth In A Series (fourth HERE)

By RFD Editor, Nicholas Regush

Day Nine. In Pasadena, California, six MindFreedom hunger strikers, all former psychiatric patients, are hoping that the world pays closer attention to their plight and convictions. They plan to be on a hunger strike until they are given some answers — answers to their demand that the American Psychiatric Association, the National Alliance For the Mentally Ill (NAMI) and the Office of the Surgeon General provide evidence that "emotional and mental problems are primarily a biologically-based disease." So far, no response worth a damn. The APA arrogantly basically said: Here are some intro textbooks, read them. NAMI oh so subtly said: Join us and do the right thing — on our terms. The Surgeon General is Vanishing Man.

Thus far, I’ve tried to chronicle the day-in, day-out major highlights of the hunger strike. From the standpoint of a journalist who has covered health for more than 25 years, it doesn’t surprise me in the least that the three groups cited by MindFreedom have turned a deaf ear. And it doesn’t surprise me that the mass media have not indicated much interest — thus far, in covering the hunger strike. The three groups are basically educationally challenged when it comes to understanding science. They tend to bounce off each other. As for the mass media, well, I’ve never had much faith in the ability of most science reporters in the U.S. to delve into an issue such as biological psychiatry. They rub elbows far too often with the bigwigs of medicine and forget their early idealism — that is, if they ever had any in the first place.

So, I thought that at this point — namely, today — I would pause briefly and deal more directly with the APA.

Back when I was at ABC News, one of my tasks was to write a weekly column for the Internet side. So at ABCNEWS.com, in the aftermath of the Littleton, Colorado high school shootings, I wrote a piece questioning the over-prescription of powerful psychiatric drugs. I did so because there were concerns that such drugs may have played some role in precipitating the tragic event. I was particularly irked that as soon as there was some public discussion about these medications, Dr. Rodrigo Munoz, then APA president, came out strongly in their support. I had questioned this peculiar, unqualified support, which seemed to me to have the noxious odor of a poorly timed ad for the drug industry.

Well, push came to shove and after numerous back-and-forth emails, Munoz agreed to debate me at an APA forum in New Orleans. His assistant at the time even contacted me and assured me that all was on the level. ABC NEWS was prepared to do a web-cast. But I never heard from Munoz again.

I have learned over many years in my health investigations that many mainstream physicians, and particularly psychiatrists, have learned to mouth the simplistic maunderings of drug sales reps. Many can’t even speak a simple language in laying out the known facts. You often need a code deciphering machine to figure out what they are trying to hide. Usually it’s their ignorance. It has often astonished me how poorly the Big Princes of Medicine actually are in touch with the wide-scope science on an issue. They must read with tunnel vision, or worse.

So, with that remembered, let me once again issue a challenge to the APA to find someone high up in the organization, preferably Dr. James, H. Scully, Jr, the organization’s Medical Director, to debate on the exact issue being brought into public view by MindFreedom. ( I know he’s on vacation now but he can’t hide forever).Dr. Scully had the misfortune of recommending some literature to a 14-member scientific panel convened by MindFreedom, to review any utterings or mouthings put forth by the APA. As history shall record it for all future psychiatrists-in-training, the watchword is now likely to be: know what you are recommending. The panel, for instance, found examples in Scully’s recommended literature which raise serious questions about the legitimacy of biological psychiatry.

So, APA, we can do the following. Invite me AGAIN to some meeting where I will be very happy to debate one of your top guns. Do this well after you have submitted a reasonable response to MindFreedom, and not some ridiculous baloney about "read an intro textbook." Or, if you like, when you finally get your nerve together and figure out that further neglect of MindFreedom will likely only lead to yet more erosion of your credibility, you can send me the same material you send them and I shall proudly display it on the home page of redflagsdaily.com. And I, a lowly journalist without an MD stamped on my forehead, will gladly respond to it.