May 23, 2008

Fighting Stigma?

Fighting Stigma?

This article fails to mention any opposition to stigma, "a mark."
It does not address institutionalized unlawful discrimination or the
failure of the "advocates to oppose it. Why is this in the Styles
Section? Is it fashionable?
(GABRIELLE GLASER, "'Mad Pride' Fights a Stigma," The New York Times,
May 11, 2008) It celebrates a system of psychiatric labeling of
humans. There is no questioning of the labels or of what a psychiatric
illness is. This article promotes more of the same.
Psychiatry treats symptoms of illnesses only psychiatrists can
see. Charles Barber says this is new, i.e., accepting psychiatric
illnesses other than depression. Huh? All of these made up illnesses
are accepted by state and US legislatures, courts and journalists who
promote these business illnesses. Psychiatry is a belief system with
no science to back up the propaganda and the treatment using chemicals
to alter human perception.
The Times promotes a dangerous industry that harms humans and
denies many people their basic Constitutional rights. Once again
business trumps law.
Quoting E. Fuller Torrey shows that this is an anti human pro
industry essay. Torrey believes that anyone accused of mental illness
is dangerous, needs to be drugged and loses his or her rights. He is a
funding mechanism for the drug industry. David Oaks works with NAMI
(National Alliance for the Mentally Ill) which is the drug industry
front organization that pretends to be a patient advocate. NAMI
advocates for drug treatment. The Citizens Commission on Human Rights
was not mentioned. CCHR is the only organization to oppose this false
belief system politically. Psychiatry is a system of social control
used by government, corporations and relatives with no due process
protections.

Roy Bercaw - Editor ENOUGH ROOM

Full article at

http://tinyurl.com/6mbu4f

'Mad Pride' Fights a Stigma
The New York Times
By GABRIELLE GLASER
Published: May 11, 2008

6 comments:

Diogenes said...

[David Oaks sent me the below message on May 23, 2008 regarding the letter to the New York Times on stigma. My reply to this message is the next comment. Editor]

OPEN LETTER TO ROY BERCAW

Dear Roy,

I'll try to keep this brief, because another person has called our office, one more person complaining about being locked up and forcibly drugged in the psychiatric system, as I was myself in Massachusetts many years ago.

I'm glad MindFreedom is here to speak out.

I read what you wrote, copied below, about the New York Times MAD PRIDE article on 11 May 2008, which covered MindFreedom and can be read at http://www.mindfreedom.org.

Of course there are legitimate criticisms of that NY Times article. But what you wrote falsely and needlessly insulted me personally.

I'd like to ask you to distribute my open letter to the people you sent that to. I wonder if you will.

Roy, I appreciate you have e-mailed out many alerts over the years about the mental health system, and I've benefited from that. There's a role for the lone wolf writer.

But I've been a human rights activist in the field of mental health for 32 years, working in groups with thousands of others. Through I'm proud that I've maintained my independence at some personal sacrifice. Such independence is rare in the mental health field.

You claim in what you wrote that I work with NAMI, making it appear I'm somehow a shill for the drug companies that fund NAMI.

Actually, I'm proud to be one of the activists who for decades has helped to help lead protests of NAMI and drug company promotion of human rights violations, including:

* A hunger strike targeting three groups including NAMI, which refused to respond to our demands.

* Protests -- including a group protest I led from the streets peacefully going INSIDE a NAMI meeting. And another directly IN FRONT of PHARMA headquarters in Washington, D.C.

* An award-winning investigative article about NAMI drug company funding that I wrote.

And much more.

Perhaps because MindFreedom has protested in a unified way, we appear to be getting somewhere.

Here in Lane County we just had a Mad Pride skit and protest this past Saturday targeting the bullying of the psychiatric drug industry (including showing a worship of a five-foot pill) that can now be seen on YouTube:

http://www.mindfreedom.org/norm

And guess what, one of the participants in that skit, who helped plan it, and who is helping in our local affiliate... also happens to also be a NAMI member, and a good guy. He is getting his local NAMI affiliate to join in some of the local activities here for empowerment and self-determination, such as the Opal Network we helped start.

But I look at all that as a sign of our success. Back in the 1950's my relatives were targeted by the Red Scare, so I don't like the idea of slamming people's reputation because of guilt by association.

I'm also proud that MindFreedom, which I direct, is one of the few totally independent human rights groups in the mental health advocacy field, with zero links or connection to NAMI, drug companies, government, mental health industry, or religion. Of course, many of our members are also members of other groups, too, but our organization is totally independent.

Roy, your tactic of insulting and putting down human rights activists reminds me of the attack-based politics that has ruled in the USA for some time, and that a new generation of youth activists may be trying to leave in the past. I've seen that kind of division split up our social change movement for decades.

Perhaps that's one reason so many youth psychiatric survivors are now embracing Mad Pride activism: They can speak out about human rights, but use culture and fun to do so in a positive way.

MindFreedom itself has actively challenged and protested the psychiatric drug industry, though we do have a pro-choice position and a number of our members choose to take prescribed psychiatric drugs.

We didn't write that New York Times article about Mad Pride and MindFreeedom. If we did, I would write it differently. I'm not here to defend the NY Times, which I've certainly protested for years, too.

But the NY Times reporter at least tried to include a diversity of viewpoints, including MindFreedom's hunger strike critical of the psychiatric drug bullying in our culture. You said the journalist had "no questioning" of labels but the reporter did include an alternative to the phrase "mental illness" by saying some prefer to use the term "extreme mental states." The reporter also mentioned there are individuals highly critical of psychiatric drugs.

Roy, when the pro-industry New York Times is more fair than your own writing, it may be time for reflection.

I'm open to debating a variety of perspectives with anyone.

Being a writer certainly is important, and many of our members are writers, journalists and authors of books that can be seen in our Mad Market. Once more, I've benefited by your heads up about news items via your e-mail.

But as the civil rights movement showed, lone writing is not enough, it's also important to ORGANIZE, including working with other people in GROUPS.

You say below that Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), which is part of the Church of Scientology, is the "only" organization worth supporting.

That's your choice.

We at MindFreedom have zero connections to or funding from CCHR or their sponsor Church of Scientology. This is not to criticize CCHR's work, it's just the truth.

But you may want to know that the leaders of CCHR have long-realized it's important for us in MindFreedom to have our total independence. We address that in our "Frequently Asked Questions" on our web site, including with a letter from our attorney.

A main tactic of the psychiatric industry for decades is to claim they only have one critic, CCHR. This is false, the industry has many critics, but it's easier to attack one opponent.

While CCHR leaders have always respected our decision at MindFreedom to be completely independent, I've heard nothing but praise from CCHR for the human rights activism that MindFreedom is engaged in, and for my own human rights work. Similarly, MindFreedom refuses to get caught up in any hate-speech and bigotry toward CCHR or Scientologists, and I've seen CCHR do some great human rights work.

I sincerely doubt whether CCHR leaders would endorse your false and insulting public put downs of me or our group, and I doubt whether they'd welcome your divisive insulting approach.

We at MindFreedom are not for everyone. And that's okay.

But we're willing to move toward a nonviolent revolution with others, whether they are one of the 100 affiliates and sponsors in our coalition or not.

MindFreedom was started back in the 1980's by embracing the idea of working together in a "spirit of mutual cooperation" as our mission statement. That's why we're one of the few totally independent psychiatric human rights groups.

We are for those ready for a united independent activism for a nonviolent revolution in the mental health system.

If anyone receiving this is interested, check out our work for yourself at http://www.mindfreedom.org, and feel free to ask me any questions at oaks@mindfreedom.org.

But now I have to make that phone call back to that individual locked up in a psychiatric institution... isn't that who we are doing this work for?

David
David W. Oaks, Director, MindFreedom International
http://www.mindfreedom.org

Diogenes said...

Hello David,

I am sorry if I said anything to upset you in my letter to the
NYTimes. However you substantiate what I said. You say in your
response, "And guess what, one of the participants in that skit, who
helped plan it, and who is helping in our local affiliate... also
happens to also be a NAMI member, and a good guy."
No doubt there are many good people who work with or for NAMI.
What is wrong with that? Why is that so upsetting to you? I do not see that my comment that you work with NAMI is in any way an insult. Check out the dictionary.
Your reply is too long for me to send in its entirety. People are
too busy to read my rants no less your's too. I will put your response up as a comment on my blog where the letter is posted. I will put my reply (this one) as a comment to your response. I hope that is acceptable to you.
You know that I am not the first person to object to your
coziness with NAMI. One problem with having a large organization is
that other organizations can infiltrate it. When it gets as large as your's is you spend a lot of time administatively. That is your focus. Mine differs.
When I worked at the state house 2001-02 writing bills to address discrimination none of the local groups many of them taxpayer funded helped me at all. I spent many hours writing and calling them asking them for their support. l got none. I did see some NAMI advocates acting for the legislature. Their slant was to promote treatment. They did not oppose abuses.
Calling me a "lone wolf writer" sounds like a label. Isn't that
what psychiatrists do? It is personal (ad hominem) unlike what I said about you.
You do not need to justify yourself. You are a great leader and a human rights advocate.You have a large organization and helped a lot of people. I admire you. I am grateful for your efforts.
I saw the video of the giant purple pill chasing people from the
Ken Kesey statue. It looked as if all the people were having a good
time. I wish that I could gather so many people. If you could get them
to go to lobby your local government you could have a great influence on how they spend US taxpayer funds. Cities and towns get US taxpayer funds for psychiatric treatment and policing. Politicians are fragile. With a large group you can scare the hell out of them.
You say, that I said CCHR "is the 'only' organization worth
supporting." I know you are intelligent and very well educated. I know you are a Harvard graduate. I know you are at least as busy as I am. But you need to read what I wrote not what you think I said. What I said is "CCHR is the only organization to oppose this false belief system politically."
You also attribute to my statement that you work with NAMI all kinds of extreme thoughts about associations and the Red Scare which are only in your interpretation. For someone with 32 years experience you have a very thin skin.

Roy Bercaw

Anonymous said...

Very well written piece and the comments are good as well

Diogenes said...

Hello David,

You may want to look at this video lecture "The Wires that
Control the Public Mind" given by Sheldon Rampton of PR Watch at the
U. of Wisconsin. (Abstract below)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UUY9ahSCMG0

He spoke at a Google techtalk lecture May 6, 2008. It is about 40
minutes before the questions begin. At one point he explains how a PR
firm boasted of infiltrating their organization investigating
corporate lies published in the media. I have no evidence but I
suspect one of the drug companies has someone inside of your
organization as well.
The important pattern Rampton discusses is that much of what we
see in the news is really propaganda.

Roy

Google Tech Talks
May, 6 2008

ABSTRACT

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. ... In
almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons ... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind." -- Edward Bernays, founder of the public
relations industry.

Billions of dollars are spent each year in the United States alone on public relations, a little-understood profession that has become a modern propaganda-for-hire industry. "Publicity" was once the work of carnival hawkers and penny-ante hustlers smoking cigars and wearing cheap suits. Today's PR professionals are recruited from the ranks of former journalists,
retired politicians and eager-beaver college graduates eager to rise in the corporate world. They hobnob internationally with corporate CEOs, senators
and U.S. presidents. PR wizards concoct and spin the news, organize phony "grassroots" front groups, spy on citizens, and conspire with lobbyists and politicians to thwart democracy. In today's electronic age, they use 800-numbers and telemarketing, advanced databases, and "video news releases" -- entire news stories written, filmed and produced by PR firms and transmitted electronically to thousands of TV stations around the world. Canned news from PR firms is designed to be indistinguishable from real news and is increasingly taking its place, used as "story segments" on TV news shows without any attribution or disclaimer indicating that what viewers are
seeing is in fact subtle paid advertisements. On the internet as well, PR firms have created slick websites that promise to inform the public while pushing hidden agendas. Example include:
the Greening Earth Society (funded by the coal industry), which claims that global warming is actually good for the environment the Foundation for Clean Air Progress (which opposes regulations to control air pollution) the African American Republican Leadership Council (a conservative organization headed by white Republicans) Working Families for Wal-Mart (secretly funded, of course, by the Wal-Mart itself)
Project Learning Tree (sponsored by the logging industry) PR firms create front groups as part of what they call the "third party technique." The basic idea, as described by one PR executive, is to "Put your words in someone else's mouth." They realize that their messages are more likely to persuade the public if they come from seemingly independent "third parties" such as a professor or a pediatrician or someone representing a nonprofit citizens' group. The problem is, these third
parties are usually anything but neutral. They have been handpicked,
cultivated, and meticulously packaged to make you believe what they have to say--preferably in an "objective" format like a news show or a letter to the editor. And in some cases, they have been paid handsomely for their opinions.

Speaker: Sheldon Rampton
Sheldon Rampton researches deceptive PR firms for the Center for Media and Democracy and is the co-author, with John Stauber, of books including "Toxic Sludge Is Good For You: Lies, Damned Lies and the Public Relations Industry"; "Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and
Gambles With your Future": and "Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq." He will discuss the Center's work including its website, Sourcewatch.org, a wiki-powered collaborative research project to document the "names behind the news."

(c) 2008 YouTube, Inc.

Roy Bercaw - Editor ENOUGH ROOM

Diogenes said...

[In response to my comment about the YouTube video about the PR Industry, David Oaks all-lawyered up like the best Harvard corporate moguls, sent me this warning. He really sounds like MLK, Jr. doesn't he? Editor]
Thanks for the information, and thanks your concern Roy. I work with folks in the movement to challenge corporate media, so I'm already familiar with the PR industry.

I am incredibly busy today because we are attending a premiere of a new documentary film, Little Brother Big Pharma, so this is just a brief note:

Roy, concerns are always important, and I'm glad to hear it. As director of MindFreedom I can tell you your "suspicion" about our group is unfounded.

That said, Roy, I need to mention something our attorney David Atkin told me a few years ago.

And I need to be really clear about it with you personally, in case you decide to make any accusation against us:

If any individual or group makes a false claim against us with intent to harm any of our board of directors or staff, our attorney has asked us to bring this up with him because he would need to pursue a potential defamation lawsuit, beginning with a warning letter.

You are welcome to bring this information up with your own attorney if you need legal advice about it.

Best wishes,

Sincerely,

David

David W. Oaks, Director, MindFreedom International
- Show quoted text -


On May 25, 2008, at 7:43 AM, Roy Bercaw wrote:

Hello David,

You may want to look at this video lecture "The Wires that
Control the Public Mind" given by Sheldon Rampton of PR Watch at the
U. of Wisconsin. (Abstract below)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UUY9ahSCMG0

He spoke at a Google techtalk lecture May 6, 2008. It is about 40
minutes before the questions begin. At one point he explains how a PR
firm boasted of infiltrating their organization investigating
corporate lies published in the media. I have no evidence but I
suspect one of the drug companies has someone inside of your
organization as well.
The important pattern Rampton discusses is that much of what we
see in the news is really propaganda.

Roy


Google Tech Talks
May, 6 2008

ABSTRACT

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and
opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. ... In
almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or
business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by
the relatively small number of persons ... who understand the mental
processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires
which control the public mind." -- Edward Bernays, founder of the public
relations industry.

Billions of dollars are spent each year in the United States alone on public
relations, a little-understood profession that has become a modern
propaganda-for-hire industry. "Publicity" was once the work of carnival
hawkers and penny-ante hustlers smoking cigars and wearing cheap suits.
Today's PR professionals are recruited from the ranks of former journalists,
retired politicians and eager-beaver college graduates eager to rise in the
corporate world. They hobnob internationally with corporate CEOs, senators
and U.S. presidents. PR wizards concoct and spin the news, organize phony
"grassroots" front groups, spy on citizens, and conspire with lobbyists and
politicians to thwart democracy. In today's electronic age, they use
800-numbers and telemarketing, advanced databases, and "video news releases"
-- entire news stories written, filmed and produced by PR firms and
transmitted electronically to thousands of TV stations around the world.
Canned news from PR firms is designed to be indistinguishable from real news
and is increasingly taking its place, used as "story segments" on TV news
shows without any attribution or disclaimer indicating that what viewers are
seeing is in fact subtle paid advertisements. On the internet as well, PR
firms have created slick websites that promise to inform the public while
pushing hidden agendas. Example include:

the Greening Earth Society (funded by the coal industry), which claims that
global warming is actually good for the environment
the Foundation for Clean Air Progress (which opposes regulations to control
air pollution)
the African American Republican Leadership Council (a conservative
organization headed by white Republicans)
Working Families for Wal-Mart (secretly funded, of course, by the Wal-Mart
itself)
Project Learning Tree (sponsored by the logging industry)

PR firms create front groups as part of what they call the "third party
technique." The basic idea, as described by one PR executive, is to "Put
your words in someone else's mouth." They realize that their messages are
more likely to persuade the public if they come from seemingly independent
"third parties" such as a professor or a pediatrician or someone
representing a nonprofit citizens' group. The problem is, these third
parties are usually anything but neutral. They have been handpicked,
cultivated, and meticulously packaged to make you believe what they have to
say--preferably in an "objective" format like a news show or a letter to the
editor. And in some cases, they have been paid handsomely for their
opinions.


Speaker: Sheldon Rampton
Sheldon Rampton researches deceptive PR firms for the Center for Media and
Democracy and is the co-author, with John Stauber, of books including "Toxic
Sludge Is Good For You: Lies, Damned Lies and the Public Relations
Industry"; "Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and
Gambles With your Future": and "Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of
Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq." He will discuss the Center's work
including its website, Sourcewatch.org, a wiki-powered collaborative
research project to document the "names behind the news."

(c) 2008 YouTube, Inc.

--
Roy Bercaw - Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
PO Box 400297
Cambridge MA 02140 USA
enoughroom.blogspot.com
enoughroomvideo.blogspot.com


David W. Oaks, Executive Director
MindFreedom International
454 Willamette, Suite 216 - POB 11284
Eugene, OR 97440-3484 USA

web: http://www.mindfreedom.org
email: oaks@mindfreedom.org
office phone: (541) 345-9106
fax: (541) 345-3737
member services toll free in USA: 1-877-MAD-PRID[e] or 1-877-623-7743

United Independent Activism for Human Rights in Mental Health!

MindFreedom International is an non-profit coalition with a vision of a non-violent revolution in mental health. Accredited by the United Nations as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) with Consultative Roster Status.

Join now! http://www.mindfreedom.org/join-donate

"Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted."
- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Diogenes said...

[Kevin Hall, New England Director of Citizens Commission on Human Rights sent me this message]
"Hi Roy,
David is actually right. He hates NAMI, has personally protested them
and has often attacked them on his web site.

He did thank you for speaking out against psychiatry in your letter
and maybe you should correct things with him? None of us are perfect,
but I think he's trying to do a lot of good things.

If you decide to write him, I would appreciate if you could include my comment."

I [Editor] found a news alert David Oaks sent out dated Nov. 3, 1999. It is about a Mother Jones article dated Dec 1999 pp 22-23 which reveals that 18 drug companies gave NAMI $11.72 between 1996-99.
David Oaks' dedication to fighting psychiatric abuses is beyond doubt. I pointed out the presence of NAMI members within his organization. If that is not of concern sobeit." [Editor]