Tyrannisierte Ärzte bekommen Unterstützung durch Ärzteverband
Schnappschuss Prof. William Rea mit Dr. Klausdietrich Runow am 25. International Symposium On Man and His Environment in Health and Disease
Während viele Patienten unter dem herrschenden Gesundheitssystem zu leiden haben, geht es Ärzten nicht viel besser. Ganz besonders im Brennpunkt stehen dabei Umweltmediziner. Nicht nur in Deutschland ist dies der Fall, sondern auch in anderen Ländern. Im vergangenen August erreichte uns eine Meldung. In den USA sollte ein kapitaler Schlag gegen die Umweltmedizin verübt werden. Das Texas Medical Board (TMB) versuchte zu veranlassen, Professor William Rea, dem ersten Professor für Umweltmedizin weltweit und Gründer des renommierten Environmental Health Center in Dallas, die Lizenz zum Praktizieren zu entziehen.
Schlag gegen Umweltmedizin vereitelt
Was als kapitaler Schlag gegen die gesamte Umweltmedizin gedacht war, wurde für das TMB zum Verhängnis. Kollegen, Patienten aus aller Welt und viele umweltmedizinische Organisationen aus den USA und Europa traten in Aktion und bekundeten ihre Solidarität mit Professor William Rea.
Ein europäischer Solidaritätsbrief für Professor Rea wurde von 42 Organisationen und umweltmedizinischen Fachverbänden, vielen Ärzten, Wissenschaftlern, Medizinjournalisten und Umweltpatienten aus ganz Europa unterzeichnet. Auch Hiltrud Breyer, MdEP, brachte mit Ihrer Unterschrift ihre Solidarität gegenüber Professor Rea, der als einer der Gründer der Umweltmedizin gilt, zum Ausdruck. Einige Umweltärzte schrieben zusätzlich Solidaritätsbriefe an den texanischen Senat und das Texas Medical Board. Und die gemeinsamen internationalen Anstrengungen zeigten Wirkung. Der Senat von Texas berief eine Sitzung ein, bei der die Mitglieder des TMB und die betroffenen Ärzte angehört wurden. Diese Anhörung dauerte über 11 Stunden, sie kann über die Links im Anhang angehört werden. Eine Episode möchten wir Ihnen vorab berichten.
Senatsabgeordnete Debbie Riddle während der Zeugenvernehmung, an Prof. Dr. William Rea gerichtet:
„…Aber eines der Dinge, die mich absolut wütend machen; und ich sage es hier geradeheraus, sind die Leute hinter Ihnen und der Ausdruck in ihren Gesichtern, von solcher Arroganz, während ein Mann von Ihrem Charakter, mit Ihren Leistungen und Ihrer Würde hier sitzt, um auszusagen. Ihr Leute solltet Euch dringend schämen.“
Die Senatssitzung brachte sehr viel des groben Fehlverhaltens und der üblen Machenschaften des TMB ans Licht, denn nicht nur gegen Professor Rea hatte man Strategien zur Eliminierung durchgeführt, sondern noch gegen viele weitere für das TMB unliebsame Mediziner im Staate Texas. Der Senat zieht daraus seine Konsequenzen und steht damit nicht alleine, denn ganz aktuell ist nun auch die Vereinigung der amerikanischen Ärzte und Chirurgen (AAPS) aktiv geworden. Der Medizinerverband hat das Texas Medical Board angezeigt und möchte damit den Ärzten ermöglichen, wieder voll für ihre Patienten eintreten zu können, ohne tyrannisiert und regelrecht verfolgt zu werden.
Pressemitteilung des AAPS vom 21.12.2007 in Übersetzung:
Ärzte verklagen das Texas Medical Board wegen Fehlverhaltens und prangern eine institutionalisierte Kultur von Vergeltung und Einschüchterung an
Das komplette Texas Medical Board (TMB) und seine offiziellen Mitarbeiter wurden in einer Klageschrift genannt, die von der Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) [Vereinigung amerikanischer Ärzte und Chirurgen] eingereicht wurde. Die Beschwerde, die diese Woche beim Bezirksgericht in Texarkana eingereicht wurde, beschuldigt den Ausschuss/das Board des Fehlverhaltens bei der Ausübung seiner offiziellen Pflichten, insbesondere:
- Manipulation anonymer Beschwerden;
- dem Bestehen von Interessenkonflikten;
- Verstoß gegen ordnungsgemäße Verfahrensweisen;
- Verletzung der Privatsphäre; sowie
- Vergeltungsmaßnahmen gegenüber denen, die sich wehren.
„Die Situation hat für Patienten und Ärzte einen kritischen Punkt erreicht“, sagte Jane M. Orient, M.D, geschäftsführende Direktorin der AAPS. „Unsere Mitglieder fürchten sich zu sehr vor Vergeltungsmaßnahmen, um den Ausschuss als Einzelpersonen zu verklagen.“
Die Klageschrift hebt insbesondere das Fehlverhalten von Roberta Kalafut hervor, der Präsidentin des Ausschusses. Die Klage behauptet, dass Kalafut „es arrangiert hat, dass ihr Ehemann anonyme Beschwerden gegen andere Ärzte einreichte, darunter ihre Konkurrenten in Abilene …“ Dann „… erwirkte sie innerhalb des TMB zusammen mit anderen Angeklagten die Disziplinierung von Ärzten auf der Grundlage anonymer Beschwerden, die von ihrem Ärzteehemann eingereicht worden waren.“
Außerdem beschuldigt die Klage Kalafut und Donald Patrick, geschäftsführender Direktor, von den Interessenkonflikten von Keith Miller gewusst zu haben, als dieser Vorsitzende des Disciplinary Process Review Committee [Komitee zur Überprüfung des Disziplinarprozesses] war. Miller diente als Zeuge der Anklage in mindestens 50 Fällen, die vor den Ausschuss gebracht worden waren, ohne dies gegenüber den disziplinierten Ärzten oder der Öffentlichkeit offen zu legen. Im Verlauf eines elfeinhalbstündigen legislativen Marathonhearings über das TMB am 23 Oktober 2007 gaben Kalafut und Patrick unter Eid zu, das sie sich der Interessenkonflikte bewusst waren.
„Aufgrund der beeideten Aussage vor dem legislativen Komitee scheint es klar, dass sie von den Problemen wussten und alles in ihrer Macht stehende taten, um sie zu verbergen,“ sagte Dr. Orient. Die Klageschrift verlangt, dass das Gericht missbräuchliches Verhalten des Ausschusses sofort stoppt und dass frühere Disziplinarmaßnahmen, die durch die Verfehlungen des Boards kompromittiert wurden, neu eröffnet werden. „Die Ärzte in Texas sollten nicht gezwungen sein, in dieser Atmosphäre der Angst und Einschüchterung praktizieren zu müssen“, sagte Dr. Orient. „Beschwerden von unseren Mitgliedern haben das TMB als das wahrscheinlich schlimmste im ganzen Land identifiziert. Es ist schlecht für die Patienten, wenn ihre Ärzte Angst davor haben, dass, wenn sie das Richtige tun, es in einer Anfechtung ihrer Lizenz enden kann.“
Pressemitteilung des AAPS , Doctors sue Texas Medical Board for misconduct – Cites institutional culture of retaliation & intimidation, 21. Dezember 2007 (Anm.: Sehr lesenswerte Kommentare von Ärzten im Anhang der Pressemitteilung)
Anmerkung:
Das AAPS ist eine gemeinnützige Fachgesellschaft von Ärzten aller Fachrichtungen, die sich seit 1943 zum Schutz der Beziehung zwischen Arzt und Patienten verpflichtet hat.
Links zum Lesen, Anhören oder Ansehen:
-
Pressemitteilung AAPS, Doctors sue Texas Medical Board for misconduct – Cites institutional culture of retaliation & intimidation, 21. Dezember 2007
- Anklageschrift des AAPS
- 11stündige Anhörung des Texas Medical Board TMB im Texas Senat zum Lesen
- Anhörung des Texas Medical Board TMB im Texas Senat zum Ansehen als Videos
- Weitere Audioversionen der Anhörung und einzelner Vernehmungen vor dem Senat
Autor: Silvia K. Müller, CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network
Endlich passiert etwas – das sind Super-Nachrichten! Das bestätigt wieder, was ich immer sage, dass gemeinsame Aktionen nicht zu unterschätzen sind. Es ist ein riesiger Erfolg, dass die Machenschaften gegen den Umweltmediziner Professor William Rea, durch diese weltweite Aktion gestoppt werden konnte. Dadurch kam sicherlich auch die jetzige Unterstützung des Ärzteverbandes zustande.
Das kommt wirklich gut. Endlich ein Abrechnen mit diesen Tyrannen die gegen Umweltmediziner ihr mieses Spiel treiben. Das soll noch viel größere Kreise ziehen. Denkt dran was die hier mit Binz treiben. Ist das anders? Nicht die Bohne. Hier gehört auch aufgeräumt und ausgeräuchert.
Die Ärzteverbände müssen sich in Deutschland ebenfalls vor die Umweltmediziner und Umweltpatienten stellen. Wer zuschaut macht mit.
Eine handfeste Eingabe beim Petitionsausschuss, damit sich ein paar Herren verantworten müssen, auch keine schlechte Idee. Beweise für Diffamierungen, Diskriminierungen und Schikanierungen sind vorhanden. Zuhauf.
Endlich ein Lichtblick für Gerechtigkeit! In Deutschland ist die ganze Verleugnungstaktik irgendwann nicht mehr haltbar.
Einen interessanten Link möchte ich über Prof. Eikmann von der Universitätsklinik Gießen, Fachbereich Umweltmedizin, hier einstellen.
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/2941628/
Die Strategie des Verharmlosen, des systematischen Ignorierens des internationalen Wissenstandes in Bezug auf Umweltkrankheiten wie Chemikalien Sensitivität (MCS), wird auch in Deutschland der Wahrheit weichen müssen. Es ist nur eine Frage der Zeit.
Das Ignorieren halte ich wie Ihr für völlig unangemessen und kontraproduktiv. Mit besserer Aufklärung, gezielterem Arbeits – und Verbraucherschutz wäre oft schon eine Menge getan.
Es wird höchste Zeit das auch in Deutschland der ganze Lobby-Sumpf trockengelegt wird. Es kann nicht sein das bestimmte Interessenverbände die Arbeit von Medizinern behindern nur weil ihnen deren Ergebnisse und Erfolge nicht ins Konzept passen. Die Presse sollte in Deutschland mehr Aufklärungarbeit leisten und die Übeltäter an den Pranger stellen!
Die Parallelen zu Dr. Binz sind unverkennbar. In Deutschland müssten diejenigen, die bei der Praxisdurchsuchung und all den anderen Machenschaften, die gegen Dr. Binz inszeniert wurden, ebenfalls angeklagt werden. Gerechtigkeit muss siegen. Ich wünsche mir, dass der Fall von Prof. Rea auch in Deutschland weite Kreise zieht und Dr. Binz die gleiche Gerechtigkeit zuteil wird, wie Prof. Rea in Texas.
Mit großem Interesse habe ich dieses Blogthema gelesen.
Gibt es inzwischen Neuigkeiten zum deutschen Parallelfall, Dr. Binz? Ich wünsche diesem Mann sehr, dass ihm die gleiche Gerechtigkeit widerfährt, wie es in Texas der Fall ist. Dr. Binz hat es verdient. Er hat mir sehr geholfen, im Kampf mit den Behörden, um zu meinem Recht zu kommen.
Grüße von Eric
Der Texas Senat hat richtig gehandelt, indem er alle vorlud und anhörte. Ein peinliches Schauspiel, was sich die Verantwortlichen des Texas Medical Board bei ihrer Anhörung ablieferten. Dass solche Anhörungen per Video aufgezeichnet werden und für jeden zum Ansehen ins Internet gestellt werden ist korrekt und sollte im heutigen IT Zeitalter grundsätzlich so gehandhabt werden, denn feige sind solche „Schreibtischtäter“ immer, sie sind nur in ihrem stillen Kämmerlein mutig. Wenn es an die Wahrheit geht, scheitern sie kläglich und die Allgemeinheit hat das Recht, das zu sehen!
Ähnliche Diskriminierungen und Diffamierungen wie Dr. Binz, musste der texanische Umweltmediziner Prof. William Rea ebenfalls erdulden. Genau wie Dr. Binz, setzt sich Prof. Rea für umweltbedingt Erkrankte ein. MCS Patienten will man in Deutschland nicht haben, zu brisant sind die Krankheitsursachen, man befürchtet seitens der Industrie und Versicherungen die vielen Schadensersatzansprüche, die zu leisten wären, wenn die tatsächlichen Krankmacher entlarvt würden. Also geht man lieber hin und schiebt Dr. Binz den Schwarzen Peter zu und versucht ihn mit unmenschlichen Mitteln außer Gefecht zu setzen.
Gerechtigkeit lässt man in diesem Land vermissen, auf der Seite von Dr. Binz wie auch bei den Geschädigten. Es ist längst an der Zeit, dass Dr. Binz die gleiche Gerechtigkeit widerfährt wie Prof. Rea aus Texas.
http://www.csn-deutschland.de/blog/2008/07/31/strafanzeige-und-das-zivilrechtliche-verfahren-gegen-dr-peter-binz-hintergruende/
Planet Thrive hat einen dreiteiligen Artikel über den Fall von Prof. Rea geschrieben, den ich Euch nicht vorenthalten möchte. Hochinteressant!
ABC’s Nightline in the dark on MCS
August 7, 2008 by Susie
Patricia Ann Rattray at Planet Thrive writes a well-researched, scathing report on ABC Nightline’s March 20 coverage of the orchestrated attack on Dr. William Rea and his treatment center for the chemically injured in Dallas, Texas.
Nightline’s coverage of the review of Dr. Rea’s practice was misleading. [Terry] Moran did not report that the review [on Rea] was initiated by a single anonymous complaint filed regarding treatment for five patients who aren’t complaining. In fact, all five are still patients of Dr. Rea’s, two of them reporting he was responsible for saving their lives. All five patients have written to the Texas State Medical Board protesting the complaint filed about their treatment. The broadcast also fails to inform the public that these same types
of license reviews are going on all over the country against physicians practicing alternative medicine, initiated by the same type of anonymous complaint. Nor does it mention the fact that Sherry Rogers, M.D., author of „Detoxify or Die“, has called Dr. Rea a „doctor’s doctor“; meaning it is frequently Rea that other doctors go to when they are chronically ill or diagnosed with cancer.
The show implied that the Texas State Medical Board had initiated the review based on some sort of consensus or research and that they had a general proactive state of concern for the health of the public. „The treatments that he’s giving we believe can be dangerous to the public health,“ states Marie Robinson lawyer for TMB. One might be suspect of the Texas Medical Board’s real concern for public health since no one has died from homeopathy or sauna at Dr. Rea’s clinic and yet 103 people have died in the state of Texas since 1995
in either bizarre murders—usually by family members—or suicides (many times children) that are directly attributable to the side effects of psychiatric medication1 and the Board is taking no action on this.
http://www.thecanaryreport.org/abcs-nightline-in-the-dark-on-mcs.html
It’s a three-part series, Part 2 is here, Part 3 coming soon.
Nightline ABC’s Clattering Train – Part II
owners at Nightline’s Disney /ABC also own psychiatric hospitals
Patricia Ann Rattray | august 6th, 2008
Part II of a three-part report on Nightline’s coverage of Dr. William Rea at the Environmental Health Center Dallas, and Chemical Sensitivity.
ON MARCH 20, 2008, NIGHTLINE AIRED a prejudicial and essentially dishonest program about Dr. William Rea, renowned specialist of Environmental Medicine and Chemical Sensitivity. Part I of this report highlighted Nightline’s misrepresentation of Chemical Sensitivity, its misrepresentation of the treatment techniques of Environmental Medicine, and the politicization of function of the Texas State Medical Board.
Nightline failed to report that similar suits are going on all over the country in an effort to stamp out the practice of Environmental Medicine. Case in point, the doctor treating over 400 Boeing employees for chemical injury in the state of Washington was sent threatening letters by the State Licensing Board in Washington.1 John E. Bryson who sits on the board at Nightline’s Disney/ABC also sits on the board at Boeing.
Round up the „good ol‘ boys“ for another pass at genocide.
So who else is around at Disney/ABC? Well, Richard Rainwater, a Texas billionaire owns a block of Disney/ABC. Rainwater is cofounder of the the largest for-profit hospital chain around, HCA/Healthcare, and an owner in a network of businesses which own and operate psychiatric hospitals.2 He was also a partner with George W. Bush in ownership of
the Texas Rangers until it was sold to Thomas Hicks.3
In 2000, HCA/Healthcare was the target of a federal government health fraud investigation, and subsequently paid hundreds of millions of dollars in civil penalties and criminal fraud charges. Want to hear one of the charges? It assured doctors joining its clinics that the company would use all their resources to ensure that any competing
medical services failed.4
The allergist used as an antagonist on the Nightline segment comes from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and if you go to ABC’s website and look under ‚health news‘, oddly enough, there are a preponderance of doctors from Southwestern Medical Center, many who malign alternative treatments for medical conditions. David A.
Khan is there again, warning us in a video that acupuncture can have serious side effects.
After selling the Texas Rangers to Hicks, one of Bush’s first acts as governor of Texas was to newly create a financial investment arm for the University of Texas and appoint Hicks as Chair. Now the public funds at U of T could be used to finance private projects. Nearly $9 million in state dollars from U of T were invested in Rainwater’s holdings having to do with psychiatric care. So the University of Texas profits by increased use of psychiatric hospitals.5, 6
Individual physicians working at University of Texas can also profit from increased use of drugs. CSPI’s Integrity in Science Project currently lists 65 doctors at U of T who receive financial benefit from pharmaceutical companies. In addition, U of T Southwestern Medical Center lists 19 clinical trials for psychiatric drugs currently underway. Drug trials can be quite lucrative for participating physicians. The Wall Street Journal reported that doctors with academic affiliations have been paid as much as $30,000 per patient per drug trial, which translates to between $500,000 and a million dollars for participation in one study.7 Doctors have also received five-figure consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies
for nothing more than a commitment to prescribe the company’s drugs.8
Moran failed to report on the broadcast that 16% of the U.S. population reports increased sensitivity to chemicals and of this, 3.5% have been diagnosed with life-altering Chemical Sensitivity.9 A greater than average number of these people are living on the mid-coast of California where environmental conditions are supportive of recovery. Last year Bush declared a State of Emergency in this same area calling for monthly aerial spraying of pesticides over residential areas. This is life-threatening to those with Chemical
Sensitivity. With over 6 million people total in the spray area, 210,000 disabled people will have to move or face severe consequences. Outraged citizen’s groups have organized to resist the spraying which began last year in Santa Cruz and Monterey counties. What part of Monterey County escaped being sprayed with poison? Why, Pebble Beach where Richard Rainwater owns a home.10
What else does the spraying in California accomplish beside disposing of the chemically sensitive at a faster rate? It destroys epidemiological evidence that avoidance of toxic chemicals results in healing of chronic medical conditions. And you thought you got on the clattering train of your own accord.
Another owner in Disney/ABC is the Bass family, notably Rainwater’s friend Sid R. Bass, fellow Texas billionaire and heir to the Richardson oil and gas fortune. Bass also owns companies that manufacture medical equipment and a company that provides worker compensation insurance. Oil and gas drilling destroys environments that people need to have healthy lives. But if you also make money from people becoming ill, then that becomes an added benefit. Bass and his siblings also donate large sums to U of T. 11, 12
Who else stands to lose by recognition of chemical sensitivity?
Several other board members at Disney/ABC do. Two Board members at ABC also sit on the board of Proctor and Gamble, manufacturer of a host of products for everyday household use that contain toxic chemicals. Additionally, over half of P&G’s line of prescription drugs are used for conditions recognized as allergies by Environmental Medicine physicians. For example, P&G sells Enablex, prescribed for overactive bladder, a condition which is expected to generate prescription sales of $2.25 billion dollars a year.13
Another ABC board member sits on Estee Lauder’s (perfume) board, and yet another sits on the board at Chlorox.
By attempting to discredit Dr. Rea, a recognized authority on Chemical Sensitivity, businesses who stand to lose by recognition of this illness proactively protect their interests at the expense of the health of millions of Americans.
„Recognition of this syndrome as an illness, with potential to cause permanent disability, could involve changes in health care coverage and delivery, awarding of workers‘ compensation benefits, and the regulation of chemicals in the workplace and the environment in the United States.“ (P. J. Sparks, et al. „Multiple Chemical Sensitivity:
A Clinical Perspective“; Journal of Occupational Medicine [1994; 36: 718-737])
http://planetthrive.com/cgi-bin/members/pub9990284000465.cgi?
itemid=9990294356311&action=viewad&categoryid=
9940284000649&page=1&placeonpage=1&totaldisplayed=50
Nightline ABC’s Clattering Train – Part III
environmental medicine vs. psychiatry, a David and Goliath story
Part III of a three-part report on Nightline’s coverage of Dr. William Rea at the Environmental Health Center Dallas, and Chemical Sensitivity.
On March 20, Nightline aired a prejudicial and essentially dishonest program about Dr. William Rea, renowned specialist of Environmental Medicine and Chemical Sensitivity. Part I of this report highlighted Nightline’s misrepresentation of Chemical Sensitivity, its misrepresentation of the treatment techniques of Environmental Medicine, and the politicization of function of the Texas State Medical Board.
Part II covered Nightline ABC’s conflicts of interest and Southwestern Medical Center’s financial ties to psychiatric hospitals.
Part III highlights the conflict between Environmental Medicine and Psychiatry.
DOCTORS IN ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE RECOGNIZE a connection between toxic chemicals and health, and treat symptoms such as anxiety, depression, sleeplessness, and hyperactivity by methods such as avoidance and homeopathy, allowing the patient’s immune system to heal.
Conversely, doctors in Psychiatry teach that there is no need to avoid toxic chemicals, promoting instead the idea that health is dependent upon professional medicine and pharmaceutical drugs. On the surface, it can seem like a lot more comfortable proposition.
Psychiatry has been under fire lately for its close ties to the pharmaceutical industry, which has become—in part due to the epidemic of people with the aforementioned symptoms—one of the most profitable industries on earth.
Opponents of psychiatry are calling it „pseudoscience“ and Moran parrots the phrase on Nightline to refer to Environmental Medicine.
Big Business Succumbs to Echolalia
Echolalia: The involuntary parrotlike repetition (echoing) of a word or phrase just spoken by another person.
Citizen’s groups and concerned individuals work hard to communicate important issues to the public, over the stumbling block of popular media that increasingly focus solely on the agendas of big business. When an important grassroots issue receives public attention, big business immediately does damage control by incorporating the word or key phrase that most highlights the problem into their own public relations message. The public is derailed from understanding important issues when both sides of the controversy are described with the same words.
Case in point: „Pseudoscience“ — a term used to describe medicine driven by pharmaceutical profits rather than human health. The term has been used in one form or another by psychiatrists and other concerned individuals about the escalating inappropriate use of psychiatric drugs in the U.S., especially for schoolchildren, 20% of whom are now on some form of psychiatric medication.1 Notable among these are Peter Breggin, M.D. and Loren Mosher, M.D. who both appear in Gary Null’s video „The Drugging of Our Children.“ But most of the public probably heard the term from Tom Cruise on the Today Show in 2005, where he spoke passionately against the use of psychotropic drugs and the field of psychiatry, calling it a „pseudoscience.“2
Allen Jones also used the term „pseudoscience“ in his 2002 whistleblower report to describe the collusion between psychiatrists, government agencies and drug companies. Jones was an Investigator with Office of Inspector General (OIG) in Pennsylvania when the the Texas Medication Algorhithm Project (TMAP) was instituted in his state via funding by drug companies. TMAP requires that state doctors use newer more expensive psychiatric drugs first on captive populations in prisons and mental hospitals. These newer drugs cause serious, often-fatal side effects, especially in children and were not proven to be more effective in clinical trials.3
The TMAP program originated in Texas, not surprisingly, during Bush’s term as governor. With drug company funding, TMAP is being exported to other states now; and as of 2004 has been recommended by President Bush’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health as a model program for the entire country.
Commission recommendations include universal mental health screening for US adults and children and the prescription of psychoactive medication. TeenScreen, mental health screening for school children, has already begun in some schools in the country. Dr. Fred Baughman, a neurologist and author of „The ADHD Fraud“ pointed out on a Providence radio broadcast that a pilot program of TeenScreen in Nashville, Tennessee, showed 51% of the children qualified as „depressed.“4
Diagnosis of depression, made easier by use of symptom checklists to qualify individuals, creates a larger market for drugs. Robert Whitaker, author of „Mad in America“ points out, „As long as we draw as big a circle as possible, and expand the boundaries of mental illness, psychiatry can have more clients and sell more drugs. So there’s a built-in economic incentive to define mental illness in as broad terms as possible.“5
Statistics show there is definitely something wrong with the health of Americans, and there are high financial stakes involved in calling it „mental illness.“ Some reports say that 20 percent of Americans now are mentally ill. A 2005 independent report stated that 11% of women and 5% of men in the non-institutionalized population (2002) now take antidepressants.6 Sales of antidepressants total about $21 billion a year, according to IMS Health and $12 billion dollars of that is spent in the U.S.7
Harvey Wiley, M.D., U.S. Government Chemist, found a reason for depression back in 1902 other than „life stresses“ or a „brain chemical imbalance.“ Building a case for creation of the FDA, he conducted an official five-year study on synthetic food additives proposed for use in our food. He found in a team of healthy male subjects—appropriately named „The Poison Squad“—that, „they developed persistent headaches in most cases, followed by general depression and debility. It was extremely well marked in every instance.“8
The FDA was eventually created but failed to enact the important restrictions on synthetic additives which Dr. Wiley and his subjects worked so diligently to bring about. Wiley was maligned by industry and left his government post in 1906 to campaign outside government for stricter controls on the use of synthetic chemicals, never to be successful. What he said about continuous small doses of toxic substances is noteworthy today. Wiley pointed out that there may be, „no measurable effect upon a healthy individual for a long time, but that in the end it would produce no harmful effect is contrary to all the rules of physiology and logic.“9
The mentality able to grasp this medical reality was lost to the larger public around 1920 when the last homeopathic medical school was closed in the U.S. The same industry forces that were able to manufacture permission for synthetic chemical additives, industries owning pharmaceutical companies, were also able to change the medical schools of the United States from homeopathic medicine to allopathic medicine—a German school which depended on the heavy use of drugs, radical surgery, and long hospital stays. The change in the practice of medicine in the U.S. did not evolve naturally due to the superiority of allopathic medicine; it was an orchestrated business move. It was advertised as a benefit to the American public, however, believing doesn’t make it so. At the turn of the century in 1900, one in 50 people had cancer. Now it is one in two or one in three.10
One Hundred Years and Millions of Children Later…
As reported in Lancet, September 06, 2007, Professor Jim Stevenson and a group of researchers at University of Southampton found the number of hyperactive children could be decreased 30% by banning certain food additives. Two groups of children showed marked behavioral changes when given certain additives during controlled clinical trials. Children who were given additives had difficulty sitting still and concentrating. They also became loud and impulsive and had problems reading. Stevenson and his colleagues believe the harm caused to the IQ of children by these additives is comparable to the damaging impact of lead on a developing brain.11
One of the offending additives in the Southampton study was sodium benzoate, a preservative that was proven to have detrimental effects during Dr. Wiley’s study and one that he fought hard to get the FDA to restrict back in 1906.
Dr. Ronald Dworkin, a Maryland anesthesiologist and senior fellow at Washington’s conservative Hudson Institute, seems to stubble across the truth when he states, „Too many people take drugs when they really need to be making changes in their lives.“12
Environmental Medicine recognizes that people do need to make changes in their lives. One gravely needed change is a decrease in the use of toxic chemicals and nowhere is the need more highlighted than in the condition of chemical sensitivity, universal recognition of which would be anathema to chemical/pharmaceutical conglomerates. Bush’s New Freedom Act is a method by which people who are chemically sensitive can be funneled unsuspectingly into the mental health system where the problem can continue to be hidden from the attention of the American public.
Nightline’s broadcast lays the groundwork for making this possible. In a Street Spirit interview with Robert Whitaker, Terry Messman writes, „The story becomes even more frightening when we look at the aggressive tactics these giant drug companies have used to silence prominent critics by defaming them in the press, and by using their money and power to have widely respected scientists and eminent medical researchers fired…“13
I don’t want to spend any time on the ethics of Nightline using photo-negative images to portray how people with chemical sensitivity see, typically used in movies to portray the perspective of animals or the insane; or of presenting the 200-year-old science of homeopathy as „injecting jet fuel;“ or of describing the medical protocol used to get well as the actual illness itself—ICU procedures and the details of a heart transplant would sound pretty strange to anyone who hadn’t been familiarized with them.
I don’t want to spend any time on these things except to say that this is not just a display of subtle bias—it is blatant use of propaganda techniques in which Terry Moran, David A. Khan, and Marie Robinson all knowingly engage and violate the standards of their respective professions.
The fact that they all do so with impunity is a symptom of how off-balance social power has become in our country and why Americans have to start depending on alternative sources of media. It is a David and Goliath story with the pharmaceutical industry generating 400 billion dollars a year14 and using a good part of the profit to protect their own best interests.
see also:
Nightline ABC’s Clattering Train – Part I
Nightline ABC’s Clattering Train – Part II
owners at Nightline’s Disney /ABC also own psychiatric hospitals
Protect your health rights and those of others by writing to Texas Legislature Representives and the Texas Medical Board to protest the review of Dr. Rea’s license. For background information in composing your letter see:
„Letter from Dr. Rea to Patients“
Texas Legislature Representatives:
Senator Jane Nelson
Chair of the Senate Health
and Human Services Committee
P. O. Box 12068
Austin, TX 78711
TEL: (512) 463-0112
jane.nelson@senate.state.tx.us
Representative Fred Brown
Room CAP GW.4
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78768
TEL: (512) 463-0698
FAX: (512) 463-5109
Texas Medical Board:
Donald W. Patrick, M.D., J.D.
(Executive Director)
Texas Medical Board
P. O. Box 2018
Austin, Texas 78768
TEL: (512) 305-7030
FAX: (512) 305-7051
http://planetthrive.com/cgi-bin/members/pub9990284000465.cgi?itemid=9990294451618&action=viewad&categoryid=9940284000649&page=1&placeonpage=1&totaldisplayed=50
1Fred Baughman Jr., M.D., „The ADHD Fraud, Part 5,“ YouTube.com.
2″Tom Cruise on Psychiatry,“ YouTube.com.
3Allen Jones, „Full Whistle-Blower Report on Drug Company Influence on State’s Drug Purchases,“ Law Project for Psychiatric Rights, January 20, 2004.
4Fred Baughman Jr., M.D., „The ADHD Fraud, Part 5,“ YouTube.com.
5Terry Messman, „Psychiatric Drugs: An Assault on the Human Condition. Street Spirit Interview with Robert Whitaker,“ Street Spirit, August 2005.
6Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, „Antidepressant Use in the U.S. Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population, 2002,“ Medical Expenditure Panel Survery.
7David Armstrong and Keith J. Winstein, „Antidepressants Under Scrutiny Over Efficacy Sweeping Overview Suggests Suppression of Negative Data Has Distorted View of Drugs,“ Wall Street Journal, January 17, 2008; Page D1.
8Harvey W. Wiley, M.D., The History of a Crime Against the Food Law,“ Am J Public Health Nations Health, 1929 December; 19(12): 1389.
9Harvey W. Wiley, M.D., The History of a Crime Against the Food Law,“ Am J Public Health Nations Health, 1929 December; Chapter 2.
10Libba HaLavey, „‚Our Toxic World: A Wake-up Call‘ Interview with Dr. Doris J. Rapp, M.D.,“ Women Speak Out Radio Show, 2005.
11Sean Poulter, „Additives DO harm children—and a ban could cut child hyperactivity by a third, say scientists,“ Daily Mail [London] April 10, 2008.
12 Elizabeth Cohen, „CDC: Antidepressants most prescribed drugs in U.S.,“ CNN.com/health, July 09, 2007.
13Terry Messman, „Psychiatric Drugs: An Assault on the Human Condition. Street Spirit Interview with Robert Whitaker,“ Street Spirit, August 2005.
14Gardiner Harris, „MEDICAL MARKETING—Treatment by Incentive; As Doctor Writes Prescription, Drug Company Writes a Check,“ New York Times, June 27, 2004, Health.