DSM-V Binge Diagnosis
Date: Fri, July 26, 2013 11:28 am
Subject: Re: [psysr-disc] Big pharma mobilising patients in battle over drugs trials data
What you introduce is a long-standing concern for the client/survivor movement. My lived experience includes 1973 when my landlord was a former top researcher at Glaxo Smith-Kline who had quit due to the scientific corruption. In 2003 I participated in the FSD-Alert conference in S.F. (now: NEWVIEWHERE) where I was involved in a workshop with Lisa Cosgrove (at/near when she was on the Steering Committee of PsySR): She emphasized the need for understanding the "social construction" of the pharmaceutical research and sales system.
The outcome of the battle over transparency in corporate science could have major ramifications for the well-being of hundreds of millions of people. A victory in either the US or Europe could be a major step towards exposing rampant unethical marketing of psychiatric medication, including its role in iatrogenic illness and worsening long-term outcomes. For evidence of how psychiatric meds often increase suffering and cause brain dysfunction, see Robert Whitaker and Marcia Angell.
I did a workshop at Anaheim Alternatives 2010 (a SAMHSA sponsored event) where Mr. Whitaker was [participant].
Furthermore, the sensitive issue of political collaboration between pharmaceutical corporations and the patient advocacy groups that depend on these huge companies for their funding needs exposure and public debate. This collaboration works very much against patient interests and the public interest.
That calls for extending PsySR's standing politics of "engaging complaints" from the client/survivor movement towards - at last - engaging the integrity of our way(s) of being.
Perhaps there is a role for PsySR here? If Big Pharma is unnecessarily exacerbating psychological suffering by suppressing research results it seems to me we have a duty to act.
I wonder what people think? Any concrete ideas for action? Is there anyone that might be interested in helping to pursue this?
As above, I cannot take up the "protest" role or the "collaboration" role. "Learned helplessness" was formerly supported by PsySR and that meant, "Don't pursue." With the ethical challenge to the concerns regarding Guantanamo, that was explicitly adjusted. However the "complaints" polity still obtains, and the underlying problematic of "attitude management" and respect for people's integrity still experiences denial. Hitherto my expression of interest has been marginalized, even though the conversation is ongoing, as reflected the "New Social Roles" project.
What I think is that the "social construction" concern needs to be deepened by a critique of the culture underlying the "Big Pharma" problematic you present above. My current work includes the ICPW conference at U.C. Berkeley last May: SeeHERE.
ABO "Andrew Behavior Object"