FYI: John Nash and A Beautiful Mind

March 14, 2002

It's still a great movie, most movies don't tell all the truth anyway just

like life.

Blessings

Jan

March 14, 2002

I haven't seen the film but had heard on NPR the author of the book, Sylvia

Nasar, say that the script changed the truth out of fear of controversy

with doctors, pharmaceuticals, etc.

Very unfortunate,

Misha

Does Drug Company Marketing Now Include Product Placement in the Movies?

By Barry Duncan, PhD, Psychologist and Author of _The Heroic Client_

Have pharmaceutical companies learned that product placement in high

grossing movies is an excellent way to influence public opinion? Have drug

company advertising execs watched too many Heiniken/ Swordfish

commercials? Consider the high profile and now Oscar nominated film " A

Beautiful Mind. " In the film, the mathematical genius John F. Nash played

by Russell Crowe says, " I take the newer antipsychotics. They don't cure

me, but they help. " This is a totally fictionalized statement; By all

accounts, Nash took no antipsychotic medication after 1970. This of course

predates the so-called " newer antipsychotics " by some 20 plus years.

Consider the following corroborations of the fact that Nash did not take

these drugs:

1. Sylvia Nasar in her award winning biography of Nash, " A Beautiful Mind, "

writes on page 353, " Nash's refusal to take the antipsychotic drugs after

1970, and indeed during most of the periods when he wasn't in the hospital

during the 1960s, may have been fortunate. "

2. Sylvia Nasar, once again, in a 1994 article (The New York Times, Sunday,

November 13, pp. 3, 8), " The Lost Years of a Nobel Laureate " reports the

impressions of arguably the two most important persons in Nash's life: his

wife (Mrs. Nash) and his sister (Mrs. Legg). Talking about Nash's

" miraculous remission, " Nasar says, " And as happens, for reasons unknown,

in the case of some people with schizophrenia, it was not, according to

Mrs. Nash or Mrs. Legg, due to any drug or treatment. "

3. John Hoey, MD, in the article, " The Peculiar Genius of John Nash "

published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 1999 (160:870)

said, " How to account for this spontaneous remission -- Nash refused to

take antipsychotic drugs after 1970-is a matter of conjecture and the price

that Nash has paid for both his illness and his recovery is a distressing

calculation. "

4. And John Nash's own words in his 1994 autobiography on the Nobel Prize

Website:

http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/1994/nash-autobio.html

" But after my return to the dream-like delusional hypotheses in the later

60's I became a person of delusionally influenced thinking but of

relatively moderate behavior and thus tended to avoid hospitalization and

the direct attention of psychiatrists. "

5. Finally, in a recent (February, 2002) phone interview, Nash was

questioned about the impression the movie gave that his recovery was due to

the newer medications. He was asked whether that impression was accurate or

artistic license. Nash said it was artistic license. So, from several

sources, including Nash himself, Nash's amazing transformation was NOT due

to any drug or treatment. The fictionalized statement in the movie, then,

raises many questions: " How did such a statement get added to the script?

" Whose interests are served by such a statement? " Did the expert, Max

Fink, MD, influence this invented reality regarding Nash's life? Or someone

else? " Who is the expert working for or affiliated with? " Is he

affiliated with any of the companies that produce the newer antipsychotics?

" Did the drug company pay for that inserted statement like other companies

purchasing the placement of their products?

It is not coincidental that many articles and reviews of the movie close

with information about the newer antipsychotics, commenting on their less

serious side effects than the older varieties like Thorazine. For example,

consider this excerpt from the _Seattle Times_ (February 3, 2002):

" Nash's approach came at a time when the pharmaceutical industry was coming

out with more effective drugs whose side effects were milder than those he

had initially been placed on. Today, there have been major advances, and

mental health experts say newer anti-psychotics such as Zyprexa, Seroquel

and Geodon do not have the debilitating side effects of some of the older

drugs. "

Setting aside the questionable scientific veracity of those marketing

statements (new drugs always promise more effectiveness and less side

effects only to be shown later to be comparable to their predecessors,

e.g., tricyclic antidepressants v. SSRIs), the process through which one

man's story of courage and determination fueled by hope and the love of his

partner is channeled toward the marketing of " modern medical breakthroughs "

is both remarkable and curious.

The justification that will be given for the fabricated line in the script

will be fear of giving the " wrong message " about recovery from

schizophrenia. " Experts " will say that cure without drugs is very rare and

could give those suffering and their families a false hope that something

other than drugs can help them. However, it is not rare at all.

Longitudinal studies show that many actually share Nash's story and reclaim

their lives with community support and the love of family and friends. This

" right " message is particularly ironic because Nash actually had to escape

treatment and psychiatry before making his unique personal

recovery.

The influence and marketing acumen of the pharmaceutical industry is

legendary and many reports of the insidious nature of conflict of interest,

ghost writing practices, etc are filed with an alarming but often ignored

regularity. The " right message " crafted in the film and promulgated in

reviews and echoed by " experts " do those suffering and the public a great

disservice. The film recasts Nash's personal story of redemption as an

example of how important drugs are to any reclamation of one's life,

instead of an inspiring account of how people can overcome the most

oppressive treatments and severe psychological distress with their own

resources and support systems. And I can't help but wonder, does drug

company marketing now include product placement in the movies?

Barry Duncan, PhD Barrylduncan

~~~~~~~~

Another article: USA Today - March 4, 2002 Page 13A

Mind drugs may hinder recovery By Robert Whitaker

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020304/3909657s.htm

March 14, 2002

Michelle:

I had wondered how they were going to handle this subject in film, and

despite the lauding this film has received for its compassionate handling of

schizophrenia I am disappointed.

We've discussed a few times my personal experiences with medicated and

unmedicated people diagnosed with schizophrenia, my energetic assessments of

them and how they respond to therapeutic interventions.

One of my favorite people when I lived in the country was a man in his late

thirties who was unmedicated, diagnosed with schizophrenia, and lived at

home with his parents. He had a bait business and liked to fish in the pond

in my back yard. Over time, we developed a trusting relationship and he

allowed me to assess him and discuss his levels of reality and how he

handled them. I was privileged to work with him several times while he gave

me feedback on what he was experiencing from his standpoint. He was quite

frank with me because I was supportive and accepting of his " hallucinations "

without being skeptical, judgemental or acting " like a nurse " with him and

trying to get him on medication. For the most part, he managed quite well,

although he did have some crisis periods that overset him, and after trying

to medicate himself with alcohol, he was briefly hospitalized and medicated.

Talking to him after this was like trying to see the Mona Lisa under a layer

of whitewash.

The energetic pattern I have observed in schizophrenia is a very active to

hyperactive brow chakra, often accompanied by an active or hyperactive

throat chakra, and very poor grounding and energy movement in the lower

chakras. This pattern leads to a sort of dissociation from middle world

reality, the " common " reality we tend to all agree is " what is going on " ...

and a large amount of unfiltered multisensory input in the form of

hallucinations that lead to improper attributions (delusions) as well as

creative output ranging from word salad to amazing ideas, inventions, art

and music. Schizophrenics tend to be highly spiritual in their delusional

foci (I feel a lot of that comes from early religious programming, and

points to a disservice in imprinting children with fear in order to form

behavior).

I believe that in a solid caring relationship of cooperation a person with

this condition, which I feel is a filtering disorder of the brow chakra

symptomized by biochemical imbalance, can be balanced and assisted to live a

mainstream life without having to sacrifice their beauty and individuality

to drugs and institutionalization. It certainly requires a dedicated

" anchor " to work, as grounding seems to be the hardest thing for them to

manage, but I do believe it is possible.

---

Be Happy,

Ro Abreu

" Say not, 'I have found the truth,'

but rather, 'I have found a truth.' "

Kahlil Gibran

LJ: CaroCrow

AIM: CaroCrow

Y!M: NRGbalance

MSN: NRGbalance

URL: http://www.geocities.com/nrgbalance

_______________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

March 15, 2002

What was the truth?

Celeste

March 15, 2002

I guess it's what truth is your truth. I found the movie to be one that opens

one self to the struggles one goes through and overcomes. In our society

(USA) we still want to pretend that people don't have struggles of the mind,

or at least we don't want to talk about it. Just like we don't want to talk

about hunger in our country. I think all of us struggle with issues but thank

goodness were all starting to awaken our higher self.

Love & Light

Jan

March 15, 2002

Celeste asked: <<What was the truth?>>

PUBLIC STATEMENT - March 6, 2002

Support Coalition International

Universal Studios, Imagine, and DreamWorks Pictures

The film " A Beautiful Mind " has an ugly distortion:

Author Robert Whitaker revealed in a USA Today commentary on March 4th that

John Nash's recovery was linked to his refusal to take psychiatric drugs

called " neuroleptics. " [see copy of Whitaker's column below.]

Apparently bowing to political correctness, the filmmakers instead had Nash

claim he was taking " newer medications " at the time he received his Nobel

Prize. John Nash and his biographer have confirmed this statement is

fictitious. Nash was drug free.

This film is helping millions admire the resilience of psychiatric

survivors. But this film also seriously misleads the public. The fact is,

many people -- like Nash -- recover without taking psychiatric drugs. By

caving in to pressure, the film has become an advertisement for the

psychiatric drug industry. Nash himself wonders if the fact that one of the

film's writers is related to a psychiatric professional played a role in

this distortion.

This film says it was inspired by Nash's life. But it dishonors his hard

won victory. On behalf of 100 grassroots groups advocating for the human

rights of people diagnosed with psychiatric disorders, we request that

Universal, Imagine and DreamWorks Pictures issue a public statement of

apology and clarification about this distortion.

Sincerely, David Oaks, Director Support Coalition

International http://www.MindFreedom.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whitaker's commentary in USA Today appears below

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_USA Today_ March 4, 2002 Page 13A

Mind drugs may hinder recovery

By Robert Whitaker

The movie A Beautiful Mind, nominated for eight Academy Awards, has brought

welcome attention to the fact that people can and do recover from

schizophrenia, a severely disabling disorder that affects about one in 100

Americans. Unfortunately, the film fabricates a critical detail of John

Nash's recovery and in so doing, obscures a question that should concern us

all:

Do the medications we use to treat schizophrenia promote long-term

recovery -- or hinder it?

In the movie, Nash -- just before he receives a Nobel Prize -- speaks of

taking ''newer medications.'' The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill

has praised the film's director, Ron Howard, for showing the ''vital role

of medication'' in Nash's recovery. But as Sylvia Nasar notes in her

biography of Nash, on which the movie is loosely based, this brilliant

mathematician stopped taking anti-psychotic drugs in 1970 and slowly

recovered over two decades. Nasar concluded that Nash's refusal to take

drugs ''may have been fortunate'' because their deleterious effects ''would

have made his gentle re-entry into the world of mathematics a near

impossibility.'' His is just one of many such cases.

Most Americans are unaware that the World Health Organization (WHO) has

repeatedly found that long-term schizophrenia outcomes are much worse in

the USA and other ''developed'' countries than in poor ones such as India

and Nigeria, where relatively few patients are on anti-psychotic

medications. In " undeveloped'' countries, nearly two-thirds of

schizophrenia patients are doing fairly well five years after initial

diagnosis; about 40% have basically recovered. But in the USA and other

developed countries, most patients become chronically ill. The outcome

differences are so marked that WHO concluded that living in a developed

country is a ''strong predictor'' that a patient never will fully recover.

Myth of medication

There is more. In 1987, psychologist Courtenay Harding reported that a

third of chronic schizophrenia patients released from Vermont State

Hospital in the late 1950s completely recovered. Everyone in this

''best-outcomes'' group shared one common factor: All had weaned themselves

from anti-psychotic medications. The notion that schizophrenics must spend

a lifetime on these drugs, she concluded, is a ''myth.'' In 1994, Harvard

Medical School researchers found that outcomes for U.S. schizophrenia

patients had worsened during the past 20 years and were now no better than

they were 100 years earlier, when therapy involved plunking patients into

bathtubs for hours. And in 1998, University of Pennsylvania investigators

reported that standard anti-psychotic medications cause a specific area of

the brain to become abnormally enlarged and that this drug-induced

enlargement is associated with a worsening of symptoms.

Comprehensive care succeeds

All of this has led a few European physicians to explore non-drug

alternatives. In Finland, doctors treat newly diagnosed schizophrenia

patients with comprehensive care: counseling, social-support services and

the selective use of anti-psychotic medications. Some patients do better on

low doses of medication, and some without it. And they report great

results: A majority of patients remain free of psychotic symptoms for

extended periods and hold down jobs.

John Nash's recovery from schizophrenia is a moving story. But we are not

well served when the movie fibs about the anti-psychotic drugs' role in his

recovery. If anything, his story should inspire us to reconsider

anti-psychotics' long-term efficacy with an honest, open mind. That would

be a first step toward reforming our care -- and if there is one thing we

can conclude from the WHO studies, it is that reform is vitally needed.

Perhaps then we could even hope that schizophrenia outcomes in this country

would improve to the point that they were equal to those in poor countries

such as India and Nigeria.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The above article can be found at:

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020304/3909657s.htm

March 15, 2002

Ah, but life inevitably tells you the truth, whether you want to

listen to it or not. It is generally only people who lie ;-)

I do think you missed the point here, which is that if a story is

based rather closely to the real life of a person, and not some

fantasy creation or fiction, it should be truthful on the important

points... and one important point in his life is that he is an

*unmedicated* schizophrenic.

Selling him as otherwise is a disservice to the hurdles he has

overcome, a cop out. It's false attribution for his healing.

Blessings,

Crow

, jeeperjan22@a... wrote:

> It's still a great movie, most movies don't tell all the truth

anyway just

> like life.

> Blessings

> Jan

>

March 15, 2002

I totally agree with you however our society doesn't run on truth or I should

say our gov't. Too much money is made off of drug therapy, therefore they

will play down what John Nash really did which was to stand up for his own

healing without so called drug therapy. It boils down to money------- how

sad. My point was that even though they lied about his essences don't dismiss

the fact that at least it might get some people thinking and that is a good

thing.

Blessings

Jan

March 15, 2002

Good day to all.

I agree most heartily with this evaluation as a deliberate distortion of the

truth. The film was a remarkably accurate portrayal of the grand battle

sufferers of schizophrenia wage moment by moment, and was marred only by this

pivotal statement. I think of the people I have known with this disorder, and

the courage demonstrated by anyone who can overcome the persuasion of the

medical community to spend a lifetime on drugs and the half-waking life induced

by even the most modern psychotropic, and admire Dr. Nash hands down. Alicia

Michelle Hughes <lunarmm wrote: Celeste asked: <<What was the

truth?>>