Fwd: [SSRI-Research] Myth of medications and A Beautiful Mind - schizophrenia patients have worsened over past 20 years

[Guest guest]

StopTheInsanity

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 08:46:36 -0500

[sSRI-Research] Myth of medications and " A Beautiful Mind " -

schizophrenia patients have worsened over past 20 years

 

 

THE FILM " A BEAUTIFUL MIND " HAS AN UGLY

DISTORTION, ADVOCACY GROUP CLAIMS

 

PUBLIC STATEMENT CALLS FOR

" APOLOGY AND CLARIFICATION "

FROM UNIVERSAL STUDIOS

 

" USA TODAY " COMMENTARY

REVEALS THAT JOHN NASH REFUSED

TO TAKE PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS

 

PSYCHOLOGIST SAYS FILM CAN HARM

 

HOLLYWOOD, CALIF. -- Claiming that the

film " A Beautiful Mind " distorts the life

of John Nash, a coalition of 100 mental

health advocacy groups issued a public

statement today to Universal asking

for an apology and retraction.

 

Support Coalition International cites a

guest commentary in " USA Today "

(3/4/02) by author Robert Whitaker.

Whitaker claims Nash refused psychiatric

drugs, and this may have aided his recovery.

[Whitaker's piece is copied below.]

 

The film has Nash saying he was taking

" newer medications " at the time of his

Nobel Prize. Nash says that's pure fiction.

 

Nash has also been quoted recently as

wondering if the fact that one

screenwriter's mother is a psychiatrist

had anything to do with this distortion.

 

Whether or not people can recover following

a diagnosis of " schizophrenia " without taking

psychiatric drugs is a major controversy in

the mental health field. Support Coalition

International says that Universal (along

with Imagine and DreamWorks) apparently

caved to pressure, and distorted Nash's life

so as not to overly disrespect psychiatric drugs.

 

Psychologist Barry Duncan, PhD author of the book

_The Heroic Client_, says the film can actually

harm people diagnosed with psychiatric

disorders, and the public. Says Dr. Duncan,

" By all accounts, Nash took no

antipsychotic medication after 1970.

The 'right message' crafted in the film

and promulgated in reviews and echoed

by 'experts' do those suffering and

the public a great disservice. "

 

BELOW is the Public Statement that Support Coalition

International issued to Universal Studios today.

 

BELOW THAT is the text of Robert Whitaker's

commentary in _USA Today_ about John Nash

and the film " A Beautiful Mind. " Whitaker is

an award-winning reporter at the _Boston Globe_.

 

AT BOTTOM is a public statement by psychologist

and author Barry Duncan, PhD about this falsehood

in " A Beautiful Mind, " and its implications.

 

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

 

ACTION: You can endorse the call for an apology

and clarification by e-mailing a civil note to

Universal publicity: <julie.brantley@u...>.

Please bcc a copy to <office@m...>.

 

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

 

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 refsual 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

 

-end -

 

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

 

" 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.

 

Robert Whitaker is the author of Mad in

America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and

the Enduring Mistreatment of the

Mentally Ill.

 

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

 

- end -

 

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

 

SSRI-Research/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get better spam protection with Mail