"By all accounts, Nash took no antipsychotic medication after 1970!!!

Question:

http://schizoaffective.org/koi/justsaynoblackopt.jpg

Response:

"Mystery51" <r…@nationalkarting.com> wrote in message <news:3c882065_4@corp.newsgroups.com>… > We shouldn’t base our lives off of what did or didn’t work for one man. We > must do what is best for us.

How about just only people who have successfully cured their schizophenia NOT taking drugs go and write their letters of protest? Maybe they’ll get about ten. And how much did Miramax or New Line pay for this nonsense? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Hen@ndchick" <nos…@spamnospam.com> wrote in message > news:u3ed8ugkktuucodnbbkmpib922sgps9c4g@4ax.com… > > To: "NEWS RELEASE" <dendr…@efn.org> > > Subject: NEWS- Film "A Beautiful Mind" Has An Ugly Distortion Says > > Advocacy Coalition > > From: Support Coalition International <off…@mindfreedom.org> > > Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:35:24 -0800 > > NEWS RELEASE March 6, 2002 http://www.MindFreedom.org > > 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.brant…@unistudios.com>. > > Please bcc a copy to <off…@mindfreedom.org>. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > PUBLIC STATEMENT – March 6, 2002 > > From: Support Coalition International > > To: 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

Response:

We shouldn’t base our lives off of what did or didn’t work for one man. We must do what is best for us. "Hen@ndchick" <nos…@spamnospam.com> wrote in message

news:u3ed8ugkktuucodnbbkmpib922sgps9c4g@4ax.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> To: "NEWS RELEASE" <dendr…@efn.org> > Subject: NEWS- Film "A Beautiful Mind" Has An Ugly Distortion Says > Advocacy Coalition > From: Support Coalition International <off…@mindfreedom.org> > Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:35:24 -0800 > NEWS RELEASE March 6, 2002 http://www.MindFreedom.org > 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.brant…@unistudios.com>. > Please bcc a copy to <off…@mindfreedom.org>. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > PUBLIC STATEMENT – March 6, 2002 > From: Support Coalition International > To: 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 – > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > To get a copy of Mad in America, plug the > title into the MAD MARKET search engine: > http://www.mindfreedom.org/madmarket/ > ~~~~~~~~~ > 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

Response:

Filed under: Human Rights

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism