|
Author |
|
|
John Stone
United Kingdom
179 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 12:01:17
|
These are the links to
Aubrey Blumsohn's blog, which will be updated.
Lisa's hearing resumes next week. The British
Psychological Society refused to reschedule the
hearing despite the fact that Lisa is looking
after her daughter who suffered a near fatal
stroke on Christmas Eve after they had been
forced to move for the fourth time.
http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/search/label/lisa
http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/01/victimization-of-lisa-blakemore-brown.html
The victimization of Lisa Blakemore Brown
This blog is about the distortion of scientific
debate, most particularly by powerful forces in
medicine. It is about the way in which industry,
professional bodies, government regulators and
powerful individuals collude to prevent
scientific debate and to victimize those asking
difficult questions (www.nhsexposed.com).
It is about the way those entrusted with
authority behave.
I have been contacted by many individuals who
have found themselves in difficulty. Some of
these stories are urgent enough for me to want
take a break from my most interesting
correspondence with Dr Larry Games Vice
President at Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals.
One such case is that of the psychologist Lisa
Blakemore Brown, a specialist in Autism, ADHD &
Aspergers [website] [Book]. Blakemore Brown has
been involved on the "wrong side" of the debate
about the psychiatric disorder Munchausen
syndrome by proxy (MSbP), maintaining that many
parents have been falsely accused of injuring
their children. There have been high-profile
releases from jail of women such as Angela
Canning. MSbP is a disorder in which an adult
invents or deliberately creates a child’s
illness to draw attention to themselves. She has
challenged prominent doctors such as Sir Roy
Meadow and Professor David Southall who, in her
view, have promulgated a wholly inappropriate
approach to scientific evidence. She has
irritated pharmaceutical companies. But instead
of debate Lisa has encountered its very
opposite. The abuse of science goes right into
the heart of a prominent professional body. Her
colleagues have stood by in silence.
I have no special knowledge of the science that
underpins the debate surrounding autism, MSbP or
vaccine side effects. But I do know that debate
is important. It is the lifeblood of science. I
will be discussing much more of this tragic case
over the next few weeks. It is not only a
tragedy for Blakemore Brown, but also part of
the tragedy of medicine.
For now I simply place in the public domain a
letter written this week by John Stone and
myself to the British Psychological Society. It
speaks for itself.
Ray Miller, President,
The British Psychological Society
St Andrews House
48 Princess Road East
Leicester LE1 7DR 14 January 2007
Re: Lisa Blakemore Brown
Dear Mr Miller,
We are writing to express our concern regarding
the treatment of Lisa Blakemore-Brown (LBB) by
the British Psychological Society. The actions
of the Society are such as to cast serious
doubts upon its motives as well as upon its
plausibility as a professional regulatory body.
It is disturbing that the Society appears to be
acting to suppress open debate about
controversial theories. Our purpose here is not
to get involved in this debate, nor do we
necessarily agree with her views. Ms
Blakemore-Brown's views are in fact irrelevant.
She is entitled to hold any views and to express
these, no matter how uncomfortable they are to
yourselves. This is enshrined by Article 10 of
the Human Rights Act 1998. It seems that the
Society have developed an unhealthy obsession
with preventing free speech through abuse of
mental health diagnosis. Its actions may also be
construed as a breach of the Harassment Act
1997.
It cannot be in the interests of society, human
rights, patients and of the British
Psychological Society to suppress open debate
and academic freedom through such mechanisms.
The society seems to have encouraged an endless
series of unsupportable complaints against LBB,
and then progressed them despite evidence that
they were not sustainable. The society itself
then generated an entirely different complaint
(about her irritated response to these very
complaints). This is not a proper example for
resolving scientific or academic disputes. It
appears to be more a method of silencing a
critic.
Irritation with a professional body is not in
any event an offence. Neither is annoying a
professional body. Disagreement with the
professional "view" is not a reason to refer an
individual for psychiatric assessment except in
a Stalinist state. This approach of the BPS is
wholly anti-academic and unprofessional. To
quote Kingsley Amis "If you can't annoy someone,
there's little point in writing". It is also not
a prime facie offence to perceive oneself to
have been bullied, as the BPS seem to be
suggesting.
Having read the case transcripts, we must
confess that we find them most extraordinary.
The transcript of the first three days of the
Fitness to Practice hearing July 2006 reads like
an encyclopaedia of legal and psychological
abuse. If LBB has responded with irritation,
this would seem to be understandable.
Lisa had been coerced into "hearings" despite
having left the society years before. The main
charge was modified progressively until it bore
no relation to the flawed original charge. The
modified "charge" of supposed mental illness (so
called "paranoia") was not revealed to Lisa for
months after the process had been set in motion.
Evidence was assembled by the panel as if having
been provided by Lisa herself, and presented to
others in a jumbled order and without context to
suggest mental incoherence in her correspondence
with the BPS (a supposed offence).
In one instance it emerged that the material was
forged. Despite that, the original complainants
were not invited to be cross-examined, and no
action was taken against them after the
information was dropped.
An independent psychiatric report declaring LBB
perfectly lucid, quite normal and fit to
practice was rejected, and others were requested
instead. This is a rather interesting approach
for a "psychological society" towards the
reliability of such reports. This interesting
approach of the BPS appears to be on the basis
of the findings of the reports themselves rather
than upon the methodology used (since the panel
seemed quite happy to consider an assessment
based only on LBB's correspondence with the BPS
complaining about her treatment, compiled
without seeing "the patient" and without any
relevance whatever to her clinical practice).
More convincing evidence supporting justifiable
paranoia and predetermination would be hard to
find.
A psychiatrist declared Lisa to be unfit to
practice with the diagnosis of "paranoia"
without examining her, and on the basis of
material constructively assembled by the
committee. Having read the transcript relating
to this material we find this "diagnosis"
intriguing, and wonder whether a majority (or
even any) other psychiatrists or members of the
public would reach such a conclusion based on
the same information if we were to provide it to
them. In any event the material bears no
apparent relation to her practice, only to her
views about the suppression of scientific
debate.
The society has acted callously over a sustained
period seeking to undermine and silence Ms
Blakemore Brown, despite her unfortunate family
circumstances. It has used the practice of
psychiatry and psychological assessment in a
non-evidence-based way as a tool for
destruction. It cannot improve the reputation of
the society to be seen to act in such an
arbitrary way using its own tools of trade.
The society must bring this charade to an end
before any more damage is done, both to society
itself and to the chances of proper public
discourse in an atmosphere that is free from
fear.
We would appreciate the views of the society
before taking this matter forward in terms of
public discussion.
We are unable to find any list of the
psychological traits that would render an
individual unfit to practice and would
appreciate a copy of the same. If supposed
"paranoia" or "irritation with the BPS" is on
such a list, perhaps bullying should also be
added.
In addition we would also request that the
society provide what scientific evidence it has
in relation to the, indications for psychiatric
assessment in such cases, as well as the
reproducibility and plausibility of such
reports.
So bizarre are the case transcripts, we believe
that open discussion is required. We intend to
publish these in full, with appropriate
commentary as part of a campaign to prevent such
behaviour by professional regulatory bodies. If
the society can see any reason such publication
should not take place, we would appreciate it if
you would let us know those reasons.
Yours sincerely,
Mr John Stone
Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
|
|
Janet
34 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 17:43:10
|
How tragic
and unfair, it's so easy to diagnose a victim of
psychological bullying as paranoid.
Speaking from experience you are put through
sheer hell, here's a few examples:- silent phone
calls, blocked, ignored, false allegations and
court action. All of this anti-social behaviour
comes straight from the so called "Caring
Profession"
Well done to John and Dr Aubrey Blumsolm of
their support for this true professional lady,
Lisa Blakemore Brown. |
| |
|
gren
United Kingdom
47 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 21:19:37
|
So what
exactly has this individual done to attract this
attack upon her personage- she must have pissed
on a few chips. Paranoia is a symptom I would
have thought of some other underlying pathology.
Marcia Angell a former New England Journal of
Medicine Editor soon found out what happens when
you spill the beans on big pharma and their
drones..This is a rabid scientific dictatorship
hell bent on suppressing opposition and if Tony
Blair has his way you will be locked up under
his new mental health laws without commiting a
crime. Not too far now down the road when merely
questioning your Government (or your
professional ruling body) before you are sent to
the gulag to rot..
oh yes and dont mention the jews...pooofffffff!!!! |
| |
|
gren
United Kingdom
47 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 23:00:42
|
here is a
use of the word Paranoid.
'In The Constant Gardener, John Le Carre’s 2001
novel that has since become a major motion
picture and box office hit starring Ralph
Fiennes and Rachel Weisz, John Le Carre put the
drug companies in the position that the evil
empire of the Soviet Union occupied in his Cold
War novels.
Perfidious big pharma is revealed to be testing
dangerous drugs on impoverished Africans,
suppressing information about their lethal
side-effects, and murdering whistleblowers. Le
Carre tells a convoluted tale of violent
intrigue on three continents which the cover
blurb describes as ‘a magnificent exploration of
the dark side of unbridled capitalism’.
It is remarkable that this preposterous
depiction of the pharmaceutical industry, one of
the most successful sectors of the world
economy, and the British economy, in recent
decades, should strike such a popular chord.
Yet, while drug companies claim that they have
made a major contribution to health and welfare
with a range of new medications, they are widely
believed to put profits before safety. Even if
few will go all the way with Le Carre’s
paranoid fantasy, many accept the depiction
of big pharma as a ruthless and corrupt form of
capitalist enterprise'.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/924/
--------------------------------
It goes on to say regarding Marcia Angell, and
as of an interest,
'Unfortunately, her book is marred by excessive
use of American brand names and by a woefully
ill-informed account of the MMR-autism
controversy'.
and finally ,
'On closer inspection big pharma is neither a
great Satan poisoning and corrupting the world,
nor a model of thrusting capitalist enterprise
and altruistic commitment to public health. It
turns out to be something of a paper tiger, a
cautious and conservative industry relying on a
small number of ‘blockbuster’ drugs and clinging
to its restrictive practices and state
subsidies. While it has benefited handsomely
from the increasing medicalisation of society,
it has also become a victim of the blame and
compensation culture that has advanced in
parallel with it'.
--------------------------
Oh poor Pharma a much maligned 'paper
tiger'..Statin drugs only work because they
reduce inflamation of the arterial walls, not
that they will admit it. Magnesium will do that
for you. Vitamin C will strengthen the collagen
and prevent the plaque(sp.) from thickenining
the walls, as in it's what's in the doughnut and
not the ring'. The last bit is an
americanism..talk about death by doctor.. geez...these
people are stabling the four horses of the
apocalypse..
notetoneself
that film sounds like it's worth
watching..'testing drugs on impoverised
Africans'..whatever next eh Bill...
|
|
|
|