|
Page 2 of 2
We've seen an advanced draft, and apparently they've quietly taken out that "1 in 200" reassurance. So for nearly a decade, thousands upon thousands of Americans have been reassured with this false ratio, and the federal government has done absolutely NOTHING -- no investigation of safety, no investigation of informed consent. We wrote the FDA many times about this problem, and they did nothing.
But perhaps due to our pressure, or because of the _Washington Post_ article, or their own conscience, the APA and Weiner have taken out that totally fraudulent and unscientific "1 in 200" number in their next proposed informed consent.
And meanwhile, what about YOU? You are going in the other direction. While the APA is covering its tracks after falsely reassuring the public, you are marching onward toward reassurance... based on what? Where is your scientific investigation of safety and efficacy, and of the risk of persistent memory loss of pre-hospitalization memories, for example?
For example, why have you not looked into the information from Texas, which has officially gathered information about deaths following electroshock, and has found that the death rate is far, far higher than what psychiatry has been claiming?
If you reassure the American public that shock has been officially investigated by the federal government for safety and efficacy you will be lying.
Where is your proof? Show us.
I've studied comparative religions, and there's one "sin" that they all agree upon: lying. It is wrong. And if that doesn't reach you, then just ask yourself about the SCIENCE.
To recap, the APA is getting MORE careful in this past decade, so they will pull a false reassurance about low risk of memory problems... and they publicly state they will be "more explicit" about "possibility of significant memory loss." And you? Why are you going in the opposite direction, where even the shock industry fears to tread? Why are you giving this unregulated device a false stamp of approval, paid for by the taxpayers?
Your actions are fraudulent, and would lead to lack of informed consent for electroshock for thousands upon thousands of Americans, with no scientific validity for your statement. That is immoral, that is criminal.
Imagine this is the 1950's, and you are about to give the stamp of approval for the "safety and efficacy" of cigarettes... how many years will it take to change that, to deal with the damage? How many minds and brains of Americans will be harmed, under FALSE reassurance? The use of fraud robs people of their FREEDOM to choose. Where is your moral courage?
Isn't this supposed to be the land of the free and the brave? Was that a lie?
Where is your proof? Show us.
We have a right to know, because our members' horrible experiences are the RESULTS of misguided stubborn and unscientific statements by people such as yourself.
I will copy this to two individuals in the Clinton administration who have told us they care about our voice being heard: Paolo del Vecchio and Jonathan M. Young. This is the time for them to prove what they have told us.
next: Misleading Report Overstates Prevalence of Mental Illness
|
