Occupy APA in San Francisco: Joined in Spirit


Tomorrow, May 18, the American Psychiatric Association kicks off its 166th annual conference. That same day, its new DSM-5 will be officially published. Given the occurrences of the past couple of weeks, which I’ll review briefly below, some members of the APA might wish tomorrow’s events would go unnoticed. But they won’t.

On the 19th, Jim Gottstein of PsychRights and Matthew Morrissey of Mind Freedom International will lead a several-hours long Occupy APA rally directly across from the Moscone Center where the APA will be meeting. The several speakers who will address rally participants – Leonard Roy Frank; Ted Chabasinski; Chaya Grossberg; Michael Cornwall – will be crossing mics with former President Clinton who, sometime later that afternoon, will deliver the conference’s keynote. Rollin’ out the big dawg for the big bucks. Clinton is sure to attract lots of mainstream media coverage, which will give the APA the chance to put a favorable spin on some of the recent setbacks it’s suffered.

The biggest blow came from an unanticipated source, from the National Institute of Mental Health and its director, Dr. Thomas Insel. On April 29, less than a month before the new DSM’s release, Insel announced that “… it is critical to realize that we cannot succeed if we use DSM categories as the ‘gold standard’ … That is why NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories …” Ironically, as Kirk and Kutchins remind us in their scathing critique of the DSM III, the disease classification that Robert Spitzer and colleagues pioneered in DSM III was designed to facilitate research into the biological causes of mental disorders. Its authors soft-soaped the lack of construct validity of their diagnoses and spot-lighted what they contended was a high degree of inter-rater reliability. According to Spitzer, if psychiatrists could agree among themselves about diagnoses and the criteria on which they rested, they would now be free to investigate the underlying, bio-medical etiology. And so the advent of “scientific psychiatry.”

Thirty years later we’re still waiting. Psychiatry has continued to search and continued to promise, in edition after edition of the DSM, that the next edition would be the charm. The decision in 1999 to develop the DSM-5, despite no apparent need for a new manual, was rooted in the APA’s illusion that the discovery of the root causes of mental illness was at hand. Given the work already done – some presumed genetic links – ten years were deemed sufficient to complete what had been started, and publication was projected for 2009. Then pushed back to 2012; and here we are, 2013, and still no root causes. Under the intense scrutiny and barrage of criticism from professionals and the general public, the APA was obliged to admit last December that the sought-for holy grail of “biomarkers” had yet to be found. Hence, Insel’s announcement that NIMH was jettisoning the DSM and any research done with it. From this point on, NIMH will only fund investigations that utilize its own “research framework,” the “Research Domain Criteria (RDoC)”; which, wonder of wonders, is at least ten years away from being operational. To quote Insel, “… we cannot design a system based on biomarkers or cognitive performance because we lack the data … RDoC is a [research] framework for collecting the data needed for a new nosology … Not a clinical tool … a decade-long project that is just beginning…”

If you can follow all this, it means that the NIMH has to collect the data to develop the research tools to do the research; and it will pay good money – some of the $100 million Obama talked about for “brain research” – to get those tools to do that research. Ah, Rube Goldberg would have loved this, circles within circles. And just so you don’t get your hopes up too high, Insel reminds us that “… mental disorders are biological disorders …” More of the same for the next ten, twenty, thirty years.

As if that weren’t enough for the APA to digest, the Division of Clinical Psychology of the British Psychological Society, one of the APA’s principal gadflies, issued a position paper on May 13 that constitutes a direct challenge to the APA and the NIMH. Entitled “Time for a Paradigm Shift,” it calls for “a conceptual system not based on a ‘disease’ model.” Largely ignored in the U.S., save for Lucy Johnstone’s May 12 post on MIA, the Division’s position paper received wide play in the British press – The Observer printed two provocative articles on May 11 and 12, respectively, “Psychiatrists Under Fire in Mental Health Battle,” and “Medicine’s New Battleground: Does Mental Illness Really Exist?” Fortunately for the APA, American professional organizations, made no public comment: “captive,” as Allen Frances would allege; or adrift, as per my telling, on that long and peculiarly American stream, Denial. In any event, the counter-spin has begun. On May 14, Insel and Jeffrey Lieberman, the APA’s president-elect, issued a joint statement, “DSM-5 and RDoC: Shared Interests.” They pledged that the two organizations will “…continue … to work together…; ” conceded that “ … what may be … feasible today for practitioners is no longer sufficient for researchers …;” and agreed that “ … Patients, families and insurers can be confident that effective treatments are available and that the DSM is the key resource …”

To which I can only echo Groucho — “Horsefeathers.”

Fortunately for those of us who can’t be with them, Jim and Matthew and the APA Occupiers will be on the scene to expose the lies and hypocrisy. I’m sure that ‘phone calls, tweets and e-mails of support to those you know will be there will provide them with a sense of our support and solidarity with them. I had been invited to speak at the rally, but, unable to attend, have substituted a statement on behalf of the Committee to Boycott the DSM-5 which will be read to those assembled by Matthew Morrisey. I’ve attached below a copy of the statement, “The APA & The NRA: Two Peas in a Pod.” It not only expresses my solidarity with the APA Occupiers but my frank contempt for two of the foremost supremacist organizations in the United States. Read it and join the Occupiers. And, don’t forget – “Don’t mourn, organize!”

(Please note that the references for Section I above are to be found at the end of Section II below.)

* * * * *

II — The APA & The NRA: Two Peas in a Pod

Jack Carney, DSW, Coordinator
Committee to Boycott the DSM-5
Annual APA Convention, May 19, 2013

Greetings, comrades and occupiers. I regret we can’t be there with you, but, poor substitute, I’ve sent along this statement of support and solidarity that one of the Occupy organizers will share with you.

I’ll begin by saying that the APA deserves all the enmity you can direct its way. You’re in San Francisco to protest the American Psychiatric Association at the time and place of its annual convention – its 166th, by the APA’s count –and to occupy as best you can the time and space it has claimed as its own. Not surprisingly, the APA’s wordsmiths have devised a throat-gagging theme for the convention — Pursuing Wellness Across the Lifespan – and the conference organizers have outdone themselves by inviting as the keynote former President Bill Clinton, otherwise known as the first-husband-in-waiting.

You’ve come at an opportune time, the occasion of the publication by the APA of its new DSM, the DSM-5, the fifth in a series of diagnostic manuals issued by the APA since 1979 that the APA has claimed are rooted in scientific research. In the intervening years, the DSM has become an iconic tome, used by psychiatrists and mental health profesionals throughout the world; relied upon by Big Insurance to adjudicate claims and by Big Pharma to validate the effectiveness of its medications. It is the face of the APA, its universal identifier, its singular accomplishment. It has also attracted unwelcome attention to itself and to the APA — success has its costs.

With each successive DSM since 1979 – DSM-III & III R; DSM-IV & IV TR; and now, DSM-5 – criticism as well as skepticism has increased. With each diagnosis that’s been added, the credibility of the DSM and of the APA has diminished. More and more of us now know that none of the 300 diagnoses that have accumulated over the years and that will populate the DSM-5 has any scientific basis, that the vaunted biomedical model is a sham, a fiction. We’ve also come to see the APA as a shill for Big Pharma and the DSM’s diagnoses as a cover for the prescription of psychoactive medications that are addictive and dangerous and that have succeeded in killing and shortening the lives of thousands of the persons prescribed them.

How very much like the NRA, another organization that has sold itself to corporate interests, in this case to the large gun manufacturers. The NRA sees more guns as the antidote to gun violence. What’s its slogan – a bad guy with a gun can only be stopped by a good guy with a gun? The APA for its part hasn’t seen a psychoactive med it doesn’t like. Wayne La Pierre’s strategy to protect kids in school is to station cops with guns in every school in the country and to arm teachers. The APA has a companion strategy — ferret out potential student killers by increasing school mental health services, identify more ADD kids and prescribe them the necessary sedating medications.

Welcome to 1984 and Big Brother, with half the population somatized. Welcome to the U.S. as an armed police state.

The NRA won’t oppose prohibition of the sales of assault rifles because they’re the biggest money makers for Big Gun. It’s taken to hide its money-grubbing agenda behind two preposterous beliefs that serve it as perfect smokescreens: first, that the 2nd amendment gives citizens a right to own guns and that the Federal government wants to take that right away — nothing like a little paranoia to muddle people’s minds; and second, that only crazy people commit mass murders – if the public wants gun control legislation, do a bait and switch … pass a law increasing mental health funding to keep the crazy folks under control. To no one’s surprise – not mine, not yours, not even that of The New York Times — the mental health lobby has taken the bait and it looks like the APA and the NRA will wind up sharing the same bed.

So where does that leave us and those Americans that seem to have figured this out? It leaves us up against two nine hundred pound gorillas, with not a fraction of their resources. What can we possibly do?

Well as the old Wobbly and my guiding light, Joe Hill, would have said … “Don’t mourn [or feel sorry for yourself], ORGANIZE!” If you want to change or put an end to a system of oppression, disrupt the relationships of those entities that comprise it. The four principals of the national mental health system are Big Government, Big Pharma, Big Insurance and the APA. You’ll notice that I didn’t say BIG APA. That’s because the APA is the most vulnerable of the bunch – rooted in phony science and myths about so-called mental illness; dependent on the three other BIGS for its resources; desperate to sell the new DSM and re-coup its $25 million investment. Which is why it’s selling the new DSM for $200 a pop. Which is why it’s hired Bill Clinton as its chief huckster.

So you’ve picked the right target – a desperate and diminished APA, whose credibility is at its lowest ebb in forty years, thanks to the metaphysics it’s attempting to peddle as science. Your mission – our mission – is to continue to attack its credibility; to question how and why the BIG THREE – GOVERNMENT, INSURANCE, PHARMA – are so willing to invest so much confidence and so much money in such a flawed institution.

But that’s another story, one that we’ll see played out as the four principals and their lesser acolytes kick around next year’s political football, the ICD-10. As for the NRA … ditto. Neither the NRA nor the APA will prevent another Newtown, another Aurora, and folks with diagnoses will again be scapegoated. Putting an end to needless deaths and ruined lives will require life-long commitment and ongoing struggle. I see you all in my mind’s eye …

In the struggle, Jack Carney

* * * * *

References – Section I:

* * * * *

Division of Clinical Psychology, British Psychological Society, DCP Position Statement on Classification: “Time for a Paradigm Shift” May 13, 2013,

Doward, Jamie, “Psychiatrists Under Fire in Mental Health BattleThe Observer, May 12, 2013,

Doward, Jamie, “Medicine’s New Battleground: Does Mental Illness Really Exist?”, TheObserver, May 12, 2013,

Frances, Allen, “Does the DSM-5 Have a Captive AudienceHuffington Post, May 16, 2013,

Insel, Thomas, “Transforming Diagnosis” April 29, 2013,

Insel, Thomas, Lieberman, Jeffrey, “Joint APA & NIMH Statement – DSM-5 and RDoC: Shared Interests” May 14, 2013,

Johnstone, Lucy, “UK Clinical Psychologists Call for the Abandonment of Psychiatric Diagnosis and the ‘Disease’ ModelMad In America, May 12, 2013,

Kirk, Stuart and Kutchins, Herb,  The Selling of DSM: The Rhetoric of Science in Psychiatry New York, Aldine, 1992

Spitzer, Robert, DSM III Casebook, American Psychiatric Publications, 1981


Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.


Mad in America has made some changes to the commenting process. You no longer need to login or create an account on our site to comment. The only information needed is your name, email and comment text. Comments made with an account prior to this change will remain visible on the site.


  1. OMG!!!!! Bill Clinton is the APA’s keynote speaker???? How horrible. Assuming Hillary is our next president, I can just imagine what we are in for. There are times when I agree with “conservatives” that liberals are characterized by their willingness to have the government intervene in our private lives, and this will be an example. I can hear it now, “more money for mental health, more help for those poor sick people.”


    Report comment

      • I have no idea about the politics of Dr. Grace Jackson.

        Her political affiliations, her “political party” matter not, as far as I’m concerned.

        I consider her an ally in this movement due to her pointing to the 1st, 8th and 14th amendments as they pertain to the right to refuse “treatment”. –


        It seems to me that we do not all need to agree on each and every political issue to form a coalition to take down coercive psychiatry and replace it with more options, freedom.


        Report comment

        • Ted, I understand your concerns but again, neither side of the political aisle is a friend of our cause. States under Republican and Democratic administrations have either passed tougher mental health commitment laws or are threatening to.

          George W had the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health which eroded civil rights. Obama has proposed the Brain Initiative which I fear will definitely erode them.

          I really wish on this site we would stop acting like one party is better than another regarding our causes. They aren’t and taking discussions off topic which has been done on many blog entries to debate which political party is more evil is an exercise in futility in my opinion.

          Report comment

          • AA,

            I agree.
            Debating which political party is more evil is an exercise in futility.

            I do think it behooves us however to begin to search for legislators who are supportive of our cause.

            IMO, this comes down to constitutional rights. Those who see this as an need to expand conventional programs for the “mentally ill” are only going to make things worse – whatever their intentions or political affiliations.

            In short, we need to find legislators who believe in the rights of individuals to make their own decisions regarding mental health care, to include the right to *refuse& such care, which IMO means we need to be open to working with constitutional conservatives and libertarians, or any other persons or groups who share this belief.


            Report comment

  2. Hi Duane,

    You make some good points.

    I also think people need to impress upon folks in their political parties why things need to change. Conservatives need to point out why mental health commitments laws go against the basic principle of the party and liberals need to point out to folks that more money for services isn’t always a helpful thing.

    Let me know if you know of any politicians on our side because I sure can’t think of any other than when Charles Grassley nailed Biederman big time.

    Report comment

      • Duane,

        There was a discussion on Democratic Underground in which there was a similar type discussion. Some people had the typical pharma view but others were definitely on our side.

        The folks I know who are sympathetic to our causes are liberal. Of course, that proves nothing but again, you can’t make any assumptions based on politics as to who is our side and who isn’t.

        As far as politicians being in the pocket of big pharma, that is a problem big time with all political sides of the aisle.

        Report comment

    • Glad you mention Charles Grassley because his 2008 investigation is probably the single congressional action that has most advanced our cause in years (if not decades).

      Although the investigation was not directed at psychiatry itself, rather at corruption in researchers receiving NIH money, it showed that corrupt psychiatrists represent the overwhelming majority of these corruption cases.

      There is a very clear tradition in the conservative movement to defend those like us. Frank Lanterman pioneered legislation, a first in the US, that gave those labelled “mentally ill” protections against abuse that were unheard of earlier. Ronald Reagan signed that legislation into law in the late sixties. It was the court of conservative judge Warren Burger who make the Lanterman philosophy the law of the land nationwide in 1975 (ie, it made illegal under US law to commit non dangerous people to mental institutions).

      I am also at odds to understand why the recent GOP has abandoned that love with individual freedom, but the tradition in the conservative movement is very clear on the matters of not trusting the government for anything.

      Report comment

    • AA,

      Ron Paul (R-TX).

      He’s a doctor who has *consistently* promoted health freedom.

      His politics are not mainstream…
      He has strong libertarian tendencies.
      Some consider him to be “quirky”.

      So what?
      A *diverse* group like ours should be able to handle non-mainstream politics and a little “quirkiness”….

      At least theoretically.
      I wonder sometimes.


      Report comment

  3. Jack Carney,

    The comparison with the NRA is completely unwarranted.

    First the NRA, despite claims to the contrary, does not represent a powerful lobby because the gun manufacturing industry is minuscule: 11.7 billion dollars a year http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/19/seven-facts-about-the-u-s-gun-industry/ . The US economy is 15 trillion dollars in size, that’s 1500 times the size of the industry the NRA allegedly represents. For comparison purposes, the top 12 Big Pharma companies make a combined revenue of 445 billion dollars in 2009/2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharmaceutical_companies . That’s almost 40 times the size of the gun manufacturing industry and 1/33th of the US economy. So the different couldn’t be more significant. The comparison APA-NRA (even if the NRA were to represent the interest of the gun manufacturing industry) could not be more misguided.

    Second, the NRA strength is its million of anonymous members, like me, for whom the second amendment is a key component in protecting our individual freedom from government tyranny. Although, because of my commitment, I cannot own guns, I became a proud NRA member in the aftermath of the Newton massacre because I value very much what they do. They not always treat the so called “mentally ill” well (they were too quick on scapegoat the Newtown situation on them/us) but they are a very effective organization. If anything, they are a model of what organized citizens can accomplish.

    As Duane says, if this movement is to become serious, it needs to be big tent. Continuously bashing conservative positions by making false analogies is not the right way to become big tent. Psychiatry has damaged many of us, left and right; defeating it should be our common goal.

    Report comment

  4. I can count on one hand how many politicians support survivors wishes, and I doubt many of them [both sides] have even considered Pharma, but both sides support corporate everything else, to all our detriment. Mental health legislation is not the sole issue which hurts survivors, it doesn’t exist in a vacuum and that’s not false or right or left.

    Report comment

  5. Every good protest movement needs a song. The tune doesn’t have to be original. I’ve already identified two rhyming acronyms in your post. NRA and APA. Now, if one of the more talented folk songwriters (attention NDG) in this protest movement could just fill in the rest. Tom Lehr wrote the satirical “We are the Folksong Army” back in the sixties, which picked up on the idea that protest movements have songs to sing. A good start for the APA protest in San Francisco might be to modify the Initials song from Hair.

    LBJ took the IRT
    Down to 4th Street USA
    When he got there
    What did he see?
    The youth of America on LSD

    Report comment

  6. As an Occupy APA protest speaker outside the APA convention tomorrow, I’m going to add 2 sentences to my speech-
    “Mr. President, your legacy of good works has just been tarnished here today by your cheerleading for a group of physicians who blindly inflict human rights abuses on those they have sworn to serve. In supporting the American Psychiatric Association as their keynote speaker here today, you have turned a blind eye to the suffering that psychiatry creates, and have proven that although you may be the most masterful politician of your generation, you have failed miserably to be on the right side of history.
    Dr. Michael Cornwall

    Report comment