Fornits

Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry

Please post some links.

Opening the doors to hire prisoners

Teen Challenge opened its doors to hire known criminals (through a federally funded re-entry employment program) from among those who converted to Christianity.  Teen Challenge had many centers in Texas and Florida.  In 1997, Texas became the first state to use the Faith-based effort, run by Colson's Prison Fellowship Ministries, InnerChange.  Support from the state governance under then-Gov. G.W. Bush in Texas and Gov. Jeb Bush in Florida were vital to the rapid growth of the enterprises.  Hire of former prisoners into mentor positions within the rehab facilities was an experiment that lacked adequate controls and supervision because government regulation had been stopped.

The Assemblies of God prison chaplains often have dual responsibilities and may also be paid prison staff with fairly unlimited access to prisoners. With Teen Challenge staff paid from federal re-entry prison funds, the Teen Challenge facilities had low staff overhead.  This financially beneficial arrangement permitted rapid expansion of the Teen Challenge ministries program.  The aggressive outreach of the Assemblies of God-Teen Challenge program was also funded by start up grants made possible through collaboration with the Faith-based and Community Initiative grant program and other linked programs.
Prisoners are paroled from prison to Faith-based outreach at Teen Challenge centers where they receive counseling, study the Bible and attend church. These “Christian” criminals, who had spent hard prison time, had criminal associates/connections, and were not always under adequate supervision of their parole officers. Teen Challenge as an employer would vouch for the employed prisoners and make allowances for their non-compliant conduct in order to keep them “on the path”. The parolees, in re-entry employment at Teen Challenge, were tasked to do missionary “outreach” to teens on the streets of New England.  Protected by their employer (Teen Challenge) and poorly supervised by officials from the prison system, these “Christian” employees openly did street “interventions”.  But Teen Challenge facilities had long been suspected of abusive practices and the continuing stream of complaints that surfaced did not get adequate attention by state or federal authorities.

An even more ominous complication was yet to be recognized.  The reports of abuse were made to properly identified authority channels, but persons who could block their progress and review had been strategically placed in critical positions.  An example is seen in the case of recently convicted, former Office of Special Counsel director, Scott Bloch.  Bloch was in charge of reviewing all federal whistleblower complaints in 2001, and could thus stop a sensitive investigation.  The case is discussed in greater depth shortly.

Under the Second Chance Act, the Labor and Justice departments announced prisoner re-entry grants totaling nearly $3 million to criminal justice agencies for Faith-based and community groups who provide ex-prisoners with employment services. Twenty-three agencies in 22 states and the District of Columbia were awarded grants of $130,434 each. States were: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.  

In Ohio, Governor Ted Strickland signed into law an act to encourage Faith-based groups and volunteers to provide re-entry services in that state. In Alabama, Governor Bob Riley appointed an advisory council of government and religious leaders to develop a statewide prisoner re-entry strategy.  Ohio’s Department of Rehabilitation and Correction faced $74 million in budget cuts in 2008.  Boston, Minneapolis and Durham County, NC, all came up with their own prisoner re-entry programs that engage Faith-based groups.  Budget pressures are pushing for reductions in prison populations. At least eight states are reported to be considering proposals to permit early release of prisoners, including California, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Vermont.  

Reference:   Wright, David. 2009. Taking Stock: The Bush Faith-Based Initiative and What Lies Ahead, June 2009, ReligionAndSocialPolicy.org,
http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/ ... 060809.pdf

Fellows of ASAM – FASAM certification

Members of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) can be recognized by the letters “FASAM” as part of their professional credential, with the “F” designating “Fellow of.”   ASAM supports research that furthers their financial goals and expands use of the ASAM principles of addiction treatment.  The ASAM wanted to create a new “Board” specialty in order to control federal grant funds and other public financing.   American Society of Addiction Medicine certification (FASAM) is not equivalent to medical board certification. On their website the ASAM admits that its “examination is not a Board examination. ASAM is not a member of the Board of American Board of Medical Specialties, and ASAM Certification does not confer board Certification. "  

The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) is has never been recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) as a board specialty. There are professional organizations which provide “Board Specialty” training in medicine and psychiatry.  These organizations have clear and stringent guidelines as to who earns the honor and professional status as a “boarded” expert. Credentialing in these specialties as an MD is a challenging process that weeds out those without adequate clinical or academic skills. These ABMS recognized medical specialties include: pediatrics, geriatrics, surgery, psychiatry, neurology, internal medicine, urology, cardiology, anesthesiology, gastroenterology, emergency medicine, radiology, respiratory medicine, endocrinology and many others.

The field of psychology also defines strict guidelines for board certification.  The American Board of Professional Psychology was incorporated in 1947 with the support of the American Psychological Association. The ABPP is a unitary governing body of separately incorporated specialty examining boards which assures the establishment, implementation, and maintenance of specialty standards and examinations by its member boards. Through its Central Office, a wide range of administrative support services are provided to ABPP Boards, Board-certified specialists, and the public.  Specialization in a defined area within the practice of psychology connotes competency acquired through an organized sequence of formal education, training, and experience.  In order to qualify as a specialty affiliated with the ABPP, a specialty must be represented by an examining board which is stable, national in scope, and reflects the current development of the specialty.  A specialty board is accepted for affiliation following an intensive self-study and a favorable review by the ABPP affirming that the standards for affiliation have been met. These standards include a thorough description of the area of practice and the pattern of competencies required therein as well as requirements for education, training, experience, research basis of the specialty, practice guidelines, and a demonstrated capacity to examine candidates for the specialty on a national level.

In contrast to these accepted board credentials, ASAM certification   requires only a medical degree, a valid license to practice medicine, completion of a residency training program in ANY specialty, and one year’s full time involvement plus 50 additional hours of medical education in the field of alcoholism and other drug dependencies.  ASAM does not require any specific formal training or experience in the diagnosis and treatment of physical or mental illness.  But regardless of the lack of training in these fields, the state physician health programs have extended their outreach into areas in which they have no professional qualifications.  In most of today's state physician health programs, "Regardless of setting or duration, essentially all treatment provided to these physicians (95%) was 12-step oriented."    In these programs, ASAM practitioners routinely impose their spiritually-based 12-step abstinence recovery program.  This system is imposed on medical professionals through threats to remove medical licenses or curtail practice or hospital privileges.

Creating a new “Board” Specialty

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)   is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and provides diagnostic criteria for mental disorders.  The ASAM refuses to acknowledge the DSM-IV-TR criteria for various addictive disorders.  Instead, the ASAM has its own criteria which were defined by its own doctors with addiction histories.   Dr. George Talbott was a primary contributor to the ASAM manual on addiction.  This book is used by ASAM doctors to diagnosis people with "addiction".   The vast majority of ASAM fellows also still believe that the only effective treatment for addiction must be based in the 12-steps of recovery expounded by the A.A. program.

Based on the new diagnostic manual defined by the ASAM members, the organization started their own credentialing program, called the graduates trained in their revised diagnostic approach “Fellows,” and designated them as experts.  The ASAM now seeks to “grandfather” their “FASAM” members as equivalent to boarded experts in behavioral medicine without the required strenuous “residency” training currently necessary to obtain a doctor certification as a “boarded” expert.  With stains caused by addictive behavior permanently erased from the doctor's record without unbiased evaluation, he or she can move easily into a position of national political influence and privilege. Such placements can permit a grateful recipient to return favors to sponsors.

It must be remembered that funding for the state PHP is provided in part by medical malpractice insurance companies.  The state PHP is not designed to help targeted doctors recover and go back to practice, nor are they designed to protect vulnerable populations from abuse, neglect and medical fraud. The state PHP is designed to make money for its constituents, to protect large hospital and medical corporations from medical malpractice lawsuits.  The state PHP will readily sacrifice an “uncooperative” or whistleblower's career for corporate profits. “Disruptive” professionals threaten cash flow.

The Federation of State Medical Boards

In May 1993, Federation of State Medical Boards   (FSMB) President Hormoz Rassekh, MD, established a special Ad Hoc committee on "physician impairment" in order to develop medical board strategies for identifying, evaluating, regulating, and managing "impaired" licensees.  In 1995 the FSMB stated this policy, "After discussion of several forms of physician impairment, the committee elected to focus primarily on chemical dependency, because of its prevalence."

ASAM has with political support managed to establish forty-six physician health programs in the U.S.A., with 42 of them being members of the FSPHP.    ASAM continues to promote the A.A. 12-step model of substance abuse treatment and maintain that impaired physicians be cured by religious belief.  Although originally started as simply chemical dependency treatment programs, these programs now extend into areas of medicine and psychology for which the ASAM doctors are not professionally trained or qualified.  According to the ASAM, the “impaired physician” is suffering from an illness which only a spiritual experience will conquer.  ASAM believes that these “impairments” need lifelong monitoring and are to be treated by surrendering one's "will and life over to the care of God" and completely immersing the individual in some variation of A.A.'s spiritually-based 12-step program.

Establishment of state Physicians Health Program (PHP)

The state Physicians Health Programs contract with medical associations, in each state, to provide “monitoring” services of licensed professionals reported to be “impaired.”  The cost is paid from both the state health department funding and federal funds, as well as financial support from malpractice insurance companies and large medical corporations.   The state PHP, a non- government entity (NGO) over which the state health department has very limited supervisory oversight, has been given almost police-like prerogative to revoke the license of any medical professional they choose to target.  In addition, the PHP has been granted, by most of the state legislatures, a quasi-governmental immunity from legal liability for damages suffered by injured persons. Medical professionals unwittingly sign a contract for this NGO to "monitor" them if deemed necessary when they apply for professional licensure now. The FSPHP is the umbrella organization of all the state PHPs.

The Federation of State Physicians Health Programs

The Federation of State Physicians Health Programs (FSPHP)   arose from state chapters of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM).   For example, Washington Physicians Health Program is the former Washington state chapter of the American Society of Addiction Medicine.  The FSPHP was originally established in order to monitor physicians with addictive problems in diversion programs.  But over the years the FSPHP expanded its outreach to include any “impairment” or “suspected impairment.”  In 2008 ASAM president Dr. Louis E. Baxter, Sr. MD (addiction psychiatrist FSPHP president 2009-2011) proclaimed that Physicians Health Programs (PHP) now includes, "To provide a means to identify, evaluate, and treat physicians who have diseases of impairment."    The use of the wording diseases of impairment is not coincidental as it is the language used in the legislation that provides governmental authority for the PHP’s existence and also its funding through the state departments of health.  This expanded mission now includes not only drug addiction and alcoholism, but also mental health issues such as disruptive behavior, psychiatric disorders, psychosexual disorders and even physical diseases and metabolic disorders.  In this mission creep volunteers and paid “agents” of the PHP now feel they are authorized by the state medical board to address as diverse problems as grief, sexual assault, domestic violence, child abuse, divorce, child custody, bulimia, asthma, diabetes and hypertension.  But these volunteers and “agents” may not have any professional qualifications to handle these issues and they are supervised by the PHP director who is only qualified in “addiction medicine”.  The PHPs are run by supervisory committees made up of addiction specialists and people “in recovery” who are not physicians at all.  Staffs of the PHPs are often recovered addicts who have Chemical Dependency Counselor (CDC) credentials or some other similar training which was gained while they were “recovering” from their own addiction.   True to the vision of Bill Wilson, co-founder of the A.A. or 12-step program, the ASAM and the FSPHP is run by addiction peers who supervise the “peer mentoring”.

Surprising to most doctors is that the Federation of State Physicians Health Programs has a state “Physicians Health Program” in almost every state.  This program is a non-governmental organization (NGO) with tax-exempt status and incorporated to limit legal liability for their board of directors. The state Physicians Health Program (PHP) has become the primary investigator of any medical professional suspected of impairment or labeled a "disruptive doctor."  Persons placing complaints against a doctors license are allowed to do it anonymously under the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) and do not even have to legally state what they allege is even true. There is no standard for admission of evidence.  Fabricated and false statements can be placed in the doctor’s professional record without any transparency and no due process.  This HCQIA legislation, originally intended to provide an avenue for patients to provide complaint information about doctors to state medical boards and federal agencies, has now had unintended consequences and instead protects hospital administrations from malpractice liability.  This immunity granted to “Good Samaritans” who come forward with complaints under HCQIA regarding medical care has been subverted by those wishing to hide malpractice and medical fraud.

Under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) there has emerged a covert ability to impact or revoke a medical professional’s license without requirement of standard, valid legal evidence or court procedures.  Thus, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, chiropractors, dentists, and even veterinarians are now subject to control by this organization, the grandchild of ASAM.  Its practices bear uncanny resemblance to the operational ways of Straight Inc. and The SEED rehabilitation centers.   The same web of patient abuse behind closed doors has now gained official sanction as a governing agency watchdog with coercive control over medical professionals’ licenses through "monitoring" and investigation.

Doctors who lost their medical license for participation in abusive schemes sought a way to be reinstated as employable professionals.  They were invited to be doctors performing research in newly established, funded residential treatment centers for substance abuse, where it was possible to use drugs on captive patients without proper informed consent.  Who would believe or be concerned about “addicted” patients?  A collaboration formed that would benefit the pharmaceutical industry by targeting populations of “human subjects” who were controllable and who could be given their experimental drugs within locked facilities.  

In return for facilitating the pharmaceutical industry’s corporate goals, there would be political influence exerted to soften certain legislative language to permit ASAM doctors to regain their medical license and to erase the records of their own addictive behaviors and/or criminal activity.  The ASAM leaders strategically analyzed how to circumvent the medical quality control system that prevented them from expunging untoward behavior from their records.

It would be beneficial to infiltrate and eventually take control of the official systems that had developed to protect patient safety and medical integrity.  
The ASAM addicted doctors now had established a system for “monitoring” professionals accused or suspected of substance abuse or other addictive behaviors (i.e., sex, gambling).  Through the Federation of State Physicians Health Programs they attempted to gain a controlling access to professionals in every state.  Through contracts made with the state departments of health, they established themselves as the only capable competitor for state funds related to medical licensing fees that were designated to ensure quality professional performance.  

With generous outside funding from non-disclosed sources, ASAM doctors were able to effectively underbid others for these substance abuse treatment monitoring functions.  Thus, doctors who had been so impaired that their medical privileges were revoked or curtailed were now permitted to monitor every licensed medical professional within the U.S.A.  An aggressive and expensive advertising campaign through medical and nursing association journals presented the newly established Physicians Health Programs (PHP) as advocates for “impaired professionals.”  Everyone in the medical field was encouraged to report other doctors, nurses, dentists, chiropractors, pharmacists and other related professionals who might need to be “monitored” by the PHP.  Strategic marketing to allied professionals such as non-medically trained assistants, office managers, and paraprofessional staff to report “suspects” allowed the ASAM to target selected doctors and other healthcare professionals and force their participation in an unregulated monitoring system.  There were no protections against gossip, rumor or fabrications against licensed medical professionals.  Private investigators could be hired to probe the personal lives and background of professionals, without their credentials or methods scrutinized for aberrant purposes.  

Anyone with criminal interests could make a complaint against a doctor or other professional and expect to have the PHP take action.  This could neutralize or eliminate a competitor or whistleblower.  The ASAM embraced not only substance abuse problems (i.e., alcoholics and drug addicts) but also "sex addicts" and compulsive gamblers as members of their growing non-profit organization. Expunged histories provide no warning to patients about a past sexual-compulsive history.  Expanded focus of the PHP program also considers eating disorders and smoking as “addictions” that may warrant monitoring.

The ASAM and the Federation of State Physicians Health Programs   politically worked to change legislative law in each state to facilitate their control over the investigation into any quality control issues related to doctors or other licensed medical professionals. These legislative changes were achieved with no media attention, and few professionals knew these changes occurred.  Thus, legislation was passed to strengthen the authority of ASAM doctors while limiting legal liability by grant of quasi-governmental status and resultant governmental immunity.
 
Presenting themselves as experts on the treatment of addictions, the ASAM doctors offered educational programs to train others to view “problem” doctors through the lens of ASAM principles, based on the Dr. Ruth Fox tradition of abusive and coercive control.  They could protect their own addicted or criminally involved members and remove the medical license from anyone who could report their criminal behavior.  

The ASAM started another organization which prevents licensed medical professionals from ability to access their own medical credentialing verification documents.  The PHP requires that individual state licensing boards refuse to accept records that document professional credentials without applicants sending requests for credential verification to an independent incorporated centralized agency that the ASAM corruptly controls.  This prevents whistleblowers from seeking a professional license in any U.S.A. state and eliminates a doctor’s ability to go abroad with a clean record and obtain a license to practice.  It ends a professional career.  

ASAM and FSPHP control over professional licensing is not vulnerable to law enforcement scrutiny and is not under the control of any government body.  This is unrecognized power with no government supervision or accountability as an NGO incorporated to limit liability but operate as a non-profit to reap advantage of US tax laws.  The state boards of medicine do not control what transpires behind the closed doors of this ingenious monopoly.  

The U.S.A. Congress cannot pierce the covert halls of this power.  Even the FBI is stymied by the provisions of HIPPA regulation that were enacted to protect patients’ confidentiality, and which require a high burden of proof to obtain a legal subpoena.   ASAM doctors have created a system they control and in which they can hide whatever criminal activity is necessary to further financial goals.   Money laundering is possible with much less risk within the medical community collaborating with corrupted interests within the FSPHP and associated interests.  It is possible to threaten or professionally destroy any whistleblower naïve enough to report their criminal activity.  The FSPHP has the power and ability to force residential or outpatient “treatment” on whistleblower opponents under the auspices of the substance abuse treatment legislation and the mental health legislation at the state and local level.  Fewer medical professionals, psychologists and therapists are courageous enough to risk loss of their professional licenses if they report as “mandated reporters.”  Yet, they are required to do so by law. Unfortunately, many do not learn about this treachery until they report and are then brutally attacked from unanticipated directions.  

If law enforcement wants to prevent medical fraud, the ASAM and FSPHP corrupted system of power and control must be dismantled. It is necessary to ensure quality in our healthcare delivery systems.  That responsibility must be returned to properly elected and/or appointed officials collaborating with medical professionals in systems that are sufficiently transparent to assure that professionals with integrity and consumers are protected.

Because reports of abusive practices by the State physician health programs have leaked out,  media attention, state legislative actions, court decisions and voiced concerns of Congress have lead to the removal of PHP programs from many states including: CA, MN, NV, TX, WI, and OR.

The Association for Behavioral Health and Wellness

The American Board of Addiction Medicine was created by Association for Behavioral Health and Wellness (ABHW).  The new American Board of Addiction Medicine (ABAM) "specialty" criteria was written by the ABHW. The goal of the AMBHA [formerly the American Managed Behavioral Healthcare Association (AMBHA)] was to make money on substance abuse treatment and mental health services.  Their CEO, Pamela Greenberg, became chairman of the newly formed ABHW board.  Ms. Greenberg is also the senior vice president in the Stephens Inc. company of Dallas, TX, which supplies financial services to health insurance companies.  The goal of this alliance is to make money for the financial investors (Stephens Group LLC).  Those making management decisions are not trained in medicine or psychology; they are trained in financial assessment, risk management, cost-benefit insurance statistical analysis, economics, public policy, survey research and other related fields. They are not medical professionals.  

The Association for Behavioral Health and Wellness (ABHW)   is organized and run by Pamela Greenberg to protect certain financial interests, such as medical malpractice and health insurance companies (Aetna, Value Options, Cenpatico, Magellan Health Services, Optum Health Services, Shaller Anderson Behavioral Health, MHN);  it also promotes the financial interests of major pharmaceutical companies ( Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca International, Bristol Myers, Reckitt Beckiser).  (ABHW mission statement)  

ASAM states their goal is to establish addiction medicine as a specialty recognized by professional organizations, governments, physicians, purchasers and consumers of health care services, and the general public. The American Managed Behavioral Healthcare Association (AMBHA) and the ASAM collaborated to promote the alternate “board specialty” under the American Board of Addiction Medicine and admission of those with the FASAM credentials to expert status without the need for the usual residency training. These alternately boarded "experts" in behavioral medicine would then be able to compete for federal funds on par with traditionally prepared professionals.  Enhanced opportunities to commit medical fraud, patient abuse and human rights violations are facilitated.  

American Board of Addiction Medicine

ASAM is currently attempting to receive medical specialty recognition for promoting A.A.'s spiritually based 12-step recovery model to the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS)   ABMS certifies all of the traditionally recognized medical specialties and subspecialties (Internal Medicine, General Surgery, Psychiatry, Emergency Medicine, Anesthesiology, Pediatrics, Radiology, etc.). The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), a not-for-profit organization, assists 24 approved medical specialty boards in the development and use of standards in the ongoing evaluation and certification of physicians. ABMS, recognized as the “gold standard” in physician certification, believes higher standards for physicians means better care for patients.  As an integral part of their comprehensive strategy for employment of former “recovered” addicts and to enhance their attainment of positions of power and authority within the medical community, ASAM wanted to obtain specialty recognition by ABMS.  However, the requirement of residency training at a recognized institution of higher learning was preventing their “recovered” doctors from getting board certification.  Many of them had irregular work histories marred with periods of addictive behavior.  Thus when their professional records were reviewed, they did not stand up well to that scrutiny, in addition the requirement for medical residency training meant that they would need to maintain sobriety for that period of time while attending professional medical instruction, this proved too difficult for many in the ASAM program.  Thus doctors such as Dr. George Douglas Talbott MD, who had many years of difficulty as an alcoholic, wished to have themselves grandfathered into ABMS board certification through some agreement settlement rather than completing residency training at a medical school.  So ASAM sought to establish a new board that would then seek admission as an ABMS board certifying institution. In 2006 ASAM established the American Board of Addiction Medicine (ABAM).  According to the official ASAM/ABAM website:

"Grandfathering is the pathway to acquire ABMS certification in a new specialty or subspecialty, without having to complete all of the training requirements that will eventually be established, such as completion of an ACGME-accredited residency program...For ASAM and ABAM certified physicians who are not already Diplomats of an ABMS member board, ABAM will facilitate and advocate for the establishment of non-onerous pathways for eligibility for an ABMS-recognized Addiction Medicine examination."  

But grandfathering alone would not erase the criminal records of DUI, domestic violence, drug related criminal activity, gambling infractions, drug diversion, sexual crimes etc. that were part of the history of these “recovered” medical professionals.  Thus a pathway also to expunge their criminal records had to also be established in order for ASAM doctors to rise in positions of power, authority and influence.  This they planned to accomplish through their political contacts in the Drug Free America Foundation, the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health and various governmental boards and committees formed to determine national drug policy.
The Federation of State Physicians Health Programs (FSPHP) established a committee to monitor the addicted or corrupted ASAM members who wanted their medical license back.  This FSPHP monitoring committee was made up primarily of “recovered” addicts.  When it became politically expedient, the monitoring committee decided that those who had been previously monitored no longer needed oversight and the committee was discontinued.  This, coupled with legislative actions at the state level in several states, became a model that could be used to hide from public view the past criminal infractions and inappropriate behavior of ASAM members.  

Lack of adherence to accepted standards regarding DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria

Many state Physicians Health Program “agents” do not have any qualifications other than those to do substance abuse treatment “peer mentoring” through A.A. or 12-step programs.  PHP or ASAM medical professionals may have limited licensure, may be monitored themselves by state medical boards, and may not have access to a DEA controlled drug box because of previous drug infractions. Their scope of practice may have been curtailed by the state medical board to only include working with persons with addiction problems or doing workplace or workmen’s compensation evaluations.  

Because of their limited training and education and the limits set by the state medical boards that monitor their own scope of practice, ASAM fellows tend to view all physical and mental health problems as “co-occurring” and secondary in importance to addiction problems.  With disregard to professional standards of practice, “dual diagnosis” of psychiatric labels are freely applied to patients in spite of the fact that most ASAM fellows are not formally trained in the diagnosis and treatment of "mental disorders". (see the web advertisement for Pathway Family Center)   ASAM does not acknowledge that many psychiatric diagnoses are subjective, imprecise, and subject to change over time.   They apply their limited knowledge of the DSM-IV-TR without supervision or accountability to professional standards.  All patients are assumed to have a diagnosis of the disease of addiction – even when no evidence of addiction is present.  According to the A.A. or 12-step model, the patient is in that case just in denial.  This was true in the case of Dr. Leon Masters MD when he was threatened professionally and then falsely diagnosed as having an addiction problem, falsely imprisoned at Talbott Marsh Recovery Center in Atlanta GA and had his professional reputation as a doctor destroyed by then ASAM president George Douglas Talbott MD.

George Douglas Talbott MD wrote his own criteria of what constitutes addiction, based on the A.A. and 12-step model.   When examining this diagnostic protocol, it becomes evident that the symptoms described actually represent symptoms consistent with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  ASAM Fellows of the FSPHP base their diagnostic criteria for addiction on symptoms that the valid application of the criteria in the DSM-IV-TR might instead attribute to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (Acute and Complex).  

The ASAM and the FSPHP never confer a diagnosis that does not include addiction as a co-occurring and predominant diagnosis. Charting two co-occurring diagnosis increases revenue with little increase time spent. PTSD is a diagnosis that has been historically best treated with psychotherapy.  Acute PTSD can be treated with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and the patient can recover to full function without further need for monitoring or further psychiatric treatment.  PTSD also has been proven to respond best to psychotherapy not medication, although some medications have shown to have limited application.  It is important to recognize the difference between PTSD, which is a psychiatric injury, and other clinical conditions of mental illness.  This is a legal as well as a medical concept with enormous implications.  For example, a sole diagnosis of PTSD would permit a sexual assault victim or domestic violence victim to testify in a court of law as a credible witness.

PTSD can be related to a child’s experience in a Straight-like copycat program.  Maia Szalavitz reported that psychiatrist Dr. Jay Kurdis recently provided expert testimony in the 2003 civil trial against Miller Newton (former Straight, Inc. National Director), which revealed that:

“Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can occur when someone is confronted by an overwhelmingly scary, actual real threat to life and limb, or to something as important as that, and in the face of that threat, [finds himself] helpless to do anything about it. The diagnosis was first introduced in relation to Vietnam veterans, some of whom had had terrifying combat or prisoner-of-war experiences that left them anxious, depressed, paranoid, overreactive to loud noises, and susceptible to vivid nightmares and flashbacks of the traumatic situation. Research shows that the longer that people feel helpless in frightening situations, and the less control they feel they have, the more likely they are to develop PTSD.”  

One of the hallmarks of all the Straights and Straight, Inc. descendant programs, such as Kids Helping Kids, KIDS of New Jersey (KIDS), etc. was that the whole program was deliberately designed to make participants feel powerless.

Altering the diagnostic criteria of the DSM-V

The American Psychiatric Association publishes an authoritative manual regarding diagnosis of mental disorders.  This manual called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is periodically updated to reflect the most recent findings in the field.  A newly revised first draft of the DSM-V or the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's   (APA) DSM is due for publication in May 2013.  In this new DSM-V draft  it is suggested that "Eliminating the separate categories of Substance Abuse and Substance Dependence and replacing them with a single unified category of Substance Use Disorder" and instead "Labeling the overall section 'The Addiction and Related Disorders'.  This was a change in wording which the ASAM/ABAM heavily lobbied for as it would change the diagnosis of Substance Abuse (in the DSM-IV) to instead Substance Use Disorder under the section heading of addictive disorder.   This simple change would have the result of further legitimizing ASAM and their new ABAM specialty and expanding their scope of practice.   ASAM fellows support A.A. and 12-step program principles and maintain that addiction is a lifelong brain disorder requiring lifelong treatment.  This treatment bolstered with a DSM diagnosis is often mandated by court orders and censure by professional licensing boards. The financial benefits to the newly established ABAM would be enormous.

References and citations:

1.  American Society of Addiction Medicine, ASAM.org  http://www.asam.org/ExamHistory.html

2.   The ASAM certification process now included board certification by the ABAM.  http://www.asam.org/Certification_home.html  In 2009, The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) transferred the certification examination to the American Board of Addiction Medicine (ABAM), and the next examination will be offered by ABAM on December 1, 2012 and in subsequent years.  A physician certified by ABAM is board certified. For More information please visit the ABAM Web site at http://www.abam.net.

 3, DuPont RL, McLellan AT, White WL, Merlo LJ, Gold MS.  Setting the Standard for Recovery: Physicians' Health Programs, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment.  2009;36:159-171.
 
4,  The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) is a national non-profit organization representing the 70 medical and osteopathic boards of the United States and its territories. The FSMB leads by promoting excellence in medical practice, licensure, and regulation as the national resource and voice on behalf of state medical and osteopathic boards in their protection of the public. http://www.fsmb.org/

5,  Federation of State Physicians Health Programs – State Listing http://www.fsphp.org/State_Programs.html

6,  Federation of State Physicians Health Programs Inc., 515 North State Street – Room 8584, Chicago, IL  60610,  Phone: 1.312.464.4574 Fax: 1.312.464.5841

7.  American Society of Addiction Medicine. 4601 N. Park Ave., Suite 101, Chevy Chase, MD  20815. http://www.asam.org/

8.  2008 presentation on Physician Health Programs (PHP's) before the FSMB (Federation of State Medical Boards) at their 2008 annual meeting, given by 2009-2011 ASAM president “Physician Health Programs: How They Work,” FSPHP Dr. Louis E. Baxter, Sr., MD (an addiction psychiatrist), PHP missions now include, "To provide a means to identify, evaluate, and treat physicians who have diseases Conference 2008  

9.  The Association for Behavioral Health and Wellness (ABHW), formerly the American Managed Behavioral Healthcare Association (AMBHA),is an association of the nation’s leading behavioral health and wellness companies.  ABHW.org, http://www.abhw.org/

10.  Association for Behavioral Health and Wellness (ABHW), ABHW.org,  http://www.abhw.org/page3.html
  The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), a not-for-profit organization, assists 24 approved medical specialty boards in the development and use of standards in the ongoing evaluation and certification of physicians. ABMS, recognized as the “gold standard” in physician certification, believes higher standards for physicians means better care for patients.  http://www.abms.org/

11.  ASAM website  http://www.asam.org/abam.html

12.   Pathway family Center listed in on the Dual-Diagnosis Drug-Rehab, National Family Center,  Pathway Family Center is located at 6405 Castleplace Court, Indianapolis, IN 46250   Pathway Family Center claims to do Primary Services Dual Diagnosis, Substance abuse treatment and drug rehab Type of Care  Dual Diagnosis Rehab , Residential short-term sober living drug treatment (30 days or less), Residential long-term drug rehab treatment sober living (more than 30 days), Outpatient drug rehab, Partial hospitalization drug program/substance abuse day treatment Services Provided Dual Diagnosis Treatment, Substance abuse treatment   Pathway Family Center dual diagnosis drug rehab with a primary focus on Substance abuse treatment and drug rehab.
http://dual-diagnosis-drug-rehab.com/Du ... is&ID=4109

13,  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision, American Psychiatric Association, pages xxxi, xxxii.   Limitations of the Categorical Approach:

        DSM-IV is a categorical classification that divides mental disorders into types based on criteria sets with defining features. This naming of categories is the traditional method of organizing and transmitting information in everyday life and has been the fundamental approach used in all systems of medical diagnosis. A categorical approach to classification works best when all members of a diagnostic class are homogeneous, when there are clear boundaries between classes, and when the different classes are mutually exclusive. Nonetheless, the limitations of the categorical classification system must be recognized.

        In DSM-IV, there is no assumption that each category of mental disorder is a completely discrete entity with absolute boundaries dividing it from other mental disorders or from no mental disorder. There is also no assumption that all individuals described as having the same mental disorder are alike in all important ways. The clinician using DSM-IV should therefore consider that individuals sharing a diagnosis are likely to be heterogeneous even in regard to the defining features of the diagnosis and that boundary cases will be difficult to diagnose in any but a probabilistic fashion. This outlook allows greater flexibility in the use of the system, encourages more specific attention to boundary cases, and emphasizes the need to capture additional clinical information that goes beyond diagnosis. In recognition of the heterogeneity of clinical presentations, DSM-IV often includes polythetic criteria sets, in which the individual need only present with a subset of items from a longer list (e.g., the diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder requires only five out of nine items.)

14.  ASAM Patient Placement Criteria for the Treatment of Substance-Related Disorders (2nd ed., Revised). Chevy Chase, MD: American Society of Addiction Medicine

15,  Maia Szalavitz, Help at Any Cost: How The Troubled-Teen Industry Cons Parents and Hurts Kids (New York: The Penguin Group, 2006), p. 221.

16.  American Psychiatric Association http://www.psych.org/

17.  The Federation of State Physician Advocacy Groups claims to be an informal group of concerned and dedicated medical and legal professionals who wish to remain anonymous, in order to reduce our exposure to retaliation or slander because of the controversial nature of our free speech.  The Federation of State Physician Advocacy Groups (FSPAG) was founded in late 2007 as an independent  physician-run alternative to the Federation of State Physician Health Programs (FSPHP).  The FSPHP is an independent nonprofit corporation which controls the vast majority of standard "Physician Health Programs" (PHP's) operated by medical licensing boards in all 50 states.  Also known as "diversion programs", PHP's were originally designed to provide a therapeutic avenue for physicians with "chemical dependency" (alcoholism and drug addictions) to access confidential treatment with protection from professional investigation and/or disciplinary action.  Many PHP's have gradually expanded their missions to include monitoring and treatment management for physicians with mental illness, and some are now expanding even further to encompass monitoring and treatment management for all physicians with possible "diseases of impairment" (defined as alcohol and drug use disorders, psychiatric disorders, disruptive disorders, psychosexual disorders, metabolic disorders, and physical disorders -- including diabetes, hypertension, and asthma). These increasingly broad missions have not changed the fact that the majority of state PHP's are still run by medical directors who are qualified only in "addiction medicine" and have supervisory committees largely staffed by addiction specialists and members of the general public who are "in recovery" from various addictions and who need not be physicians at all.  
 http://www.fspag.org/5.html

18.   Psychiatric Times http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/web/10168/login

Ruth Fox, founder of the American Society for Addiction Medicine

Ruth Fox  was the founder of ASAM, the American Society for Addiction Medicine, that promotes Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.) and the 12-Step treatment approach for alcoholism.  ASAM's mission statement is "to establish addiction medicine as a specialty recognized by professional organizations, governments, physicians, purchasers and consumers of health care services, and the general public."  ASAM's strategic plan boldly declares that "ASAM will define the basic and clinical science of Addiction Medicine as well as the scope of its practice".  Dr. Ruth Fox was the guru of mind-control techniques that use coercive control and experimental LSD drug therapy and disulfiram.  

Dr. Ruth Fox, medical director for the U.S. Council on Alcoholism, had used LSD in alcoholic rehabilitation.  She endorsed the therapeutic use of LSD for making experimental subjects develop a new feeling of compassion and tenderness for others.  Dr. Fox also felt that LSD was very helpful in changing alcoholics' thinking and behavior:  “LSD does seem to make the patient more willing to undertake the total program necessary for his recovery. After LSD, most of the patients who formerly refused to cooperate were willing to take disulfiram, attend group therapy and to affiliate with A.A.”   Dr. Fox reported in her book, Alcoholism: Behavioral Research, Therapeutic Approaches.

Dr. Fox gave her patients disulfiram and then alcohol, to deliberately make them very sick and attempt to build up an aversion to alcohol. Although she discovered that the aversion therapy was not effective, and after one patient almost died from a near-fatal reaction to a single ounce of alcohol given with disulfiram, Dr. Fox insisted that each patient be given at least one session of induced illness from the disulfiram/alcohol combination, before discharge. (See: Disulfiram (Antabuse) as an Adjunct in the Treatment of Alcoholism, Dr. Ruth Fox, in Alcoholism: Behavioral Research, Therapeutic Approaches, edited by Ruth Fox, M.D., foreword by 'Mrs.' Marty Mann, Springer Publishing Company, Inc., New York, 1967.)

The mind control project MK-ULTRA, was a CIA mind-control program that garnered public attention in 1975 through U.S.A. Congressional investigations by the Church Committee  , and by a presidential commission known as the Rockefeller Commission.   George H. W. Bush was CIA director from January 30, 1976 – January 20, 1977.   Over thirty US universities and institutions were involved in an extensive testing and experimentation program  which included covert drug tests on uninformed citizens at variant social levels, and Native Americans.   Several of these tests involved administration of LSD to "unwitting subjects in social situations." This was sanctioned governmental human rights abuse committed by these LSD researchers that sometimes resulted in permanent disability or even death.  The CIA itself acknowledged that these tests made little scientific sense and monitoring was not performed by qualified scientific observers.  

Medical doctors are necessary to manipulate public policy and advance the financial interests of a criminal enterprise such as Straight Inc. and its progeny.  Corrupted interests use vulnerable patients for profit while ignoring a patient's real needs, which fosters a system of abusive human rights violations.  Well-appointed medical doctors were used to provide legitimacy to Straight Inc. interests, such as drug czars Robert DuPont, MD (a former paid Straight consultant) and Donald Ian MacDonald, MD (Straight's former national medical research director).    Both are members of the International Scientific and Medical Forum on Drug Abuse (a DFAF subsidiary).   Richard Schwartz, MD, former medical research director for Straight-Springfield, was another forum member.

The predecessor of Straight Inc., The SEED, began in June, 1970, in Florida as a substance abuse treatment center for adolescents and children.  A federal grant for $1 million dollars from NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse), a subsidiary of the sprawling NIMH (National Institute of Mental Health), established the program.  Melvin Sembler's son was enrolled in The SEED and Sembler, a personal friend to George H. W. Bush, became the board president of Straight Inc.  NIDA Director, psychiatrist Robert L. DuPont, Jr., had approved the start-up grant.

Techniques to force compliance in addiction patients became the hallmark of the newly-minted A.A. and ASAM programs.  ASAM wrote its own book based, in part, on Ruth Fox's pioneering treatment of alcoholics with LSD and mind control techniques.  Outcome reports neglect to mention the patients who became permanently psychotic or committed suicide under her LSD treatment.  No accounting is made for violations of civil rights, privacy or human rights.

The Federation of State Physicians Health Programs (derived from ASAM) which is Dr. Ruth Fox’s legacy continues to be awarded private contracts with government agencies.  ASAM still collects financial donations to the Ruth Fox Endowment Fund.  The money is used to pay for medical continuing education (courses about ASAM philosophy and to fund scholarships for doctors-in-training as ASAM Fellows [FASAM]).  

Human subjects abuse

Abuse of human subjects by substance abuse treatment doctors was well documented in the Congressional Church Committee report and by the Rockefeller Commission.  (Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, United States Senate, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, April 26 (legislative day, April 14), 1976.)  The published evidence indicated that Project MK-ULTRA involved the surreptitious use of many types of drugs, as well as other methods, to manipulate individual mental states and to alter brain function in U.S.A. and Canadian citizens.   Over thirty universities and institutions were involved in an "extensive testing and experimentation" program which included covert drug tests on uninformed citizens "at all social levels, high and low, Native Americans and foreign."  LSD was given to "unwitting subjects in social situations."  Researchers utilized a variety of drugs on alcoholics, homeless persons, enlisted military personnel and unsuspecting citizens as part of CIA research into mind control.  LSD and other drugs were usually administered without the subject's knowledge or informed consent, a violation of the Nuremberg Code that the U.S.A. agreed to follow after World War II.   The congressional committee investigating the CIA research, chaired by Senator Frank Church, concluded that "prior consent was obviously not obtained from any of the subjects."  Using recommendations of the Church Committee, President Gerald Ford issued the first Executive Order on Intelligence Activities in 1976, which prohibited "experimentation with drugs on human subjects, except with the informed consent, in writing and witnessed by a disinterested party, of each such human subject" and in accordance with the guidelines issued by the National Commission.  Subsequent orders by Presidents Carter and Reagan expanded the directive to apply to any human experimentation.  These rulings laid the foundation for closure of the abusive programs, but only until new forms were created.

These mind control experiments were strongly condemned by the U.S.A. Congress but the financial association of substance abuse treatment centers with private funding from undisclosed sources continued unabated.  

References and citations:


1.  Ruth Fox according to her New York Times Obituary: Dr. Ruth Fox, a psychoanalyst who in 1959 became the first medical director of The National Council on Alcoholism, an agency devoted to alcoholism prevention, died in March 1989 at a nursing home in Washington. She was 93 years old and lived in Manhattan. Dr. Fox, a native New Yorker, performed pioneering research on the use of Antabuse, a chemical used widely in alcoholism treatment today. She was founder and first president of the American Medical Society on Alcoholism and Other Drug Dependencies in 1954. She wrote, lectured and taught extensively on the subject. She also maintained a private practice and was one of the first psychoanalysts willing to accept alcoholics as patients.  The winner of a number of honors, she received, among others, the Citation of Merit award from the Malvern Institute for Psychiatric and Alcoholic Studies in 1963; the Silver Key award from the National Council on Alcoholism in 1972, and the annual award from the American Medical Society on Alcoholism in 1973. Retired in '79
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/28/obitu ... olism.html

2.  Fox, Ruth, Alcoholism: Behavioral Research, Therapeutic Approaches, 1967, page 775, quoted in Slaying the Dragon, William L. White, page 229.

3.  The Church Committee, Wikipedia.org,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

4.  Opening Remarks by Senator Ted Kennedy.  U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, and Subcommittee On Health And Scientific Research of the Committee On Human Resources. 08-03-1977. DrugLibrary.org, http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/his ... /Hearing01

5.   AARCLibrary.org, http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/churc ... _0200b.htm

 6. The Church Report – The Select Committee to Study Governmental Operation with Respect to Intelligence Activities, Foreign and Military Intelligence The Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, Foreign and Military Intelligence". Church Committee report, no. 94-755, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.. Washington, D.C..:United States Congress. 1976. pp. 392, AARCLibrary.org, http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/churc ... _0200b.htm

7.  CIA and DoD Human Subject Research Scandals Chapter 3, part 4: Supreme Court Dissents Invoke the Nuremberg Code: CIA and DOD Human Subjects Research Scandals. Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments Final Report. HHS.energy.gov, http://www.hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/ ... ap3_4.html

8.  thestraights.net,  The Influence of Straight, Inc. (Drug Free America Foundation) On National and International Drug Policy http://www.thestraights.net/pickets/dfa ... -short.doc

Teen Screen

Teen Screen was developed by Dr. David Shaffer, known for his connections to the pharmaceutical industry   and Columbia University.  Many watchdog groups opposed the use of mental health screening programs and viewed them as marketing opportunities for drug manufacturers.   It was proven that these mental health screenings were conducted on minors without parental consent.  In 2005, Teen Screen became the subject of a lawsuit in Indiana filed by parents who objected to the “passive consent” procedure.  The Rutherford Institute, a non-profit civil liberties organization, criticized the use of "passive consent," by which parents who do not want their children screened need to sign a form and send it in to the school.  If the school does not receive a form, it is assumed that the parents do not object.  In June 2006, after the lawsuit, Teen Screen changed their consent procedures to require active parental consent, but offered incentives such as movie tickets and gift vouchers to students to encourage participation.  In situations where neither parent is accessible (i.e., in teen shelters or the juvenile justice system), passive consent (parental consent assumed if not explicitly denied) would suffice.  Teen Screen led to massive drug use with children in the foster care and juvenile justice system where there was scant oversight or protections for human rights.

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution guarantees our citizens the right to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, a right that extends to all citizens regardless of their age.  There were several important Supreme Court Decisions regarding whether children could be tested for drugs by schools:

 1) Vernonia School District v. Wayne Acton  
 2) Board of Educ. of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma Petitioner v EARLS.  

In 1995 by a 6-3 decision in Vernonia School District v. Wayne Acton the U. S. Supreme Court decided that because public school athletics are susceptible to injuries, their right to Fourth Amendment protection could be waived in order to protect them from the added dangers of illegal drug use. The court gave schools the right to require suspicionless drug testing.  Before making it to the Supreme Court the issue made it to the Federal Appeals Court.  At the appeals court Veronia had submitted as their expert witness Dr. Robert L. DuPont, Jr.  Dr. DuPont is the founding director of   the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the second White House Drug Czar.  It was Dr. DuPont's NIDA that administered a $ 1 million grant to The Seed -- Straight's predecessor program.  Later Dr. DuPont became a paid Straight consultant and was an expert witness for Straight in several civil trials.  DuPont became chairman of the scientific advisory board for Psychemedics--the world's premier hair testing drug program. The Drug Free America Foundation (DFAF) is a leader in establishing national and international drug policy and lobbying successfully for its own interests.

Board of Educ. of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma Petitioner v EARLS by a decision of 5-4, the U.S. Supreme Court extended suspicionless drug testing beyond the scope of the Veronia decision to include suspicionless drug testing of any student involved in any extracurricular activity in a school.  The court decided that "schools' interest in ridding their campuses of drugs outweighs an individual's right to privacy.  The justices were aided in their decision process by an Amicus Curie (friends of the court) brief that had been filed with the court and signed by a large number of individuals prominent in American drug policy, many of whom had relationships with DFAF.    

The Drug Free America Foundation has positioned itself as a leader in establishing national and international drug policy. Straight Foundation, under its new name, DFAF co-sponsors The Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA) workshops.  

References and citations:

 1. TeenScreenTruth.com, http://www.teenscreentruth.com/teenscre ... ayers.html

 2.  Groenendijk, Charly, AntidepressantsFacts 2004 – 2009,  Antidepressantsfacts.com,  http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/Bus ... rogram.htm

3.   Breggin, Peter,  Dr. Peter Breggin PhD Psychologist, International Counselors, Social Workers,  Psychiatrists, Psychologists,  & Educators,   ICSPP.org, http://www.icspp.org/  Dr. Breggin's 40-year effort to expose the scientific and ethical hazards of biopsychiatric theory and practices including psychiatric diagnoses, drugs, and ECT.  And second, to encourage and inspire humane and ethical empathic social services and therapies that assist individuals and families toward better and more successful lives without the harmful effects of biopsychiatric interventions. You can also visit Dr. Breggin's professional page at Breggin.com,  http://www.Breggin.com.
 
4.  According to PublicIntegrity.org, more than a third of pharmaceutical companies' resources go into promotion and marketing.  Notice that these companies spend many more millions of dollars to market their products than they invest in research and development.  Perhaps we should be demanding better research rather than great commercial advertising to push products for which there is not adequate research into patient safety and into the efficacy of treatment.

Company Marketing costs  in Research and Development
Pfizer$16.90 billion in Marketing $7.68 billion in Research and Development
Glaxo Smith Kline$12.93 billion  in Marketing $5.20 billion in Research and Development
Sanofi-Aventis$5.59 billion, $9.26 billion
Johnson & Johnson$15.86 billion, $5.20 billion
Merck$7.35 billion$4.01 billion
Novartis, $8.87 billion, $4.21 billion
Astra Zeneca$7.84 billion, $3.80 billion
Hoffman La Roche$7.24 billion, $4.01 billion
 Bristol-Myers Squibb$6.43 billion, $2.50 billion
Wyeth$5.80 billion,$2.46 billion
Abbott Labs$4.92 billion,$1.70 billion

Annually, the industry spends nearly twice as much on marketing as it spends on research and development, although drug companies report neither total precisely. Various news reports estimate that the industry spent anywhere between $30 billion to $60 billion on marketing in 2004. The trade group PhRMA estimates its members spent $39 billion on R&D that year. As this table shows, the same year, 11 major companies reported spending close to $100 billion on marketing, along with administrative expenses not categorized separately. Those companies reported spending $50 billion on R&D.  In 2004, Pfizer spent almost $120 million for media ads for Lipitor, the world's number-one selling prescription drug, while companies promoting erectile dysfunction treatments Viagra, Levitra and Cialis spent $425 million. Direct to consumer advertisement has also grown significantly: from $791 million in 1996 to $3.8 billion in 2004.

 5. The actual copy of the lawsuit is on the Rutherford Institute's website. case 3:05-cv-00586-JTM-CAN - Rutherford.org  http://www.rutherford.org/PDF/Filed_Complaint.pdf

 6. Lenzer, Jeanne,  British Medical Journal, US teenager's parents sue school over depression screening test, BMJ.com,  http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7519/714.2/suppl/DC1

7.   Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton (94-590), 515 U.S. 646 (1995). Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-590.ZO.html  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... ronia.html

8.  BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE CTY. V. EARLS (01-332) 536 U.S. 822 (2002),  242 F.3d 1264, reversed.  Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.     The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy implemented by the Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County (School District) requires all students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities to submit to drug testing. Because this Policy reasonably serves the School District’s important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students, we hold that it is constitutional.  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-332.ZO.html

 9.  BOARD OF EDUC. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Petitioner, v. EARLS.  June 27, 2002 These are the signers of the Amicus brief in support of drug testing.  The signers include: Drug Free America Foundation (DFAF);   Robert DuPont who is on DFAF's advisory board;  Peter Bensinger (Peter Bensinger is former head of the DEA and is the business partner with Robert DuPont);  Julie Murdoch, Esq. (an employee with Bensinger, DuPont & Associates);  Bensinger DuPont & Associates, Bethesda, MD;  Institute for Behavior & Health, Bethesda, MD (another Robert DuPont company); Institute on Global Drug Policy (a division of  DFAF);   Eric Voth, MD, Topeka, KS (but Dr. Voth is the director of DFAF's  Institute on Global Drug Policy);  Ambassador Melvyn Levitsky who has co-authored an article on drug policy with Dr. Eric Voth;  Donald Ian Macdonald, M.D. (Straight's former national research director turned White House Drug Czar); Stephanie Haynes of Save Our Society From Drugs TM,  (but SOS is a Betty Sembler foundation);  Legal Foundation Against Illicit Drugs (an organization founded by Calvina Fay, executive director of DFAF, and others);  Otto Hauswirth, M D, of the International Scientific and Medical Forum on Drug Addicts (DFAF's Calvina Fay is director the International Scientific and Medical Forum on Drug Abuse); Carolyn Burns, of Louisville, KY. DFAF's Calvina Fay is a board member and past president of  Drug Watch International (DWI).  DWI or its International Drug Strategy Institute division  includes or has included  Robert L. DuPont and  Peter Bensinger, Straight's former national research director Donald Ian Macdonald, Straight's former national clinical director Miller Newton and Straight-Springfield's former research director Dr. Richard Schwartz, MD. Straight's former national executive director Bill Oliver is an Honorary Advisor for DWI (he also became director of parent training for P.R.I.D.E.).  Joyce Tobias, formerly acting secretary for DWI, used to be a very active Straight parent.  Alex Romero, a DWI board member,  and Nancy Starr, a DWI delegate,  were signers.  And, of course, the Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA) was a signer.  You may see the brief itself at this website: http://www.datia.org/resources/amicusbrief.htm

Scott Bloch turns a blind eye to Teen Challenge abuses

The survivors/victims of Teen Challenge and other abusive centers were concerned that Bloch, in his former OFBCI position, was responsible for failure to protect the human rights of U.S.A. citizens in the programs such as Teen Challenge that were funded by the OFBCI.  The safety of these centers while exempt from oversight and accountability was not addressed in his professional functions. The residential treatment centers were known to hire ex-convicts with convictions for sexual abuse of children, drug dealing, domestic violence and money laundering.  There had already been criminal investigations of labor abuse, credit card fraud, affinity fraud, TANF fraud as well as investigations into physical and sexual child abuse.  

During his leadership of the Task Force on Faith-based and Community Initiatives, Bloch turned a blind eye when Teen Challenge staff were accused of abuse of minors and young adults, often based on discrimination against their religious beliefs or their sexual orientations.  

Attorney Bloch disrespected both U.S.A. federal and international law when he dismissed whistleblowers’ complaints about child abuse and other serious concerns for the public health and welfare without investigation, thus enabling human rights violations to continue.  Bloch showed a troubling disregard for international laws against torture, for the legal rights of children and adults, and for the long term adverse consequences to the victims/survivors, whistleblowers, and human rights defenders. When the individuals who form the only tangible defense against violations that reach egregious levels are betrayed by the system they must report to, the fabric of social order is weak. When retaliation is the reward for meeting one’s legal duty and there is no valid entity to receive reports, there is the telltale sign of evolving loss of constitutional protections for human rights.

In the systematic changes that led to less protection in social institutions because oversight stopped, there was intent.  

Thus, Medical Whistleblower acts in solidarity with survivors/victims and their advocates to have requested from Attorney General Eric Holder:
“To refuse to endorse the kind of compromise that gives rise to de jure or de facto amnesties for enablers or perpetrators of torture;

To denounce the use of torture under any circumstances;

To affirm, with the Supreme Court, that it is unconstitutional to imprison anyone for months without access to lawyers or the right to challenge their detentions in court;

To affirm the binding legality of the United Nations General Assembly Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, CAT, ICERD, ICCPR, OP-CRC-SC, OP-CRC-AC, the Palermo Protocol, and the Geneva Conventions.

To reject the practice of abusive treatment in residential treatment centers at home and abroad.

We believe that the United States must be an example of moral leadership in the world community.  We cannot as a nation hold our head high when we fail to protect our own children on our own soil. However, the incidents in many of these teen residential treatment facilities have gravely compromised America’s moral authority. We ask that you commit yourself as Attorney General to repair of that damage by articulation and enforcement of legal policies that reject the use of cruel and degrading treatment and torture, embrace and advance standards of international law, and honor the dignity of all human persons.”

See Medical Whistleblower’s petition on http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-am ... torture-15

Scott Bloch accused of criminal contempt of the U.S.A. Congress

To protect the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) from outside pressure, the agency’s director is appointed for five years and cannot be removed except in cases of illegal misconduct. Scott Bloch’s employment as Special Counsel for the OSC ended abruptly on October 23, 2008 during a meeting with White House officials.

On April 27, 2010 Bloch pled guilty to criminal contempt of Congress for, according to the U.S. Attorney, "willfully and unlawfully withholding pertinent information from a House committee investigating his decision to have several government computers wiped ...." Bloch was originally slated to be sentenced on July 20, 2010. On February 2, 2011 Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson ruled that Bloch faced a mandatory sentence of at least one month in prison.

Scott Bloch pled guilty to criminal contempt of the U.S. Congress in the case, U.S.A. v Scott J. Bloch.

According to the Statement of Offense, on March 4, 2008, Bloch submitted to a transcribed interview with staff members of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (“House Oversight Committee”), which was investigating, among other things, whether and why Bloch: (i) directed the deletion of emails or files on any of Bloch’s OSC-issued computers in December of 2006 by using the computer repair service Geeks On Call; (ii) directed that Geeks On Call delete emails or files contained on the computers of two of his OSC aides; and (iii) directed that any such deletion of computer files be done by use of a “seven-level wipe” process. This duly-empowered Congressional inquiry came after various media reports that Bloch had directed the deletion of files on several OSC-issued computers by enlisting Geeks On Call to perform a “seven-level wipe” on them said Ronald C. Machen Jr., United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.

The Statement of Offense describes five separate exchanges during Bloch’s March 4, 2008 interview with staff members of the House Oversight Committee.   During the interview, Bloch unlawfully and willfully withheld pertinent information from the Committee. Bloch admitted in Court that he refused and failed to state fully and completely the nature and extent of his instructions that Geeks On Call perform “seven level wipes” on his OSC computers as well as the two OSC-issued computers of two non-career OSC staff members in December of 2006.

Bloch pled guilty and faced a minimal jail sentence of one month.  Bloch admitted as part of his guilty plea that he withheld information from the congressional staff; that before he ordered the wipe of the computers, he understood the procedure would make it virtually impossible to recover deleted files or e-mails.  Bloch was informed he would serve jail time and asked the judge to withdraw his guilty plea to avoid mandatory jail time.  Bloch stated in a court filing that he did not know when he pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of criminal contempt of Congress that he would face a minimum of a month behind bars.  This would seem to indicate that he views himself above the law, while his neglect of duty resulted in critical violations of human rights for vulnerable children and adults.

Judicial ruling that Scott Bloch to spend time in prison

Former U.S. Attorney Scott Bloch pled guilty to charges of criminal contempt of Congress.  Civil and criminal contempt are defined by their purpose (quoting Lamar Fin. Corp. v. Adams, 918 F.2d 564, 566 (5th Cir. 1990)). Civil contempt is used to coerce compliance with the court’s orders or to compensate others for the party’s violation.  No special safeguards are required, i.e. establishing the mens rea or proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt.  On the other hand, criminal contempt is a means to punish the non-compliant party and vindicate the power of the court.   In either instance a failure to comply with the court’s order can lead to jail time or monetary damages.   In the case of civil contempt, the prison sentence must be conditional and coercive; monetary damages accrue over time.  Conversely, prison terms for criminal contempt are meant to punish past conduct and are unconditional; monetary damages are enforced as a lump sum.  Criminal contempt is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 401.

U.S. prosecutors charging contempt of Congress is a rare approach to address official misconduct.  There are only two other reported cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the past 20 years, according to court records.  Bloch, who pled guilty to criminal contempt of the U.S. Congress and made a deal with prosecutors, claimed that he had the expectation that he would get probation as part of that plea agreement.  

U.S. Magistrate Judge Robinson ruled that Bloch's plea requires “a mandatory minimum sentence of one month.”  The Washington DC  U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Robinson rejected arguments for a lesser sentence from Bloch's lawyers and prosecutors.  Robinson set Bloch's sentencing hearing for March 30, 2011. The judge found Bloch guilty of criminal contempt of the U.S. Congress and sentenced him to a month in jail.  Bloch, represented by Winston & Strawn partner William Sullivan Jr., chose to appeal the judge’s decision.

Hundreds of whistleblowers felt betrayed by the disgraced former head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), Scott Bloch.
   
“Reported alleged misconduct of Scott Bloch:  
•   Knowingly and willfully ignoring whistleblower disclosures;
•   Dismissing and closing hundreds of whistleblowing complaints without investigation;
•   Deleting hundreds of files pertaining to whistleblowing disclosures and complaints of retaliation and reprisal;
•   Rolling back protections for federal employees against discrimination based on sexual orientation;
•   Staffing key OSC positions with cronies who shared his discriminatory views;
•   Engaging in retaliatory activities against OSC staffers who opposed his wrongdoing;
•   Assigning interns to issue closure letters in hundreds of whistleblower complaints without investigation;
•   Intimidating OSC employees from cooperating with government investigators;
•   Misusing prosecutorial power for political purposes;
•   Reducing the backlog of cases pending at the OSC by 56% percent by closing cases without an investigation and destroying electronic files;
•   During the fiscal year of 2008, the OSC filed 0 corrective action petitions with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB);
•   During the fiscal year of 2008, the OSC obtained 0 stays from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB);
•   Bloch reassigned his perceived critics within the OSC to field offices across the country – giving them 10 days to accept, or else they'd be fired;
•   Bloch imposed retaliatory transfers upon OSC staffers he perceived as having a "homosexual agenda";
•   OSC under Bloch rarely recognized legitimate whistleblowers, typically only when the whistleblower has already prevailed elsewhere;”

Many felt that his recently imposed 30-day prison sentence was too light of a punishment and that prosecutors had failed to properly charge him. Bloch was prosecuted only for one count of criminal contempt of Congress - a misdemeanor.  Whistleblowers felt he should have been charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence.   However, aided and abetted by government prosecutors and a federal judge, Bloch managed to avoid serving any part of that sentence.  On August 3, 2011, Chief U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth allowed Bloch to withdraw his guilty plea.
Scott Bloch’s Plea Agreement  


Judge denies Scott Bloch’s right to appeal sentencing verdict 3-29-11

Judges order is stayed pending appeal in Scott Bloch case March 10, 2011

Bloch’s DOJ press release 4-27-10  


Whistleblowers request special prosecutor in Scott Bloch case    

The handling of these legal matters raises questions.

Did Scott Bloch properly obtain a license to practice law in the District of Columbia?  Why did the DC staff not notice criminal investigations against him and fail to flag that fact to the Committee on Admissions when he applied for his law license in DC? In the months before Bloch left the administration, he applied for licensure in DC, granted in November, 2008. He joined the DC-based legal firm, Tarone & McLaughlin LLP  at the time he was under criminal investigation for obstruction of justice and criminal contempt of Congress.  

"One person can root out corruption and abuse of power.  Once he understands this, he is redeemed and can break out of the trap of fear, and break free into the light of integrity and justice.  That is the effect of seeing a brave whistleblower stand up and win; it inspires the rest of us."   Sophocles and The Shawshank Redemption, quote in official speech by Scott Bloch while at the OSC    

References and citations:

1.  Davis, Julia, “Disgraced former head of OSC Scott Bloch finally sentenced”,  March 31, 2011, Examiner.com, http://www.examiner.com/homeland-securi ... -sentenced

2.  Schulman, Daniel, “Office of Special Counsel's War On Whistleblowers” April 24, 2007,  Mother Jones, Daniel Schulman is Mother Jones' Washington-based senior editor. dschulman (at) motherjones.com. http://motherjones.com/politics/2007/04 ... tleblowers

3.  Davis, Julia, “Office of Special Counsel (OSC) - the dark legacy", LA Homeland Security Examiner, July 23, 2010, The legacy of failure, an abbreviated list of Scott Bloch’s dubious “accomplishments” as the former head of the OSC.  http://www.examiner.com/homeland-securi ... ark-legacy

4.  Davis, Julia, “Former head of OSC Scott Bloch gets off scott free”,  Aug. 3, 2011, Examiner.com,  Former head of OSC Scott Bloch gets off scott-free - Los Angeles Homeland Security | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/homeland-securi ... z1U5SeXnxE

5.  Legal Times Typepad “Scott Bloch” LegalTimes.Typepad.com,  http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/dqu29000.pdf

6.  Talking Points Memo “Judge denies Scott Bloch’s Request to Appeal Sentencing in Geek on Call Case”. Talkingpointsmemo.com,  http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docume ... php?page=1

7.  Legal Times Typepad  - Judge Deborah A. Robinson’s Order,. LegalTimes.Typepad.com,  http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/robinson_order.pdf

8.  Legal Times Typepad “Bloch Press Release 4-27-10”, LegalTimes.Typepad.com,  http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/blo ... -27-10.pdf

9.  TP Muckracker “Open Letter from Community of Whistleblowers to Attorney Eric Holder”, TalkingPointsMemo.com,  http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docume ... php?page=1

10.   TP Muckraker,  “Despite Probe Ex Bush Official Got License – Blunder DC Court”, TPMuckraker.TalkingPointsMemo.com,  http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... ppeals.php  

11.  Sophocles and The Shawshank Redemption,  quoted in a prepared speech by Scott Bloch but never presented because award was never presented,  “OSC Names Recipient of 2006 Public Servant Award, Whistleblower Leroy Smith Made Key Disclosures About Lack of Safety at Federal Prisons”, press release from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel,  1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 218,  Washington, D.C. 20036-4505 September 7, 2006, Press contact: Loren Smith, 202-254-3714, http://www.osc.gov/documents/press/2006/pr06_16.htm

12.  Schulman, Daniel, “Office of Special Counsel's War On Whistleblowers” April 24, 2007,  Mother Jones, Daniel Schulman is Mother Jones' Washington-based senior editor. dschulman (at) motherjones.com. http://motherjones.com/politics/2007/04 ... tleblowers  It looked as if Leroy Smith was going to get recognition as a whistleblower.  “A safety manager at a federal prison in California, he had challenged his bosses, risked his job, and endured threats of retaliation to expose hazardous conditions in a prison computer recycling program where inmates were smashing monitors with hammers, unleashing clouds of toxic metals. Now the federal government was flying him to Washington, D.C., as a whistleblowing hero. The Office of Special Counsel (osc), the federal agency charged with protecting government employees who expose waste, fraud, and abuse, had scheduled a catered event honoring Smith as "Public Servant of the Year." The office's director, Scott Bloch, had prepared a flowery speech that was later posted on the agency's website, referencing Sophocles and The Shawshank Redemption: "In the end, Morgan Freeman's character truly becomes what his name implies—a Free man," it read. "One person can root out corruption and abuse of power. Once he understands this, he is redeemed and can break out of the trap of fear, and break free into the light of integrity and justice. That is the effect of seeing a brave whistleblower stand up and win; it inspires the rest of us." Only Bloch never delivered that speech. Just minutes before the September 7 ceremony was to begin, Smith received word that the event was off because a relative of an OSC staffer had died. It seemed "kind of fishy" to Smith; indeed, an OSC source told me the excuse was so transparent as to be "ludicrous." The real problem, the source said, was that Bloch—a Bush appointee who, employees say, shares his boss' antipathy for dissent—had learned that Smith was planning to speak at a press conference sponsored by the whistleblower group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (peer), a persistent critic of the OSC. The peer event went forward as planned, and at it Smith told the press that he felt the OSC "bears some examination." True, he had been vindicated, but many of his colleagues who'd made similar disclosures had been ignored, and the prison conditions had not changed. "I cannot help but feel that my experience is a beacon of false hope for public servants who are trying to correct wrongdoing," he said.

Thanks for the additional information.