Mikey [Flaum] Likes It

"Who was that masked Investigator?"

Neither google nor alltheweb returned me a mug shot of Mikey, but then considering Mikey’s 2002 defense of the 1939 Tudor/Davenport Study, and Mikey’s defense of the Researcher’s Ethics, in that study, I’m not surprised he’s gone to ground.

Mikey hangs his shingle at the Nanster’s U. of IOWA photo booth tax pit. Here’s a fragrant whiff of the illimitable Flaumster himself.

Laurie M. McCormick and Michael Flaum1
(1) Iowa Consortium for Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, 500 Newton Road, 1-400 MEB, 52242 Iowa City, IA, USA

Abstract “Since the introduction of the third edition of theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) in 1980, schizophrenia has been widely diagnosed with good to excellent levels of reliability. This is no small feat, as prior to the 1970s the reliability of this diagnosis over time and place was very poor. Although there have been some changes in the diagnostic algorithm for schizophrenia with subsequent revisions of the DSM, there has been little change in the overall classification scheme.

However, there has also been relatively little movement toward enhancing the validity of this diagnosis.”

The “Validity?” of this diagnosis? Arthur Conan Doyle, you ain’t.


Oops, Sherlock Holmes is wearing a Different costume today, but considering psychiatry's detestation of gay men as mentally ill, and it's Goose stepping origins, the Errol Flynn reference should keep all of you psychroaches as brain battered with Freudian slippages as you've been keeping the rest of humanity chemically battered with 'Symptom Control'.

Here, chew on this gibberish.



















“Although there is broad consensus that what we now call schizophrenia is PROBABLY very heterogeneous with respect to underlying etiology and pathophysiology, ATTEMPTS TO IDENTIFY more valid subtypes or dimensions HAVE NOT PROGRESSED to the point that they are likely to be incorporated into diagnostic systems any time soon. The limited PROGRESS IN DEFINING more valid ‘DISEASE’ categories has increasingly important clinical implications as the field moves more and more to treatment by preset algorithms that are typically driven by diagnosis.”

[Note the “DEFINING DISEASE” reference, from a ‘Clinical Investigator’ who has been investigated into having documented investigations into what he can personally DEFINE with Pharma Money. Again, there Ain’t NO flippin’ DISEASE, until yahoos like THESE, set to TREATING, SYMPTOMS, while they’re taking the money.]



Michael Flaum, M.D., "Research Did Not Cause Stuttering" 
Guest Opinion 
The Daily Iowan 
September 4, 2002, p. 8A
[This lovely piece of Research in the 30s involved Researchers at an orphanage intentionally stuttering to their young, learning to think and speak, charges, to see if the Subjects [human guinea pigs] would aquire the trait, and its lifelong social stigmata.]


“As someone involved with human-subjects research, I believe The Daily Iowan's reporting and editorials regarding the 1939 Tudor study disserve journalism, the university, and the Tudor study plaintiffs themselves. They simply perpetuate the mythology surrounding this master's thesis about the onset of stuttering.
The most decisive omitted fact is that the latest, impartial scientific evaluation of the study's data concludes that the researcher did not, indeed could not have, "caused stuttering" — or done any other lasting harm for that matter. See for example,

Ambrose and Yairi's article in the May 2002 Journal of Speech-Language Pathology for the reasons.
The plaintiffs may, or may not, have suffered harm from something else before they entered the Davenport home, while they were there, or thereafter. But there is, so far, no proof any harm they may have suffered in life was related to this research. Indeed, the cited study indicates there is evidence that it could not have been related.
The authors also conclude there is little or no indication the researcher had any intention to do harm.

That really ought to be the end of the matter. If harm was neither intended nor done, what's the problem? Where's the "lack of ethics" your editorial headlined?

There's more.

A former UI vice president for Research says the study "was well within the norms of the time." He's right. UI authorities approved not only this study but many others at the home. Those with legal responsibility for the orphans approved.
Even if harm was done — and apparently it wasn't — aren't "the norms of the time" the proper basis for moral judgment?”

[At this point in time California was still leading the nation in enforced sterilizations of the mentally ‘ill’ with over ten thousand in California alone.]

“Wouldn't you rather have your actions in 2002 judged by the standards of 2002 than by those of 2065?”

[No Mikey, I wouldn’t. I’d rather have them judged by the standards set down and codified as LAW in 1787, in the US Constitution and its later appended Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments, you tax payer funded National Socialist Clinical Investigator]

“But wait for the irony. In the late 1930s, there were no human-subjects ethical standards. And yet the standards self-imposed by this researcher and supervisor more than 60 years ago compare very favorably indeed with those of major 
research institutions today.

They certainly compare favorably with the Tuskegee syphilis study, subjects exposed to atom bomb radiation, the 12,000 babies with thalidomide birth defects, or subjects deliberately injected with cancer and hepatitis. Such studies were approved by government and prestigious institutions decades after the 1939 study.

Now, there are very detailed ethical standards. And yet, within the past two or three years, the NIH has shut down eight major institutions for violations. In 1999, the FDA chastised the UI itself for "corrections promised but not implemented" in 
1992, 1995, and 1998. In 2001, a volunteer subject in a research study at Johns Hopkins actually died.”

[Where’s Groucho with that ‘My head’s about to explode’ heavenward stare ?]

A volunteer, actually died?

You sanctimonious GD psychroach. Thousands upon thousands of unwitting volunteers have died, and are still dying, while you Clinical Investigators are Investigating the Neurologic and Metabolic side effects of your Zyprexa, Risperdal, Seroquel and every other vile, witches brew Mickey Finn you’re slipping into their brains while you’re slipping the kickback check into your own hands.

“There are many intricate issues surrounding the role of clinical trials and other uses of human subjects in research. Among those issues are the most appropriate legal and ethical standards (including those that unnecessarily inhibit needed research).

That would be a worthy subject for The Daily Iowan's editorial treatment.

"unnecessarily inhibit needed research"

[Now I've seen some PHD masterworks in pretzel logic, but intentionally inflicting suffering, under the heading of discovering how to alleviate suffering, [and having ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SHOW IN RETURN, in well over a century] has got to be the grandest pyramid scam yet.]

"Picking on a dusty master's thesis from 1939, and repeating the myth that it did harm in unethical ways when it did not, is not only grossly unfair to the researcher and misleading to the public, it's also a rather bizarre choice of "news peg" from among the hundreds of timely and significant case studies available for editorial treatment.” 

Michael Flaum, M.D., director,
Iowa Consortium for Mental Health


Two quick questions here, genius.
1: Who foots the bill, at an orphanage?
2: Would this asinine, self serving, sadistic, potentially life wrecking barbarism have been perpetrated on children in the first place, if the A’hole perps hadn’t been asinine, self serving, sadistic, potentially life wrecking govt. funded barbarian perps, in the first place?

Solution?
CUT the Funding off, yesterday. Every last GD Dime of it.















If Anything you ‘mental healthers’ have to peddle is of Any value to Anyone but your own egalitarian, condescending useless selves, then the free market will quite gladly pick up the slack, and you’ll all be rolling in the dough. But it won’t, and you’ll all starve to death if you actually have to produce anything anyone actually wants.



The photo on the left is from the Auschwitz Museum.