THE FIFTH COLUMN (2/2)

Fox Morning News, WTTG Channel 5 TV Wash., D.C. April
11, 1997 Host: Lark McCarthy, Fox News
        MCCARTHY: The makers of anti-depressants may soon
be taking aim at a whole new market - your children.
Right now, the Food and Drug Administration has not
approved anti-depressants, such as Prozac and Zoloft,
for those under the age of 18. But drug companies are
compiling data on whether these types of drugs are safe
for children. Are drug companies responding to an urgent
need, or, are we in danger of relying on medication for
kids instead of healthy relationships? Joining us this
morning is Dr. Lise Van Susteren, a psychiatrist, and
Dr. Jeffrey Schaler, he's a psychologist, and a faculty
member at Johns Hopkins and American universities. Thank
you both for coming in.
        VAN SUSTEREN: Thank you.
        SCHALER: Thank you.
        MCCARTHY: Dr. Schaler let's begin with you, because
you've got some concerns about this, that it may be
heading in a wrong direction, even to be looking at, you
know, opening up this market. Why?
        SCHALER: Well, my concern is that the problem we
call "depression" really has to do more with the
communication gap between parents and children and not
the synaptic gap between neurons. I think that parents
and authorities who are important to children have more
to do with the unhappiness we label as depression than
anything that's chemical in the person's brain. And my
concern is that when we give Prozac to children, we help
them to feel less badly in a bad situation, and perhaps
perpetuate problems that need to be addressed
        MCCARTHY: Dr. Van Susteren, do you want to respond
to that?
        VAN SUSTEREN: Well yes, I certainly agree. I think
that there is, there are often problems between children
and their parents, and there is this communication gap,
I don't think there's any doubt about that. I think,
however, that there is a small, subset of children who
are depressed, who are depressed because they do have
problems with their brain chemistry, and they can profit
from medication in a very controlled setting. It's not
given loosely. We don't want to give people pills
instead of talking to them.
        MCCARTHY: Yes, let's talk briefly about what's
happening now, that psychiatrists in their discretion,
right, can prescribe these for children, but they are
now looking at what proper dosage and doing major
        VAN SUSTEREN: Well, there is a problem because
children are different from adults. Obviously we have
the same bodies, but their bodies are growing. The
uncertainty is what's going to happen when you give a
pill to a child who has a growing body.
        MCCARTHY: Would you say they shouldn't be used at
all for children? How far do you go with it?
        SCHALER: I think they should never be used, and we
should always pay attention to what parents are doing
with their children. The example set is the lesson
learned. I believe firmly that parents cause the
unhappiness that children experience as depression. They
do it two ways: One, parents criticize children too
much. And two, they set an example of low self-esteem
and depression that children model. Now, those are the
key issues which are often very difficult to address,
but are avoided if we give Prozac.
        MCCARTHY: How widely accepted is it that some
depressions are biologically-based and can be helped by
        VAN SUSTEREN: Well, it's very widely accepted among
the majority of my colleagues. There, I think, is also
acceptance among my colleagues, that there are some
children who have biologic depressions just as some
children have diabetes. Mostly it's adults who have
diabetes. Mostly it's adults who have biologic
depression. But that doesn't mean that there aren't
children who have [that] also.
        SCHALER: The problem with that is that it sounds
good but there's no scientific evidence that shows that
these individuals, in fact, suffer with low serotonin
levels. Depression is not listed in standard textbooks
on pathology. It's still a theory that serotonin is
related. Yes, Prozac helps people to feel less badly,
but Prozac also helps people to feel less in general. It
blunts emotion.
        MCCARTHY: And that concerns you.
        SCHALER: Oh yes.
        MCCARTHY: One doctor from NIH was quoted as saying,
in talking about this very issue, that "pills don't
create skills," in other words, pills are no substitute
for building self-esteem and social skills in children.
Is that one of the things ...
        VAN SUSTEREN: ... That is absolutely true. That is
a big danger, just giving a person a pill and thinking
that all of a sudden everything is going to be perfect.
It's not. But I still think that there are some children
who without some form of medication can't get where they
want to go. So all of the talking in the world, which is
very helpful, isn't going to be enough for them.
        MCCARTHY: ... would not be enough ...
        SCHALER: Well, it's peculiar, you know we're such a
drug culture today. On the one hand we tell children
they shouldn't use illegal drugs to change the way they
feel. On the other hand, psychiatrists, parents, and
other authorities tell children they should take legal
drugs to change the way they feel. It's a profoundly
confusing and double-message, that I think, perhaps, may
create depression and confusion in kids in and of
itself. (5)
        MCCARTHY: Is that a confusing message?
        VAN SUSTEREN: Well, it's confusing in the sense
that we all suffer from a belief that there are easy
solutions. We have technology which fixes things very
quickly for us. But the important thing is to have good
people, intelligent people working with children if they
need to be assessed for their depression and to have an
on-going sort of relationship, so you can see whether or
not medication is helpful.
        MCCARTHY: Yes. Why don't we end it with some tips.
If you have a child you are concerned about, who may be
depressed, what would you recommend?
        SCHALER: What I would recommend is that the parent
look inside himself or herself, and see how he or she is
depressed, and how he or she sets an example of
depression for their children, and exercises some
courage in terms of introspection and talking to their
        MCCARTHY: ... you say certainly deal with it ...
        VAN SUSTEREN: I think that's an excellent idea, in
addition to the consideration of the individual child.
        MCCARTHY: All right, thank you both for coming in.
I appreciate it.
        SCHALER: Thank you.
        VAN SUSTEREN: Thank you.
(8:17am. Finish.)

"Good Morning Washington," WJLA NEWS 7 TV Wash., D.C.
April 27, 1997 Hosts: Dale Solly and Pamela Davis
       DAVIS: ... A major battle is brewing in the tobacco
industry. We'll talk with two experts that will help us
understand where that battle is headed ... Stay right
there ...
        SOLLY: And good morning and welcome back everybody.
The news continues now. When U.S. District Court Judge
William Osteen ruled Friday that tobacco products fit
the federal definition of a drug, he cleared the way for
the potential regulation of those products by the FDA.
He also gave the tobacco companies a slight victory
though in ruling that the government could not restrict
cigarette advertising. All of this comes, as you know,
as government and tobacco company lawyers continue talks
on a settlement that would end on-going litigation to
force cigarette makers to pay smokers and states for
health damage already caused by smoking. However, the
smoke in this controversy is far from cleared.
Joining us this morning are Dr. Jeffrey Schaler of
American University, a psychologist and expert on
addiction, thanks very much, and Scott Ballin, the vice-
president and legislative counsel for the American Heart
Association. Thanks guys, very much, for being here
        SCHALER: Thank you for having us.
        SOLLY: I should point out that we tried,
repeatedly, to get someone from the tobacco industry in,
and they told us repeatedly that they were not
interested, so we apologize for that. Neither of you
thinks that this idea of a settlement is a particularly
terrific idea, but you come at it from very different
ways. Dr. Schaler, what's the problem with it? It sounds
like a good idea to a lot of people.
        SCHALER: Well, there are a lot of myths surrounding
this whole tobacco controversy. The anti-tobacco
crusaders are basically lying to the American public.
They're lying in two ways: One, they're lying about what
addiction really means - and this is the basis upon
which the FDA is trying to regulate tobacco, and it's
also the basis upon which product liability suits are
being carried out -
        SOLLY: ... You're one of those people ...
        SCHALER: ... They're also lying about the
relationship between liberty and responsibility, and
that has very serious legal and public policy
        SOLLY: Mr. Ballin, are you and other groups lying?
        BALLIN: No, I don't think so. I think the issue of
addiction is well-founded and understood by all the
medical groups in this country. Dr. Koop, in the Surgeon
General's report back in 1988, looked at all the
evidence, every organization including the American
Medical Association, the Heart Association, Cancer
Society, all agree that tobacco is a highly addictive
substance and should be treated as such. We're not
asking for a ban on the product. We're asking that the
FDA regulate this product as it does every other legal
product, such as foods or other prescription drugs.
        SOLLY: Dr. Schaler, that sounds reasonable to a lot
of people, what's the problem with that?
        SCHALER: Well, the problem is that what they're
saying about addiction is inaccurate. They're making a
political ploy, defining addiction as saying that people
        SOLLY: ... Addiction is addiction though, isn't it?
        SCHALER: Addiction is not addiction. It depends on
what you mean. If you mean there are physiological
changes in the body that occur through smoking, yes, of
coursethat's true. But, if by addiction you mean people
cannot control their behavior, that is absolutely false.
Now, smoking is a choice, and because it's a choice it's
based in values. What the FDA wants to do is regulate
morality here and I am very much opposed to that. That
is very much against what our Founding Fathers created
this country for.
        SOLLY: We have about a minute left. Mr. Ballin,
take out your crystal ball for us and give us your take
on what's going to happen with this settlement.
        BALLIN: I think, first of all, the FDA issue will
be upheld in the courts. It's very clear the FDA does
have the authority. I think with respect to the
settlement, we have to wait and see what happens.
There's going to be a lot of talk and discussion going
on. I think that the attorneys general who brought these
suits will eventually win as well. And I think that the
FDA will win. That will bring the tobacco industry to
the bargaining table in a way that they've never been
brought before. And I think we're going to see some
major victories in public health from the settlement.
        SOLLY: Dr. Schaler, our last ten seconds go to you.
        SCHALER: I think this settlement is going to bring
disaster in terms of public and legal policy. And I
think that the tobacco industry should not settle. And I
think the American public should be aware of what the
FDA and the attorneys general are really trying to do,
that is, legislate morality.
        SOLLY: And just for the record gentlemen, the
settlement, whatever it may be or may not be, is still
some ways away. So the controversy, Pamela, continues
this morning. And we're going back over to Ken right
now. No controversy about the weather, right?
(8:47am Finish)

Wisconsin Public Radio, Madison, WI. May 1, 1997 The
Kathleen Dunn Show
5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. EST
(live, with call-in)
        DUNN: When you say that you've seen the medication
work in your school ... how does it work? You mean
you've seen kids in better control?
        OSHKOSH CALLER: Some kids will get up and walk
around the room, throw chairs, throw desks, refuse to
cooperate ... and you just know that the days ... I've
seen kids break desks in half, in the fifth grade, a kid
broke a desk in half. On the days when they're on the
meds, this is after a year, I think the worst time of
your life is the first year of medication, because it's
so hard to monitor something, that after it's working,
and the kid's are more focused, the kid can learn and
does have the ability. So I've seen it work. And again,
I'm against the drugs, but if you can't help the
parents, and you can't get the parents to parent
properly, what can you do?
        SCHALER: You know, one thing I'm curious about when
you bring up this example of the kids smashing chairs
and breaking desks, what do you think these kids are
objecting to? What do you think they're rebelling
        OSHKOSH CALLER: I would have to say, 95 percent of
the cases, these kids come from backgrounds where this
is common in the home place. The violence is common.
        SCHALER: Oh, so you think they're modeling
behaviors they've learned?
        OSHKOSH CALLER: Right. Exactly.
        SCHALER: When does that ever get addressed?
        OSHKOSH CALLER: When does that get addressed?
        SCHALER: Right.
        OSHKOSH CALLER: It's hard for us to address it and
keep our jobs.
        SCHALER: Yes. OK. I appreciate your honesty on
that. That's certainly true.
        DUNN: Thanks Oshkosh very much for your call. Let's
pause for a moment and return. Dr. Jeffrey Schaler is
our guest, psychology professor at Johns Hopkins
University, a psychologist, and we're looking at the
issue of whether or not the FDA should approve the use
of Prozac for children. 1-800- 486-8655, 227-2050 in
Milwaukee. Twelve minutes now before five. I'm Kathleen
Dunn. You're listing to The Ideas Network of Wisconsin
Public Radio.
        DUNN: Dr. Schaler, if it were up to you, would
you just get rid of, keep these drugs totally off the
market until somebody is 18 or should they not be on
the market at all ...
        SCHALER: Well, I'm a firm believer in the free
market availability of all drugs. My concern is that
people are well informed and that we have more talk
shows like this which are opportunities for people to
challenge the psychiatric status quo and make informed
choices and not be brainwashed by psychiatrists and
psychologists into thinking every problem they have
has some medical origin that needs to be treated. These
are problems in living. These are existential problems.
And we need to talk about this in public forums. That's
my real concern ...
        DUNN: ... yeah ...
        SCHALER: ... not the establishment of regulation,
prohibition, etc. That's not the issue.
        DUNN: I'm just astounded. I don't do very many
shows that have this kind of material as subject matter,
but I'm astounded, just in the past hour, how many calls
there were from people who were very familiar with
Ritalin and with Prozac. It's obviously something that's
prescribed and a lot of people are using these drugs.
        SCHALER: Well, we are most certainly living in what
Thomas Szasz calls the "therapeutic state," where
medicine and the state have become engaged in an unholy
matrimony and people are feeling the effects in all
aspects of their lives. So, I think that's why you're
getting the response that you are.
        DUNN: Yeah. What do you think the FDA is going to
do about this?
        SCHALER: I suspect they will allow it to be on the
free market and prescribed, because certainly they're
under a lot of pressure from physicians and drug
companies to market a drug they think is consistent with
psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. So I suspect it
will be on the open market for children.
        DUNN: So those people who are supposed to be
looking at the family dynamics and the school situation
and a person's relationship to greater society, just are
going to skip that part of their jobs and just give them
drugs? Hunh? Or what?
        SCHALER: It's all up to you. You've got to run more
shows like this.
        DUNN: (Laughter.) We got to find somebody else on
the other side, we're going to have to do that soon.
        SCHALER: There are plenty of them out there, I'm
        DUNN: Are there?
        SCHALER: Yes.
        DUNN: Do people in your profession look askance at
        SCHALER: Oh yes. I'm considered a heretic, that's
for sure.
        DUNN: Are you really?
        SCHALER: And I'm sure many people in your listening
audience right now would agree.
        DUNN: Well, you're a great talk show guest. So, I
thank you for your time this afternoon.
        SCHALER: Well, thank you very much. It's been a
        DUNN: Thanks. Our guest Dr. Jeffrey Schaler ...
We'll look at the other side of this issue at some
point, if not during the afternoon, then sometime in the
morning during the next few days. (6)

        In the eight examples presented, four letters and
four transcripts, some form of contradiction was used to
effect a political outcome.

        People manipulating others through contradiction
claim they are helping, not hurting people. They claim
they are selfless not selfish. Exposing contradiction is
not cruel. There is no rough or refined way of speaking
against people who contradict themselves. A sincere
person without hidden motives welcomes such awareness.

        One may be inclined to ask dictators how they
reconcile their contradictions. The question is
improper: No justification or explanation for
maintaining the contradiction can suffice. Contradiction
is contradiction. Moreover, dictators depend on persons
being confused in order to maintain power. When a person
thinks, "he is contradicting himself," he should
challenge the dictator and render his rhetoric null and
void. If one lingers and questions the dictator's
contradictions, e.g. one says to oneself "I don't
understand how he reconciles the contradiction," the
dictator will use that hesitation and self- doubt to say
you are incapable of understanding him. The dictator
uses hesitation and self-doubt to maintain power over

        This is not to suggest that every time a person
fails to understand someone it's because the person he
is listening to is contradicting himself. "When a book
and a head collide, and the resulting sound is a hollow
one, it is not necessarily the fault of the book."
Reality appears contradictory to confused persons.

        I spent fourteen years training in the martial arts
and was fortunate to have had a good teacher. He would
invite me to attack him. At first I was scared he would
injure me. Then I came to realize he was the person who
would not injure me - lesser "teachers" would. So I
threw myself at him and learned.

        I think the same holds true for those we fear will
expose our contradictions. At first, there is a fear of
taking risks. Then follows the realization good teachers
may hurt but not injure. Dictators are easily exposed by
their intolerance of difference of opinion, challenge,
or "speaking against." The sayings of Buddhist Rinzai
assist me in understanding this. I close here with one
of my favorites:

        One day the master and Fuke went to a vegetarian
banquet given them by a believer. During it, the master
asked Fuke: "'A hair swallows the vast ocean, a mustard
seed contains Mt. Sumeru' - does this happen by means of
supernatural powers, or is the whole body (substance,
essence) like this?" Fuke kicked over the table. The
master said: "Rough fellow." Fuke retorted: "What place
is this here to speak of rough and refined?" The next
day, they went again to a vegetarian banquet. During it,
the master asked: "Today's fare, how does it compare
with yesterday's?" Fuke as before kicked over the table.
The master said: "Understand it you do - but still, you
are a rough fellow." Fuke replied: "Blind fellow, does
one preach of any roughness or finesse in the Buddha-
Dharma?" The master put out his tongue. (7)

1. Addiction comes from the Latin "dicere," which when
combined with the preposition "ad" means "to say yes
to," or "to consent." In other words, Nancy Reagan was
right. Just say no to drugs.
"Dicere" is also the root of the words "abdication,"
"dictation," and "dictator." In "abdication," "dicere"
combined with the preposition "ab" means "to say no to,"
"to give up," "to surrender." That is, to relinquish, to
disclaim, power or responsibility. "Dictation" and
"dictator" come from "dictate," which in turn comes from
the Latin "dictare" frequentative of "dicere": "to say,"
"to tell." To dictate is to prescribe expressly and with
authority, to command or give a directive (American
Heritage Dictionary). A dictator is one who dictates.
Since addiction accurately refers to an iron will,
denoting addiction as weak will, or even impaired will,
implies the opposite meaning, and thus contradiction
(Schaler, in press). Thinking is metaphorical self-talk.

2. Central-route processors tend to be a more
heterogeneous and higher educated population. They may
be less likely to conform to the status quo, and more
likely to stand alone, contradicting the group. See also
Kaufmann, W. (1973). From decidophobia to autonomy
without guilt and justice. New York: Delta.
Peripheral-route processors tend to be a more
homogeneous and less educated population. They are more
likely to value the status quo and engage in
scapegoating. See Szasz, T. S. (1970). The manufacture
of madness: A comparative study of the Inquisition and
the mental health movement. New York: Harper & Row and
Freud, S. (1965). Group psychology and the analysis of
the ego. New York: Bantam Books.

3. Consider the contradiction in responses to my article
entitled Selling Water By the River: The Project MATCH
Cover-up (available at
My critics assert 12-Step Facilitation Therapy (TSF) is
different from Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). TSF,
Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET) and Cognitive
Behavior Therapy (CBT) proved no different in reducing
drinking through Project MATCH. TSF is based on AA
philosophy, MET and CBT are not. Yet, TSF, according to
critics, differs much more from AA than from MET or CBT!
Another way of looking at this is as follows: My critics
assert TSF is more similar to MET and CBT than AA is.
This despite the fact more subjects in the TSF group
attended AA than those in the CBT and MET groups! Note:
All subjects in Project MATCH attended AA during the
study. See also Bruce Bower's article entitled
"Alcoholics Synonymous," which appeared in the January
25, 1997 issue of SCIENCE NEWS, 151 (available at
and Stanton Peele's recent article entitled "Pimping
Project MATCH" (available at http://peele.sas.nl).

4. See "Should Employers Have To Accommodate The
Mentally Ill?," Program #202 of DebatesDebates, taped
June 3, 1997, aired on PBS television the week of July
9, 1997. Information available at

5. "So here's an ethical dilemma: Is it wrong to make
people who aren't sick feel better? Is it more wrong if
they are children?
Yes, says Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of health research
for Public Citizen, a public-interest group in
Washington, D.C. 'How can you tell kids to 'just say no'
to drugs when everything in the culture, when every drug
ad, is telling them tranquilizers will make them more
normal? Talk about a conflicted message!'" (Leonard, May
28, 1997).

6. A cassette tape of this one-hour show is available
through The Radio Store, 1-800-486-8655. Ask for program
5/1/L, The Kathleen Dunn Show, May 1, 1997.
7. Fuke story adapted from (1975) The zen teaching of
Rinzai, translated from the Chinese by Irmgard Schloegl.
Berkeley, California: Shambala.

Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. New York: Free

Husemann, F. (1977). Das bild des menschen als grundlage
der heilkunst. Stuttgart (Germany): Verlag Freies
Geistesleben. Quoted in Bott, V. (1984).
Anthroposophical medicine: Spiritual science and the art
of healing. New York: Thorsons Publishers, Inc., p. 66.

Leifer, R. (In press). The psychiatric repression of Dr.
Thomas Szasz: Its social and political significance.
Review of Existential Psychology and Psychiatry.

Leonard, M. (1997). Children the hot new market for
antidepressants. The Boston Globe, May 28.

Orwell, G. (1981). Nineteen-eighty four. New York: New
American Library.

Schaler, J.A. (In press). The case against alcoholism as
a disease. In W. Shelton and R. Edwards (Eds.) Values,
ethics, and alcoholism. Greenwich, Ct.: JAI Publishers.

Szasz, T.S. (1997). Medics in the war on drugs. Liberty,
March, Vol. 10, No. 4.

Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor of
justice, law and society at American University's School
of Public Affairs in Washington, D.C.; an adjunct
professor of psychology at Montgomery College in
Rockville, Md.; and teaches psychology for Johns Hopkins
University in Baltimore, Md. He lives in Silver Spring,