I Am Removing the Name of My University From This Blog

Jun 18 2009

I Am Removing the Name of My University From This Blog

I have had someone writing to complain about my blog stating that Philip Dawdy needed to smoke for his mental condition and that he shouldn’t be kicked out of his appartment for smoking. I mean he is smoking in the privacy of his own home. Why should those Seattle Eco fascists be able to kick him out of his own home?

Anyhoo I have had official letters of complaint to the Dean of my university and the acting chair of my department and they have asked me to remove the name of my university and letterhead from my blog with which I have complied. So if you want to know my university you can use google.

Tags: academic freedom, Doug Bremner, Philip Dawdy, Smoking

11 Comments

By Stephany, June 19, 2009 @ 12:48 am

Yeah and Nemeroff smokes cigars doesn’t he? what the hell! oh well we don’t read the blog because of that university’s name anyway, hell I write bad things about ppl from there (not you)lol
By Dan, June 19, 2009 @ 10:32 am

Doug- you have the human right of freedom of speech. The first amendment assures this, as you know.

You could battle this, possibly, with Emory essentially ostrasizing you, it appears.
By Stephany, June 19, 2009 @ 11:43 am

The more I think about it the more it pisses me off! sorry, but true! You can write anything you want, this is your personal blog, and you happen to work there, so be it.

It’s ridiculous that a person would go to such lengths to write to the U. regarding that satirical letter you wrote for Dawdy!

But, hell I was notified by a big ass lawfirm to take down threee posts re: a woman having sex with a researcher, and when they notitified me via email they intentionally or not gave me inside court documents re: the Seroquel lawsuits! the world is weird on the internet. I’ve had to ban emails from some commenters who are so pro-drug they attack me about my daughter (who is on meds, so go figure)

Sorry for the rant! I hope Emory is reading here today (they are reading my blog!)Maybe they can ask Senator Grassley to investigate smoking in apartments in Seattle and the injustice of being evicted due to a landlord making up their own rules!
By Amy Philo, June 25, 2009 @ 1:42 am

What we should do is:
1) ban smoking every where
2) ban caffeine
3) replace nicotene patches and Seattle’s Starbucks with Adderall in the water supply; and
4) Pass a constitutional amendment denying free speech to anyone not working for pharma or who has a religion other than – wait which religions are ok again?

SO SMOKING IS OUT but Chantix is in…
By Bob Fiddaman, June 25, 2009 @ 3:53 am

Doug,

I must confess I haven’t visited your site for a while now. I was just alerted to this post via Stephany’s blog, Soulful Sepulcher.

I find this stifling of your voice from Emory astonishing. Even more so that some cock would take the time to complain.

You have obviously hit a nerve and they have responded with the usual threat that these draconian societies seem to always issue when faced with someone who actually has a pair of extraordinary large testicles [females, substitute 'testicles' for 'courage']

I’ve not seen the letter you wrote to Phil Dawdy but reading through the comments, I understand it was satirical.

You and I never really got off on the right foot but I’m big enough to accept that my initial judgement of you was wrong. Your writing since has proved this.

With regard to the smoking debate, I’ve just learned of a mental health institution in Canada that imposed a smoking ban on its staff and ‘residents’ back in 2003. As a substitute for cravings, the institution handed out Zyban, which is basically Wellbutrin, an antidepressant. One couldn’t write better satire! [http://fiddaman.blogspot.com/2009/06/penetanguishine-preamble.html]

Keep doing what you are doing Doug. You are only irking the ones who have difficulty accepting their own guilt. That’s worth a 21 gun salute in my book.

Fid
By Matthew Holford, June 25, 2009 @ 7:28 pm

I’m puzzling over this, in my usual way… My first impulse is to write that it’s not unusual for a person to seek to stifle a critical voice, counterproductive though that approach is. In this way, the “problem” (which is the thing complained of), transforms into the person doing the complaining, instead (but only in the reality of the person doing the stifling). Clever, huh? Rather like GSK, John Buse and Avandia-gate: the immediate response from Monty Burns and his henchmen (I’m referring to Monty’s fellow executives, for the avoidance of any and all possible doubt), was to shut Buse up. “Less than stellar!..” The Senate Finance Committee’s report still makes me laugh!

Anyway, back to the point… When people have inadequate communication skills, the threat (implicit, or otherwise), of violence or ostracization is often used as a tool to gain obedience where a mutually satisfactory outcome is beyond the intellect of the person doing the threatening, I’ve noticed. Remember this, Doug: it’s not your colleagues’ approval that you need, for personal validation – it’s your clients’. And when you can observe for yourself that what you are doing is having a positive effect, then that is all the validation that you need.

Matt
By Sharon, July 2, 2009 @ 9:41 am

Well, maybe there is a great financial opportunity here. Instead of morally informing the public of the undisclosed dangers of many drugs, you could become one of “them” who will write any medical opinion required to help generate income for one’s self, their employing university and the pharmaceutical industry.

Then, when someone nails you for your undisclosed conflicts of interest of working for a university known to turn a blind eye to the antics of “them”, you could claim that Emory forced you do it. Said you absolutely could not disclose that you are a professor affiliated with Emory and “them”.

Teflon, Baby. Easy money and scott free on ethical disclosures. (but, you may not be able to sleep at night without medications)

In reality, I have seen Emory leaders do some dumb things with regards to ethics in science and medicine, while having very close ties and much influence over the CDC. But, I think this one might just take the cake for glaringly obvious conflicted interests. They should have just ask you to add a disclaimer stating that your opinions are not necessarily that of Emory’s.
By Lisa, July 6, 2009 @ 12:38 am

I wish there were more psychiatrists like you.