I have a physical pain problem that the doctors have still failed to find an answer for. So instead they put me on pain medications, or so I was told. Turns out when I looked all these up after taking them for a year, bouncing from med to med and getting bad side effects, every single one was used as an anti-psychotic medication! I am off all drugs, I'm even straight edge. This is literally terrifying! I want to know whats wrong before I'm thrown on a drug and I want proof! End of story!
The first thing you notice about "Dianetics" is that it is spectacularly dull. L. Ron Hubbard promises, in this seemingly endless treatise, that his "modern science of mental health" will cure everything from schizophrenia to arthritis, claims for which he presents no credible evidence whatsoever -- unless you consider merely insisting that you've got evidence to be the same thing as offering it. "Dianetics" IS a phenomenal remedy for at least one widespread affliction: insomnia.
You, like many Scientologists, tend to make what might be called the "Argument from My Own Eyeballs". You're saying that if you don't have any audio and visual footage of an actual event, then the likelihood that that event took place should be doubted. If this style of reasoning was ever applied to the legal system convictions of criminals would go through the floor and chaos would ensue because we would be demanding a standard of evidence that is practically impossible to meet.
Anonymous goal is to expose the cult for what it is: a multi-national criminal organization, set up with numerous do-gooder front groups, all working exclusively toward one openly-declared goal: the "global obliteration of psychiatry."
Hubbard (and the Church of Scientology) blames Psychiatry for the rise of Hitler and Stalin, World War 2, the Holocaust, the attack on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre on 9/11, the Virginia Tech shootings, and other international tragedies.
csurmi22, Hubbard didn't say anything about 9/11. It was said through Scientology's front group, the CCHR. It is a video by Freedom Magazine:
watch?v=Tva2q7XjseU
The argument went something like, Osama bin laden's surgeon was also a psychiatrist, and psychiatry was used to train the terrorists, therefore psychs did 9/11. To me, this shows how sinister the Church of Scientology is, to use a hot topic like 9/11 to further its agenda against psychiatry.
Dear OpenComments! So lets start you saying "Hubbard said" and now you go back, oh no, he didn't say that. Yes, he didn't say that.
Second, on the video link you sent, (thanks by the way!) the CCHR president said (3:46 / 7:35) about 9/11, to be specific: "As far as if he is 100% behind 9/11 or not, I don't know whoever gonna know, but the point is that ideology of terror came from Bin Laden, who was influenced by a psychiatrist."
No, I did not say "Hubbard said". I said "Hubbard (and the Church of Scientology) blames Psychiatry for".
And it is clear that Scientology is furthering its agenda of hate toward psychiatry and psychiatrists for the sole purpose that L. Ron Hubbard had a grudge against psychiatry when the APA rejected Dianetics in 1950.
Bin Laden was influenced by a SURGEON, not a psychiatrist, and for Scientology/CCHR to use either half-truths or falsities like that, it is wrong. Are you a Scientologist?
Dear OpenComments! First, do not change the rules of grammar. When you say "Hubbard (and the Church of Scientology) blames" you did use parenthesis, and you said "AND" which means both of them. You wrote "blames" which means: say or think that someone is responsible for something. So what you wrote does mean that Mr Hubbard said or thought that psychiatry is responsible for 9/11. This is what YOU wrote.
Yet Mr Hubbard died in 1986 and 9/11 happened in 2001.
You're focusing on syntax here, and focusing on the wrong thing. But enough of the distractions. If it makes you happy, I will amend my statement, saying, 'L. Ron Hubbard blames psychiatry for World War II and the Holocaust (what he was alive for), and the Church of Scientology blames psychiatry for the Virginia Tech Massacres and 9/11." Happy?
It doesn't matter though. Scientology still breaks up families and harass critics, and David Miscavige still beats people. This has to stop.
I do not have to try street drugs, do crime or drown to have the opinion that street drugs, crime and drowning is bad for you. The same goes for investigating a destructive and lying cult. I am capable of reading and communicating, and probably most important of all, able to learn from the mistakes of others. The core of the criticism is based on personal experience reported by many former Scientologists and critics who have been harassed by the CoS.
Oh, and since you're so keen on looking up sources, how about this one?
"Somebody on this planet, about 600 B.C. found some pieces of 'R6'. I don't know how they found it; either by watching madmen or something. But since that time they have used it.
And it became what is known as Christianity. The man on the cross. There was no Christ!"
- Scientology Class 8 Course, Lecture 10, 3 Oct 1968 ("R6" refers to an alien psychiatric thought implant)
the statistics are all wrong. why don't they provide the source of their statistics? because its a lie.
CCHR is a part of the Scientology crime syndicate. The only reason why they are against psychiatry is because their leader told them they were eeeevil and came from another planet to make earthlings into slaves (really!) ..
Theres no scientific basis for any of the statistics that come up here. CCHR has never done any scientific research.
Please go to Yahoo and type in "Horrible Truth About Psychiatric Drugs" to see a research paper exposing these drugs. Also so the search "Documented Proof Psychiatric Drugs Shorten Lifespan". Be sure to include the quotes. You will learn information no psychiatrist will tell you. These drugs destroy fertility and libido and cause impotence and extream disphoria and obesity. The promote suicide and violence not prevent it.
if these are real symptoms, then psychiatrists would be very interested in this. If what you say is true, then this is probably already mentioned in the papers ppl get with the medication.
Medications have side-effects, sometimes side-effects suck; therefore a person has to choose what is better; like what is better: being depressed&suicidal or feeling happy and being a fat-ass. (btw, depressed ppl dont have a libido anyway, so you 'facts' are messed up)
One last thing, actually, your chemical substitution thing seems to be a REDUCTION in dopamine (at least I think so), while schizophrenia is commonly (said) to be related to HIGH dopamine, not low. Also, it's said that it's THOUGHT to be related to schizophrenia, or thought to interact with CANNABIS use to cause mental problems...nice job, now bye.
Vague association, correlation between this and dopamine + correlation between high dopamine and schizophrenia= correlation between chemical and schizo is what they're talking about, except that high dopamine could very well just be an effect, not a cause, and we don't know all the functions of dopamine, though we do know they are very wide ranged. Learn to analyze better.
If you have further shit, you can read my blog where I have pretty detailed criticisms of psychiatry, raincheckfortheapocalypse dot blogspot dot come, im not going to bother responding to you any more, you keep going off on random tangents and insults, once you can hold a civil discussion maybe
Grow up and stop yelling, I think you have too much faith in whatever drug you took and want to believe that it helped you. So you're using it as a cruth and get really mad whenever someone challenges your irrational beliefs. Well too bad, that's the nature of logical discussion. And actually, kids are screened and drugged in DROVES. Drugging rates are HUGELY higher than other first world countries in the US.
Uh, the endless push for teenscreen in schools? Trying to screen all teenagers and kids? That's pretty much an obvious red flag. It's supported by pharma money. As much as 1/4 of US adults are on psychiatric drugs, mostly for mild shit.
I keep giving you sources and you keep blowing me off, yet you seldom give sources for your own shit, and when you do they're vague, plus I already told you I don't have my extensive list of bookmarks with me on this computer. So you can read my blog or just fuck off
I don't just 'accept stories that support my camp'. I rationally analyze within context. Which seems to be something you cannot do. It's been shown that 70% of drug trials had at least one drug company member on them, probably a lot more for bigger trials. I could see the incentive to keep people taking the drugs, even if it means going against a few companies that are scared that lack of credibility will hurt their business.
"It's been shown that 70% of drug trials had at least one drug company member on them, probably a lot more for bigger trials."
OH NO FUCKING WAY
A DRUG TEST INVOLVES PEOPLE FROM THE COMPANY THAT MAKES THE DRUG
CALL THE FUCKING MEDIA
NEWS FLASH:
DOCTORS DO NOT PUSH DRUGS. They use them as a LAST RESORT.
Your argument is completely and utterly without merit. It's like opposing defibrillator companies because they're using defibrillators to solve all of our problems. It's BULLSHIT.
Pay closer attention? In context, you should have inferred that I was talking about 'FDA approval processes'. OH NO FUCKING WAY, USE YOUR FUCKING HEAD. NO SHIT THE DRUG COMPANIES USE DRUG COMPANY MEMBERS
Your argument is completely and utterly without merit. You have no evidence of anything you say and constantly move from one ad hominem to another to avoid your pathetic beliefs being challenged. It's like saying that things are there for own good because the media says so.
Funny enough, for someone who claims that anti-psychiatry activists are nutjobs, you sure are ranting and raving a lot, and spewing a lot of incoherent nonsense.
And for a good example, I could say the same thing about you:
"You haven't MADE any points. All you have been doing is raving about how dissenting opinions must be from nutjobs and about how you trust mainstream psychiatry because it sounds authoritative! You know absolutely nothing about the methodology of studies and the process by which drugs are marketed and approved"
I've researched this for YEARS because I believed what you did. Thus I have the upper hand, self evident here really
suppressing negative data, this is just another component of why its such a bullshit pseudo-science. I'm tired of arguing with someone who just dodges what I say and moves on to something else, like you have about ten times. You can disagree, but at least be intellectually honest and don't ignore my points or answer them with stupid ad hominems when I make them.
Your article is evidence that the PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY wants to let people see the negative trials, but the FDA blocks them:
"For at least three medications, they said, the FDA blocked the companies' plans to reveal the negative studies in drug labels, and in one case the agency reversed a manufacturer's decision to amend its drug label to say that the drug was associated in studies with increased hostility and suicidal thinking among children."
Not exactly. I have many sources about the pharmaceutical industry suppressing negative data themselves, it might be that people are finally complaining enough and they don't want their 'good reputation' hurt. That article was more about the FDA. I didn't read carefully there, my mistake.
You haven't MADE any points. All you keep doing is raving about how there's this massive conspiracy among the pharmaceutical industry to cover up negative studies and hypermedicate everyone!
You obviously know absolutely nothing about the FDA approval process.
What the fuck? No I have not. All I have stated is that there is a huge amount of bias in the industry that when combined with vague definitions makes the studies worthless. And provided good reasons for this. I know a lot about the FDA approval process. Two positive drug studies must be submitted. It must demonstrate effectiveness above placebo. However, with many panelists being drug company employees or ex employees (they act as if this doesnt influence them, haha) and drug companies
I'd be willing to bet my apartment that you were diagnosed with a mental illness and decided to go with the people who said there was nothing biologically wrong with you.
News flash: Physically damaging the brain can cause schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and any number of other mental illness. It's a BIOLOGICAL thing.
Uh, no, I actually believed the psychiatrists for awhile. And no, it's never been shown that damaging the brain directly causes specific mental illness, though problems with memory and frustration over physical injury can cause psychological problems.
Uh no, it doesn't mean nothing...of course memory and cognition can be disrupted and this can lead to mental problems since a person can psychologically react to failure in cognition, physical pain, neural problems, etc, but it doesn't mean that schizophrenia or anything has a biological cause...
I'm really sick and tired of arguing with you here, I like to discuss things with people who don't make dumb ad hominems and dodge points, because true believers can never be convinced otherwise.
Uh, anti-psychiatry activists, are on average, much less biased than the industry. There's very little money involved and many have researched both sides of the story, because most of us have believed in the bio shit at some point in my time.
"Uh, anti-psychiatry activists, are on average, much less biased than the industry."
Right, which is why they foam at the mouth and rave about how barbaric psychiatry is and how they're trying to drug kids into a stupor.
Give me a break. Most anti-psychiatry activists are SCIENTOLOGISTS, who believe that the 9/11 attacks and the Holocaust were perpetrated by psychiatrists.
You people are about as unbiased as the 9/11 Truth morons.
No, most anti-psychiatry activists are not Scientologists. Most are survivors and people who are fed up with bullshit. And what's wrong with being upset over human rights violations? And what's wrong with questioning the validity of the 'official' 9/11 story? You seem to quick to label alternate views as 'nuts', and are extremely biased. Not that I necessarily believe the govt blew up the towers.
Because you say so, right? Because the government MUST be telling the truth? Because anyone who doubts the government's truthfulness is an idiot and an unpatriotic asshole? Your post rings of the sentiments in Germany right after the reichstag fire.
Thank you. You've just automatically lost the argument by invoking the Nazis.
No, it's fucking stupid to question the story because the people are ACTUALLY dead, while the conspiracy fucktards say they're just in hiding somewhere.
Uh no, apparently you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about. I was referencing to the Reichstag fire, which Hitler used to anger the public and seize power. In that context, it was unpatriotic and 'stupid' to doubt the government's official. Just like you're doing, even if it's just an analogy...and er...a lot of 9/11 skeptics fully believe that all 19 hijackers are dead.
Uh actually, many fully believe that the planes crashed into the towers, but that other detonations caused the collapse, or that the planes were rigged. I don't even remember exactly, but there are many theories. And I don't necessarily 'believe' any of them but I keep my mind open because the official explanation is full of holes. Keep running around with your head in the sand...
By the way, so that I don't have to put up with any more of your religion (the Church of Anti-Psychiatry) I've just added a filter in Thunderbird to automatically delete any message containing your name :)
Wonderful. Assumptions without valid evidence. Now that you've had your fun thinking that you're right while being wholly dishonest to yourself, you can resume believing what you believe with zero objective evidence and continue running around in circles. Hey man, if you think god exists, I guess he does!
And remember, I said WITHIN, not counting external flaws that make the study totally bunk. Most studies for psych drugs are short and the effectiveness isn't THAT much higher than placebo overall because so few studies are submitted to the FDA. Also, for quite a few pop. drugs, it was recently found out (after this laid around for years in the underground) that drug companies suppressed negative trials, making these drugs (zoloft, prozac, and others) essentially worthless EVEN BY THEIR STANDARDS
I told you, I don't have my bookmarks on this comptuer, but one of them is Irving Kirsch, also there was that study about popular anti-depressant studies being misleading, plus the WHO studies in the 70s and 1992. Also, Jay Joseph, Bruce Levine, and Peter Breggin are also good authors on the subject. And no, I don't care that Breggin at one point was affiliated with CCHR, he no longer is, and I try to take people's words for what they are instead of shooting the messenger.
Yeah, that one big study is sixteen years old. That's just one example. But many of psychiatry's claims are based, at the root, on studies that are fourty years old if not more...
Psychiatry's illogical nonsense hasn't changed much over the years aside from cosmetically...
You really know nothing about science if you don't understand the concept of REVISING theories.
Our model of the function of the human brain has VASTLY changed in the last 40 years. In the last 10, even. Perhaps you should... oh, I don't know... study it?
Our basic model of function of the human brain has changed in the last 40 years, but that doesn't change the fact that the same logical errors are committed. And, the schizophrenia study by the WHO was more related to schizophrenia prevalence rates, not brain scans.
If the atmosphere/learning process thinking is biased, if the methods are biased, if money is too much of a factor, if concepts are too vague, and if critical thinking is largely absent, etc, then the results really don't mean much. Science is a wonderful thing, but if it's biased and done in poor manner it's really quite worthless.
Not to mention that Eli Lilly funded this, not that this alone is case for it to be false. It's just very vague for all the reasons I described, so adding this in should make any sensible person very, very, very skeptical.
7 again) Ahhh, I read up about this a bit more, and what they are referring to seems to be gene expression, which is measuring different LEVELS of biomarkers found in the blood. This, once again, can be an effect, not a cause.
8) About holistics, I don't pretend that it's 'science', I'd actually want science to fuck off from trying to 'treat' emotional/social problems which can best be treated emotionally and socially through empathy and understanding.
4) Animal models? What relevence does this have here?
5) Often, these researchers do the diagnoses themselves, which can often be changed
6) This type of 'breakthrough' has been boasted many times in the media; the old twin studies, etc
7) It was based on the patients subjective evaluation of themself at that time, and if they were bipolar, what would genes being active have to do with predicting high/low mood states at that GIVEN TIME? I'm confused here, explain
I've dealt with people with Schizophrenia and while it is very difficult, that's not to say it's impossible to help them. I think people don't make that distinction maybe because they don't understand. Then again, in a bland and immobile society, it makes it pretty hard to help. Both individuals and the environment are to blame for peoples' emotional problems, as well as the difficulty of helping them.
You dodged the question. You just said "Oh, it's hard! But we can!"
Specifically, how do you plan to help a man lead a normal life when the voices in his head are telling him that the only way he can save the world is by lighting his baby on fire?
I never dodged the question. You misread it. How should we help them? With holistic alternatives like Soteria House and the VCEE. We should also have living arrangements for people once they get out if they're not ready (or dont want to) return to modern life. We also need to change modern society and 'normal life'. That's the whole point. Few mentally ill people, even schizophrenics, are as extreme as you stated.
Again you're relying on the mainstream media for your beliefs, which is stupid because the whole thing has been shown again and again to be overhyped. Often, 'findings' trumpeted in the mainstream media can even turn out to be false.
1) There were only 29 patients, leading to a very high margin of error
2) As stated before, technical genetic correlations =/= flaws
3) Which is why you have to carefully read that, because they said there is not necessarily a direct influence
No, I do not get all my 'facts' from the anti-psychiatry movement, I research on my own. The fact that the anti-psychiatry perspective is more correct than the pro-psychiatry movement isn't my problem. And yes, the mainstream media thing has happened many, many times.
Sigh....you didn't give me any 'empirical evidence', just some biased, wholly incomplete media hype. I've never actually been in any anti-psychiatry movement and a some information I've come across has been more mainstream, though most are hard pressed to think critically about the seriously flawed/biased nature of their profession. And uh, I came across what I did by myself, before I actually had beliefs similar to you.
Uh, peer reviewed doesn't necessarily mean much if the whole profession/society/education is biased towards the biological viewpoint like it has been for a very long time. And also, alternate opinions are sometimes cut out of psych journals, supposedly due to 'low readability'. People keep saying this stuff but it really isn't as black as white as they think. You're not making a good argument here. Again, if basic logic and critical thinking is lost on a group people, it doesnt matter
"Uh, peer reviewed doesn't necessarily mean much if the whole profession/society/education is biased towards the biological viewpoint like it has been for a very long time."
Alternate opinions? Like Dianetics?
Give me a break, kiddo.
The bias towards the biological viewpoint exists because THE BIOLOGICAL NATURE OF MENTAL ILLNESS IS REAL.
No, not like Dianetics. Like well-reasoned opinions that the current positions may be flawed, INCLUDING studies that show evidence CONTRARY to psychiatry. Which is a feat considering the bias TOWARDS biology. Funny enough, some researchers have put together comprehensive reviews of drug studies and confirmed that EVEN WITHIN flawed methods the effects are little. And uh, the bias has existed since the days of Darwin, before they even had correlations. You're just pulling stuff out of your ass.
But the placebo effect isn't just 'bullshit', it means that the mind has the capacity to heal itself to a high level (placebo success rate was over 30%). Considering this is mostly based on false hope in some substance, imagine the success rate if someone actually analyzed their environment and self well and worked towards a better solution. To me, the success of placebo is a good thing, but it needs to be directed properly.
It's been awhile and I don't have my book marks, but his work is a prominent example of why psychiatric drugs are nonsense. Also, don't think I produce all my conclusions just from 'raw data', one must also analyze the context in which the studies are done, the studies themselves, etc. And there are many factors that could produce 'good results' even though there's no objective benefit.
And no, I don't deny the (data) or (results) that they've come up with, but the way they present it is totally biased and false. Also, the way this data is obtained is heavily biased. I must be a conspiracy theorist because I believe that money being involved in a vague area will corrupt understanding...
Actually, I have read a lot of them; there are several comprehensive reviews of anti-depressant studies as a whole that show little or not effect except on the most severely depressed. Before you go on about how they still work, this was without enhanced placebo effect. Since you probably don't know what this is, it means that the 'placebo' is actually a sugar pill without the same side effects/bad taste/characteristic of the drug, thus double blinding is violated. Look up irving kirsch
Likely placebo effect, I felt 'helped' by anti-depressants and whatnot. While there is a blanket dulling effect which when combined with enhanced placebo can produce wonderous results, it's important to recognize that this is just a dulling drug, not some kind of 'medicine'. When pharmaceutical companies say this they are being dishonest. But yeah, I admit I was hit by a placebo effect too, because when we're really desperate we want hope anywhere.
It's not about directly 'believing' in it, even. It's just generally having hope that it will work, being desperate for something to change, etc. Especially when combined with a dulling effect, because if you notice that something has 'changed' and you want it to help, this likely will be a big effect.
No, this has never been proven. And no, that is not the same thing as belief, because it's more based on overall desperation rather than 'I believe this will help me'. This is the case even if they don't think it will work. They're trying something as a 'last resort' therefore they're extremely sensitive to placebo effect, especially if the drug has an effect, even if bad or neutral.
You and I are done talking. Your experience is experience in a Scientology-controlled organization, which immediately distances you from reality. You disregard evidence as 'biased' but then say you can't make predictions from raw data, either (which is the BASIS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH).
Right now you're a lost cause... but I hope eventually you can find something WORHTWHILE to do with your time!
Er, if you say so. Much easier to say that I'm a Scientologist than to open your mind and rationally evaluate my statements...in reality I'm not affiliated with CCHR and don't use them as a source. I disregard BIASED 'evidence' as biased because it is. And no, you can't draw all your conclusions from raw data, you have to interpret it in context.
If the data is obtained scientifically and legitimately, then sure you should. But you can't, because you need to examine whether that data is obtained correctly in the FIRST place.
Also: Emotional problems are not scientifically understood and this need not be a priority any way, seeing as understanding them socially is more helpful to helping people.
"If the data is obtained scientifically and legitimately, then sure you should. But you can't, because you need to examine whether that data is obtained correctly in the FIRST place."
Which you're not doing! You're saying "This is what the media/phrama WANT us to think... MUST BE FALSE!"
"Emotional problems are not scientifically understood and this need not be a priority any way, seeing as understanding them socially is more helpful to helping people."
No, I've examined the way the studies are conducted, the standards, the methods, the money involved, everything instead of just saying 'BIG PHARMA SUX'.
As for schizophrenics, it's been shown that holistic alternatives work. Look up the Soteria House and Vancouver Emotional Emergency Center. Also, schizophrenia rates are far lower in developing countries than here. This study was REPEATED by the WHO because nobody believed it and the same results were obtained.
If you believe what the media says, I suppose you could say it's a science, but the fact is that the 'research data' supporting drugs is heavily biased by pharmaceutical money and very weak. The biological bias has existed since the days of darwin in which early researchers flat out assumed biological causation without even correlations. Nowadays, we have correlations in some areas, but this still doesn't mean much.
Actually, many university studies ARE funded in part by pharmaceutical money, usually indirectly. Hence why you see the ____(pharma name) award for excellent research. There are also a huge number of grants.
Actually, there's evidence that the pharmaceutical industry is extremely corrupt, and it's not out of line to believe that psychiatry is a house of cards because
So while there is a technically physical manifestation of every emotion/mindset, it's really irrelevent and the concept that 'mental illness' is legitimate is still idiotic and bogus.
No, what's "idiotic and bogus" is denying the empirical evidence that proves its legitimacy.
Denying mental illness is the same level of stupidity as denying evolution.
You're not arguing science, here, because you don't *KNOW* the science, and *KNOWING* the science would contradict your preconceived beliefs, so you don't *WANT* to know the science.
A brain scan showing different patterns proves legitimacy? As I said, there are different reasons for this, none of which necessarily are something 'genetic' or biological in ORIGIN. I actually know the science very well thank you very much, because I believed in biological psychiatry before researching it and deciding its a crock of shit.
1) Within the family doesn't mean much, because this can be social influence
2) Twin studies are massively flawed, often using the equal environment assumption which is false
3) The 'reared apart' studies are sparse and flawed, with researchers making their own diagnoses, twins having some contact, bias in poor living arrangements, etc.
Once again, the basis for this is poor, and even if there were reliable correlations, it wouldn't say anything. All it could be is that people who are genetically more creative, more abstract, more intelligent, etc. are more predisposed to schizophrenia.
It's a far cry from saying 'genetically predisposed to this disorder', which is said as if someone has a flaw with them. Being creative, abstract, and intelligent are positive attributes which interact negatively with SOCIETY. I doubt you were talking about that. And that was IF the correlations are reliable, which they aren't.
And come on, if it was generally accepted (again, talking hypothetically, don't know how much 'genetic' factors play into creativity and intelligence and whatever) that intelligent and creative people were predisposed to schizophrenia, nobody would say "because your genes are messed up" or imply that like they do now. It would be because "gifted individuals don't do well in a bland, mediocre society". That's the whole point of what I said.
Poorly-supported? Really? That's the best you can do?
Poorly-supported by decades of research and reproducible study results?
Seriously, we're way past phrenology and icepick lobotomies nowadays. Maybe you should update your knowledge a bit, rather than dismiss it as nonscientific.
Or are you of the same scientific mindset as "creation scientists"?
If you actually read about the topic, you'd know that most 'conclusions' are based on a few heavily flawed old studies. Many new studies follow the same path. We may be past icepick lobotomies, but that doesn't mean we've reached science. In fact, since the whole thing is such a waste of time and money, it may be better to just help people personally with personal problems rather than fuck around with their brains so much.
"Being creative, abstract, and intelligent are positive attributes which interact negatively with SOCIETY"
Ahh, I'm beginning to understand you! You think you're a slightly insane genius who is just misunderstood... Deny that you've got an illness! Deny it!
No. I honestly think that those who are more intelligent, creative, and abstract do have trouble fitting in with a mundane and bland society. And that makes basic sense.
It's a cnn article and which says "that Steven Kazmierczak says (The Illinois school shooter of February 14 2008) had been taking three drugs prescribed to yes it is hungry and all the the it unit at to to.versus but you can to and in that is itself a.E. For him by his psychiatrist, the Northern Illinois University gunman's girlfriend told CNN."
It's a cnn article and which says "that Steven Kazmierczak says (The Illinois school shooter of February 14 2008) had been taking three drugs prescribed to him by his psychiatrist, the Northern Illinois University gunman's girlfriend told CNN."
I don't know what happend with my upload, but here is the corrected one.
It's a cnn article and which says "that Steven Kazmierczak says (The Illinois school shooter of February 14 2008) had been taking three drugs prescribed to him by his psychiatrist, the Northern Illinois University gunman's girlfriend told CNN."
Interesting... with the recent shooting in Illinois, obviously these PSA videos weren't too far off the mark. Well actually, after reviewing this PSA again, these videos are actually 100% spot on.
Interesting... With the recent shooting in Illinois, obviously these PSA videos weren't too far off the mark. Well actually, after reviewing these PSA again, these videos are actually 100% spot on.
This video is misleading and dangerous. The fact is that after videos like this caused a decrease in amount of anti-depressants over the last few years, the amount of teen suicides INCREASED. The cult of scientology put this video out and they are distorting the truth for their own twisted view of reality.
Actually, this could very well be because people were taking themselves off the drugs really quickly, which led to withdrawal breakdowns. You also have to take into account population growth : )
the problem with drugs is when you start to feel better you usually stop taking them... problem is when you stop taking them you start to not feel so much better... hence psychotic murderers :) remember its only the ones that stop taking their drugs that are the problem. usually.
Considering how the Church of Scientology is known to be against psychiatry and instead, believes that Xenu is the reason why we feel depress, it is hard to believe these ads, especially being that CCHR is created by the Church of Scientology (for proof, you can type in CCHR on wiki.)
Not all members of CCHR are scientologists and very few scientologists are 'deeply' involved. And obviously many might lie to gain power even if it involves saying you believe in ridiculous shit. Not that I doubt people's ability to do so given the number of literal creationists in our country.
Can you give me a source that it actually does? If it does, then Scientology definitely has an influence, but I also know that there are a lot of anti-psychiatry advocates who aren't involved with scientology that are involved with CCHR. I think Breggin was one of them, and he actually disliked the association with Scientology a lot.
Well, there was a leak of internal CCHR memos recently that outlined the CCHR's official CoS-guided plans for attacking media outlets who wrote stories favorable towards psychiatric patient rights legislation.
The CCHR is pretty much nothing more than a branch of the CoS. The CoS itself claims them as its "secular" outreach group.
What do you mean towards 'psychiatric patient rights legistlation'? Does this mean stories that are favorable to psychiatry?
But if it's true that officially the CCHR has relation to the COS, that doesn't mean that all of its people, or even all of its leaders are Scientologists. Though I really wish anti-psychiatry and Scientology would be totally separated because the assocication REALLY bugs me.
Well, there was a set of stories published about potential legislation that would guarantee women the right to a psychiatric screening after childbirth and guarantee the right to screening to at-risk teens. The CCHR started the "Letters to the Editor Attack Force" to slam this legislation as hard as possible and denounce any stories that spoke favorably of it.
What do you mean, right? Do you mean the right for them to choose, with fully informed consent, to have an evaluation done? Or do you mean just done without their consent or with poorly informed consent like the barbaric nonsense AKA teenscreen? What about the reality that "mental disorders" are in all honesty complete bullshit in the realm of 'objective physical illness'? Unfortunately, many of these screening programs are supported to the extreme by pro-drug groups such as nami and big pharma
What? I just suspected that the program was teen-screen, because that's the most popular of these new 'screening programs' that are meant to get kids hooked on drugs.
I realize that they don't, but I think there's the influence in the profession and the culture. There's also the desperate parents and often doctors FEEL they have no other choice. Often, people just want to shut their kid up, given the number of people being drugged in this country and the trivial reasons I've been put on drugs as a kid for (as well as many others I've talked to), I highly doubt it.
No actually you misconstrued what I said, I did not twist anything you said. I said they DO work often based on their feelings (their own feelings, as doctors) because it's so subjective and biased (the diagnoses, interpretations, etc).
I love this idiotic concept that mental illness is somehow not physical, even when (for example) brain scans of bipolar or schizophrenic brains show vast differences in the location and intensity of brain activity from those of people without these disorders.
I have a physical pain problem that the doctors have still failed to find an answer for. So instead they put me on pain medications, or so I was told. Turns out when I looked all these up after taking them for a year, bouncing from med to med and getting bad side effects, every single one was used as an anti-psychotic medication! I am off all drugs, I'm even straight edge. This is literally terrifying! I want to know whats wrong before I'm thrown on a drug and I want proof! End of story!
PandaValentine 1 year ago
The first thing you notice about "Dianetics" is that it is spectacularly dull. L. Ron Hubbard promises, in this seemingly endless treatise, that his "modern science of mental health" will cure everything from schizophrenia to arthritis, claims for which he presents no credible evidence whatsoever -- unless you consider merely insisting that you've got evidence to be the same thing as offering it. "Dianetics" IS a phenomenal remedy for at least one widespread affliction: insomnia.
OpenComments 2 years ago
You, like many Scientologists, tend to make what might be called the "Argument from My Own Eyeballs". You're saying that if you don't have any audio and visual footage of an actual event, then the likelihood that that event took place should be doubted. If this style of reasoning was ever applied to the legal system convictions of criminals would go through the floor and chaos would ensue because we would be demanding a standard of evidence that is practically impossible to meet.
OpenComments 2 years ago
Anonymous goal is to expose the cult for what it is: a multi-national criminal organization, set up with numerous do-gooder front groups, all working exclusively toward one openly-declared goal: the "global obliteration of psychiatry."
Hubbard (and the Church of Scientology) blames Psychiatry for the rise of Hitler and Stalin, World War 2, the Holocaust, the attack on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre on 9/11, the Virginia Tech shootings, and other international tragedies.
OpenComments 2 years ago
You seem to know a lot of facts about Mr Hubbard! Can you tell me what did Mr Hubbard say about the Twin Towers and 9 11 exactly? I am very curious!
csurmi22 2 years ago
csurmi22, Hubbard didn't say anything about 9/11. It was said through Scientology's front group, the CCHR. It is a video by Freedom Magazine:
watch?v=Tva2q7XjseU
The argument went something like, Osama bin laden's surgeon was also a psychiatrist, and psychiatry was used to train the terrorists, therefore psychs did 9/11. To me, this shows how sinister the Church of Scientology is, to use a hot topic like 9/11 to further its agenda against psychiatry.
OpenComments 2 years ago
Dear OpenComments! So lets start you saying "Hubbard said" and now you go back, oh no, he didn't say that. Yes, he didn't say that.
Second, on the video link you sent, (thanks by the way!) the CCHR president said (3:46 / 7:35) about 9/11, to be specific: "As far as if he is 100% behind 9/11 or not, I don't know whoever gonna know, but the point is that ideology of terror came from Bin Laden, who was influenced by a psychiatrist."
So who said psychiatrists did 9/11???
YOU! :-)
csurmi22 2 years ago
No, I did not say "Hubbard said". I said "Hubbard (and the Church of Scientology) blames Psychiatry for".
And it is clear that Scientology is furthering its agenda of hate toward psychiatry and psychiatrists for the sole purpose that L. Ron Hubbard had a grudge against psychiatry when the APA rejected Dianetics in 1950.
Bin Laden was influenced by a SURGEON, not a psychiatrist, and for Scientology/CCHR to use either half-truths or falsities like that, it is wrong. Are you a Scientologist?
OpenComments 2 years ago
Dear OpenComments! First, do not change the rules of grammar. When you say "Hubbard (and the Church of Scientology) blames" you did use parenthesis, and you said "AND" which means both of them. You wrote "blames" which means: say or think that someone is responsible for something. So what you wrote does mean that Mr Hubbard said or thought that psychiatry is responsible for 9/11. This is what YOU wrote.
Yet Mr Hubbard died in 1986 and 9/11 happened in 2001.
csurmi22 2 years ago
You're focusing on syntax here, and focusing on the wrong thing. But enough of the distractions. If it makes you happy, I will amend my statement, saying, 'L. Ron Hubbard blames psychiatry for World War II and the Holocaust (what he was alive for), and the Church of Scientology blames psychiatry for the Virginia Tech Massacres and 9/11." Happy?
It doesn't matter though. Scientology still breaks up families and harass critics, and David Miscavige still beats people. This has to stop.
OpenComments 2 years ago
I'm focusing on correct information here.
You make the impression you know a lot about the Church of Scientology. Where is your information coming from? Were you part of it?
csurmi22 2 years ago
I do not have to try street drugs, do crime or drown to have the opinion that street drugs, crime and drowning is bad for you. The same goes for investigating a destructive and lying cult. I am capable of reading and communicating, and probably most important of all, able to learn from the mistakes of others. The core of the criticism is based on personal experience reported by many former Scientologists and critics who have been harassed by the CoS.
OpenComments 2 years ago
Oh, and since you're so keen on looking up sources, how about this one?
"Somebody on this planet, about 600 B.C. found some pieces of 'R6'. I don't know how they found it; either by watching madmen or something. But since that time they have used it.
And it became what is known as Christianity. The man on the cross. There was no Christ!"
- Scientology Class 8 Course, Lecture 10, 3 Oct 1968 ("R6" refers to an alien psychiatric thought implant)
watch?v=qrMJUDkDWqc
OpenComments 2 years ago
You know, psychiatric drugs CAN help!
shorteylove 2 years ago
wait 5 years old? how? why?
Nanumir 2 years ago
I used to cut myself and have suicidal tendencies.
Then my parents took me to a psychiatrist who prescribed me pills to increase my bodies deficiency in serotonin. 6 months later I was fine.
Now I run a company, and a post-secondary teacher. The drugs probably saved my life.
Because I wouldn't have stopped hurting myself otherwise.
neosurrealist 3 years ago
the statistics are all wrong. why don't they provide the source of their statistics? because its a lie.
CCHR is a part of the Scientology crime syndicate. The only reason why they are against psychiatry is because their leader told them they were eeeevil and came from another planet to make earthlings into slaves (really!) ..
Theres no scientific basis for any of the statistics that come up here. CCHR has never done any scientific research.
CCHR = Scientology = dangerous CULT
111oose 3 years ago
Please go to Yahoo and type in "Horrible Truth About Psychiatric Drugs" to see a research paper exposing these drugs. Also so the search "Documented Proof Psychiatric Drugs Shorten Lifespan". Be sure to include the quotes. You will learn information no psychiatrist will tell you. These drugs destroy fertility and libido and cause impotence and extream disphoria and obesity. The promote suicide and violence not prevent it.
medmatic 3 years ago 5
if these are real symptoms, then psychiatrists would be very interested in this. If what you say is true, then this is probably already mentioned in the papers ppl get with the medication.
Medications have side-effects, sometimes side-effects suck; therefore a person has to choose what is better; like what is better: being depressed&suicidal or feeling happy and being a fat-ass. (btw, depressed ppl dont have a libido anyway, so you 'facts' are messed up)
CCHR = Scientology = Dangerous Cult
111oose 3 years ago
Oh and other side effects:
Shit ass crap
Shit ass crap
Shit ass crap.
Anon060 3 years ago
One last thing, actually, your chemical substitution thing seems to be a REDUCTION in dopamine (at least I think so), while schizophrenia is commonly (said) to be related to HIGH dopamine, not low. Also, it's said that it's THOUGHT to be related to schizophrenia, or thought to interact with CANNABIS use to cause mental problems...nice job, now bye.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
catechol-O-methyltransferase
Look it up, folks. Schizophrenia (and other mental illnesses) is biological and genetic.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Vague association, correlation between this and dopamine + correlation between high dopamine and schizophrenia= correlation between chemical and schizo is what they're talking about, except that high dopamine could very well just be an effect, not a cause, and we don't know all the functions of dopamine, though we do know they are very wide ranged. Learn to analyze better.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
If you have further shit, you can read my blog where I have pretty detailed criticisms of psychiatry, raincheckfortheapocalypse dot blogspot dot come, im not going to bother responding to you any more, you keep going off on random tangents and insults, once you can hold a civil discussion maybe
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
I'm not going to bother reading your blog. I won't dignify such a fucking moronic opinion with my time any more.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Grow up and stop yelling, I think you have too much faith in whatever drug you took and want to believe that it helped you. So you're using it as a cruth and get really mad whenever someone challenges your irrational beliefs. Well too bad, that's the nature of logical discussion. And actually, kids are screened and drugged in DROVES. Drugging rates are HUGELY higher than other first world countries in the US.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"kids are screened and drugged in DROVES"
Prove it. Numbers. Statistic. Evidence. SOURCES. You have NOTHING.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Uh, the endless push for teenscreen in schools? Trying to screen all teenagers and kids? That's pretty much an obvious red flag. It's supported by pharma money. As much as 1/4 of US adults are on psychiatric drugs, mostly for mild shit.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Screening is not drugging, and you still haven't given me SOURCES FOR YOUR NUMBERS.
You make wild claims about the prevalence of the use of psychiatric drugs without a SINGLE SOURCE to back them up.
FreePlay 3 years ago 2
I keep giving you sources and you keep blowing me off, yet you seldom give sources for your own shit, and when you do they're vague, plus I already told you I don't have my extensive list of bookmarks with me on this computer. So you can read my blog or just fuck off
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
And such, by any standard, is intellectually honest
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
LADIES AND GENTLEMENT, WE HAVE A LOYAL SHEEP
Just for the record, to clear things up:
1) I am not a Scientologist
2) I believed the biological views before
3) I came to my views on my own
4) I question everything, when applicable, instead of running around with my head in the sand and accepting what I'm told
5) I admit my mistakes, unlike FreePlay
6) I don't dodge points
7) I think in larger contexts
8) I don't label new ideas as 'conspiracy theories' automatically
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
I don't just 'accept stories that support my camp'. I rationally analyze within context. Which seems to be something you cannot do. It's been shown that 70% of drug trials had at least one drug company member on them, probably a lot more for bigger trials. I could see the incentive to keep people taking the drugs, even if it means going against a few companies that are scared that lack of credibility will hurt their business.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"It's been shown that 70% of drug trials had at least one drug company member on them, probably a lot more for bigger trials."
OH NO FUCKING WAY
A DRUG TEST INVOLVES PEOPLE FROM THE COMPANY THAT MAKES THE DRUG
CALL THE FUCKING MEDIA
NEWS FLASH:
DOCTORS DO NOT PUSH DRUGS. They use them as a LAST RESORT.
Your argument is completely and utterly without merit. It's like opposing defibrillator companies because they're using defibrillators to solve all of our problems. It's BULLSHIT.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Pay closer attention? In context, you should have inferred that I was talking about 'FDA approval processes'. OH NO FUCKING WAY, USE YOUR FUCKING HEAD. NO SHIT THE DRUG COMPANIES USE DRUG COMPANY MEMBERS
Your argument is completely and utterly without merit. You have no evidence of anything you say and constantly move from one ad hominem to another to avoid your pathetic beliefs being challenged. It's like saying that things are there for own good because the media says so.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Funny enough, for someone who claims that anti-psychiatry activists are nutjobs, you sure are ranting and raving a lot, and spewing a lot of incoherent nonsense.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
tinyurl*com/2bqov9 (note: the story was also reported on fox)
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
And for a good example, I could say the same thing about you:
"You haven't MADE any points. All you have been doing is raving about how dissenting opinions must be from nutjobs and about how you trust mainstream psychiatry because it sounds authoritative! You know absolutely nothing about the methodology of studies and the process by which drugs are marketed and approved"
I've researched this for YEARS because I believed what you did. Thus I have the upper hand, self evident here really
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"I've researched this for YEARS because I believed what you did. Thus I have the upper hand, self evident here really"
You're 19 and naive. Sorry kid.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Er, I said stop the ad hominems. You're an ignorant, faithful believer who does so with no scientific evidence.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
suppressing negative data, this is just another component of why its such a bullshit pseudo-science. I'm tired of arguing with someone who just dodges what I say and moves on to something else, like you have about ten times. You can disagree, but at least be intellectually honest and don't ignore my points or answer them with stupid ad hominems when I make them.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"suppressing negative data"
Example, including source?
FreePlay 3 years ago
Uh, here's one. Remember, this is just one:
tinyurl*com/5qt9x3
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Your article is evidence that the PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY wants to let people see the negative trials, but the FDA blocks them:
"For at least three medications, they said, the FDA blocked the companies' plans to reveal the negative studies in drug labels, and in one case the agency reversed a manufacturer's decision to amend its drug label to say that the drug was associated in studies with increased hostility and suicidal thinking among children."
This article is contrary to what you claim!
FreePlay 3 years ago
Not exactly. I have many sources about the pharmaceutical industry suppressing negative data themselves, it might be that people are finally complaining enough and they don't want their 'good reputation' hurt. That article was more about the FDA. I didn't read carefully there, my mistake.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
And before you go all batshit on me saying "I GOT YA THERE", I already admitted I made a mistake, because I can be intellectually honest, unlike you.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"I can be intellectually honest"
Right, because only accepting stories that support your camp is intellectually honest.
You're an intellectual VOID, boyo.
FreePlay 3 years ago
So if you want to scream about how the sky is green and ignore every point I make in favor of going off on another tangent, be my guest.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
You haven't MADE any points. All you keep doing is raving about how there's this massive conspiracy among the pharmaceutical industry to cover up negative studies and hypermedicate everyone!
You obviously know absolutely nothing about the FDA approval process.
FreePlay 3 years ago
What the fuck? No I have not. All I have stated is that there is a huge amount of bias in the industry that when combined with vague definitions makes the studies worthless. And provided good reasons for this. I know a lot about the FDA approval process. Two positive drug studies must be submitted. It must demonstrate effectiveness above placebo. However, with many panelists being drug company employees or ex employees (they act as if this doesnt influence them, haha) and drug companies
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"Vague definitions" such as...?
I'd be willing to bet my apartment that you were diagnosed with a mental illness and decided to go with the people who said there was nothing biologically wrong with you.
News flash: Physically damaging the brain can cause schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and any number of other mental illness. It's a BIOLOGICAL thing.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Uh, no, I actually believed the psychiatrists for awhile. And no, it's never been shown that damaging the brain directly causes specific mental illness, though problems with memory and frustration over physical injury can cause psychological problems.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"it's never been shown that damaging the brain directly causes specific mental illness"
... Really.
So the fact that brain damage can directly cause sweeping personality change means nothing to you?
FreePlay 3 years ago
Uh no, it doesn't mean nothing...of course memory and cognition can be disrupted and this can lead to mental problems since a person can psychologically react to failure in cognition, physical pain, neural problems, etc, but it doesn't mean that schizophrenia or anything has a biological cause...
I'm really sick and tired of arguing with you here, I like to discuss things with people who don't make dumb ad hominems and dodge points, because true believers can never be convinced otherwise.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Dumb ad-hominems? Are you fucking serious?
You're defending a video called "PSYCHIATRY: MAKING A KILLING OF CHILDREN" and you're going to whine about ad-hominems?
Grow some fuckign balls.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Ad hominems? I'm trying to have an honest discussion here. At the very least, you could leave stupid insults out here. Grow the fuck up, you dumbass.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"there is a huge amount of bias in the industry"
What, and you think that anti-psychiatry activists are FAIR AND BALANCED?!
Get your fucking head straight!
FreePlay 3 years ago
Uh, anti-psychiatry activists, are on average, much less biased than the industry. There's very little money involved and many have researched both sides of the story, because most of us have believed in the bio shit at some point in my time.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"Uh, anti-psychiatry activists, are on average, much less biased than the industry."
Right, which is why they foam at the mouth and rave about how barbaric psychiatry is and how they're trying to drug kids into a stupor.
Give me a break. Most anti-psychiatry activists are SCIENTOLOGISTS, who believe that the 9/11 attacks and the Holocaust were perpetrated by psychiatrists.
You people are about as unbiased as the 9/11 Truth morons.
FreePlay 3 years ago
No, most anti-psychiatry activists are not Scientologists. Most are survivors and people who are fed up with bullshit. And what's wrong with being upset over human rights violations? And what's wrong with questioning the validity of the 'official' 9/11 story? You seem to quick to label alternate views as 'nuts', and are extremely biased. Not that I necessarily believe the govt blew up the towers.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"And what's wrong with questioning the validity of the 'official' 9/11 story?"
It's fucking stupid.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Because you say so, right? Because the government MUST be telling the truth? Because anyone who doubts the government's truthfulness is an idiot and an unpatriotic asshole? Your post rings of the sentiments in Germany right after the reichstag fire.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE HAVE A GODWIN
Thank you. You've just automatically lost the argument by invoking the Nazis.
No, it's fucking stupid to question the story because the people are ACTUALLY dead, while the conspiracy fucktards say they're just in hiding somewhere.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Uh no, apparently you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about. I was referencing to the Reichstag fire, which Hitler used to anger the public and seize power. In that context, it was unpatriotic and 'stupid' to doubt the government's official. Just like you're doing, even if it's just an analogy...and er...a lot of 9/11 skeptics fully believe that all 19 hijackers are dead.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"a lot of 9/11 skeptics fully believe that all 19 hijackers are dead."
I'm talking about the people on the planes, imbecile. You will not find a single 9/11 skeptic who says they're all dead.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Uh actually, many fully believe that the planes crashed into the towers, but that other detonations caused the collapse, or that the planes were rigged. I don't even remember exactly, but there are many theories. And I don't necessarily 'believe' any of them but I keep my mind open because the official explanation is full of holes. Keep running around with your head in the sand...
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
By the way, so that I don't have to put up with any more of your religion (the Church of Anti-Psychiatry) I've just added a filter in Thunderbird to automatically delete any message containing your name :)
Find a cause that actually has a valid point.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Wonderful. Assumptions without valid evidence. Now that you've had your fun thinking that you're right while being wholly dishonest to yourself, you can resume believing what you believe with zero objective evidence and continue running around in circles. Hey man, if you think god exists, I guess he does!
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
...
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
And remember, I said WITHIN, not counting external flaws that make the study totally bunk. Most studies for psych drugs are short and the effectiveness isn't THAT much higher than placebo overall because so few studies are submitted to the FDA. Also, for quite a few pop. drugs, it was recently found out (after this laid around for years in the underground) that drug companies suppressed negative trials, making these drugs (zoloft, prozac, and others) essentially worthless EVEN BY THEIR STANDARDS
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Give me your sources.
FreePlay 3 years ago
I told you, I don't have my bookmarks on this comptuer, but one of them is Irving Kirsch, also there was that study about popular anti-depressant studies being misleading, plus the WHO studies in the 70s and 1992. Also, Jay Joseph, Bruce Levine, and Peter Breggin are also good authors on the subject. And no, I don't care that Breggin at one point was affiliated with CCHR, he no longer is, and I try to take people's words for what they are instead of shooting the messenger.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
You're using 16-year-old science. No wonder you're deluded.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Yeah, that one big study is sixteen years old. That's just one example. But many of psychiatry's claims are based, at the root, on studies that are fourty years old if not more...
Psychiatry's illogical nonsense hasn't changed much over the years aside from cosmetically...
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Sigh.
You really know nothing about science if you don't understand the concept of REVISING theories.
Our model of the function of the human brain has VASTLY changed in the last 40 years. In the last 10, even. Perhaps you should... oh, I don't know... study it?
FreePlay 3 years ago
Our basic model of function of the human brain has changed in the last 40 years, but that doesn't change the fact that the same logical errors are committed. And, the schizophrenia study by the WHO was more related to schizophrenia prevalence rates, not brain scans.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
All I'm trying to say is:
If the atmosphere/learning process thinking is biased, if the methods are biased, if money is too much of a factor, if concepts are too vague, and if critical thinking is largely absent, etc, then the results really don't mean much. Science is a wonderful thing, but if it's biased and done in poor manner it's really quite worthless.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
if they all agree
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Not to mention that Eli Lilly funded this, not that this alone is case for it to be false. It's just very vague for all the reasons I described, so adding this in should make any sensible person very, very, very skeptical.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
7 again) Ahhh, I read up about this a bit more, and what they are referring to seems to be gene expression, which is measuring different LEVELS of biomarkers found in the blood. This, once again, can be an effect, not a cause.
8) About holistics, I don't pretend that it's 'science', I'd actually want science to fuck off from trying to 'treat' emotional/social problems which can best be treated emotionally and socially through empathy and understanding.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
4) Animal models? What relevence does this have here?
5) Often, these researchers do the diagnoses themselves, which can often be changed
6) This type of 'breakthrough' has been boasted many times in the media; the old twin studies, etc
7) It was based on the patients subjective evaluation of themself at that time, and if they were bipolar, what would genes being active have to do with predicting high/low mood states at that GIVEN TIME? I'm confused here, explain
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
I've dealt with people with Schizophrenia and while it is very difficult, that's not to say it's impossible to help them. I think people don't make that distinction maybe because they don't understand. Then again, in a bland and immobile society, it makes it pretty hard to help. Both individuals and the environment are to blame for peoples' emotional problems, as well as the difficulty of helping them.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
I asked you how you planned to help them.
You dodged the question. You just said "Oh, it's hard! But we can!"
Specifically, how do you plan to help a man lead a normal life when the voices in his head are telling him that the only way he can save the world is by lighting his baby on fire?
FreePlay 3 years ago
I never dodged the question. You misread it. How should we help them? With holistic alternatives like Soteria House and the VCEE. We should also have living arrangements for people once they get out if they're not ready (or dont want to) return to modern life. We also need to change modern society and 'normal life'. That's the whole point. Few mentally ill people, even schizophrenics, are as extreme as you stated.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
*Holistic* alternatives? Are you serious? You bash psychiatric medication as the placebo effect and then promote HOLISTIC medicine?
Holistic medicine is a PHILOSOPHY, not a science.
tinyurl*com / 2hsz9t
So much for mental illness not being genetic!
FreePlay 3 years ago
Again you're relying on the mainstream media for your beliefs, which is stupid because the whole thing has been shown again and again to be overhyped. Often, 'findings' trumpeted in the mainstream media can even turn out to be false.
1) There were only 29 patients, leading to a very high margin of error
2) As stated before, technical genetic correlations =/= flaws
3) Which is why you have to carefully read that, because they said there is not necessarily a direct influence
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"Often, 'findings' trumpeted in the mainstream media can even turn out to be false."
So obviously it's best to get your 'facts' from people with an anti-psychiatry agenda.
Get bent, you intellectually dishonest prick.
FreePlay 3 years ago
No, I do not get all my 'facts' from the anti-psychiatry movement, I research on my own. The fact that the anti-psychiatry perspective is more correct than the pro-psychiatry movement isn't my problem. And yes, the mainstream media thing has happened many, many times.
Stop the insulting bullshit.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"The fact that the anti-psychiatry perspective is more correct than the pro-psychiatry movement isn't my problem."
Something you've been told by the anti-psychiatry movement.
I love how I give you empirical evidence and you dismiss it.
Shill.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Sigh....you didn't give me any 'empirical evidence', just some biased, wholly incomplete media hype. I've never actually been in any anti-psychiatry movement and a some information I've come across has been more mainstream, though most are hard pressed to think critically about the seriously flawed/biased nature of their profession. And uh, I came across what I did by myself, before I actually had beliefs similar to you.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Mainstream = peer-reviewed.
Your sources = nonsense.
Fail!
FreePlay 3 years ago
Uh, peer reviewed doesn't necessarily mean much if the whole profession/society/education is biased towards the biological viewpoint like it has been for a very long time. And also, alternate opinions are sometimes cut out of psych journals, supposedly due to 'low readability'. People keep saying this stuff but it really isn't as black as white as they think. You're not making a good argument here. Again, if basic logic and critical thinking is lost on a group people, it doesnt matter
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"Uh, peer reviewed doesn't necessarily mean much if the whole profession/society/education is biased towards the biological viewpoint like it has been for a very long time."
Alternate opinions? Like Dianetics?
Give me a break, kiddo.
The bias towards the biological viewpoint exists because THE BIOLOGICAL NATURE OF MENTAL ILLNESS IS REAL.
FreePlay 3 years ago
No, not like Dianetics. Like well-reasoned opinions that the current positions may be flawed, INCLUDING studies that show evidence CONTRARY to psychiatry. Which is a feat considering the bias TOWARDS biology. Funny enough, some researchers have put together comprehensive reviews of drug studies and confirmed that EVEN WITHIN flawed methods the effects are little. And uh, the bias has existed since the days of Darwin, before they even had correlations. You're just pulling stuff out of your ass.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
But the placebo effect isn't just 'bullshit', it means that the mind has the capacity to heal itself to a high level (placebo success rate was over 30%). Considering this is mostly based on false hope in some substance, imagine the success rate if someone actually analyzed their environment and self well and worked towards a better solution. To me, the success of placebo is a good thing, but it needs to be directed properly.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
It's been awhile and I don't have my book marks, but his work is a prominent example of why psychiatric drugs are nonsense. Also, don't think I produce all my conclusions just from 'raw data', one must also analyze the context in which the studies are done, the studies themselves, etc. And there are many factors that could produce 'good results' even though there's no objective benefit.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
If you don't produce your conclusions from raw data, you are introducing bias. Raw data is not biased.
FreePlay 3 years ago
And no, I don't deny the (data) or (results) that they've come up with, but the way they present it is totally biased and false. Also, the way this data is obtained is heavily biased. I must be a conspiracy theorist because I believe that money being involved in a vague area will corrupt understanding...
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Sigh.
Give me the name of the last study you read.
Oh, wait... you don't read them, because that's what ***THEY*** would want you to do! Right?
FreePlay 3 years ago
Actually, I have read a lot of them; there are several comprehensive reviews of anti-depressant studies as a whole that show little or not effect except on the most severely depressed. Before you go on about how they still work, this was without enhanced placebo effect. Since you probably don't know what this is, it means that the 'placebo' is actually a sugar pill without the same side effects/bad taste/characteristic of the drug, thus double blinding is violated. Look up irving kirsch
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
So the fact that I was moderately depressed and antidepressants helped me is obviously false.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Likely placebo effect, I felt 'helped' by anti-depressants and whatnot. While there is a blanket dulling effect which when combined with enhanced placebo can produce wonderous results, it's important to recognize that this is just a dulling drug, not some kind of 'medicine'. When pharmaceutical companies say this they are being dishonest. But yeah, I admit I was hit by a placebo effect too, because when we're really desperate we want hope anywhere.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Sigh.
You're really desperate to deny reality.
Nothing helped me until I took the medication, and NO, you don't have to BELIEVE the medicine will help you for it to help you. It's NOT a placebo.
FreePlay 3 years ago
It's not about directly 'believing' in it, even. It's just generally having hope that it will work, being desperate for something to change, etc. Especially when combined with a dulling effect, because if you notice that something has 'changed' and you want it to help, this likely will be a big effect.
I'm not denying reality, I just have experience.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"t's just generally having hope that it will work, being desperate for something to change, etc. "
This is BELIEF.
The placebo effect is based on the subject BELIEVING they're being helped.
People are still helped by antidepressants regardless of whether they believe they'll be helped by them.
It is, BY DEFINITION, NOT a placebo.
FreePlay 3 years ago
No, this has never been proven. And no, that is not the same thing as belief, because it's more based on overall desperation rather than 'I believe this will help me'. This is the case even if they don't think it will work. They're trying something as a 'last resort' therefore they're extremely sensitive to placebo effect, especially if the drug has an effect, even if bad or neutral.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
You and I are done talking. Your experience is experience in a Scientology-controlled organization, which immediately distances you from reality. You disregard evidence as 'biased' but then say you can't make predictions from raw data, either (which is the BASIS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH).
Right now you're a lost cause... but I hope eventually you can find something WORHTWHILE to do with your time!
FreePlay 3 years ago
Er, if you say so. Much easier to say that I'm a Scientologist than to open your mind and rationally evaluate my statements...in reality I'm not affiliated with CCHR and don't use them as a source. I disregard BIASED 'evidence' as biased because it is. And no, you can't draw all your conclusions from raw data, you have to interpret it in context.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"you can't draw all your conclusions from raw data"
Kid, that's the very definition of scientific inquiry.
If you can't understand that, you have no place debating science.
FreePlay 3 years ago
What are you talking about?
If the data is obtained scientifically and legitimately, then sure you should. But you can't, because you need to examine whether that data is obtained correctly in the FIRST place.
Also: Emotional problems are not scientifically understood and this need not be a priority any way, seeing as understanding them socially is more helpful to helping people.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"If the data is obtained scientifically and legitimately, then sure you should. But you can't, because you need to examine whether that data is obtained correctly in the FIRST place."
Which you're not doing! You're saying "This is what the media/phrama WANT us to think... MUST BE FALSE!"
"Emotional problems are not scientifically understood and this need not be a priority any way, seeing as understanding them socially is more helpful to helping people."
How do YOU plan to help schizophrenics?
FreePlay 3 years ago
No, I've examined the way the studies are conducted, the standards, the methods, the money involved, everything instead of just saying 'BIG PHARMA SUX'.
As for schizophrenics, it's been shown that holistic alternatives work. Look up the Soteria House and Vancouver Emotional Emergency Center. Also, schizophrenia rates are far lower in developing countries than here. This study was REPEATED by the WHO because nobody believed it and the same results were obtained.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
You're absolutely wrong. That's all there is to it. Everything you think you know about mental illness is absolutely wrong.
FreePlay 3 years ago
If you believe what the media says, I suppose you could say it's a science, but the fact is that the 'research data' supporting drugs is heavily biased by pharmaceutical money and very weak. The biological bias has existed since the days of darwin in which early researchers flat out assumed biological causation without even correlations. Nowadays, we have correlations in some areas, but this still doesn't mean much.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Sigh.
I'm sure you don't believe this, but university studies aren't funded by pharmaceutical companies.
You've picked your delusion, and you'll live with it, one way or another.
We have causation; you're just ignoring the evidence because you've demonized the pharmaceutical industry.
Guess what?
* You ignore the evidence because you've demonized the pharmaceutical industry.
* You demonize the pharmaceutical industry because you don't believe the evidence
Circular reasoning! No surprise.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Actually, many university studies ARE funded in part by pharmaceutical money, usually indirectly. Hence why you see the ____(pharma name) award for excellent research. There are also a huge number of grants.
Actually, there's evidence that the pharmaceutical industry is extremely corrupt, and it's not out of line to believe that psychiatry is a house of cards because
*It's so subjective and easy to manipulate
*There's a huge amount of money in it
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
So while there is a technically physical manifestation of every emotion/mindset, it's really irrelevent and the concept that 'mental illness' is legitimate is still idiotic and bogus.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
No, what's "idiotic and bogus" is denying the empirical evidence that proves its legitimacy.
Denying mental illness is the same level of stupidity as denying evolution.
You're not arguing science, here, because you don't *KNOW* the science, and *KNOWING* the science would contradict your preconceived beliefs, so you don't *WANT* to know the science.
FreePlay 3 years ago
A brain scan showing different patterns proves legitimacy? As I said, there are different reasons for this, none of which necessarily are something 'genetic' or biological in ORIGIN. I actually know the science very well thank you very much, because I believed in biological psychiatry before researching it and deciding its a crock of shit.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Fine.
Then explain the fact that schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are inherited.
FreePlay 3 years ago
That is not a fact.
1) Within the family doesn't mean much, because this can be social influence
2) Twin studies are massively flawed, often using the equal environment assumption which is false
3) The 'reared apart' studies are sparse and flawed, with researchers making their own diagnoses, twins having some contact, bias in poor living arrangements, etc.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Right.
It's not a fact, but there are genetic markers that can show if someone will develop schizophrenia later in life.
try again.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Once again, the basis for this is poor, and even if there were reliable correlations, it wouldn't say anything. All it could be is that people who are genetically more creative, more abstract, more intelligent, etc. are more predisposed to schizophrenia.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"All it could be is that people who are genetically more creative, more abstract, more intelligent, etc. are more predisposed to schizophrenia."
Those factors are all GENETIC.
Thanks for agreeing with me!
FreePlay 3 years ago
It's a far cry from saying 'genetically predisposed to this disorder', which is said as if someone has a flaw with them. Being creative, abstract, and intelligent are positive attributes which interact negatively with SOCIETY. I doubt you were talking about that. And that was IF the correlations are reliable, which they aren't.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
And come on, if it was generally accepted (again, talking hypothetically, don't know how much 'genetic' factors play into creativity and intelligence and whatever) that intelligent and creative people were predisposed to schizophrenia, nobody would say "because your genes are messed up" or imply that like they do now. It would be because "gifted individuals don't do well in a bland, mediocre society". That's the whole point of what I said.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Give me a break.
You're just denying science here.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Give me a break. Your just denying basic logic here.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
You've chosen your delusion; I'll leave you to enjoy it.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Not my fault that you don't understand basic science.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Not my fault that you refuse to accept overwhelming evidence that opposes your opinion.
*THAT* is not understanding science.
FreePlay 3 years ago
If you call poorly supported correlations 'evidence', then I suppose you could say that.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Poorly-supported? Really? That's the best you can do?
Poorly-supported by decades of research and reproducible study results?
Seriously, we're way past phrenology and icepick lobotomies nowadays. Maybe you should update your knowledge a bit, rather than dismiss it as nonscientific.
Or are you of the same scientific mindset as "creation scientists"?
FreePlay 3 years ago
If you actually read about the topic, you'd know that most 'conclusions' are based on a few heavily flawed old studies. Many new studies follow the same path. We may be past icepick lobotomies, but that doesn't mean we've reached science. In fact, since the whole thing is such a waste of time and money, it may be better to just help people personally with personal problems rather than fuck around with their brains so much.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"Being creative, abstract, and intelligent are positive attributes which interact negatively with SOCIETY"
Ahh, I'm beginning to understand you! You think you're a slightly insane genius who is just misunderstood... Deny that you've got an illness! Deny it!
FreePlay 3 years ago
No. I honestly think that those who are more intelligent, creative, and abstract do have trouble fitting in with a mundane and bland society. And that makes basic sense.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
This video is only Scientology-propaganda!
mollie2810 3 years ago
To FallenGemini
Propaganda is given where propaganda is due.
(Even dough I see these vids more as a severe criticism at the address of Psychiatry, but deserved nevertheless)
Why don't you google: "Girlfriend: Shooter was taking cocktail of 3 drugs"
Hasstradamus 3 years ago
It's a cnn article and which says "that Steven Kazmierczak says (The Illinois school shooter of February 14 2008) had been taking three drugs prescribed to yes it is hungry and all the the it unit at to to.versus but you can to and in that is itself a.E. For him by his psychiatrist, the Northern Illinois University gunman's girlfriend told CNN."
Hasstradamus.
I'm out
Hasstradamus 3 years ago
Correction:
It's a cnn article and which says "that Steven Kazmierczak says (The Illinois school shooter of February 14 2008) had been taking three drugs prescribed to him by his psychiatrist, the Northern Illinois University gunman's girlfriend told CNN."
Hasstradamus.
I'm out
Hasstradamus 3 years ago
I don't know what happend with my upload, but here is the corrected one.
It's a cnn article and which says "that Steven Kazmierczak says (The Illinois school shooter of February 14 2008) had been taking three drugs prescribed to him by his psychiatrist, the Northern Illinois University gunman's girlfriend told CNN."
Hasstradamus 3 years ago
Interesting... with the recent shooting in Illinois, obviously these PSA videos weren't too far off the mark. Well actually, after reviewing this PSA again, these videos are actually 100% spot on.
PepsiJuror 3 years ago
Interesting... With the recent shooting in Illinois, obviously these PSA videos weren't too far off the mark. Well actually, after reviewing these PSA again, these videos are actually 100% spot on.
PepsiJuror 3 years ago
This video is misleading and dangerous. The fact is that after videos like this caused a decrease in amount of anti-depressants over the last few years, the amount of teen suicides INCREASED. The cult of scientology put this video out and they are distorting the truth for their own twisted view of reality.
healthmed 4 years ago
Actually, this could very well be because people were taking themselves off the drugs really quickly, which led to withdrawal breakdowns. You also have to take into account population growth : )
sociopathicregret 3 years ago 2
the problem with drugs is when you start to feel better you usually stop taking them... problem is when you stop taking them you start to not feel so much better... hence psychotic murderers :) remember its only the ones that stop taking their drugs that are the problem. usually.
Lithys 3 years ago
abruptly, which is called a withdrawal effect
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
yes exactly.
Lithys 3 years ago
In my honest opnion, these PSAs are nothing but propaganda against Psychiatry.
FallenGemini 4 years ago
Considering how the Church of Scientology is known to be against psychiatry and instead, believes that Xenu is the reason why we feel depress, it is hard to believe these ads, especially being that CCHR is created by the Church of Scientology (for proof, you can type in CCHR on wiki.)
FallenGemini 4 years ago
I don't believe that neraly all 'scientologists' believe literally in the stuff, or that nearly all of CCHR is composed of scientologists.
sociopathicregret 4 years ago
If they don't believe literally, they're punished physically. So yes, they all DO believe.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Not all members of CCHR are scientologists and very few scientologists are 'deeply' involved. And obviously many might lie to gain power even if it involves saying you believe in ridiculous shit. Not that I doubt people's ability to do so given the number of literal creationists in our country.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Heh.
Well, the VAST majority of CCHR members are scientologists, seeing how it's a front group for the cult.
FreePlay 3 years ago
It was co-founded by a scientologist and non-scientologist in 1969 I think, so I don't see how that necessarily makes it a total 'front group'.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
If it's not a front group, why does it get all its funding from the church?
FreePlay 3 years ago
Can you give me a source that it actually does? If it does, then Scientology definitely has an influence, but I also know that there are a lot of anti-psychiatry advocates who aren't involved with scientology that are involved with CCHR. I think Breggin was one of them, and he actually disliked the association with Scientology a lot.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Well, there was a leak of internal CCHR memos recently that outlined the CCHR's official CoS-guided plans for attacking media outlets who wrote stories favorable towards psychiatric patient rights legislation.
The CCHR is pretty much nothing more than a branch of the CoS. The CoS itself claims them as its "secular" outreach group.
FreePlay 3 years ago
What do you mean towards 'psychiatric patient rights legistlation'? Does this mean stories that are favorable to psychiatry?
But if it's true that officially the CCHR has relation to the COS, that doesn't mean that all of its people, or even all of its leaders are Scientologists. Though I really wish anti-psychiatry and Scientology would be totally separated because the assocication REALLY bugs me.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Well, there was a set of stories published about potential legislation that would guarantee women the right to a psychiatric screening after childbirth and guarantee the right to screening to at-risk teens. The CCHR started the "Letters to the Editor Attack Force" to slam this legislation as hard as possible and denounce any stories that spoke favorably of it.
As for the association: as well it should :)
FreePlay 3 years ago
What do you mean, right? Do you mean the right for them to choose, with fully informed consent, to have an evaluation done? Or do you mean just done without their consent or with poorly informed consent like the barbaric nonsense AKA teenscreen? What about the reality that "mental disorders" are in all honesty complete bullshit in the realm of 'objective physical illness'? Unfortunately, many of these screening programs are supported to the extreme by pro-drug groups such as nami and big pharma
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Ohhhhhhhh, now I get it.
Teen Screen was EXACTLY what the Scientology-ordered CCHR campaign was about!
Thanks for showing your true colors.
FreePlay 3 years ago
What? I just suspected that the program was teen-screen, because that's the most popular of these new 'screening programs' that are meant to get kids hooked on drugs.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"these new 'screening programs' that are meant to get kids hooked on drugs."
Medicine is the LAST RESORT for solving psychiatric problems.
FreePlay 3 years ago
That is a filthy lie.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
What, so you're saying that when doctors say they don't resort to medicine until all other options are exhausted, they're lying?
You do realize that doctors don't get a cut from drug sales, right?
FreePlay 3 years ago
I realize that they don't, but I think there's the influence in the profession and the culture. There's also the desperate parents and often doctors FEEL they have no other choice. Often, people just want to shut their kid up, given the number of people being drugged in this country and the trivial reasons I've been put on drugs as a kid for (as well as many others I've talked to), I highly doubt it.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
"often doctors FEEL they have no other choice"
When's the last time you actually talked to a doctor?
They don't work on feelings, they work on facts.
FreePlay 3 years ago
Uh, I've talked to many doctors. And because psychiatry is so subjective, yes, it is based on FEELINGS.
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
Twisting my words, eh?
I said DOCTORS don't work on feelings, with regard to your statement that doctors FEEL they have no other choice than to use drugs.
DOCTOR'S feelings, not patients. Try harder.
FreePlay 3 years ago
No actually you misconstrued what I said, I did not twist anything you said. I said they DO work often based on their feelings (their own feelings, as doctors) because it's so subjective and biased (the diagnoses, interpretations, etc).
sociopathicregret 3 years ago
I love this idiotic concept that mental illness is somehow not physical, even when (for example) brain scans of bipolar or schizophrenic brains show vast differences in the location and intensity of brain activity from those of people without these disorders.
It's physical, it's real, and it's treatable.
FreePlay 3 years ago