You ought to read Thomas Szasz' "Karl Kraus and the soul doctors" (I think this is the proper title of the book). There are forms of "talk" therapy that do show themselves to be effective, but this fact does little to prove anything, certainly nothing about cure and treatment. Mental illness and those who serve to promote and maintain the myth, are the present-day analog of the clergy and the church, alligned with the state. The therapeutic state is the allignment of medicine and state.
@MrMonist The blanket epithet of lumping all psychiatric critique, be it legitimate or of the lunatic fringe, as the work of scientologists, is strongly suggestive of the propagandistic windfall that scientology serves for furthering the profession's interests.
@MrMonist I'm not a Scientologist, I think its rubbish.
He is a psychiatrist because a few months ago I sent an email to "Maudsley Hospital" and they confirmed that he is a "registed psychiatrist". It even says so on his wikipedia page.
Nice little Scientology convention you got going on here. My sincerest condolences. And I just wonder if the people who think psychiatry is quack and he shouldn't call himself a doctor think that chiropractors should or not call themselves doctors. Or acupuncturists etc.
@juditK2007 The COS has been a propagandistic windfall for psychiatry and its practitioners. This is a turf war over the moral and social nature of man. If any meaningful critique is leveled against any particular aspect of present-day psychiatry, the response from the left-leaning statists is to hurl the epithet that such is Scientology inspired. Talk about foreclosing any dialogue!
And I'm sorry but if people just write in all caps that psychiatry is quack, evil and social control(boooo)then of course I'm not going to take them seriously. You might have some legitimate objections to it but just announcing it's bad is not enough. The 500 characters in YT comments is little I know, so just make a video and present your arguments. You can have a dialog there.
@juditK2007 COS: the church of scientology, which I see as a cult that has merely co-opted aspects of psychiatry and (Freudian) psychoanalytic claptrap into its own program.
@whiff1962 But I still stand by what I said previously that there are much more real quacks and much more dangerous ones that a doctor. Think chiropractors that can do harm to your spine that currently no real medicine can fix. Or some alternative "treatments" that do more harm than good. It's a nice ideal world in which everyone is free to do what they want but let's face it it's not the one we live in. Some people need medicine to be able to function normally.
"Some people need medicine to be able to function normally." Are we talking medicines for diseases or symptoms? This assertion that you make, that some people "need" (psychotropic?) medications to function normally, assumes that there is a clear understanding of normal brain function, which, for psychiatry, is "measured" by means of observation (of behavior and utterance). from the outset, you have clearly articulated a bias into this exchange. Ever hear of contractual-consensual medicine?
@whiff1962 The discussion about what is normal is not the problem but rather if how psychiatry is practiced now needs changes then those practicing it should change it.&yes in this case we the rest of society need to put social pressure on them to do the right thing.
It bothers me when people just throw around words like social control to scare their opinion in the other person.That closes a dialog even faster.So let's look at the facts&disc.solutions not just complain.Maybe not here ;)
And what then is your agenda, here on YT? Your nebulous statement, of averring that psychiatry "needs changes than those practiced", is the height of cynical apologetics and hauteur. My position is that all fields of medicine be strictly contractual-consensually based, but consistently, many do not understand how the latter truly empowers the health consumer-doctor relationship. Psychiatry, however, throughout its two hundred plus years, has always served the state's interests. Who is served?
Evidence of him being a quack please...being a psychiatrist, frankly is not enough! I read your comment below about your apparent problems with psychiatry..but I would prefer more than just a general diatribe about that.
Hi, You might not be aware but psychiatry doesn't have a medical test to prove you have a mental illness. Cancer for example can be seen with a medical test, mental illness on the over hand cannot. I explain this in my video called "Psychiatry - how thay make a diagnosis" which you can see if you like. Also if you type the word "psychiatry" on YouTube search engine and watch the first few vids, other doctors explain it too.
You can't prove without a doubt what is right or wrong in history, does that mean that all historians are fakers?
They are two type of science, objective and subjective. As the human being is NOT constant, like a rock or a cancer, it can't be studied with the same tool, don't you think?
@caketheory Yes, and what of "mind", as in the assertion by psychiatry that mental illness is like physical illness? The latter is tactically sound, but not medically. However, given the mission of psychiatry, as increasingly collectivist in its outlook, the science needn't be sound; it need only dazzle. However, not all that glitters is gold.
i suggest that you email him at ben(at)badscience(dot)net and ask him about his qualifications as a doctor. i think he'll be able to verify that he is in fact a certified MEDICAL doctor working for the NHS presently.
Ben Goldace is a psychiatrist and has no right to criticize any medical model when his own is a fraud.
You take antidepressants for example. Prof Irving Kirsch from the University of Hull did an extensive clinical trial and concluded antidepressants are no better than placebo.
Psychiatry has nothing to do with medicine and is a form of social control so I don't think its a good idea to promote his work.
Interesting...one of the criticisms that Goldacre expounds in the book is taking the results of ONE trial and using that as conclusive evidence. It's not enough, and if you had read the book you probably would not have jumped in with that.
What is your problem with psychiatry? And where is your evidence that it is social control.
Thank you, you have given me some food for thought, and some things to look up, as I had never heard of antipsychiatry before...I have to say I'm sceptical but, as ever, I'm willing to see where the evidence leads me!
The problem with psychiatry is that as a branch of medicine, the profession employs measures of coercion and excuse to continue doing what it does. The notion of a consensual-contractually based psychiatry has been slowly replaced by a decidedly statist function. In short, liberal psychiatry's mission has been that of altering the individual, thereby altering the social. But who truly profits from this paradigm? I suggest you grab any book by Thomas Szasz to flesh out this argument.
Has anyone ever told you you look like Matt Dillahunty from the atheist experience?
fcdog555 1 year ago
You ought to read Thomas Szasz' "Karl Kraus and the soul doctors" (I think this is the proper title of the book). There are forms of "talk" therapy that do show themselves to be effective, but this fact does little to prove anything, certainly nothing about cure and treatment. Mental illness and those who serve to promote and maintain the myth, are the present-day analog of the clergy and the church, alligned with the state. The therapeutic state is the allignment of medicine and state.
whiff1962 1 year ago
@MrMonist The blanket epithet of lumping all psychiatric critique, be it legitimate or of the lunatic fringe, as the work of scientologists, is strongly suggestive of the propagandistic windfall that scientology serves for furthering the profession's interests.
whiff1962 1 year ago
@MrMonist I'm not a Scientologist, I think its rubbish.
He is a psychiatrist because a few months ago I sent an email to "Maudsley Hospital" and they confirmed that he is a "registed psychiatrist". It even says so on his wikipedia page.
caketheory 1 year ago
Nice little Scientology convention you got going on here. My sincerest condolences. And I just wonder if the people who think psychiatry is quack and he shouldn't call himself a doctor think that chiropractors should or not call themselves doctors. Or acupuncturists etc.
juditK2007 1 year ago
@juditK2007 The COS has been a propagandistic windfall for psychiatry and its practitioners. This is a turf war over the moral and social nature of man. If any meaningful critique is leveled against any particular aspect of present-day psychiatry, the response from the left-leaning statists is to hurl the epithet that such is Scientology inspired. Talk about foreclosing any dialogue!
whiff1962 1 year ago
@whiff1962 What does COS stand for in this case?
And I'm sorry but if people just write in all caps that psychiatry is quack, evil and social control(boooo)then of course I'm not going to take them seriously. You might have some legitimate objections to it but just announcing it's bad is not enough. The 500 characters in YT comments is little I know, so just make a video and present your arguments. You can have a dialog there.
juditK2007 1 year ago
@juditK2007 COS: the church of scientology, which I see as a cult that has merely co-opted aspects of psychiatry and (Freudian) psychoanalytic claptrap into its own program.
whiff1962 1 year ago
@whiff1962 But I still stand by what I said previously that there are much more real quacks and much more dangerous ones that a doctor. Think chiropractors that can do harm to your spine that currently no real medicine can fix. Or some alternative "treatments" that do more harm than good. It's a nice ideal world in which everyone is free to do what they want but let's face it it's not the one we live in. Some people need medicine to be able to function normally.
juditK2007 1 year ago
Comment removed
whiff1962 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Some people need medicine to be able to function normally." Are we talking medicines for diseases or symptoms? This assertion that you make, that some people "need" (psychotropic?) medications to function normally, assumes that there is a clear understanding of normal brain function, which, for psychiatry, is "measured" by means of observation (of behavior and utterance). from the outset, you have clearly articulated a bias into this exchange. Ever hear of contractual-consensual medicine?
whiff1962 1 year ago
@whiff1962 The discussion about what is normal is not the problem but rather if how psychiatry is practiced now needs changes then those practicing it should change it.&yes in this case we the rest of society need to put social pressure on them to do the right thing.
It bothers me when people just throw around words like social control to scare their opinion in the other person.That closes a dialog even faster.So let's look at the facts&disc.solutions not just complain.Maybe not here ;)
juditK2007 1 year ago
Comment removed
whiff1962 1 year ago
And what then is your agenda, here on YT? Your nebulous statement, of averring that psychiatry "needs changes than those practiced", is the height of cynical apologetics and hauteur. My position is that all fields of medicine be strictly contractual-consensually based, but consistently, many do not understand how the latter truly empowers the health consumer-doctor relationship. Psychiatry, however, throughout its two hundred plus years, has always served the state's interests. Who is served?
whiff1962 1 year ago
yeah i thought it was a good book too......
chazswaz87 2 years ago
lose some weight fat atheist
KIMBOSLICE66666 2 years ago
Thanks for the video mate. From a brother atheist.
skyzthelimi7 2 years ago
Also you keep calling him a "doctor" which is incorrect. He's a psychiatrist and the biggest QUACK of all.
caketheory 2 years ago
Evidence of him being a quack please...being a psychiatrist, frankly is not enough! I read your comment below about your apparent problems with psychiatry..but I would prefer more than just a general diatribe about that.
ltzippy2 2 years ago
Hi, You might not be aware but psychiatry doesn't have a medical test to prove you have a mental illness. Cancer for example can be seen with a medical test, mental illness on the over hand cannot. I explain this in my video called "Psychiatry - how thay make a diagnosis" which you can see if you like. Also if you type the word "psychiatry" on YouTube search engine and watch the first few vids, other doctors explain it too.
caketheory 2 years ago
You can't prove without a doubt what is right or wrong in history, does that mean that all historians are fakers?
They are two type of science, objective and subjective. As the human being is NOT constant, like a rock or a cancer, it can't be studied with the same tool, don't you think?
Shawouin 2 years ago
@caketheory Yes, and what of "mind", as in the assertion by psychiatry that mental illness is like physical illness? The latter is tactically sound, but not medically. However, given the mission of psychiatry, as increasingly collectivist in its outlook, the science needn't be sound; it need only dazzle. However, not all that glitters is gold.
whiff1962 1 year ago
i suggest that you email him at ben(at)badscience(dot)net and ask him about his qualifications as a doctor. i think he'll be able to verify that he is in fact a certified MEDICAL doctor working for the NHS presently.
meltinghat 2 years ago 6
Ben Goldace is a psychiatrist and has no right to criticize any medical model when his own is a fraud.
You take antidepressants for example. Prof Irving Kirsch from the University of Hull did an extensive clinical trial and concluded antidepressants are no better than placebo.
Psychiatry has nothing to do with medicine and is a form of social control so I don't think its a good idea to promote his work.
caketheory 2 years ago
Interesting...one of the criticisms that Goldacre expounds in the book is taking the results of ONE trial and using that as conclusive evidence. It's not enough, and if you had read the book you probably would not have jumped in with that.
What is your problem with psychiatry? And where is your evidence that it is social control.
I genuinely would like to know. Cheers.
ltzippy2 2 years ago
Well if you want more evidence you can look up Dr Thomas Szasz, Dr Fred Baughman, "interview with Dr Joanna Moncrieff" or antipsychiatry in general.
caketheory 2 years ago
Thank you, you have given me some food for thought, and some things to look up, as I had never heard of antipsychiatry before...I have to say I'm sceptical but, as ever, I'm willing to see where the evidence leads me!
The book is still a good one though!
ltzippy2 2 years ago
The problem with psychiatry is that as a branch of medicine, the profession employs measures of coercion and excuse to continue doing what it does. The notion of a consensual-contractually based psychiatry has been slowly replaced by a decidedly statist function. In short, liberal psychiatry's mission has been that of altering the individual, thereby altering the social. But who truly profits from this paradigm? I suggest you grab any book by Thomas Szasz to flesh out this argument.
whiff1962 1 year ago