• Announcements

    • Michael Stuart Kelly

      Major Update to OL (please click to open)   02/09/2016

      Sorry for the inconvenience, but we had to update OL and there have been some serious changes made by IPB. The real bad news is that they had to merge User Names and Display Names. This meant that I had to choose between bad and bad. I opted to keep the log-on information the same, so you can get on OL like you always did, but now your User Name is displayed. If your User Name and Display Name were the same, you will not feel the change. If they were different, you are probably irritated right now. I will figure out how you can change this so you can revert to the Display Name you used before if you like, however this may entail a change in how you log-on. The good news is that OL is now searchable from the very beginning. This means all the old posts from the A-Team in Objectivism (and everybody else) will finally show up when you search for something. I will keep changing this announcement as we adapt to these new changes. It's a pain, I know, but after looking around the backend for a bit, I believe the benefits will far, far outweigh the current irritation. They changed things in a hamhanded way and I don't like that, but I can't do anything about it. Benefit-wise, they actually did a good job, so please bear with us. In addition to this change, many good things are coming over time. You are the reason OL exists and I am sorry you have to go through this. Think of it like birth pangs... (All right, all right, that's forcing it.  ) Michael
jts

Shrinkiatry - Don't Nobody Ever Go To A Shrinkiatrist

43 posts in this topic

Most people live busy lives. So maybe you don't have time to go thru a 1.5 hour documentary. But there is no way to inform yourself except by taking the time necessary. On the other hand if you have a philosophy, you might be able to use that as a substitute for knowledge. It seems to work in physics, why not in other fields?

The doctoring industry is perhaps the most corrupt of all industries. And the shrinkiatry part of it seems to be the most corrupt part of the doctoring profession. If you think they are angels, you will be shocked by this documentary.

Making a Killing: The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging - Full Movie (Documentary) video 1:34:43

They are crookeder than a dog's hind leg and lower than a snake's belly and they deserve a kick in the ass so hard that that they gotta clear their throat to fart.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a problem with the length of "Making a Killing", you might prefer this on. It is twice as long. It is time well spent.

The Marketing of Madness: The Truth About Psychotropic Drugs-Full Length Documentary video 2:57:10

They have no science. The word for doctors whose doctoring is not based on science is 'quack'. Don't matter they are approved by government. The MD after the name doesn't cut any ice with me either.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The marketers of nonscience supported medicine repeatedly evade and dodge the challenges of real science.

If it ducks like a quack ......

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone very close to me had acute panic anxiety with, of course, a "DSM #." classified as federally disabled, received psychotropic drugs and, thankfully, with some discussion with me, opted to cease the medication, with medical permission, and shifted to behavioral modification.

The individual is now able to travel, not completely without some degree of "stress," but is leading a reasonably active life. The drug, as the individual described it's effects, was like having the outer 20% of each side of their mind shut down.

This was an extremely creative individual and they did not like the state of mind that these psychotropic drugs imposed on their mind.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of books by Dr. Peter Breggin (a libertarian) on this topic:

Medication Madness: A Psychiatrist Exposes the Dangers of Mood-Altering Medications

“There are over 200 million psychiatric drug prescriptions written annually—Most Do More Harm than Good”

Toxic Psychiatry: Why Therapy, Empathy and Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock, and Biochemical Theories of the “New Psychiatry”

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The marketers of nonscience supported medicine repeatedly evade and dodge the challenges of real science. If it ducks like a quack ......

That is very, very clever, Carol!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a different post, I mentioned reading The Same and not the Same by Nobel laureate in chemistry, Roald Hoffman. It is quite likely that even within your own body, no two hemoglobin molecules are the same. I have a couple of papers I wrote for school in the fundamental nature of individuality. Those, too, are based on scientific fact. (There are three different mechanisms for Type 1 Diabetes, all treatable by the same regimen, but each distinct from the others.) In medicine if 60% of the subjects respond well to a treatment, it is considered a success.

In a sense, the failing is deeply cultural. While we do recognize individuality, in fact, the stronger claim is that we are all "equal." Maybe in the future, the dominant philosophy will recognize that we are all different. One consequence of that would be drugs of all kinds - vitamins, mood makers, artery cleaners, etc., etc. -- tailored for the recipient.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,

A useful perspective, I believe. It's early days

for psychiatry, and perhaps too much emphasis is given

to the 'quick fix', 'one size fits all' aspect. In medicine

it seems we have a deep-seated need for miracles, at the cost

of common sense.

The individuation approach is surely correct.

(The divide between synthetic drugs, and natural herbal treatment

has never made much sense to me. They are both complex,

organic, chemical compounds - often with the 'synthetic' being

no more than an isolated and concentrated form of the other.

But I admit I'm largely ignorant.)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the FDA approves, avoid it. The Fraud and Deception Administration approves only bad things, never good things. When they approve tomatoes and broccoli, that's when I will quit tomatoes and broccoli.

Stories:

http://www.ssristories.com/index.php

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(The divide between synthetic drugs, and natural herbal treatment

has never made much sense to me. They are both complex,

organic, chemical compounds - often with the 'synthetic' being

no more than an isolated and concentrated form of the other.

But I admit I'm largely ignorant.)

There are 2 kinds of quacks: orthodox and alternative. The latter has a bunch of subdivisions of quacks. A poison is a poison. Don't matter whether it is animal, vegetable, or mineral. Herbalists are quacks who use poisonous plants.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(The divide between synthetic drugs, and natural herbal treatment

has never made much sense to me. They are both complex,

organic, chemical compounds - often with the 'synthetic' being

no more than an isolated and concentrated form of the other.

But I admit I'm largely ignorant.)

There are 2 kinds of quacks: orthodox and alternative. The latter has a bunch of subdivisions of quacks. A poison is a poison. Don't matter whether it is animal, vegetable, or mineral. Herbalists are quacks who use poisonous plants.

Water is a poison.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the FDA approves, avoid it. The Fraud and Deception Administration approves only bad things, never good things. When they approve tomatoes and broccoli, that's when I will quit tomatoes and broccoli.

Stories:

http://www.ssristories.com/index.php

This is as mindless a statement as I've ever read on OL. I know you are over-reaching to make a point, but when it comes to drugs and medicine over-reaching is wrong.

--Brant

the link is worse

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the documentaries. The videos, combining carefully edited excerpts from a conglomeration of psychiatrists and other physicians, with a narration delivered in tones suggesting something sinister and conspiratorial, was as about as subtle as a sledgehammer. Psychiatry has enough faults, including the over-use of psychopharmacology by some psychiatrists, which have been discussed at some length in both the popular and medical media.. However, the heavy-handed approach of these videos suggests that there is another agenda being promoted here..

Sure enough, at the conclusion, the narrator suggests contacting the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (which produced both of these videos), for more information.

And who are they? A front ("front," because they do not promote their connection) for the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY. Not exactly an organization known for objective handling of the facts, particularly about psychiatry.

.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights

The group continues its vendetta against psychiatry that was started by their founder, L. Ron Hubbard, who originally sought the approval of psychiatrists, but became angered when his book, Dianetics: The Science of Mental Health, received very critical reviews in the press from some prominent psychiatrists. Scientology is an outgrowth of Dianetics, but was organized as a religion for obvious legal and financial benefits.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, do we have a problem right here--right here in River City?

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about "I-O-Way" (although that's where Oprah Winfrey campaigned for Obama, helping him win the Iowa primary in 2008. Not having caused enough trouble, they voted for Rick Santorum, and now we are afflicted with him)!

Thanks, "I O Way," (as pronounced in The Music Man).

Is there a problem re psychiatry and scientology fronts? Nope. Read them both (or as much as you can stomach) and decide.

In general, psychiatrists spend a lot of time criticizing each others theories and (in some cases, bogus) therapies, which is interminable because, as the scientology propaganda pieces point out, there's not much "hard" science behind any one of them.

In scientology's case, however, this is a case of "the pot calling the kettle, black."

It's hard to get crazier than some psychiatric theories, but L. Ron proved that there is no limit to human gullibility.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the documentaries. The videos, combining carefully edited excerpts from a conglomeration of psychiatrists and other physicians, with a narration delivered in tones suggesting something sinister and conspiratorial, was as about as subtle as a sledgehammer. Psychiatry has enough faults, including the over-use of psychopharmacology by some psychiatrists, which have been discussed at some length in both the popular and medical media.. However, the heavy-handed approach of these videos suggests that there is another agenda being promoted here..

Sure enough, at the conclusion, the narrator suggests contacting the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (which produced both of these videos), for more information.

And who are they? A front ("front," because they do not promote their connection) for the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY. Not exactly an organization known for objective handling of the facts, particularly about psychiatry.

.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights

The group continues its vendetta against psychiatry that was started by their founder, L. Ron Hubbard, who originally sought the approval of psychiatrists, but became angered when his book, Dianetics: The Science of Mental Health, received very critical reviews in the press from some prominent psychiatrists. Scientology is an outgrowth of Dianetics, but was organized as a religion for obvious legal and financial benefits.

Your reasoning seems to be:

#1. All scientologists are opposed to shrinkiatry. (which is probably true)

#2. Therefore all people who are opposed to shrinkiatry are scientologists. (definitely false)

Statement #2 does not follow from statement #1.

Also your reasoning seems to be:

#1. Scientology is crap. (true)

#2. Scientology is opposed to shrinkiatry. (true)

#3. Therefore shrinkiatry is not crap.

Statement #3 does not follow from #1 and #2.

I happen to believe BOTH scientology and shrinkiatry are crap.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I happen to believe BOTH scientology and shrinkiatry are crap.

Thank you for the hard orientation.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the documentaries. The videos, combining carefully edited excerpts from a conglomeration of psychiatrists and other physicians, with a narration delivered in tones suggesting something sinister and conspiratorial, was as about as subtle as a sledgehammer. Psychiatry has enough faults, including the over-use of psychopharmacology by some psychiatrists, which have been discussed at some length in both the popular and medical media.. However, the heavy-handed approach of these videos suggests that there is another agenda being promoted here..

Sure enough, at the conclusion, the narrator suggests contacting the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (which produced both of these videos), for more information.

And who are they? A front ("front," because they do not promote their connection) for the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY. Not exactly an organization known for objective handling of the facts, particularly about psychiatry.

.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights

The group continues its vendetta against psychiatry that was started by their founder, L. Ron Hubbard, who originally sought the approval of psychiatrists, but became angered when his book, Dianetics: The Science of Mental Health, received very critical reviews in the press from some prominent psychiatrists. Scientology is an outgrowth of Dianetics, but was organized as a religion for obvious legal and financial benefits.

Your reasoning seems to be:

#1. All scientologists are opposed to shrinkiatry. (which is probably true)

#2. Therefore all people who are opposed to shrinkiatry are scientologists. (definitely false)

Statement #2 does not follow from statement #1.

Also your reasoning seems to be:

#1. Scientology is crap. (true)

#2. Scientology is opposed to shrinkiatry. (true)

#3. Therefore shrinkiatry is not crap.

Statement #3 does not follow from #1 and #2.

I happen to believe BOTH scientology and shrinkiatry are crap.

Your conclusions (the "therefore"s) do not follow at all from what I said. You are making assumptions and extrapolations based on what you would like to believe I said. Read what I said again.

No, on second thought, don't bother. We agree that "BOTH scientology and shrinkiatry " is crap. Let's leave it at that.

The documentaries that you linked to are both products of scientology. Like most propaganda issued by cults, they engage in half-truths and exaggeration, creating strawmen and then knocking them down. It would not likely convince anyone for very long.

In terms of propaganda, however, it might get their writers jobs with MSNBC..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 2 kinds of quacks: orthodox and alternative. The latter has a bunch of subdivisions of quacks. A poison is a poison. Don't matter whether it is animal, vegetable, or mineral. Herbalists are quacks who use poisonous plants.

There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those with other opinions. For the purpose of learning, we omit such pesky measurements and tip all the distinctions into one big pot.

There are three kinds of Chimpanzees in the world, Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus ... and I cannot be bothered to look it up.

Most Chimps are (without knowing it) Scientologists. I make this claim strongly. I make the claim that John Travis Simpson here is a rogue scientologist chimp. Having taught himself to speak and read and drive a truck for the Shriners, he went off the rails of being a Chimp qua Chimp, and became a sport of nature. Three parts crank, one part oboe, one part screech owl, and only one part hominid (those grasping fingers on his feet). This is true because I said it.

Though not as attractive as the other similar primate, Jo-Jo the Dog-faced Boy, John Travis can probably achieve similar renown and mentions in The Globe (just beside Monica Lewinsky/Obama Zombie Love Child: Does Michelle Know?, but below Obama is not a Marxist: He is ALIEN.). How do I know this? Well, everything is poison, everyone is a quack, Scientologists make good points, and ... we are all doomed. Thus ...

If anyone is in doubt of the truth of what I say, I can quickly construct a false dilemma: If you do not accept what I (or John Travis) say/s. then you support the FDA and want to destroy human freedom.

Thus, John Travis is a renegade chimpanzee scientologist with scrofula, a small room in Pensacola's 'carny alley' -- and a small pension from the Shriners. The Shriners wear red Fezzes. Islamic sheiks wear Red Fezzes. King Farouk wore a fez. Thus, thus. Thus!

Thus JTS is a false-flag Zombie Alien Marxist Sex God Robot, like all other former or pre-scientologist terrorists.

That is how I reason, loose, wide, sweeping and determined. Kind of like a Zamboni, reducing all before me to a clean sheet of slippery goodness. Suitable for professional sports and recreational zombie leagues alike.

NB - the truck that John Travis drove until 'the accident' was not a full-sized truck. If you have ever been to a Shriner Islamic Terrorist Parade, you will know what I mean. Well, bonobos won't, but JTS is no Abu bin Bonobo. He is Abu bin Trog ... Thus, thus.

Edited by william.scherk
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To complete the hijacking of the Shriner Terrorist Chimp Parade thread, here is a little-known picture of the chief Shriner Priestess, Pepsico-Rothschild-FDA honcho Joan Crawford, with John Travis's mother, Bette. Date unknown. Note the heavily-regulated stupefying beverage in Miss Crawford's left paw, and the Missing Monster in the mirror behind her with self-same fatal brew. Obama? Hitler? Mr Pepsico?

trog-pepsi2.jpg

Edited by william.scherk
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From now on I exercise the right to use aka ThreadKiller.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense Raapunzel, you in every strand you weave life.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I put this under politics because all this extreme corruption would not happen in a free market.

In a free market, doctors would be in the business of putting themselves out of business, otherwise they would be out of business. And the doctor who is the most effective in putting himself out of business would get the most business.

Instead we have this. Total corruption, even of the peer review process.

1:34:43

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDlH9sV0lHU

This video provides the facts about psychotropic drugs and the huge profits they create for the pharmaceutical industry. These drugs are not safe and have not been on the market long enough to provide sufficient long term studies regarding their effects. These drugs do cause addiction, however most "doctors" would call this dependence because you do not have to take an increasing dose over time. They are completely fine with you being addicted to the same amount of any given drug on a daily basis. Over half of the people that commit suicide in the United States are prescribed to psychotropic drugs. (Ex: Paxil (Paroxetine), Zoloft (Sertraline), Prozac, Wellbutrin (Bupropion), Effexor, Seroquil, Ultram (Tramadol), etc.)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...total corruption"? You want to see total corruption? Try the organization that produced this "documentary" (which is about as reliable in its information as those that it criticizes), the so-called "Citizens' Commission on Human Rights" is a well-known front group set up by the Church of Scientology. The Church of Scientology has been carrying on a vendetta ever since their guru's (L. Ron Hubbard) book, "Dianetics: The Science of Modern Mental Health" was trashed in the early 1950s by some psychiatrists. But BEFORE that happened L. Ron Hubbard was doing everything he could to court the favor of psychiatry. It was only after Karl Meninger wrote a scorching review in the New York Times of "dianetics" (the precursor of scientology - Hubbard deciding he could make more money by cloaking his fraud as a "church") as without any logical or scientific foundation, that Hubbard dropped his pseudo-psychiatric posturing and launched his attacks against them.

Whatever truths or (in most cases) half-truths that CCHR and this propaganda piece cites, are cancelled-out by their own "solutions" which they will only be too happy to provide to those who inquire of them further.

If scientology is what you want, fine. All I can say is, "caveat emptor."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry,

Looking at a Scientology expose against psychiatry is like reading a fundamentalist Christian expose of Mormonism. (I actually did this.)

You can get some correct information in it, but what you have to wade through is equally bad.

As a hobby, I have studied (and still sometimes study) Scientology from the material I glean from the Internet. I think it is the most successful modern brainwashing cult on the planet and I want to know its techniques. I have learned enough to know that this is big-time hypnotic mindfuck.

Just like abuse of psychotropic drugs is big-time chemical mindfuck.

The people in Scientology call new prospects "fresh meat." That's their term.

Prospects start with practical advice on learning and what is called "training routines" for communication. These things are sweet poison because they have parts that are extremely useful and effective, but they have embedded in them the seeds for a person to become compliant to the cult as he or she goes up the Bridge to Total Freedom.

A good example is the advice to learn information in proper sequence, going from simple to complex. This is generally a good idea and a healthy and effective practice. But the extreme way it is framed in the Scientology learning material, you have a really serious problem if you try to learn more advanced things without FULLY understanding and assimilating the steps before that. According to them, this can have serious negative side effects on your life.

This seed grows and it ultimately kills curiosity about future steps once a person gets on an intellectual assembly line and instills blind trust in him that the upcoming steps are good things that are correct. This seed has to be implanted in the beginning, otherwise a person stops after he feels he has learned enough. And it is the only way intelligent people can swallow the Xenu story and not laugh. They only learn about the science fiction war lord when they are in the middle of the assembly line and at a tipping point in totally surrendering their will to the cult.

The training routines, by their very nature, instill trust in the instructor and teach the subject the supreme value of both accepting orders without question and giving them. But you get to learn the Scientology stare to intimidate people with. And if you are introverted, you get some great techniques for handling people.

I won't even go into auditing except to say why force a person to do something when you can get him to willingly tell a stranger his deepest most shameful secrets--over and over? After that, you've got him.

The thing I find most fascinating is that there is a huge body of people who have left Scientology and who have gone through all this hypnotic training. If you understand neuroplasticity, you know that the mind physically alters the brain up to a point. So once some creative scientist gets the idea of doing fMRI scans on these Scientology "heretics," I believe we will have some enormously useful information on how an overdose of hypnosis affects the brain long-term.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now