|
|
|
|
|
| Scientology or psychiatry
Posted: 3/18/2008 9:39:35 AM | | for those who think c.o.s. is a benign factor..research what criminon and narconon did for Charles Manson before he and his group went on the murderous rampage..they apparently "counselled" him in prison and got him released as "cured"..also the son of Sam killer in New york David Berkowitz..according to reports was "counselled by cos before his murderous rampage..blew his mind? Look up "The Ultimate Evil" by Maury Terry an account of all this.. also look up the facts on their E Meter..which they use to eliminate the subconcious mind..(look up A. Lerma site).. this procedure I am told is similar to electro convulsive shock treatments..only 6 time worse and not done under medical conditions...hmmm sounds very ominous and evil...I wonder if those rich **** actors know what they are into when they promote this shit. | |
|
Agapis
|
Joined: 3/20/2008
Msg: 77 | |
| Scientology or psychiatry
Posted: 4/12/2008 7:32:44 PM | the E-meter is a basic galvanometer which measures changes in resistance in the skin when ya sweat.
it is lie-detector aided brainwashing, pure and simple.
Co$ hates psychiatrists because the psychiatrists are the only people who can help. if everyone was happy and free from stress, there would be no need to read Diuretics...i mean dianetics.
if anyone wants to know where scientologys roots are, look up the relationship between hubbard, aleister crowley, and john parsons.
then tell me that scientology isnt insane. | |
|
| Scientology or psychiatry
Posted: 4/12/2008 9:52:33 PM | | Hubbard denounced them and never wrote half the stuff they claim. He was used. | |
|
Agapis
|
Joined: 3/20/2008
Msg: 79 | |
| Scientology or psychiatry
Posted: 4/13/2008 4:31:38 PM | | Hubbard may well have been used by Crowley, but Hubbard used Parsons before stealing Parsons boat AND his woman. and the money that Hubbard exploited from his financial venture with Parsons was used to print his first book. He may have been used, but he sure as hell didnt complain. | |
|
| Scientology or psychiatry
Posted: 4/13/2008 5:25:58 PM |
Hubbard may well have been used by Crowley, but Hubbard used Parsons before stealing Parsons boat AND his woman. and the money that Hubbard exploited from his financial venture with Parsons was used to print his first book. He may have been used, but he sure as hell didnt complain.
This would be an inaccurate approach to describing the relationship. Crowley didn't "use" Hubbard. Crowley had no interest or regard for Hubbard at all and regarded him (and later Parsons) as "those American louts" after his dismissal of Parsons.
Hubbard lifted some of his ideas from Parsons who had been a devotee of occultism as learned through OTO techniques based on the Golden Dawn system of Western Esotericism.
Hubbard on the other hand "used" Parsons as a means to a girlfriend and a small fortune...he was a con artist and a B grade writer. That's closer to the mark. | |
|
Agapis
|
Joined: 3/20/2008
Msg: 81 | |
| |
| Scientology or psychiatry
Posted: 6/27/2009 11:58:16 PM | psychiatry is garbage that has never cured a single person
it should not even continue to exist | |
|
| Scientology or psychiatry
Posted: 6/28/2009 1:25:43 AM | Also, does anyone think that what scientologists say about psychiatry has any vaildity?
I don't think psychiatrists are necessarily evil people, in fact I know a few and find them genuinely nice people (maybe a little screwed-up in the head, but for the most part, reasonably sane -- i.e. just like the rest of us).
However, I don't think all psychiatrists are like that. I've heard of a few (mostly the mind control researchers working under secret contract with the CIA) that would make Dr. Mengele look like a boy scout.
Moreover, I find that Freud's psychoanalysis is fraught with erroneous assumptions and that it has never (to the best of my knowledge) proven itself to be effective. Like most (if not all) psychiatric therapies, it appears to be like the proven cure for a cold (Get plenty of rest, drink plenty of fluids, and in a week to ten days the rest & fluids will cure your cold.) I suppose this is why psychiatrists keep patients coming back for therapy for years & years. Their patients may eventually cure themselves, but in the meantime the psychiatrist has assured himself a pretty good income in the interim.
I don't doubt that they do a lot of good and I can't deny they have done a lot of harm. The ones I've known seem to suffer from the same delusion as their patients; they think they are getting better, so the therapy continues... | |
|
| Scientology or psychiatry
Posted: 6/28/2009 9:58:36 AM |
what is it that they dislike so much?
Anyone who wants control over others has a much easier time by having another group of people to blame for any real or imaginary problems. | |
|
| Scientology or psychiatry
Posted: 6/28/2009 1:52:41 PM |
With scientologists focussing their anger of psychiatry and blaming it for everything from the holcaust to contemporary mass control of people, what is it that they dislike so much? AFAIK, they're both competing for claiming to offer solutions for the same range of problems. Psychiatry is just a competitor to scientology. Psychiatry is a recognised part of science. Scientology is not. Science is universally accepted by nearly everyone in the general public as being infallible. Science is heavily funded by governments. So psychiatry gains by being part of science, by being almost universally accepted, and by being heavily funded. Scientology has no such acceptance in mainstream science, so it has no such acceptance, and no such funding.
How would YOU feel if no-one listened to you, and no-one gave you any investment in your ideas, and someone else in the same field was given tons of money, and everyone thought they were right, and you didn't feel that they were. Wouldn't YOU feel p*ssed off?
If you read about dianetics, it doesn't seem that different from psychotherapies. In fact, a great many of the ideas that dianetics uses seem completely lifted from pschotherapy, which is of course a branch of psychiatry. Since they are addressing the same range of issues, that's not really surprising. You find the same in lots of fields. Just look at IT. How often do we find that the same ideas are used countlessly by almost every company offering a certain type of IT product? Practically all of them.
Also, does anyone think that what scientologists say about psychiatry has any vaildity? Psychiatry has a lot to offer. But it takes the assumption that the mental health professional knows more about the patient's mind than the patient does.
That works in other areas of medicine, because there are lots of objective physical tests, with objective physical results. Anyone can potentially diagnose a patient's physical ailments by checking their symptoms against the symptoms for each disease. Anyone can confirm a diagnosis by performing the relevant tests, or having them done by a lab. Anyone can look up the relevant treatment for a confirmed diagnosis. Anyone can apply the relevant treatment, once it has been confirmed. We even know how often the treatments work, and what side-effects there might be. Doctors merely amount to people with that knowledge, because they studied it, and were tested on it a lot.
But that doesn't work in psychiatry. The diseases are unseen. There are very few objective tests. Most are subjective. The diagnoses are very difficult to confirm, and it is easy for patients to be misdiagnosed. The treatments are equally questionable. CBT is one of the most effective treatments, and that has only a 30% success rate. That's about the same success rate as a lobotomy, and that's the most successful treatment we know.
Speaking as a patient, psychiatry is very difficult to deal with. The psychiatrist bases his diagnosis on what you tell him. But you aren't even sure what is and is not relevant. They often ask for your entire life history, and use that to make their diagnosis. But no-one remembers everything. How can the patient know what is relevant, and what isn't? Moreover, the patient only says things in terms of his perspective, and how he remembers things. So his information is subject to his perspective, which by the definition of mental illness, is wrong. The psychiatrist is basing his evidence on faulty data. It's like a doctor tying to tell if you have appendicitis, merely by asking you if it hurts, without ever touching the affected area, and without running objective lab tests. You could have appendicits. You could also have IBS, or a stomach ache. Rather harmful to remove your appendix, when all you had was a stomach ache.
The second problem is treatments. As I said, therapy doesn't have a great success rate. The highest success rate for curing issues like alcoholism and drug addiction, seems to be groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, and they are based on the 12 steps, which includes things like handing your problems over to G-d. It's not very scientific. There isn't really a solid reason we have for why they work. But they work far better than psychiatric methods.
Even when it comes to depression, psychiatrists don't know how long you'll be depressed. They don't know if a therapy will or won't work. It's like getting cancer, and the oncologist saying "well, we don't know if it will work, but let's stick pins in your bum, and turn you into a human pin cushion for a few days, because a few people who did it, got better". They might have just got so fed up of being a human pin cushion, that they found their own solutions. Therapies just aren't following the level of rigour that would be found with other areas of science, that might prove those therapies as reliable.
Drugs are the same. They ALL have huge numbers of side-effects, many of them very serious. They are just measured in terms of how often they occur. As long as only 1 in 1000 get kidney failure from those drugs, then the drugs work for the majority of patients, and they are handed out willy-nilly. If you want to see the effects of psychiatirc drugs on people with mental illness, just go to any drop-in centre where the majority of members are on those drugs, and are not currently undergoing therapy, which is most people with mental illness, you can see the results. I've seen morgues with more life. Imagine the most apathetic people in your life, and you've got a good idea of what the most active of them are like. Drugs are there to numb out the pain, and block their thoughts so much that they are not able to do most things, so that they cannot harm others. In the most successful of cases, drugs can be used to block out the problem. The problem is still there. But they can function to a degree. But that is the minority. Most just are doped up to the eyeballs. Even then, the rule for knowing whether or not they work, is to take a drug for about 2 months, and only if major side-effects are occuring, or if the drugs aren't working, then if you are really persistent, they'll just try you on another drug. It's a case of trial and error, with you being the guinea pig.
You usually get drugs, to stabilise you. Then you get therapy. But it's a long wait. About a year. Usually 10-12 sessions of 1 hour each. That's it. Then you have to push for more therapy, wait for another round, which takes another year. At 12 hours a year, it can take an awfully long time before someone can understand enough to see their way out of their problems. All that time, the mentally ill person is often unable to work, and needs caring for. That's a huge burden on the taxpayer. You pay £10,000-£30,000 a year for each patient while they are waiting for therapy. That's about $20,000-$60,000 a year, all because the patient has to wait to get treatment. Plus, the longer the patient is kept out of circulation, the more problems result when he/she tries to re-integrate within society, so the wait makes the treatment take even longer, all at the cost of the taxpayer.
Then when it comes to therapy, it suffers the same problems as Albert Bandura pointed out, that when you aren't the one to gain from it, you get unrealistic. Most therapies are often a good idea to begin with. But their success is evaluated in terms of the results that the psychiatrists see, not the patients. Imagine that you have cancer, and the test for if the treatment is how happy the oncologist is. He's happy if his patient doesn't complain during treatment, and doesn't come back complaining that the treatment doesn't work. That means it worked, because there are no complaints. Doesn't matter why. If the patient died, it's still a cure. As far as public psychiatric departments go, you are often seeing psychiatrists that are still working on rotation, so they get changed every 6 months. So you don't get to be there with the same one long enough to say that it didn't work to him. You cannot complain to the department. You're mentally ill, so you're in no position to be believed. They sure as heck don't want to say that their treatments failed, as that would cause the government to question why should they keep funding a department that isn't doing anything. So the departments want to claim that therapies worked. So they all too often don't want to open themselves up to considering real reasons why they failed, and by Karl Popper's rules for verification of a scientific theory, they cannot be proved right at all. They could be completely bogus, and no-one would know any different. In practice, they are usually founded on good ideas. But because no-one is interested in showing how they don't work, no-one is taking it seriously to figure out the exact details of how it can and cannot work. So you end up with therapies whose success really are entirely dependent on who is teaching them, not because the therapies work, but because the therapists make them work, and not because then therapists have an incentive to make them work, but purely because they want to spend countless hours working out how they might work, and conducting their OWN scientific experiments on themselves and their friends, at their own expense, with no way to have such personal data accepted in a scientific journal. Lots of work, with no way to gain fame or fortune from them, even to know that no-one else will even use it, all for the benefit of a few patients. Not much incentive.
Sure, therapies CAN work. But only when people start taking the blame game out of the equation, to free psychiatrists up to admit their failures, which are the majority, without being blamed for it, and finding their funding and salary have been cut in half, all for telling the truth.
Just to give you an idea of the state of things, back in the 1970s, some scientist wanted to see how effective mental health was. So he got some patients to all go to their doctors and claim to have some symptoms of mental illness, just to see what would happen. Despite that ALL were previously tested thoroughly for mental illness and found perfectly healthy, THEY ALL WERE ADMITTED! What is even more worrying, though, was that despite the psychiatrists being fooled, the patients weren't. The patients would reguarly come up to them, and tell them that they knew they were fine, and they weren't fooling anyone. The system really hasn't improved all that much in objective diagnosis. So it's probably the same. It's seriously worrying when the patients know who is well, and the doctors don't. Makes you wonder who are the one with the knowledge to be doctors, and who are the ones who really should be patients.
I even used to recommend CBT, as it was the only therapy I've ever had, that made some improvement. But I just got screwed by the report of my therapy, in the very way that was the cause of my anxiety, that the therapy was trying to cure, and convince me was not a problem. So the ONE therapy that "worked", turned out to do the very opposite. It gave me even more reason to have anxieties than before.
It's not a great system at the moment. Frankly, if you are mentally ill, you can get almost as many problems from being part of the system, as from your problems that made you seek it in the first place. | |
|
| Scientology or psychiatry
Posted: 6/28/2009 2:52:36 PM |
psychiatry is garbage that has never cured a single person
it should not even continue to exist
That is a pretty strong statement. Unless this is just an opinion, please cite some resources to back your assertion. If it is an opinion, that also should have been stated.
As far as the topic, In My Opinion: I feel that Scientology's stand on psychiatry is just as bad as those religions that won't allow their members blood transfusions or other medical help.
People should have the right to decide what is the best treatment for their physical and mental problems. | |
|
| Scientology or psychiatry
Posted: 10/3/2009 8:01:12 AM | Msg: 51 (rsx11s)
http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/archives/001395.html
"The science magazine "New Scientist" reported on February 5, 2005 on a new blood test being developed for the diagnosis of schizophrenia, as reported in a genetics journal (American Journal of Medical Genetics B , vol 133, p 1). It is still early, and this still needs to be validated in larger studies and by other groups, but the initial small sample was positive.
You have to be very careful there, observing a consistent difference doesn't necessarily constitute as "broken". Further more, as the article suggests, consistent difference could be caused by how society deals with people with those symptoms, eg: the drugs they give them may cause the observed empirical difference in blood samples. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
