Scientology, anti-psychiatry quackery, and Mike Adams: It all becomes clear now

Watched the video.

Tried so, so hard, not to laugh while watching it.

Just a little perspective on Holocaust denial and other forms of apologia: while Europeans are just as keen on free speech as anyone else, the problem of Holocaust denialists is that they are generally promoting extreme right-wing views as well. Witness the plague of neo-nazi movements in Germany and elsewhere. They are rarely as harmless as the one portrayed in the Blues Brothers film.

In France, free speech stops when you start spreading “racial hatred” – or punting any other form of discrimination that can lead to people getting beaten up or killed.

It’s the age-old problem of where one person’s freedom stops and another’s begins. Yes, I know it can create false “martyrs”, but then loonies will always try to twist things to their advantage. I’m not advocating anything, just trying to put across the general view over here.

I will never understand how anyone falls for the bollocks peddled by Scientology.

Well, there’s a reason they hate any form of treatment for mental health problems which might actually work…

@Sharon:

I will never understand how anyone falls for the bollocks peddled by Scientology.

A large part of it is because they aren’t upfront about the stranger parts of their beliefs. At first it seems like a form of psychoanalysis (aided by gussied-up lie detector), along with ways you’re supposed to read and theories on how the mind works. But the instructions on reading and the theories of mind undermine critical thinking skills, after which the person is introduced to the notion that you have to psychoanalyze your past lives. Only after they’ve psychoanalyzed a bunch of their past lives is it revealed that lots of problems are caused by brainwashed ghosts clining to their bodies.

Matthew Cline I am very familiar with the tactics of the CoS. I have read many boook by those who rose to high ranks within the ‘church’ then left, and as mentioned above was intimately aquainted with a Scientologist once. I still dont see how anyone with their wits about them could fall for their bullshit. I think Dun C (@6) is onto something.

I sort of tried to join the scientologists a while ago. I was very depressed and felt like I could not make decisions.
So I said to myself “I’m going to join a cult” then they’ll tell me what to think and do. And I went over to the local scientology center.
The guy there had me watch a movie of L Ron Hubbard talking about something or other. It was about 1.5 hours of repeating what could have been said in five minutes. I got so bored I stopped being so depressed, left, told my friends, and they helped me out to not go back when I felt bad.
So, I guess what I’m saying is that I understand why people would join (mental/emotional instability), but probably those who actually join did not have to watch this boring video.

“I’ve also criticized laws against Holocaust denial that resulted in Irving’s being thrown into jail five years ago, a travesty that I characterized as shooting free speech in the foot and stomping free speech flat.”

See, the problem is American Revisionism and the fact that the USA wasn’t invaded (for how the USA would have acted if they had been, extrapolate from their activities and rhetoric after 11/9).

However, since you haven’t had the awful realisation that toleration of the intolerable is not the answer (most Germans were perfectly fine, rational and normal people. Just that the Nazi propoganda was accorded respect as worthwhile speech) and knowing that you once went that road, the German people have decided (in much the same way as the USA decided that the constitution would be the ultimate law of the land, at least until it is inconvenient) that they will not tolerate the rhetoric that once led them down the path to monstrosity.

Likewise, France was invaded by people of this stripe. Toleration has consequences and France has been hit by them.

The UK has the infamous “I have in my hand” speech to show where you get by appeasement.

Poland were COMPLETELY buttfked by europe wanting to either avoid another war or unable to quash superficially reasoned actions presaging WWII. Europe shares that shame equally.

When the teabaggers get a hold of real power, if you reap the consequences of your “tolerance” of the intolerable, you’ll change your mind when you pick the pieces back up.

How do I know this?

Because you are people too.

@15, Or at least his right ear.
😉

Interesting tidbit of history that I didn’t know until recently. The e-meter is not a Scientology invention, but rather was created by chiropractor Volney Mathison.

Ears stick out more in pics of faces from the front at eye level as compared to pics from the side. A pic from slightly above the head shows less of the curve of the ear than one from the front. And with 20 years of age, some change in the ear size and angle is expected, although the overall shape should be about the same. So I don’t think the diff in the ears in the two pics is enough to say that they’re not the same guy.

Plus Smurf was OSA working in Kendrick Moxon’s office as a legal aid for many years. So he’s a pretty reliable source regarding who was or was not a Scientologist in Hollywood in the 1990s.

Erm, I thought it was well established that Scientologists etc. don’t go for people who have their wits about them. Or rather, the introductory procedures weed out those who have active scam detectors leaving them with those who don’t.

@ Anonymous: Old Illuminati Saying : “Qui se ressemblent, s’assemblent”… birds of a feather

The Purif is alive and well and getting a boost in Utah.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51984640-78/treatment-utah-health-travolta.html.csp

Scientology reminds me of the ancient “mystery cults” which kept control over their followers through the gradual revelation of mystical secrets. This worked fairly well before the printing press and when most people were illiterate, but it’s very hard for such a group to operate in this day and age, when anyone can look your holy mysteries up online:

“I’m with Scientology.”

“You mean the people who believe they’re possessed by million-year-old alien ghosts?”

The people that Scientology hooks aren’t necessarily stupid or flakes.

Scientology Escapee Tells Skeptics’ Group How It’s Done August 17, 2009, Candice M. Giove, Runnin’ Scared, Village Voice
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2009/08/scientology_esc.php?page=1

What difference does it make if Mike Adams is a Scientologist…not one iota. L. Ron Hubbard, Mike Adams and the fringe loony leaders are all cult masters, playing their sucker followers for all the adoration and money they can get.

Now we have John Travolta fund raising for Scientology’s purification treatments in Utah.

For years, Travolta and his wife Kelly Preston refused to acknowledge their son’s autism…because this developmental disability is labeled as a psychiatric disorder according to Scientology dogma…and they (and Adams, et al) don’t acknowledge any psychiatric disorders. Such “non-disorders” are a result of “deranged” thinking (blame the psychiatric patient) and curable with the “purification process”.

Young Jett Travolta’s problems were “caused” according to the Travoltas by Kawasaki Disease, in Jett’s early childhood.

Kawasaki Disease is an auto-immune disease with unknown etiology that affects the lymph system and blood vessels. It is usually self-limiting and responds to infusion of immuno-globulin. While theories about environmental causes abound, the etiology is still not known. Kelly Preston categorically stated that carpet cleaners must have been the environmental “trigger” for Jett’s supposed diagnosis of Kawasaki Disease.

When Jett died in the Travolta’s Bahamas vacation home, some officials down there got their hands on Jett’s medical records and tried to extort “hush” money from the Travoltas.

Finally, at the criminal trial of the extortionists, John Travolta stated the Jett had autism and a seizure disorder that resulted in frequent uncontrolled seizures. Jett, during his lifetime was kept isolated in order to protect the family secret/shame of having autism.

There was never any need to do follow up with cardiologists for Jett’s bogus diagnosis of Kawasaki Disease, but he needed to have intensive neurological follow-up and treatment with anti-convulsant medication…which he never received…due to his parents “belief system”.

Anyone want to join me in labeling the parents as medically negligent and inculcated in cult medicine and cult religion?

If you’re a New Ager who wants your “purif”, your touch assists, your naturopath, and your obliteration of psychiatry, you may not be a card carrying member of the Church of Scientology. But you are no doubt helping those sneaky OSA bastards in their decades-old war against science based medicine.

Antipsychiatry is their wedge strategy for getting spirituality into healthcare. But healthcare is not their end point.

Here’s a link to a gif that compares the mystery guy in the video with a known pic of Mike Adams.

I think it’s the same dude.

I just wanted to point out 2 things about the video.

It is an old video (1990) but was only posted online a few days ago by anonymous people. ( the notes have since been added, so they kind of alter the viewing experience)There is an edited version online already, but the big-wigs singing are removed, as is the gay Olympic athlete.

Someone made an excellent graphic that goes with the execs singing at the 2:40 mark:
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/67/watnb.jpg

That is the bigger thing about the video..the leader has removed so many people from around him, and many are in whereabouts unknown…including Miscavige’s wife.

Also:

To which a member with the ‘nym “Smurf” replied:

Yup, it’s the same crackpot. I met with Mike several times in the past.. he was convinced HIV/AIDS could be cured by vitamins & purified water.

———
Smurf is an ex-scientologist named Garry Scarff. (this is well known. I am not outing him) He has a interesting history if you research him (admitted to helping scientology destroy the Cult Awareness Network for one).
He acts as a critic now, and knows a lot of people that were in scientology and is a good source of information. But sometimes he shoots off information before confirming, so take it with a grain of salt.

Sorry, Andrew, but I was only directing my comment to David N. Andrews, though I do appreciate what you are saying. That’s it.

Psychiatry is pseudoscience. It’s quackery. How can you be a skeptic and accept how modern day psychiatry works.

Read “The Illusions of Psychiatry” by Marcia Angell.

She was editor-in-chief of the NEJM and is Senior Lecturer at Harvard.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jul/14/illusions-of-psychiatry/

I personally see a psychiatrist to get meds for a neurological disease since it is easier than seeing a neurologist, but that doesn’t change how I view modern day psychiatry.

No, I understand the term anecdote. I may not like it in certain instances (like regarding my grandmother who had GB as a vaccine side-effect- Dr. Confirmed) but I understand it.” Lore” or “mythological” don’t strike me as proper, though, when referring to people with dire illnesses. It just seems like whenever it’s a vaccine reaction it gets to be called “anecdotal” a lot, but say, when the rare severe complications for something like chicken pox happen it’s not anecdotal- there are statistics for those. Just my 2 cents. Either way, someone has suffered, I guess that’s the thing to remember.

Psychiatry is pseudoscience. It’s quackery. How can you be a skeptic and accept how modern day psychiatry works.

It’s pretty easy once you’ve spent a couple of decades with a loved one who is affected by Bipolar I. Is psychiatry perfect? Of course not. Does its application involve an often frustrating degree of uncertainty and ongoing trial and error? Certainly. Can it save lives? Yes.

Oh, and go fuck yourself.

I noticed you still din’t explain what CPSE stands for- no doubt embarrassed by your rage display.

That’s odd, as it took me about 90 seconds to ascertain, and the cats were distracting me with a wrestling match.

JayK- please tell me you’re kidding. I’m pretty sure It’s even listed as a side effect on the package insert. Even easier, just don’t believe it. Believe what you want. This happened in the late /70’s and her doctor has since died. Lilady, actually you protest a bit much!

Good job Jen.

http://www.somethingimpressive.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/successful-troll-is-successful.jpg

Why don’t you take your egotism back to the appropriate thread now?

@sitting bull:

@Mathew, yes the detail gets sillier and sillier, but the origin of the ‘story’ must have a real cause. People do not simply ‘make stuff up’, it just doesn’t work like that.

In this case, the “originator” was a mid-list science fiction writer. “Making stuff up” was L. Ron Hubbard’s stock-in-trade for decades before his creation of Scientology out of his prior adventure into a competing theory of psychology he called “Dianetics”. (Alleged by some to have created the religion to make the proceeds of Dianetics tax-free under US law, but I don’t think there’s any actual proof of that.)

People do make stuff up out of thin air all the time, and have since time immemorial. I just heard of a Greek (maybe Roman?) myth that beavers would castrate themselves in order to evade hunters… even though beavers have no external testes, as anyone who had skinned a beaver would know even without a modern understanding of anatomy. Making stuff up out fervid imagination to explain phenomenae is, arguably, our default mode of reasoning.

— Steve

PS homo sapiens sapiens is a very recent addition. Given we see “making stuff up” in animals who we separated from millions of years ago, what makes you think that it isn’t a genuine relic of our mode of thought?

“How old is storytelling itself? Not as old as the story itself, that’s impossible.”

Oh dear. Trying for the “chicken/egg” problem are we?

The Storytelling had to be made up out of thin air. Whether the storytelling or the story itself came first DOES NOT mean making things up out of thin air is recent.

And storytelling is proven to be a part of not only currently living animals but in hominid writings from 100,000 years ago.

Religion is made up out of nothing.

“The ability to ‘make stuff up’ must have had an evolutionary driver. Is there a fitness advantage to making up good stories?”

It is part of the make-up of our ability to second-guess others. this is a help in hunting (by considering a story of what the antelope will do, I can guess better and offset my speed disadvantage) and in social relationships (If I can kid on I’ve not seen that bit of fruit, I can distract the bigger make from seeing it and come back later and have a nice meal).

My god, entering the laugh zone.

By the way, I’m an Australian psychologist, and we were all sent that CCHR DVD on psychotropic medication a while back. I felt my privacy had been invaded in some ways – like a dirt I couldn’t scrub off, having been targeted by these morons.

And, if they don’t ‘believe in’ psychology/psychiatry, why waste all that money on a bulk mail out?

Modern therefore being, what? 30,000 years? Why? That would be the beginning of agriculture. We were deep into making stuff up well before then.

Recent would take us back to the rodent ancestor of man.

Not all that recent, really.

Early would be before multicellular organisms.

That’s a hell of a long gap there.

I do believe I hear hints of Julian Jaynes’ theory tinkling in the wind: he believed that modern day consciousness emerged from the quasi-hallucinatory self-regulatory experiences of pre-literate humans ( which they falsely recognised as “gods”). His book was titled along the lines of “Consciousness Emergent from the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” or suchlike. It was… uh, highly fanciful and not considered worthy of consideration by most: I knew someone who had worked with him previously- when she shook her head sadly, she didn’t need to say anything more.

Someone (a sock puppet, perhaps) has tried to take over this conversation. I suspect (or hope) that sock puppet is again moderated, because I find the conversation disgusting and demeaning to women.

Wow,

I’m sorry that you find the idea that someone would think that perjury was the only exception to free speech laws impossible. (She’d seen a chunk of what limiting speech can do.) But “that attitude will get you in trouble,” even if correct, doesn’t mean “nobody holds that attitude.”

More important, I want a citation for your reference to 100,000-year-old writing. Where is it, and do we know what it says? (It’s certainly possible for writing to exist that nobody today can read, but if we don’t know that, we don’t know whether it’s a story, even broadly defined. (Instructions on making a hand-axe or a recipe for soup can be narrative, but they aren’t usually classed as stories.)

I don’t care much about convincing you that I know what my mother thinks (maybe I don’t); I care a lot more about the history of language and writing, and about human evolution.

“I’m sorry that you find the idea that someone would think that perjury was the only exception to free speech laws impossible.”

Nope, I’m pretty sure that it was an example of what exceptions people considered acceptable to free speech laws.

Don’t know where you got the idea that anyone here thought it was the ONLY one, mind. But if that’s what you really think, then fair enough: but why then did you say “for example”?

“More important, I want a citation for your reference to 100,000-year-old writing”

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

“I don’t care much about convincing you that I know what my mother thinks”

Your mum is probably a nice woman. What the point of convincing me you know what she thinks is I can’t fathom however.

Shiting Jesus… jen, are you stupid or what?

“By the time I responded to Chemmomo, no less than 3 people demanded I ‘name names’. Yes, I did get a bad vibe from that, and TBruce’s comment about a certain researcher’s tenure seemed to confirm it (however TBruce may like to characterize it). I wasn’t of course specifically worried about Chemmomo but any or all.”

Why get a bad vibe from it? You’d made a claim and left it unsupported. Why shouldn’t you have named the people you were taking about?

“Oh yes, and David N. Andrews: since no less than 3 people referred to my grandmother’s GB as ‘anecdotal’ or ‘lore’ I think your comment about learning to be more sensitive to others is pretty silly.”

Umm… stop being so bloody stupid, jen. What is an anecdote? In this case we’re talking about anecdote as evidence, and anecdotal evidence is not scientific… cannot be scrutinised. How is that possibly an issue of insult to call anything you say anecdote if it isn’t scientifically backed up? My comment about sensitivity still stands. You’re not making sense by suggesting that calling things you say ‘anecdotal’ is insulting.

“I noticed you still din’t explain what CPSE stands for- no doubt embarrassed by your rage display. You have a nice day, too!
I posted here because I wasn’t let through on the original thread-not sure if it’s just a typical time
delay or if Orac doesn’t want to post it. Bye now!”

For fuck’s sake… did you actually ask me what C. P. S. E. stands for? Let’s take a look, eh?

some whingey-arsed person somewhere irrelevant said:
“David N. Andrews, M. Ed., C. P. S. E.: whatever C. P. S. E. stands for I’m sure they’re really proud of the way you represent yourself and them.”

Was there a question in there, whingey-arse? No, there was not. Fuck, jen -you really are bloody stupid aren’t you?

Roadstergal said this of you, didn’t she?:
“Jen takes reasonable requests like ‘support your statements’ as a personal attack.

The reason she immediately took a statement of regret about someone with terrible ideas having tenure as an implied threat to try to have him booted, and the reason she took requests for naming sources for her statements to check their veracity as implied threats to try to have those sources booted? That’s pretty telling. It shows where her mind is.”

jen… you’re an imbecile. Now piss off.

@ David N. Andrews: I think I might have shut down the Jen troll with my posting at # 57 above…by providing the citations so sorely missing from each and every one of her postings and brain droppings based on anecdotal lore and the parroting of a typical anti-vax viewpoint.

I am still awaiting an apology for her libelous defamatory statements…in vain, I suspect.

Information (fact sheet) about Campylobacter jejuni infection and its link to Guillain Barre Syndrome and be found at:

CDC-Campylobacter General Information

Note the section on “Long Term Consequences” and the high incidence of this infection leading to GBS (1:1000 incidence rate)…much higher than the incidence of GBS following influenza immunization at 1:1,000,000.

My god, entering the laugh zone.

By the way, I’m an Australian psychologist, and we were all sent that CCHR DVD on psychotropic medication a while back. I felt my privacy had been invaded in some ways – like a dirt I couldn’t scrub off, having been targeted by these morons.

And, if they don’t ‘believe in’ psychology/psychiatry, why waste all that money on a bulk mail out?

It’s sad that psychiatry has to be “believed in” instead of being an evidence-based form of medicine.

I have nothing against the study of human behavior, but why be a psychiatry apologetic when it is clearly antiscience?

Psychiatry and psychology both have diverse and objective backgrounds. Psychiatry has massive databases of observable data and measurable data, such as brain chemistry/blood chemistry and maintains a well respected set of journals. There is little about psychiatry that isn’t based on scientific methods and research.

Psychology, on the other hand, is a mixture of philosophical theories, statistics, observations and hard data. The demands of psychological publications has been increasing since the 1950’s. The ANAList can whine all he wants, but he’s obviously clueless about the scientific basis of psychiatry and psychology.

lilady: “I think I might have shut down the Jen troll with my posting at # 57 above…by providing the citations so sorely missing from each and every one of her postings and brain droppings based on anecdotal lore and the parroting of a typical anti-vax viewpoint.”

Nice shutdown, if I may say! She’s a frigging idiot.

“I am still awaiting an apology for her libelous defamatory statements…in vain, I suspect.”

I’d say to not hold your breath. She’s not good at giving apologies. Bit good at demanding them though, when there’s no bloody need for one.

Ah, well, I was hoping for something about writing, as claimed. And for something 100,000 years ago, as you said, not at most 70,000. (That burials require stories about what happens next is an assumption, and probably unprovable. That doesn’t make it false, but it makes it hard to use as evidence.)

Since apparently I wasn’t explicit enough, the Holocaust survivor I was referring to is my mother (and, having grown up with her, I have a fair idea of her opinions on a variety of topics, or at least of what they were at the time).

Read my post @47 and let me know if you still hold the same opinion.

Well, *I* read it the first time around, and my response is the same as @50. Oh, and Angell was interim EIC at the NEJM. Big fucking deal. Do you even know what this job consists of?

Narad, I don’t mind disagreement, but you can’t expect one to engage (without participating in a flame war) with these type of comments:

It’s pretty easy once you’ve spent a couple of decades with a loved one who is affected by Bipolar I. Is psychiatry perfect? Of course not. Does its application involve an often frustrating degree of uncertainty and ongoing trial and error? Certainly. Can it save lives? Yes.

Oh, and go fuck yourself.

@theverylongYahoolink…

In my case, Certificate of Professional Specialisation in Education… or at least the translation of the Finnish name of the document into English.

Observation, objectivity and acknowledgement of Did you actually think that article was a valid argument?

Of course. I don’t think the concept of psychiatry is bad (using medication for psychological disorders), I just think modern day psychiatry is messed up and could use some reform. How often do they use lab tests to rule out diseases that can produce similar symptoms? Virtually never. You can argue that your PCP should have done that already, but can we really put all of our trust in primary care physicians?

The only thing I can think of that psychiatrists test for off the top of my head are Lithium levels, but perhaps I am missing some. For an example, someone with a B12 deficiency may have tingling in extremities, anxiety, and so on. Does a psychiatrist ever check these kind of things before giving potentially damaging drugs? They are MD’s, why don’t they check?

I am sure there are a few that do these sort of things, but they are probably seen as a non-conformist misfit by their colleagues. Perhaps they can get in trouble for these kind of behaviors (I really don’t know) which is unfortunate if that is the case. And I think it’s likely insurance companies would drop them by doing “non-standard” practices.

I am very interested in psychoneuroimmunology (PNI) myself, and I think such an approach is the future. I think future anti-depressants for an example will essentially be immune modulators by blocking actions of pro-inflammatory cytokines. PMID: 15303243

I am not anti-drug as some people really need them (including me as I have a neuropsychiatric disability), but I do think they are way overused. I understand that people with Bipolar need their medication. I don’t deny that at all.

I hope psychiatry merges with the fields it’s related to. I actually think clinical diagnoses are often necessary, and I think some doctors rely way too much on evidence based medicine. Medicine and medical technology is far from perfect. But the fact that psychiatry virtually never support their diagnoses (or look for alternative diagnoses) with any type of testing bothers me. Just because you fit some criteria for a certain disorder in the DSM (created by a group who does not necessarily support their claims with evidence) does not necessarily mean it’s a valid diagnosis.

“The only thing I can think of that psychiatrists test for off the top of my head are Lithium levels,”

Hmm, the psychiatrists I’ve worked with have tested (or ordered tests for, or made referrals for); anaemia, sickle cell anaemia, hypoxia, CVD, asthma, vitamin deficiency, syncope, paresthesia, Down syndrome, Klienfielters, Angelmann, CPD, gastrointestinal disorders, diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, sclerosis, kidney dysfunction, liver dysfunction, arthritis, sensory and perceptual impairments, and numerous other things.

Ironically enough, for many of ‘my’ former clients, it’s only when they came into contact with serious psychiatric services that their underlaying conditions were taken seriously and gotten under some form of control.

Dedj

Thank you for commenting on the issue. Unfortunately, the psychiatrists I have been to ran their practices like a mill (5 minute appt, not many questions, etc). Some of the stuff you listed makes sense since they can be a side effects of certain drugs (e.g. Cymbalta with liver dysfunction).

However, it is my impression from my experience as a patient that running lab tests is not routine at most clinics here in the United States.

I’ve never seen them do anything that every other doctor does (such as blood pressure, heart rate, and weight). I understand they probably view this as unnecessary, but I would think they would at least check weight as weight gain can be a side effect of many drugs they prescribe.

@ Dedj: Often, when people first seek help for depression from a psychologist or social worker, the clinician will evaluate a patient and discuss with the patient some medication (antidepressants) to facilitate psychological therapy. The patient usually has “situational depression”…associated with loss of a loved one, changing circumstances in their lives…not major depression.

Psychologists and social workers cannot prescribe any medication and they have “connections” with psychiatrists that they will refer the patient to. From my somewhat limited knowledge of the “process”, the first visit/referral to a psychiatrist is a full appointment with a discussion with the patient and with the referring clinician’s notes, before script is written for an antidepressant. The “five minute appointment, not many questions, etc” you refer to may be follow-up appointments for medication renewal.

@The Analyst at 109

“Unfortunately, the psychiatrists I have been to ran their practices like a mill.”

It may be that my experiences are primarily with ward-based psychiatrists but I have certainly never heard of any primary or follow on consultation last less than 15mins, unless it was expressly left short for a reason.

I’ve certainly came across clients who ‘think’ they were very briefly dealt with when, in fact, they were often the clients who recieved extended and extensive consultations, MDT meets, ward rounds etc.

“Some of the stuff you listed makes sense since they can be a side effects of certain drugs (e.g. Cymbalta with liver dysfunction).”

I was more referring to pre-existing conditions, as primary care for people with mental health issues is a known problem area. Poor primary health care tends to be an issue for those sub-populations that have vulnerabilities to mental health issues, so it can become a double whammy effect.

“I’ve never seen them do anything that every other doctor does (such as blood pressure, heart rate, and weight).”

I’m aware of this being done on pretty much every client I’ve seen who was in regular contact with any psychiatry service precisely because of the risk from medication and avolitional lifestyles; also because they were often alcohol and substance super-users or chronic or severe over/under eaters.

I’m mostly aware of it being done by a nurse/health visitor. I’m aware of multiple clients in both mental health and physical settings that had vocally complained about ‘The Dr’ not doing x and y (and thereby implying it had not been done), when it had actually been done by the nursing staff.

In many of the community or assisted living cases, the responsibility for physical condtions lay with the GP or primary physician, and the clients had often already undergone physical testing as part of the primary care service.

I’m certainly aware of a number of clients who did not have biological conditions tested for until they were recommended to be tested by their psychiatrist who noticed the outward cognitive and behavioural artifacts of those conditions.

To be fair, this is just personal experience of 3 seperate psychiatry services in 3 seperate counties, covering catchment areas in the mere tens of thousands, so I will certainly be interested if anyone can reference rates of traditionally ‘biological’ conditions in psychiatric client populations.

@SC: Marcia Angell appears to be quite the conspiracy theorist. Using “Big Pharma” as repeatedly as she does would indicate little acknowledgement of [?] what she’s actually talking about.

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

She probably knows more about the involvement of pharmaceutical companies in medicine than anyone else alive.

But I see you do the same thing. Interesting that you’re attracted to a doctor-turned-journalist that appears to give you some confirmation of your own biases?

She’s not a journalist. She’s a physician who’s been EIC of the NEJM, teaches at Harvard, and has written about these issues for years. The books she talks about are by a science journalist writing the history of psychiatric care who cites an enormous amount of peer-reviewed research, a psychologist and well-known placebo expert who also supports his arguments with citations and his own published work, and a practicing psychiatrist and author. I suspect all of them know far more about this subject than you. As I’ve said, I have read the first two books, and I know what they contain. I have no “biases,” and was very surprised to learn of the books’ theses. But I read them. Responses like yours to being presented with arguments contrary to your views are really depressing. No one should take your dismissals of the books seriously if you haven’t read them, especially if you’re ignorant enough to describe Angell as you have.

New York passed the same-sex marriage bill!

I’m finding it hard to believe people who’ve remarked on the Angell articles actually read them.

I’m having trouble getting through the first (has the seond been published?) thanks to its seeming fascination with the serotonin hypothesis, which my psychiatrist threw under the bus at first mention, as did a friend with a fairly freshly minted M.D. Nowhere is it explained why this was some crazy-bonkers leap of logic at the outset. (Twice using the “a subject I’ll return/come to” device on the first page and misspelling Depakote isn’t helping, either.)

The focus on placebo being 75% and 82% “as effective” as antidepressants is also rather grating. Kirsch’s “startling” “enhanced placebo” notion I’m having difficulty coming up with a non-spluttering response to. Does he think that patients never report that they can’t tolerate an antidepressant? Try atropine first?

We then move to Whitaker’s “natural history” description, in which schizophrenia was once self-limiting. This is like stating that it was once caused by “double binds.” And, oddly, even though psychiatric drugs can’t help by modifying neurotransmitter levels, they apparently can be ascribed harm through this very same mechanism.

All in all, a slog, and I didn’t learn anything new. Maybe if one didn’t know that psychiatric drugs have side effects, you don’t always get it right the first time (and may have to change course in any event), polypharmacy is worrisome, antidepressants should be used with caution if there’s suspicion that mania could be triggered, and negative results often don’t get published, this would be interesting. Or if, say, it had something to say about primary care handing out antidepressants vs. psychiatrists. Or if I were just into book reports.

@ Narad: Troll and their sock puppets rarely provide citations, preferring to rely on Wikipedia for their information. They also cherry pick articles…dependent of course on “today’s fixation”…also dependent on what “drug” they are self-medicating themselves with.

yes Narad I have had a first hand psychotic break

Very well, I’ll take you at your word on this.

JayK, you’ve written nothing but a content-free ad hominem rant. There’s nothing there to respond to.

Narad:

I’m having trouble getting through the first (has the seond been published?)

They are both linked to on this thread, the second @ #47 and the first @ #98.

thanks to its seeming fascination with the serotonin hypothesis, which my psychiatrist threw under the bus at first mention, as did a friend with a fairly freshly minted M.D.

I assume if the monoamine hypothesis is so widely acknowledged to be bunk – which it isn’t, your friends not withstanding* – your friends can demonstrate the underlying pathologies and explain the mechanism of action of these drugs. Or do they agree with Kirsch?

Nowhere is it explained why this was some crazy-bonkers leap of logic at the outset.

Yes, it is explained why it was a leap of logic. There’s a whole paragraph about it. (No one said or implied it was “crazy-bonkers.”) But the biggest problem, as Angell points out, is that after decades the hypothesis has not been supported and in fact there’s a large amount of evidence against it. As your friends have thrown it under the bus, they must recognize this, so I’m not sure with whom you’re arguing here.

(Twice using the “a subject I’ll return/come to” device on the first page and misspelling Depakote isn’t helping, either.)

She does return to it, and I can’t believe you’re seriously talking about a misspelling.

The focus on placebo being 75% and 82% “as effective” as antidepressants is also rather grating. Kirsch’s “startling” “enhanced placebo” notion I’m having difficulty coming up with a non-spluttering response to. Does he think that patients never report that they can’t tolerate an antidepressant? Try atropine first?

Oh, FFS. Read the book.

We then move to Whitaker’s “natural history” description, in which schizophrenia was once self-limiting. This is like stating that it was once caused by “double binds.”

Whitaker’s written two research-based books on the history of mental illness and its treatment. If you want to argue with his evidence, perhaps you should, y’know, have a clue what it is. (This is not to say that I think everything he says is perfectly documented, but why people are so insistent on dismissing agruments they haven’t researched is beyond me.)

And, oddly, even though psychiatric drugs can’t help by modifying neurotransmitter levels, they apparently can be ascribed harm through this very same mechanism.

Among others. Yes, this sounds surprising at first. Less so after you read more. But again, if you don’t think they do help by altering neurotransmitter levels I’m not sure what you’re on about.

All in all, a slog, and I didn’t learn anything new.

Well, that’s clear.

Maybe if one didn’t know that psychiatric drugs have side effects, you don’t always get it right the first time (and may have to change course in any event), polypharmacy is worrisome, antidepressants should be used with caution if there’s suspicion that mania could be triggered, and negative results often don’t get published, this would be interesting.

There’s that pesky reading comprehension problem again.

The responses that have appeared here have been disappointing. I hope other people can read the articles and the books reviewed there with something approaching an open yet critical mind.

*Though perhaps they could let pharmaceutical ad writers in on this:

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020392

“Sitting Bull” is another Jacob sockpuppet, and its posts have been removed. Sorry it took me so long. Jacob appears to be taking advantage of my business as I try to finish my R01 grant application by Tuesday.

Unfortunately, Movable Type’s comment filtering options are not as…robust as one would think a heavy-duty commercial blogging platform should have. There is one last option that I haven’t invoked, but I hate to do it because it has other consequences that I don’t like. In the meantime, it’s Whac-A-Mole with Jacob’s sockpuppets.

Of course, I’m going to be sitting in front of the computer all weekend putting the finishing touches on my grant; so it will be no trouble at all to keep an eye out for Jacob’s sockpuppets and send them to the spam folder as they pop up.

Jerry Coyne weighs in:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/is-medical-psychatry-a-scam/

Well that was far beneath Jerry Coynes usual work.

Do you ever tire of this substance-free form of argumentation?

Trust, but verify. Define “financial ties”. Orac has been accused of having financial ties to “big pharma” as have almost every regular commenter here.

Verify yourself – there’s such a thing as a footnote. For example, you may have noticed that this claim is marked by a little number 5 in Angell’s second article, which goes, amazingly enough, to a citation. That paper is available online. From the intro:

The leading categories of financial interest held by panel members were research funding (42%), consultancies (22%) and speakers bureau (16%). Conclusions: Our inquiry into the relationships between DSM panel members and the pharmaceutical industry demonstrates that there are strong financial ties between the industry and those who are responsible for developing and modifying the diagnostic criteria for mental illness. The connections are especially strong in those diagnostic areas where drugs are the first line of treatment for mental disorders. Full disclosure by DSM panel members of their financial relationships with for-profit entities that manufacture drugs used in the treatment of mental illness is recommended.

As I’ve pointed out, that unfounded accusations are made doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist in reality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/us/08conflict.html

What’sbettng that Mountain with a Mole is a dim junkie twat?

What I don’t quite get is the seemingly endless repetition of variations on the “headaches aren’t caused by a lack of aspirin” routine in these pieces. So? An indictment of marketing is not an indictment of psychiatry. If the complaint is that antidepressants are being overprescribed for mild depression, who’s doing the overprescribing? Primary care or actual psychiatrists?

The “rather than talk therapy” invocations are also striking me as peculiar when paired with the unqualified “little better than placebo” argument to antidepressants. How good is “talk therapy,” writ with apparently deliberate vagueness, by comparison? If you’re not going to say so, why bring it up?

Here’s hoping the second half of the Angell is less tedious.

What’s being called wrong there is the alleged pathology and alleged mechanism for the drugs’ alleged effects.

Alleged by whom?

I have plenty to read as it is. Nothing about Angell’s piece has served to place any of these three in the queue.

“Ah, well, I was hoping for something about writing, as claimed. ”

Ah well, if you’re going to claim for me, what the heck do I do?

“And storytelling is proven to be a part of not only currently living animals but in hominid writings from 100,000 years ago.”

Pictograms representing items, earliest forms will be effigies representing some actual reality. Oldest ones carved in stone are reliably worked back to beyond 120,000 years ago.

And, since carving stone is so difficult, it will hardly be the first method used. Even clay tablets require quite some work.

Burial rituals include daubing and illustrating. Again coming back to the idea that you’re using a semi-permanent medium to transform information into requests for another, how does “Please take this person to the next realm safely” equate to two coins on the eyelids for the ferryman?

You know, you really need to consider something a little more basic than your Shakespeare Prose as writing.

“(That burials require stories about what happens next is an assumption, and probably unprovable.)”

False.

If there is no story (nothing made up), then why all the ritual?

We don’t see monkeys planting their fellows in the ground with their favourite stick, do we?

Why?

Because we’ve made up an afterlife.

Or because we make up the idea that the dead person wants it when they’re quite clearly dead.

But again you limit yourself so you can ignore your limitations and feel good about yourself.

I note you haven’t managed to explain what your mum’s got to do with this, too.

Mike Adams is 37 years old. The “We Stand Tall” video was recorded in 21 years ago in 1990 according to a quick google search. The man in the video being compared to Mike Adams does not look 16 years old. He looks decidedly older, in my opinion, 10 years older than Mike would have been when this video was filmed. Futhermore, Mike claims to have been borderline obese up to the age of 30. If this is Mike in the video, he was thin at age 16 (his age at the time of the video) became obese by 30, then returned to health practices which made him thin again. I guess there is always a slim chance that the person pictured in the video could be Mike, but there is just way to much evidence to the contrary.

No one of the official authorities on our planet knows the truth about how and why our world have pop up into existence, who we people are really and what is our proper place within this natural and wider cosmic scenario.
If we follow their theories blindly and accept them as real truth we will become in time seriously mentally and physically F….. up. That is why our planet observed from above actually incredibly looks like the most notorious cosmic institution for highly intelligent self forgotten-self delusional beings-us.
So we all have a homework if we are interested to find the truth about our own self and out of that truth how we fit in the nature and broader within the universe. We need to do direct self observation and then we can compare these findings with what is offered on today world-life commercial interpretation market and take out of that source what can be useful and progressive for us and for all people.
Modern medicine and pharmacology industries, authorities officially in charge for our health and well being are lying like a bastards about diseases and their causes. I know that because I have medical background and i was trained to be aware how to prevent diseases. The top lie that is making multimillion dollars profits to these scum-mers is their claim that we are always infected from the outside of our bodies with viruses, bacterias, yeasts, fungus, and worms and that is the way how we get sick. The truth is that physically we are tightest part of the natural program of our planet and all that is by the original design, designed-in charge to clean organic pollution and leftovers from the nature (viruses, bacterias fungus, yeasts and worms) can, if we are on some way moved out of the natural alinement spontaneously manifest within our bodies and cause sickens. How we can expect in today time from the vaccinations and big pharma medications (all in reality anti-fungai chemicals including chemotherapy crap)when on the other side our food, air, water, personal care, all pores of our life have become deliberately by our government (and by the direction of world bankers to which our government owes money) compromised with toxic chemicals and deprived of minerals, vitamins, etc. Our bodies and bodies of our children have become chronically depleted of minerals via damaged food we by from the super-markets, Our drinking water is loaded with chlorin, fluuoride, heavy metals, recicling-medical drugs loaded drinking water, Our tap water have sickness producing north spin molecules=>(look south spin water), and our psyche is constantly brain washed via medias news tv, with corporative mind blogging agenda. Corporation if you are not yet familliar mean dead body that talks. Corp or Corps=dead body and Oration means to talk==> that talks. So when we become incorporated like we all are today via our birth certificates we accept that our system see us as corpses. That is why on our birth certificates all letters are CAPITOLLETTERS like on the tumb stones in grave yard. Dead corpses can not be injured with what living people can be (only kings and queens and princesses ) are legally assumed to be living) and that is the main reason why we ordinary-DEAD PEOPLE have all of the death promoting crap introduced in our INCORPORAED lives by our own INCORPORATED governments. TO BE INCORPORATED MEANS TO OW THE MOINEY TO SOMEONE TO SOME OTHER DEAD BODY and in such system death=sin is monetized. Government means to govern the mind (to govern mentols). Person or legal entity lawfully (by the corporative laws) is actually not living man and women but dead body that talks. To learn why our lifes are so much crooked by our governments go on Frank o Collins talk shoe to learn, but before that open on youtybe videos:Dean Clifford trust and then Dean Clifford and Max Egan talk.So folks we have important homework to do-to wake up into reality about our own truth self, otherwise we deserve all fake and crooked things that are going on in our lives.