Scientology and Antipsychiatry

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by zenu, Dec 20, 2008.

  1. none given Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    zenu was a scilon troll, transparently so.

    This is not a debate. There was debate between dianetics and psychiatry in the early 50s. After through investigation Dianetics was proven in clinical tests to be useless and potentially harmful. More importantly Hubbard and his crew were proven in court to be a gang of con men and thieves.

    You brag that you have been anti-CoS for a long time. I was declared SP in the late 70s. I am very thankful that the first effective anti-scientology group ever is now working.

    This is not a debate; this is a war. pick a side and shut up.
  2. Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    Don't know whether he was or wasn't - a rational discussion doesn't depend on who you are, but the substance of what you say, and on the evidence that supports it. Why are you convinced zenu was a troll, just out of interest? (no need to respond, of course, just curious).

    I have no doubts whatsoever that Dianetics / Scientology is potentially harmful garbage, nor what a criminal LRH and his cronies were/are. That is why I'm here, too.

    No intention to brag, none given. I just meant that I do know my way around CO$ and its doings, and have many contacts with OG critics/exes. I see that you have earlier and more painful experience of what they do, and deserve all respect for your views. I am also thankful for *any effective anti-scientology group.

    I do understand that POV. I *have chosen, and have already indicated that I won't say anything further on the topic of this thread. But you and I both belong to a more reserved generation - is it really necessary to be rude?
  3. TheBitch Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    Read the 27 pages ENTIRE then ask your question again. Clearly you haven't bothered to read it all. Moreover, if you consider what was had a "rational" discussion, you srsly need to "check your misunderstoods" about the word "rational."
  4. none given Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    I suspect I summoned it here.

    Welcome aboard.

    Expect a PM re this. (after Christmas)

    Not necessary, just expedient. I can feign regret and appologize or express my sincere hopes that you will stay around anyway.
  5. Gentlemen Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    Sigh this thread was going so well, I thought I'd finally find out who was phone.
  6. Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    Hi, TheBitch! I can honestly say I *did read all 25 or 6 pages there were before I made my first post, but I must've missed what you're referring to here. I do know there were some weird references to NWO and global pyramids in the OPs posts, not to mention Illuminati and other such bunkum which I skimmed, but I recognised some of the arguments that are much more typical of 'traditional' anti-psychiatry than $cilon nonsense, which made me incline to a less suspicious view of the OP's motives.

    No, I don't think there was a rational discussion for long spells, so no need for $cilon mumbo-jumbo to 'help me with that'. ;) I can see that many posters are not especially clued up on the debates among those with a professional interest in medicine and psychiatry - and why should they be?

    It is such a side-issue for Anonymous activists, there is little point in pursuing things further here. Not that sticking to matters of fact wherever possible, or granting others the benefit of the doubt is pointless, of course. I am not that good at spotting trolls generally, I have to say, and we all run the risk of being labelled trolls whenever our POV differs from the mainstream, as you are no doubt aware, if you have any history of posting on forums at all.

    I concede, too, that I am a newbie on WWP, and should 'lurk moar' as someone suggested. That's what I am doing, but it is fun to make the odd post where you feel you have something to contribute, and this thread seemed to offer such a possibility.

    I do have an uneasy feeling that the whole debate (if that isn't too ridiculous a description) is off-topic on WWP, as I suspect that very few ppl. get into anti-$cilon activity for such reasons - I certainly didn't. It's the free speech issue, the almighty con of CO$, LRH's cynical manipulation of others for his own greed, the evil harassment of families, the RPF, the mindfucks of the 'tech', Paulette Cooper, Gerry Armstrong's ordeal, etc etc etc that concern me most, as I'm sure most Anonymous/WWP members would agree.
  7. Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    Quite understand. Thanks, none given, and pls. feel free to PM me. I will hang around a bit, I think.
  8. Anonynamefag Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    This, faggots
  9. King Nerd Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

  10. Evil Zoe Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    You can say THAT again.
  11. Anonynamefag Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

  12. anongurl7 Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    OMG OSA!
  13. Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    No, honestly *not OSA, *not $cilon, anongurl, not the merest hint of any connection, even - if my saying so makes any difference to you.

    It's just how (some of) us oldfags speak, when trying to communicate about a serious topic.

    Don't know if I'll ever manage the transition to 'lulz', 'fail x is fail', 'moar', 'OMG!!1!eleven' 'u can haz Anonspeak', and I *am a bit too srs for my own good sometimes, so I do understand if it makes you youngfags slightly suspicious.

    I must try harder...or maybe not. It's all about lulz, right?

    Hang on...think I've got OSA detection is fail. lulz. How'd I do?
  14. Zak McKracken Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    Hi, mod tiem :)


    DO NOT FEED!!!!!!!


  15. themadhair Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    The reason his 'arguments' have been dismissed is because of lack of dox. Regurgitating CCHR talking points isn't debating. Not responding (or even bothering to read) evidence against your position isn't debating.

    You must be new here. The faux-pc crap doesn’t wash around these parts, and it certainly doesn’t help to disguise an argument devoid of supporting evidence. Anon plays rough and it helps cut through the bullshit to get to the heart of the matter. If zenu doesn’t like that then tough – he came to us.

    This is true. But you seem to have left out the steps that lead from this to casting doubt on the existence mental illness (or disorder if you prefer to continue the semantics). You constructing a non-sequiter here perhaps?

    Why? This would seem to be a massive crux of your argument and you’ll really need to present a little more than simply decreeing such. IF mental illness that decreases a patient’s quality of life can be demonstrated to exist and IF treatments can be developed and shown to improve that quality of life THEN your decree is rendered borderline irrelevant whether or not it is true. You comments remind me a little of something Schaler said at his award ceremony – “The controversy regarding the myth of mental illness and psychiatry is not about science or medicine; it’s about power.” If you are going to take a position that isn’t advocated or supported by science and/or medicine then you had better start talking about something much less vague that “outside the realm of medicine or neurological science”. Such vagueness just isn’t going to wash.

    True. Now please explain how you get from that to denying mental illness?

    And this should hold up why? Biological organisms sometimes need a little help on the road to recover – why should the brain be any different?

    This is true. How you get from this to disagreeing with the consensus view of psychiatry is another non-sequiter though. I call this a ‘devil of the gaps’ argument, and it involves pointing at something that is either unknown or poorly understood and attempting to use that as an excuse to reject things we do know.

    That constant ‘dox or STFU’ is pure groupthink. And protip here- while you have talked a lot you haven’t actually defended anything they have said. You have typed quite a lot in the few posts you made on this forum and managed to say very very close to SFA.

    Criticism is good if it is rational, carefully researched and supported by dox. The type of criticism zenu offered was nowhere close on any of the previous three points. Any legitimate concerns he/she/it may have had are completely lost in the sea of ignorant hyperbole and scaremongering. Zenu’s style of criticism serves nobody – least of all patients.

    You have actually managed to compress precious little content into those tl;dr posts of yours. You seem to rely more on semantics than actual evidence or logic. Anon plays it rough, and especially when bullcrap enters the picture so whinging about it won’t really help.

    TL;DR tl:dr:
    [size=+5]Dox or STFU[/size]
  16. King Nerd Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

  17. Evil Zoe Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    Do you really want this contaminating the pristine quality of our dome?
  18. Anonynamefag Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    I think the only reason the mods haven't domed this already is because they're having too much fun watching Alex make a 'tard out of himself.

    Someone just make that faggot an ED page so we can be rid of this eyesore of a thread.
  19. TheBitch Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    Did you READ or did you SKIM? If you READ, then either you are just as big a fruit loop as he it, or... I guess I don't have any "or" to that one. Sounds to me like you "skimmed." Why don't you go take another look after page say 11 to the end and you will see it MOAR clearly. If you don't... then GTFO and go peddle anti-psych stuff elsewhere.

    Read them all closely or take your O/G "kindler gentler" antipsych nonsense elsewhere. Not going through same shit twice just because you can't read.
  20. themadhair Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    After rereading the thread I really have to call bullshit on this. Sorry, just calling a spade a spade.
  21. Anonynamefag Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    VanAllen = zenu = Alex.

  22. Anon Char Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    Thread Lock Plz, I think we've exhausted this.
  23. TheBitch Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    I'm in "the biz," and to be perfectly frank I'm about 50/50 when it comes to first choice of referrals when it comes to priest / rabbi / curranderrro / espiritista / medicine man VS. psychiatrist (I am NOT a shink / MD and cannot scribe and glad of the "limitation" to my professional portfolio).

    I DO think that meds contribute a whole WARsenal of tools with which to augment treatment, and unlike Steele I think the vast majority of certain types of bipolar are for nao gonna have to settle for imperfect pharmacological remedies that work far better statistically (if you figure out an individual's magic drug combo - often difficult and much misery along the way to "discover" what works for any given person) than any sort of narrative / CBT / REBT etc. alone can do.

    The combo of both however, CAN lead to developing the sort of resiliencies in a person who has had it under control with drugs over time and slowly tapers off meds under outside supervision by someone who is there to do just what Stelle said, which is openly and honestly say, "WTF, you're doing it again. How's it working for ya this time? Still like shite? Yeah, sort of predictable eh? So, ummm... GTFO! with that behavior eh?"

    Or gentle cheerleading, or whatever a client is most likely to get the most benefit from the quickest, and then what's going to be most likely to create long term change FOR THE LEAST PRICE TO THE CLIENT... in all terms... $'s, side effects, belief of client in magical thinking as a part of self he wants to handle as adeptly as he does the downs but the buying a dozen Cadillacs for cash and special ordering them all in pink one manic afternoon is just getting to be TOO exciting a life.

    I do whatever I think will most likely work, and most often the first pick for immediate relief is a professional guesstimate crap shoot. If a client believes for all their heart in a medical model but doesn't need meds, it's completely legit within the reality of an ethical code which takes into account the culture of clients and what commercials on television they see that sell pills as the answer to everything, to do a 30 minute referral to a psychiatrist to get a scrip for placebos if the shrink concurs with the not needing medications.

    Edit: By professional guesstimate / crap shoot, I mean best guess based on my capacity to correctly assess presenting issue THEN going to the computer and looking up the most recent lit to refresh myself briefly on what seems to work best with people like my client presenting with those issues. It's not quite "science" yet, this mental health stuff, but it's damn sure close. I use mixed modal research designs that use both qualitative and quantitative data.

    Whatever works best in your cultural context mate. That's how it works. If your context is we're Evil with a capital "E" and you don't trust us, TRUST ME IN THIS... nobody's going to force treatment on you without a bloody court order and a lot of lawyers involved. We're not heartless, we're Ethical with a capital "E" unless we want to be sued, defrocked, and basically left with nothing.

    Some people fuck up as pro's in any profession, we're not any different and that's why I've got $4 mil in malpractice insurance going back to my very first client. But don't for a minute think that people like me are all excited and venting our pent up aggression toward societies and humanity, and want to FORCE anybody to do this shit.

    We're not making commission. $cilontology is.

    WOT - tl/dr - I ain't posting in this thread no moar. I participated because of the nature of the troll which SCREAMED, for me at least, $cientologist trying on a new tactic. Either that or /tinfoil.

    Edit: AnonymousVanAllen

  24. Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    Originally Posted by themadhair View Post
    Hi, themadhair! If I understand you correctly, dox = documentation, yes? Let me say that I know little about CCHR, beyond its connections with scientology, but that my take on things is influenced by people such as R D Laing and David Cooper, psychiatrists who were marginalised by the mainstream, but whose ideas have been absorbed quietly into current practice.

    Yes, I am very new here. Given my newness and my age, it is not faux-pc, but the way I write normally. I simply don't find it easy to risk offending people unnecessarily. I probably can't change that, but I'm reasonably thick-skinned.

    You're quite right - he came here. My sole reason for posting was just to admit that I share some of his views. For all I know, he may have felt a little vulnerable to the harshness that is normal banter for most fun-loving anons.

    The distinction is not some semantic argument: if a mind can be ill, it is a small step to saying a political opinion can be ill = Soviet practices. Such definitions are unscientific and unsound, which is why they are no longer used by clinicians. They are also dangerous, not, of course, from a scientific POV, but from a political POV. ie, what we *do with sufferers. If you think it doesn't matter what labels we give things, I'm reminded of the poor paediatrician who recently had all her windows broken by an angry mob who mistook her for a paedophile!

    Let's take a well-known example. PTSD has been known to exist since WWI. If you were a soldier then and suffered from PTSD, you might well be shot for cowardice. It is only very recently that PTSD sufferers have been handled with any sympathy. What caused soldiers' PTSD? Fighting in a bloody war. It is a political decision to fight wars. The best 'preventative medicine' for avoiding PTSD is avoiding being conscripted. Soldiers today would receive medication, and if they are lucky, counselling. What they receive is ultimately what govts decide they should. Thus, both the cause and treatment of a mental disorder is a political act.

    Whether this aligns with what Mr Schaler meant I can't say, but human suffering *always has a political dimension, quite separate from science and medicine.

    That is a position I wouldn't want to defend. However, mental disorders are said to be multi-factorial in their etiology - the person, their environment and their genetic disposition. It is a matter for debate which factors are most predictive of the disorder. Clinicians cannot control for most of the environmental factors, so their diagnoses and treatments are limited by this deficit. A non-mainstream view is that environment is the major factor in a person becoming 'ill' - in other words, the 'illness' is actually outside the person! The person, just like the soldier with PTSD, is certainly suffering, but it is a case of: expose a person to a traumatic situation, and they will most likely develop PTSD. Is this denying mental illness?

    I don't see any reason, in theory at least, why the brain shouldn't 'need a little help'. But is PTSD 'simply' a chemical imbalance, to be treated by drugs, or is there more to this picture?

    Depends what consensus view you mean. Most psychiatrists and neurologists today would find little argument with what I've said here. You and I probably broadly agree that there is a great deal that is poorly understood re. mental disorders, but that is not the consensus of the majority.

    I disagree. This isn't a simple question requiring a one-line answer. Nor is it a voila - here's the dox that back up what I've said - question. The arguments are complex, not limited to the latest scientific or clinical findings, and who wants to read huge scholarly soft science papers with ambivalent conclusions on WWP? It's a kindness to the good folks that I don't bung any up!

    I truly am troubled by continuing this discussion here, even when some, such as yourself, do me the courtesy of responding to the points I make, however sketchy and inadequate those points are. I'm most reluctant to drag in a whole bunch of very dry, very un-WWP evidence.

    Must confess, had to google TL;DR. Apologies for long-windedness. There are, no doubt, pithy, concise ways of saying what I'm trying to say - I'm just not clever enough to have found them yet! (This is, sadly, not confined to serious, complex issues - gobshite abounds!)

    I hope at least I've shed a little more light on one or two somewhat elliptical statements I made earlier, but I can't pretend to be able to condense a lifetime's study into a few well-honed phrases, with links to the World's Greatest Authority on Mental Disorders as support. Evidence does exist - it's out there in abundance for all to read - but I doubt very much whether anyone here is that interested. Never mind, eh?
  25. King Nerd Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

  26. Evil Zoe Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    Shit, obviously.
  27. themadhair Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    I’m confused here by this comment. If the scientific evidence comprehensively shows the mind to be ‘ill’ then it is pretty hard to make the counterargument. What seems to be of more concern to you isn’t the science, (which to be honest is what I’m interested in here) but the political (and I suspect also industrial) application of such evidence. And it is here that I would have a severe disagreement with you since I would hold that the same scientific evidence that demonstrates the presence of illness also holds the key to the current best practice for treatments. If your objection is as I have highlighted, then surely you too should be advocating what the scientific evidence recommends in terms of treatments?

    See above. Evidence-based approaches are the way to go.

    I’d make the case here that it was only through research of PTSD that new treatments more appropriate to the condition were developed. What the research shows and what is done in the treatment room don’t always match up and that is something that should be criticised.

    True. Nothing to with psychiatry though. I’m sensing an anti-government vibe here (which is probably justified but, as I said above, I’m interested in the science).

    You may find this to be more mainstream than you think. Case in point being clinical depression. There is plenty of research that has found group therapies accompanied with changes in lifestyle and diet, both environmental factors, can remove the need for medication altogether. Often some suffers are prescribed anti-depressants in order to stabilise their symptoms so that other treatments to be able to take effect.

    Stall the ball. Woah. Hold your horses. Despite the fact that the mainstream media seems to have a hard-on for the chemical imbalance hypothesis, it has been abandoned for decades. The chemical imbalance, which has been demonstrated to occur in some cases (although I must admit in other conditions – I’m not familiar with such in PTSD specifically), isn’t the cause of the PTSD – it is a symptom of it. In the case of severe sufferers of depression (to take an example) the use of anti-depressants to treat certain symptoms (such as low serotonin for example) is more for stabilising the symptoms than for treatment of the condition, the condition being treated with either therapy, other medications etc. When it comes to highly unstable conditions (like severe schizophrenia for example) it is often necessary to administer anti-psychotics just to keep the patient mentally stable enough so they don’t top themselves.

    Unsure about this. Practically every scientific paper you read the gaps in the research are pointed as potential avenues of further research. Every branch of science is like this.

    That almost resembled a discussion. Anyone learning anything?
  28. TheBitch Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

  29. nightfire Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    Too bad that it's really quite OFF TOPIC
    Time to go Raid again BBL 4 more lulz

    Oh AND ITT tons of lulz 4 me watching Zenu talk about the NWO, and get trolled HARD!
  30. Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    Well, I don't want to belabour the point, but the reason why clinicians changed their terminology from 'mental illness' to the preferred 'mental disorder' is because a 'mind', being an insubstantial construct cannot, unlike a brain, exhibit any medical pathology associated with disease, such as lesions, a la Szasz, and cannot meaningfully therefore be said to be 'ill' othjer than in some metaphorical sense.

    But, re. scientific recommendations - absolutely agree in general, except that science doesn't always get to *decide on treatments. There is a good deal of horse-trading, especially in publically-funded health services, that compromises what is on offer.

    That is more or less what I believe, ie, that the criticism is not of the science, but of the practices.

    Thanks for this. Rather than embroil themselves in the horrendous complications of deciding what is causing the symptoms, clinicians much more now use a therapeutic environment and person-based therapies. The rather unscientific leap is to suppose that these same factors are the primary causes of the underlying condition - bad diet, unhealthy lifestyle, but also poor physical environment, including abusive family members, bad housing etc. Clinical practice fails to meet some of these needs, because of lack of funding. That is definitely where politics and mental health meet head-on.

    Again, thanks for this. Don't know if your timescales are accurate, but my point is that, in the popular mind, these outdated hypotheses are hard to shift - I personally encounter them frequently. That's what I was responding to as much as anything.

    You are probably aware of the conflicting arguments surrounding use of anti-psychotics and major tranquilisers, but let's not get into that, eh?


    I'd hazard a guess that both you and I did. That'll do for me. :)
  31. King Nerd Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

  32. Buttons Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    I'm still glued to it.
    Not quite sure why.
    Off topic--- but interesting.
  33. Anon Char Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

  34. Anonynamefag Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

  35. Zak McKracken Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry


  36. CrazyDelaney Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry


    9/11 truthers, Alex Jone acolytes and their shrill bullshittery makes my head want to explode.
  37. CrazyDelaney Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    Seriously.. let me point out the obvious. If someone mentions the following terms..

    *New World Order


    *False flag and 9/11 in the same sentence


    They are not worth listening to. The proper procedure is to point and laugh.
  38. anongurl7 Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry

    This ^

    The logic that allows someone to believe in that is the same logic that allows someone to be a Scientologist. Relying on opinion instead of fact, and then getting mad at the possibility of being wrong, which makes the person be authoritative about it.

    I used to be a truther years ago (and also used to be a Scilon... have fun with that OSA!) and then woke up. I saw a picture of Alex Jones recently and he looks like shit.

    Protip: Paranoia and arrogance isn't a good combo
  39. King Nerd Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry




  40. anongurl7 Member

    Re: Scientology and Antipsychiatry


Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins