Freezone Post-Scientology auditor Dexter Gelfand on Psychiatric Medications

[JustSheila]

I've just finished watching Dexter's entire video.

To be fair, it's positive that he is not taking an extremist attitude toward psychiatry. He's not viewing the field as some global conspiracy to control people due to some radical belief that psychiatrists have returned from past lives as Intergalactic implanters as an aware group of aliens ready to encase us in ice and dump us on a mountain to solve a population problem.

He's not radical like that and that's a plus. Though I've enjoyed watching COS's footbullets with its insane rants, Dexter does recognize that as silly.

He seems to be trying to be recognized as a legitimate practitioner, but unfortunately, he is not. There won't be any psychiatrists contacting him for assistance or cooperation and he's deftly stepped around the fact he is not actually in direct contact with anyone's psychiatrist. The video is misleading, as Dexter attempts to present himself as a professional therapist with which other professional therapists might speak freely. I couldn't say if this is a genuine reach toward the psychiatric profession in an attempt to legitimize his cult techniques or if it is meant to make others mistakenly think this is already the case, but Dexter also does not make any statement that he holds even one single legitimate, recognized certification in the healthcare field, nor does he indicate any plans to legitimately educate himself in the mental health field. Too bad. If he wants to be a legitimate counselor, he needs to start school soon - he's not getting any younger.

I'm not going to bring up points others have already made, but Dexter has a few misunderstandings that should be pointed out:

1) He refers to SSRI's, claims he studied them, but then compares it to testosterone and claims that 'like any other drug, a person stops producing the chemical themselves (after taking SSRIs).' If he understands that an SSRI inhibits the person's own body from destroying its own serotonin, then he should understand that an SSRI could not work at all if a person didn't produce their own serotonin.

2) He refers to anxiety and depression interchangeably. Dexter states depression is caused by anxiety. He's got the terms and causes all mixed up.

3) From the video, Dexter is clearly ignorant of the huge difference between clinical depression and becoming temporarily depressed as the direct result of an event. Since he doesn't know the difference, he believes by addressing anxiety, a clinically depressed person may be able to stop taking psychiatric meds. It is a naive view. He means well, I'm sure. Speaking from personal experience, this is a really dangerous area. One cannot give false hope to one who is suffering from clinical depression. When they are let down, the drop in well-being is huge - the person may refuse food for a week, even try to starve themselves to death. Many psychiatric illnesses have a physical cause, from a lack of adequate production of serotonin to brain or nerve damage.

Dexter is so naive and misinformed. He has no idea how incredibly inadequate scientology techniques actually are, and how harmful some of the imaginative memories could be to those with delusions. I wish he'd spend a month working in a dementia ward to get some real world experience at insanity, running after a woman who goes to eat breakfast stark naked, answering questions about non-existent items in a room, being addressed as someone from a person's past, getting kicked, elbowed and screamed at just for trying to wash someone's hair. Watching someone wake up every day trying to call the police to report they've been kidnapped. And that's not even the schizophrenics or some of the other really damaged folk that are in mental hospitals. Between those periods or when on the right meds, a person might seem perfectly normal and in control. They are. Its the meds. Dexter refers to psychiatric meds as 'a bandaid.'

Clueless. Just clueless.

 

[Terril park]

2) He refers to anxiety and depression interchangeably. Dexter states depression is caused by anxiety. He's got the terms and causes all mixed up.

3) From the video, Dexter is clearly ignorant of the huge difference between clinical depression and becoming temporarily depressed as the direct result of an event. Since he doesn't know the difference, he believes by addressing anxiety, a clinically depressed person may be able to stop taking psychiatric meds. It is a naive view. He means well, I'm sure. Speaking from personal experience, this is a really dangerous area. One cannot give false hope to one who is suffering from clinical depression. When they are let down, the drop in well-being is huge - the person may refuse food for a week, even try to starve themselves to death. Many psychiatric illnesses have a physical cause, from a lack of adequate production of serotonin to brain or nerve damage.



Clueless. Just clueless.

"It is not uncommon for someone with an anxiety disorder to also suffer from depression or vice versa. Nearly one-half of those diagnosed with depression are also diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. The good news is that these disorders are both treatable, separately and together."

Not suprisingly Dexter refers to anxiety and depression interchangeably.

http://www.adaa.org/understanding-anxiety/depression

3) From the video, Dexter is clearly ignorant of the huge difference between clinical depression and becoming temporarily depressed as the direct result of an event.

Evidence? Please say more and why you think so?

From what you say I'd guess Dexter is dealing with temporary depression.

My view is that I consider all talk therapy to be related.

http://www.clinical-depression.co.u...ing-depression-what-treatment-actually-works/

"The 'chemical imbalance' treated by antidepressants is almost always a result of depression, not a cause.

Antidepressant medication can be useful for some people in lifting severe depression symptoms quickly, but should not be the sole treatment for depression.

Without appropriate skills training, therapy, or whatever you want to call it, there is no reason why the depression shouldn't come back when a similar life situation arises again."

 

[CommunicatorIC]

2) He refers to anxiety and depression interchangeably. Dexter states depression is caused by anxiety. He's got the terms and causes all mixed up.

"It is not uncommon for someone with an anxiety disorder to also suffer from depression or vice versa. Nearly one-half of those diagnosed with depression are also diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. The good news is that these disorders are both treatable, separately and together."

Not suprisingly Dexter refers to anxiety and depression interchangeably.

http://www.adaa.org/understanding-anxiety/depression

While it may not be "surprising" that Dexter refers to anxiety and depression interchangeably given his lack of appropriate education and training, it is nonetheless still ignorant -- and perhaps dangerously ignorant given the "clients" he is "treating" and the nature of their maladies.

First, even with the most simplistic understanding, the phrase "nearly one-half" would not justify treating anxiety and depression as interchangeable.

Next, the purported fact (you cite one source, which I will assume only for the moment is accurate) that "nearly one-half of those diagnosed with depression are also diagnosed with an anxiety disorder" does not mean that the disorders are, as Dexter treats them, interchangeable.

The fact (you cite one source, which I will assume only for the moment is accurate) that these disorders "are both treatable, separately and together," certainly doesn't imply that:

(1) the optimum treatment of depression alone is the same as the optimum treatment of depression coupled with anxiety;

(2) the optimum treatment of anxiety alone is the same as the optimum treatment of anxiety coupled with depression;

(3) the optimum treatment for a combination of anxiety and depression is the same as the optimum treatment for anxiety alone;

(4) the optimum treatment for a combination of anxiety and depression is the same as the optimum treatment for depression alone; more importantly,

(5) mistakenly treating someone only for anxiety when they suffer from depression isn't dangerous;

(6) mistakenly treating someone only for depression when they suffer from anxiety isn't dangerous;

(7) mistakenly treating someone for both anxiety and depression when they suffer only from anxiety isn't non-optimum, and perhaps also dangerous depending on the degree of their depression;

(8) mistakenly treating someone for both anxiety and depression when they suffer only from depression isn't non-optimum, and perhaps also dangerous depending on the degree and effects of their anxiety

(9) treating -- and by that I mean clinically treating -- anxiety and depression as interchangeable, or conflating them, isn't dangerous.
​

Also, as a matter of simple logic and statistics, the purported fact (you cite one source, which I will assume only for the moment is accurate) that "nearly one-half of those diagnosed with depression are also diagnosed with an anxiety disorder" obviously implies absolutely nothing about the percentage of people diagnosed with anxiety disorder who are also diagnosed with depression. As a simple example, one may have:

A population of 1,000 people who have been diagnosed with depression, of whom 450 have also been diagnosed with anxiety disorder; while consisting having,

A total population of 10,000 people who have been diagnosed with anxiety disorder, of whom only 450 have been diagnosed with depression.
​

 

[JustSheila]

I agree with Communicator I/C.

Terril, IDK what you mean by reference. There is acute depression, there is chronic depression. Clinically Depressed is an official diagnosis of Depression as a mental illness, v. someone just feeling bad about a recent event who otherwise bounces back and maintains pretty well. There are tomes of information about Depression, its levels of severity, its diagnosis and treatment. I studied it in college, but there is also always new information, there is always more research. Just that subject alone is huge, without even touching Anxiety.

You keep referring to 'talk therapy.' What Scientology therapy is 'talk therapy?' I never had it. I had set, defined processes and I had over 46 folders of Scientology auditing and trained to Class V and completed OT IV. Most processes were either repetitive commands that I had to complete, looking for an SP, creative imaginary processes, looking for past lives or dealing with imaginary ghosts supposedly stuck to me. The majority of processes searched for earlier and earlier similar incidents under the false belief that the earliest incident holds the key to curing all sorts of things in real life. While some of scientology was fun, most of it was misdirection away from the real life situations and to an imaginary world. It was expensive in terms of time and effort, very consuming. For others, it was expensive in terms of money. There was always a carrot at the end of the stick where the cure was always supposedly contained within the next thing I needed to do. There were no Clears, no OTs. Scientology cured nothing. Still, someone having someone to talk to is more effective than having nobody at all.

But I've never heard of 'talk therapy' as a Scientology counseling method. Please clarify what you mean by that.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Originally Posted by Ted

I watched the entire Dexter Video. We have never met, and I am unaware of any sh*t storm he is said to be involved in here.

I gleaned one thing that we agree on: It is not necessary to turn a client away simply because of his background in other practices or ingested drugs. That runs in stark contrast to CoS rules, and that appeals to me, authoritarian bastards that they are.

As for type of processing and how much, that's a case by case call on someone standing on shaky ground. Personally, I can enjoy foregoing the liability. In other words, not my problem. Callous, I know. But my time is important to me these days so I spend it wisely.

A chat in a quiet place over a cup of coffee can work wonders with absolute minimum liability--if one does not present themselves as an "expert" whatever. Running processes, intensive hours, and/or using a meter, or giving the impression of certain results suggests a depth of involvement that could lead to liability for both unlicensed practitioner and client.

Take an interest in someone. Listen. It's a great procedure.

Emphasis mine.

Actually, I was and am in accord with your original "agree with" on Dex's post . . . and by that, what I perceived you are in accord with are the points that, as Dex said, we should all work together and we should seek help folks in whatever way we can, just as you write above.

R

In which case you'd be wrong.

What you (and Dexter and all others of similar persuasion) should do is mind your own business completely in this area unless (as Ted clearly pointed out) you are just informally chatting and listening (as friends do) with no hidden agenda or delusion about your perceived status.

 

[Udarnik]

What part of my post didn't you understand? Only meds with directions to 'take (so many every so many hours) as needed for ..." can be taken on and off again every few days. Dexter claims to be doing this with psychiatric meds. If it is a 'psychiatric med,' then safety parameters are being breached because one cannot safely withdraw from them in this manner. Dexter claims to be undergoing some sort of scn processing with his client taking psychiatric meds on again/off again every few days, so something is either a breach or it is not psychiatric meds. Very simple. No jumping to conclusions here at all. You and Dexter said 'psychiatric meds'. There are so many inconsistencies in this story that the whole thing sounds fictitious.

I've asked you to stay with the subject. I didn't quote the rest of the post where you went off on something else. It seemed a distraction.

The way to drop the dose on SSRI is not to take them intermittently, for the reasons I outlined above. It's to drop the dose gradually by pill cutting or using a liquid. While a doc in the US can, by dint of his / her medical license, prescribe any drug in any manner for any condition whatsoever, to go too far off-label without a damn good reason invites lawsuits and the possibility of getting one's ticket pulled by the state board of licensure.

To go off label in a way that's specifically contraindicated AND when there is a clinically tested means of achieving the same effect? Very few docs would do that, and even fewer psychs. While psychs prescribe regularly, most of them area acutely aware of how little pharmacology they know, and the whole reason (well, I'm being harsh, but it is a big driver for many) they got into psychiatry is so they would not be on call at the hospital for emergencies, and that includes adverse drug events. They may push the dose up a bit in a patient they deem chronically refractive, but they are much more likely to switch meds and stay within label parameters than they are to monkey around off-label. I've been involved in post-hoc marketing analyses for a drug that should have been a runaway hit, but was not prescribed by psychs for fear of an extremely rare side effect of unknown consequence. They were simply not willing to take the risk, even in the face of known side effects in their mainstay meds, because those effects took years to manifest. 20 years on, they are slowly switching to that drug (now sadly off-patent - sadly for the developer) since their patients who have been on the old meds that long are rapidly coming down with diabetes. (This is in schizophrenia, not depression, so anyone on anti-depressants should not panic about this anecdote!) But that was only after experience rubbed their noses in their lack of risk / benefit calculus in the first place.

In that respect, they are a conservative bunch. I don't buy Dexter's story about the psych being in the know in the least. Sorry, but that's the truth of it.

 

[freethinker]

No. I have seen a lot of people with cancer in all stages. They develop a palor that can be recognized when you have seen them healthy before.

But you don't have to believe any of that because I can be wrong but yes, dogs can smell cancer, that has been proven.

Maybe Dex should get a dog.

Huh? Is this like those dogs who can sense an imminent seizure in their human companion and warn them so they can lie down etc? I wasn't aware that there were recognisable visible advance signs of developing cancer.

Paul

 

[Udarnik]

No. I have seen a lot of people with cancer in all stages. They develop a palor that can be recognized when you have seen them healthy before.

But you don't have to believe any of that because I can be wrong but yes, dogs can smell cancer, that has been proven.

Maybe Dex should get a dog.

Yup.

 

[Udarnik]

[SNIP]1) He refers to SSRI's, claims he studied them, but then compares it to testosterone and claims that 'like any other drug, a person stops producing the chemical themselves (after taking SSRIs).' If he understands that an SSRI inhibits the person's own body from destroying its own serotonin, then he should understand that an SSRI could not work at all if a person didn't produce their own serotonin.

2) He refers to anxiety and depression interchangeably. Dexter states depression is caused by anxiety. He's got the terms and causes all mixed up. [SNIP]

Clueless. Just clueless.

THIS.

I had to stop watching at that point to avoid ruining a good monitor with my fist.

Selective Serotinin REUPTAKE Inhibitors.

They lengthen the lifetime of the serotonin you produce, they don't make you produce more of it.

At that point, not that he had much of my attention anyway, he completely lost me. It was apparent he had no clue whatsoever, and is blindly operating on incorrect assumptions about biology and pharmacology.

Anxiety and depression are often CO-MORBID conditions. Co. Morbid. Paired morbidities. Having one doesn't mean you'll have the other, nor does it mean that having both means one caused the other. Some drugs treat both by dint of multiple mechanisms of action, some only treat one or the other.

Once again, no clue.

 

[Churchill]

With all this about medications, etc., it's beginning to sound like Dexter is practicing medicine without a license. On that note, does he have any credentials of any kind, other than his Scientology certs? What does Dexter charge per hour for his services? When he fills out his taxes (assuming he pays taxes) what does he list as his occupation?

Obviously, the purpose of the video is to obtain paying clients who might, otherwise, think they were excluded from Scientology (or Scientology like) services. However, by posting it, he may be opening a Pandora's box for himself.

Credentials?? Credentials!! He dun' need no stinkin' credentials!!

 

[Helena Handbasket]

"The 'chemical imbalance' treated by antidepressants is almost always a result of depression, not a cause.

Antidepressant medication can be useful for some people in lifting severe depression symptoms quickly, but should not be the sole treatment for depression.

Without appropriate skills training, therapy, or whatever you want to call it, there is no reason why the depression shouldn't come back when a similar life situation arises again."

I agree. (But who am I agreeing with here? Dexter?)

Helena

 

[Dulloldfart]

But I've never heard of 'talk therapy' as a Scientology counseling method. Please clarify what you mean by that.

I'm not speaking for Terrill at all here, but he may have been influenced by my words over the past many years. I have often referred to Scn procedures in the lower grades as mostly talk therapy, "itsa" in Scn lingo, namely the auditor asks a question, some answer comes to the pc (client), he tells the auditor what came to mind, and the auditor acknowledges.

For example, the procedures at www.paulsrobot.com are three Rub&Yawn ones: Reach & Withdraw on a topic, the 6-Direction technique, and Rogerian. The first two involve manipulation of imagery and the third verbal description, which I have described as talk therapy to differentiate from the other two which clearly aren't.

Paul

 

[Terril park]

I agree. (But who am I agreeing with here? Dexter?)

Helena

This website. The passage I quoted is highlighted with a picture of a key
and stating key understanding.

http://www.clinical-depression.co.u...ing-depression-what-treatment-actually-works/

 

[Hypatia]

Re "talk therapy" alleged to be a Scio practice- well, ARC straight wire kinda is...

 

[JustSheila]

Re "talk therapy" alleged to be a Scio practice- well, ARC straight wire kinda is...

Yeh. That came to my mind, too. Fun stuff.

Unfortunately, to participate or run ARC Straightwire at all requires indoctrination and false education in the scientology cult method of how one thinks about love. It's an objectifying, de-personalizing and false concept to enforce on anyone that 'love' is nothing more than a mechanical formula of Affinity, Reality and Communication and completely false that these three 'equal understanding.' Compassion doesn't even enter the picture. Love is booted out and replaced with a formula. L Ron wasn't capable of love or compassion, so no wonder he thought some stupid formula was all there was to it. He was so, so wrong.

Without any of the indoctrination, without the false information presented as 'facts,' without breaking down everything into 'A, R or C', IMHO, those processes wouldn't be the least bit harmful. It's as close to talk therapy as scn gets.

I think I read that the official CHURCH no longer even uses them on its 'Bridge to Total Freedom.'

 

[Elronius of Marcabia]

Yeh. That came to my mind, too. Fun stuff.

Unfortunately, to participate or run ARC Straightwire at all requires indoctrination and false education in the scientology cult method of how one thinks about love. It's an objectifying, de-personalizing and false concept to enforce on anyone that 'love' is nothing more than a mechanical formula of Affinity, Reality and Communication and completely false that these three 'equal understanding.' Compassion doesn't even enter the picture. Love is booted out and replaced with a formula. L Ron wasn't capable of love or compassion, so no wonder he thought some stupid formula was all there was to it. He was so, so wrong.

Without any of the indoctrination, without the false information presented as 'facts,' without breaking down everything into 'A, R or C', IMHO, those processes wouldn't be the least bit harmful. It's as close to talk therapy as scn gets.

I think I read that the official CHURCH no longer even uses them on its 'Bridge to Total Freedom.'

Triads as a part of the matrix of knowledge are not new and very numerous in my humble opinion
ARC=Understanding is false and should read ARC=persuasion it belongs in the body of knowledge known
as sales a subset of the knowledge of promotion which is subset to bussiness knowledge with its
Triad of Promotion/Production/Payment which equals a sucessful bussiness.

my two cents FWIW Sheila

Love is well beyond any matrix of knowledge never to be drug into logic itis what is
without need for explanation or justification for then it no longer is what it is

 

[JustSheila]

Triads as a part of the matrix of knowledge are not new and very numerous in my humble opinion
ARC=Understanding is false and should read ARC=persuasion it belongs in the body of knowledge known
as sales a subset of the knowledge of promotion which is subset to bussiness knowledge with its
Triad of Promotion/Production/Payment which equals a sucessful bussiness.

my two cents FWIW Sheila

Love is well beyond any matrix of knowledge never to be drug into logic itis what is
without need for explanation or justification for then it no longer is what it is

^^^ LIKE!!

Terrific post, Elronius. And you stated it so clearly. Yes, 'ARC' is simply a cheap sales technique, a way to con others into believing one actually cares, when it is only used to trick a person into agreeing with something they would not otherwise do. TRs enhance the scientology auditor's ability to pretend to care while actually setting him/herself apart. L Ron even wrote against empathizing or showing compassion to others.

To encourage others to believe the things or people they truly love(d) in their lives were nothing more than a formula. That none of it was true. A horrible trick to play on another.

Love, compassion, mercy, kindness and human empathy are the most beautiful, essential, valuable and God-like characteristics any could have.

 

[Terril park]

While it may not be "surprising" that Dexter refers to anxiety and depression interchangeably given his lack of appropriate education and training, it is nonetheless still ignorant -- and perhaps dangerously ignorant given the "clients" he is "treating" and the nature of their maladies.

First, even with the most simplistic understanding, the phrase "nearly one-half" would not justify treating anxiety and depression as interchangeable.

Next, the purported fact (you cite one source, which I will assume only for the moment is accurate) that "nearly one-half of those diagnosed with depression are also diagnosed with an anxiety disorder" does not mean that the disorders are, as Dexter treats them, interchangeable.

The fact (you cite one source, which I will assume only for the moment is accurate) that these disorders "are both treatable, separately and together," certainly doesn't imply that:

(1) the optimum treatment of depression alone is the same as the optimum treatment of depression coupled with anxiety;

(2) the optimum treatment of anxiety alone is the same as the optimum treatment of anxiety coupled with depression;

(3) the optimum treatment for a combination of anxiety and depression is the same as the optimum treatment for anxiety alone;

(4) the optimum treatment for a combination of anxiety and depression is the same as the optimum treatment for depression alone; more importantly,

(5) mistakenly treating someone only for anxiety when they suffer from depression isn't dangerous;

(6) mistakenly treating someone only for depression when they suffer from anxiety isn't dangerous;

(7) mistakenly treating someone for both anxiety and depression when they suffer only from anxiety isn't non-optimum, and perhaps also dangerous depending on the degree of their depression;

(8) mistakenly treating someone for both anxiety and depression when they suffer only from depression isn't non-optimum, and perhaps also dangerous depending on the degree and effects of their anxiety

(9) treating -- and by that I mean clinically treating -- anxiety and depression as interchangeable, or conflating them, isn't dangerous.
​

Also, as a matter of simple logic and statistics, the purported fact (you cite one source, which I will assume only for the moment is accurate) that "nearly one-half of those diagnosed with depression are also diagnosed with an anxiety disorder" obviously implies absolutely nothing about the percentage of people diagnosed with anxiety disorder who are also diagnosed with depression. As a simple example, one may have:

A population of 1,000 people who have been diagnosed with depression, of whom 450 have also been diagnosed with anxiety disorder; while consisting having,

A total population of 10,000 people who have been diagnosed with anxiety disorder, of whom only 450 have been diagnosed with depression.
​

Good points which I didn't initially get.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

http://www.clinical-depression.co.u...ing-depression-what-treatment-actually-works/

"The 'chemical imbalance' treated by antidepressants is almost always a result of depression, not a cause.

I agree. (But who am I agreeing with here? Dexter?)

Helena

This website. The passage I quoted is highlighted with a picture of a key
and stating key understanding.

http://www.clinical-depression.co.u...ing-depression-what-treatment-actually-works/

Seriously? No evidence, papers or studies cited.

And these are the people you are relying upon:

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

The Depression Learning Path was created by Mark Tyrrell and Roger Elliott of Uncommon Knowledge. Mark and Roger have also written and recorded over 800 hypnosis sessions at Hypnosis Downloads, the web's busiest hypnosis site where you can get a cutting-edge hypnosis session for almost any situation.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk/depression-learning-path/

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Mark Tyrrell
Creative Director Uncommon Knowledge

Mark Tyrrell HGDip, DipHypNLP(BHR) has been working as a hypnotherapist trainer for 13 years.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

Not psychiatrists. Not medical doctors. Not even nurse practitioners.

Not individuals who have Ph.D.s, or even MS degrees, in biochemistry, chemistry, etc.

Hypnotherapists selling an online depression treatment program.

How convincing.

Did you really think that the url -- www.clinical-depression.co.uk -- would seem authoritative and fool people? You clearly counted on it.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Re: Freezone Post-Scientology auditor Dexter Gelfand on the State of Clear

Freezone Post-Scientology auditor Dexter Gelfand says there is no actual, attained, universal, generic, identical State of Clear.

Rather than create a new thread I thought it would be best to place this here.

From approximately 2:00.

[video=youtube;ng5Q8X3-GH8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng5Q8X3-GH8[/video]