What are your views on psychiatry?

[SpecialFrog]

some of the shit you have heard is untrue. much of the shit about scientology you have heard that is true is the result of bad application of tech and policy and some of the shit came straight from elron's lower alimentary orifice

and in your response you have transposed my statement into CoS koolaid

I wasn't intending to misrepresent your statement. To me, this comes across as, "the tech is good if you use it properly and if you find it bad it's probably not the tech's fault". The only difference I see between your statement and the KSW version is the qualifier.

I'm interested in how you can tell bad tech from misapplication but this probably isn't the thread for it.

in 1950 the common practice of inserting a medical instrument closely resembling "a dime store ice pick" through the occipital bone and wiggling it back and forth was far behind dianetics. today ECT and prozac continue to be far behind dianetics

Lobotomies were not exactly the primary psychiatric treatment in psychiatry in 1950.

As for ECT and Prozac, there is evidence for their degrees of effectiveness and risks that can be evaluated. A meaningful comparison would involve looking at a variety of conditions for which ECT or Prozac are seen as being a viable treatment and see if Dianetics does better for those cases.

However, no similar evidence exists for Dianetics so we can't do that, I'm inclined to think that the many false statements in DMSMH put the burden of proof on Dianetics to show that it has any benefit.

 

[Commander Birdsong]

I wasn't intending to misrepresent your statement. To me, this comes across as, "the tech is good if you use it properly and if you find it bad it's probably not the tech's fault". The only difference I see between your statement and the KSW version is the qualifier.

I'm interested in how you can tell bad tech from misapplication but this probably isn't the thread for it.


Lobotomies were not exactly the primary psychiatric treatment in psychiatry in 1950.

As for ECT and Prozac, there is evidence for their degrees of effectiveness and risks that can be evaluated. A meaningful comparison would involve looking at a variety of conditions for which ECT or Prozac are seen as being a viable treatment and see if Dianetics does better for those cases.

However, no similar evidence exists for Dianetics so we can't do that, I'm inclined to think that the many false statements in DMSMH put the burden of proof on Dianetics to show that it has any benefit.

lobotomies were big in the 50's but other also horrible things were bigger. "hydrotherapy" ECT. try out the book "the shoe leather treatment" sometime. gruesome. of course "one flew over the cuckoo's nest" is well worth reading purely for it's literary merit but it was a very substantial contribution to a vast amount of reform.

DMSMH is a painfully flawed book. i choked it down once and have never been able to complete a second reading.

but...

i am an auditor and have gained much from the study and practice. auditing is an art not a science

 

[Adam7986]

Adam,

I do a lot of reading and study. My family suffered greatly from the guesswork and problems endemic in psychiatry. You don't know us. That being said, I still believe that it does more good than harm and that it's improved greatly. But I do not think the guesswork's gone out of it, simply because science does not know all about the brain OR the mind or some other things.

This is not a defense of scientology or a proposition that Scn is a certain way. That appears to be something that a couple may have read into my posts from the other day, but if so, that's a false perception.

Personally, when friends and acquaintances of mine say they are receiving or planning to receive psychology based treatment (whether it be therapy or a transition into psychiatric medicine) I have always encouraged them. That being said, I stand by what I've said in the preceding paragraphs and in other posts on this hread.

My main point in all of this is the same can be said about the medical industry as well, so why are we singling out psychiatry?

 

[Adam7986]

Many discoveries are made in all different areas of science, which cannot be fully explained at the time of discovery. For example, there are many non-psychiatric meds which are used because they work, but with little or no understanding of exactly why/how they work. Eventually we figure it out... like with aspirin. It started off as an herbalist's drug for pain and fever, using willow leaves and bark. In the 1800s, the responsible chemical was isolated, but nobody could figure out why it worked (cyclooxygenase inhibition) until the 1970s. During the centuries where we knew it worked, but not why/how, it probably saved millions of lives. Ethically, does one have much choice? Save the patient with a poorly understood drug, or just let them die?

Does that make modern doctors bloodletters?

To your point: penicillin was discovered because of moldy bread and an unkempt laboratory.

The idea of singling out psychiatry as the only field in which people have suffered because of guessing games, or the only field which has engaged in brutality or the only field which is plagued by corruption is flawed and unnecessarily discourages people from receiving treatment from which they will benefit.

 

[Claire Swazey]

The idea of singling out psychiatry as the only field in which people have suffered because of guessing games, or the only field which has engaged in brutality or the only field which is plagued by corruption is flawed and unnecessarily discourages people from receiving treatment from which they will benefit.

I didn't think anyone on this thread was, in fact, doing that.

 

[Adam7986]

i am an auditor and have gained much from the study and practice. auditing is an art not a science

I would like to emphasize that I have experienced both treatment methods. I spent extensive time sitting in a chair being hypnotized by auditing commands, reliving traumatic experiences and I experienced very little compared to the nearly a year I have been in counseling and in the few weeks I have been on medication.

I do not stand to financially gain from offering my opinion. I simply offer it as someone who thought they could survive through the trauma that was inflicted on me through the use of Scientology and found out that I was better off getting help from mental health professionals. The use of Scientology is what inflicted the trauma which I suffered and to see that people who have also suffered the same trauma continue to tell people that Scientology is "helpful" and continue to discount modern mental health practices makes me very upset.

The assertion here that people "don't know how meds work" is completely false.

 

[Adam7986]

I didn't think anyone on this thread was, in fact, doing that.

Well then your posts should have said, "going to a psychiatrist is no more dangerous than visiting a doctor." Because that is the truth. But your posts don't say that, do they?

 

[Claire Swazey]

Well then your posts should have said, "going to a psychiatrist is no more dangerous than visiting a doctor." Because that is the truth. But your posts don't say that, do they?

Psychiatrists are doctors.

But if you mean "no more dangerous than visiting ones' internist or GP", well, I did not in any way realize that issue was on the table here and that I was being solicited for response re that issue.

I have no idea if going to a psychiatrist is no more dangerous or more or less dangerous than visiting ones' internist or GP. I was not doing a comparison.

I thought the thread op was what my views were on psychiatry. I then ventured so boldly as to opine that psychiatry does more good than harm, which is probably not an unexpected view for someone here to have. However, I also essayed certain caveats pursuant to personal observations. To say the observations were based on painful familial circumstances would be comparable to exclaiming that traffic in LA can be a bit crowded.

 

[Winston Smith]

Psychiatrists are doctors.

But if you mean "no more dangerous than visiting ones' internist or GP", well, I did not in any way realize that issue was on the table here and that I was being solicited for response re that issue.

I have no idea if going to a psychiatrist is no more dangerous or more or less dangerous than visiting ones' internist or GP. I was not doing a comparison.

I thought the thread op was what my views were on psychiatry. I then ventured so boldly as to opine that psychiatry does more good than harm, which is probably not an unexpected view for someone here to have. However, I also essayed certain caveats pursuant to personal observations. To say the observations were based on painful familial circumstances would be comparable to exclaiming that traffic in LA can be a bit crowded.

I have had one close friend that is a psychiatrist. When we were friends, she was an internist at GW Hospital, recieving all the training every doctor recieves. Namely, worked to the bone in the ER, making rotations of all the specialties. I must admit she was a little strange. Very bright doctor, knew medicine in great detail, but when she started praciticing she told me she tried all the medications that she precribed. That really had me worried! But otherwise, except for maybe 3 or 4 docs that I have had over the past 25 years I have nothing but praise for the profession. Just thought I would add my two bits. Docs are FAR more valuable to society than lawyers, who seem to take great pleasure in destroying doctors. As if a frigging lawyer could even begin to describe, let alone understand the miraculous human body.

 

[Adam7986]

Psychiatrists are doctors.

But if you mean "no more dangerous than visiting ones' internist or GP", well, I did not in any way realize that issue was on the table here and that I was being solicited for response re that issue.

I have no idea if going to a psychiatrist is no more dangerous or more or less dangerous than visiting ones' internist or GP. I was not doing a comparison.

I thought the thread op was what my views were on psychiatry. I then ventured so boldly as to opine that psychiatry does more good than harm, which is probably not an unexpected view for someone here to have. However, I also essayed certain caveats pursuant to personal observations. To say the observations were based on painful familial circumstances would be comparable to exclaiming that traffic in LA can be a bit crowded.

Regardless of what you're saying now, you spoke on behalf of everyone in the entire thread here when you said that no one here was singling out psychiatry as a source of medical malpractice as opposed to the medical field as a whole.

Prior to that you said that you had seen/heard of some bad shit in psychiatry, but that it had helped people too. Then you mentioned your direct family ties to medical malpractice in the field of psychiatry.

In the context of your decision to respond on behalf of all participants of the conversation, I then engaged you on the matter of singling out psychiatry because you said that no one here has done that.

Perhaps you personally did not intend to single out psychiatry as a source of "hearing/seeing bad shit", although your post seems to imply it, but you did engage me on behalf of all participants of the thread.

I simply was opining that I think undue criticism is being given towards psychiatry because most professions contain professionals who are guilty of malpractice, fraud and abuse. Particularly I believe that there are people here to maintain a vested interest in delivering Scientology services and maintain that Scientology is "helpful" while at the same time putting the mental health industry down. Thereby, perpetuating the same myths, lies and propaganda that CCHR is guilty of.

You chose to engage me on behalf of all participants of the conversation. If you meant to convey only your sentiment then I can see how the misunderstanding occurred. You said "anyone" in response to me. If you meant only yourself you should have indicated as much.

 

[Adam7986]

I thought the thread op was what my views were on psychiatry.

In response to this specific portion of your post:

There are quite a few things here that have been passively stated as fact. Many of them imply that psychiatry is somehow a bunch of bumbling fools who stab at brains or otherwise prescribe psychoactive substances with no understanding of how they work.

That is a completely false and irresponsible assertion. Especially when the OP has indicated he might be considering pursuing pharmaceutical treatment. Such implications are absolutely unjustified. Claiming that Scientology counseling is the answer is even more irresponsible in my opinion since Scientology is the source of the trauma I suffered.

Again:

Those views and passive assertions may not be your own. If they are not I would avoid implicitly adopting the opinions of everyone who's views oppose mine by using words like "anyone".

 

[Rmack]

It's a crazy business

 

[SpecialFrog]

i am an auditor and have gained much from the study and practice. auditing is an art not a science

Many people make similar statements about prayer. That's fine, but you do see that it would be unreasonable for someone to make a clinical decision based on that statement, right?

 

[This is NOT OK !!!!]

In response to this specific portion of your post:

There are quite a few things here that have been passively stated as fact. Many of them imply that psychiatry is somehow a bunch of bumbling fools who stab at brains or otherwise prescribe psychoactive substances with no understanding of how they work.

That is a completely false and irresponsible assertion. Especially when the OP has indicated he might be considering pursuing pharmaceutical treatment. Such implications are absolutely unjustified. Claiming that Scientology counseling is the answer is even more irresponsible in my opinion since Scientology is the source of the trauma I suffered.

Again:

Those views and passive assertions may not be your own. If they are not I would avoid implicitly adopting the opinions of everyone who's views oppose mine by using words like "anyone".

Adam,

I'm so sorry that you have to go through this without the loving support of your family. I hope that we here at ESMB can fill in for them, at least for now.

I don't know much about mental illness except that it takes a lot of hard work to find the right combination of therapy and drugs for each person, so you may have to try a lot of combinations.

So as your self appointed "big brother", I say, keep up the hard work you are doing and don't give up.

Keep us updated.

We love you.

 

[uniquemand]

I would like to emphasize that I have experienced both treatment methods. I spent extensive time sitting in a chair being hypnotized by auditing commands, reliving traumatic experiences and I experienced very little compared to the nearly a year I have been in counseling and in the few weeks I have been on medication.

I do not stand to financially gain from offering my opinion. I simply offer it as someone who thought they could survive through the trauma that was inflicted on me through the use of Scientology and found out that I was better off getting help from mental health professionals. The use of Scientology is what inflicted the trauma which I suffered and to see that people who have also suffered the same trauma continue to tell people that Scientology is "helpful" and continue to discount modern mental health practices makes me very upset.

The assertion here that people "don't know how meds work" is completely false.

Thank you for your opinion. I would find it hard to believe that a person could have stable advances in counseling if they were in the Church of Scientology, although I could believe it in the FreeZone, and definitely believe it in the "normal counseling" space. Drugs certainly can help (just as tinctures and potions helped in the Middle Ages, perhaps with a little more horsepower). It's true that modern drug researchers do understand which parts of the brain regulate emotion, stress, etc., but to think that they know whether or not the depression stems from genes, situations, mental issues, acute relationship or shelter stressors, etc., is absurd. They simply don't. Nobody has yet isolated any area of the brain in which the sense of self resides (though excising some portions does result in cessation of sense of self), or knows how that interacts with any particular compound, nevermind man-made drugs.

 

[uniquemand]

Psychiatry is a branch of medicine. It includes both research and the application of research in a clinical scenario.

You acknowledge the research part exists. Research yields data such as this:

For symptoms x, y and z, treatment alpha yields an improvement in 50% of cases while treatment beta yields an improvement in 30% of cases but in 60% of cases that don't respond to treatment alpha.
For symptoms x, y but not z, treatment gamma yields an improvement in 60% of cases.
...

The practice of medicine is to identify the symptoms and exclusions and plan the most appropriate treatment based on the current data.

Psychiatry is sketchier only in that the symptoms are harder to conclusively identify (though this is where neuroscience is increasingly contributing) as are the criteria for improvement. It is also less mature for these reasons but is more mature than it was.

What exactly doesn't exist?

An understanding of what a mind is.

I agree with you. I just don't think someone should call themselves a physicist if they don't understand the fundamental properties of matter, or a psychiatrist if they don't understand the fundamental properties of a mind.

Psychiatry is a PROTOSCIENCE, not a Science, and should be taught as such.

 

[Free Being Me]

To your point: penicillin was discovered because of moldy bread and an unkempt laboratory.

The idea of singling out psychiatry as the only field in which people have suffered because of guessing games, or the only field which has engaged in brutality or the only field which is plagued by corruption is flawed and unnecessarily discourages people from receiving treatment from which they will benefit.

I've had immense benefits going to the Veterans Administration for counseling services. I had some really rough times (understatement of the year) and I was given good tools to work with. They helped me help myself and from that branch out into what I what to explore for my own personal growth. Thankfully, I had a place I could go and get that help and it's given me the opportunity craft myself into a better person. Had I not done that, I wouldn't be here. Am I perfect, no, but I've come a hell of long way and appreciate myself, others, and life now. Namaste!

 

[uniquemand]

Many discoveries are made in all different areas of science, which cannot be fully explained at the time of discovery. For example, there are many non-psychiatric meds which are used because they work, but with little or no understanding of exactly why/how they work. Eventually we figure it out... like with aspirin. It started off as an herbalist's drug for pain and fever, using willow leaves and bark. In the 1800s, the responsible chemical was isolated, but nobody could figure out why it worked (cyclooxygenase inhibition) until the 1970s. During the centuries where we knew it worked, but not why/how, it probably saved millions of lives. Ethically, does one have much choice? Save the patient with a poorly understood drug, or just let them die?

Does that make modern doctors bloodletters?

Modern doctors are metric fucktons further ahead than blood letters, and can isolate and heal almost anything at that point. That's understanding. Can the same be said for psychiatry? I think not. Of course it should be studied, and of course whatever headway has been made is good, but to pretend it's a science is simply delusional.

 

[PirateAndBum]

Thank you for your opinion. I would find it hard to believe that a person could have stable advances in counseling if they were in the Church of Scientology, although I could believe it in the FreeZone, and definitely believe it in the "normal counseling" space. Drugs certainly can help (just as tinctures and potions helped in the Middle Ages, perhaps with a little more horsepower). It's true that modern drug researchers do understand which parts of the brain regulate emotion, stress, etc., but to think that they know whether or not the depression stems from genes, situations, mental issues, acute relationship or shelter stressors, etc., is absurd. They simply don't. Nobody has yet isolated any area of the brain in which the sense of self resides (though excising some portions does result in cessation of sense of self), or knows how that interacts with any particular compound, nevermind man-made drugs.

The "self" is just a package of thought. It doesn't reside anywhere other than in the mind, which isn't a humanoid brain.

Killing sprees are just one symptom of overpopulation of a species. There are many more symptoms of this malady.

 

[uniquemand]

The "self" is just a package of thought. It doesn't reside anywhere other than in the mind, which isn't a humanoid brain.

Killing sprees are just one symptom of overpopulation of a species. There are many more symptoms of this malady.

I would agree that the mind is not identical with the brain, but I don't think a purposeful mind could exist without a brain (or some sort of complex switching substrate). In fact, I've edited books on the subject, and would refer you to them because they are extremely good reading. IMO, the next leaps in terms of our processing capacity and switching capability is going to come when we directly connect our neural substrate with the internet, or when artificial intelligence emerges (as it is in the process of doing).

http://www.amazon.com/Humanizing-Psychiatry-Biocognitive-Niall-McLaren/dp/1615990119