Scientology should care for Jani.

[Kha Khan]

But in this case there are huge suppositions about the child. She may have been very badly treated for nothing more than noting what is going on around her.

No, there is a newspaper article that states certain facts. Now if you want to disbelieve everything in the article, and engage is unsupported supposition and conjecture that the girl was "very badly treated" you can do that if it makes you feel better or fits your preconceived, fixed ideas. But then I'm done talking with you. If we're going to engage in wild, unsupported speculation and conjecture about what the facts are, the discussion is useless.

There is simply no indication that she was "very badly treated." On the contrary, the article indicates that her parents just about killed themselves in their efforts to get her help.

Or she may have behavior that in a "normal" child would have been considered unpleasant but hardly worth considering lobotomy.

First, what is the Xenu damned obsession about lobotomies? There was nothing in the article about the little girl having a lobotomy. (And yes, to try to avoid yet another frolic and detour, there is also nothing in the article about giving the girl electroconvulsive therapy.)

As somebody posted above, the response is positively Pavlovian. I say "psychiatry," and an "Ex"-Scientologist immediately shouts "Lobotomy!" "Shock Treatment!"

Secondly, for Xenu's sake, did you even read the article? How, precisely is suffering from uncontrolled "delusions, hallucinations and paroxysms of rage," pushing the car out of gear while her father was driving, choking herself with her hands, hitting her head on the walls, etc. constitute merely being "considered unpleasant"????

Or yes, she may be difficult but by no means is a completely non spiritual approach going to get to the bottom of it.

And your evidence for this is what? I mean, other than your preconceived fixed ideas and personal bias? What would you suggest? Auditing? Voodoo? Perhaps Shamanism? (I personally witnessed a well-learned and respected Shaman suck the evil spirits out of the top of woman's skull. That worked out well.)

Because the people helping her need to have the agenda of helping her, not making her into one of them.

Riiiiiight. Because there is absolutely nothing in the article that indicates her parents have "the agenda of helping her."

How insulting to her parents.

There are now millions of children being drugged for no good reason except to make some people rich and support the pinhead viewpoints of a lunatic fringe.

Oh yes, there is no good reason for the actual subject of this thread, Jani, to receive medication. Let's not talk about the actual subject of the article. Oh no, let's change the subject.

I'd like to see more understanding of real spiritual principles,

Well, as I said, I know a well-educated, well-respected Shaman who will suck the evil spirits out of the top of your skull.

And as noted in a post above, perhaps Jani could benefit from the "Thetan Hand Technique." That has really worked out well for people, and Xenu knows there are a ton of published, peer-reviewed studies establishing the effectiveness of the technique.

among which are your reality is your own and children should be allowed to understand at their own pace, regardless how it fits in with the TV and rat race set.

Yes, Jani should be "allowed to understand at [her] own pace" while she attacks people, slams her head against the wall, and repeatedly attempts suicide.

If she is "allowed to understand at [her] own pace" she will kill herself, seriously hurt someone else, or both.

Unless, of course, your advise is that Jani be put on the introspection rundown.

I swear, Xenu on a stick, I post one article that indicates that perhaps psychiatry can be helpful to someone who otherwise has no hope, and people have to disparately speculate, conjecture, or change the subject (Lobotomy! Electroshock!) to invalidate the subject of psychiatry. And now speculate, with no evidence, that the child was "very badly treated," and/or that her parents do not "have the agenda of helping her." Nice.

Anything, anything but leave unrebutted a story that may be positive about the practice of psychiatry.

Could somebody tell me where I find the Ex-Scientologist Message Board? I've heard there is one somewhere on the Internet.

 

[JustanotherEX]

Kha Khan, it may be that some simply have no idea of what the malady is or what causes it. That's easily solved by a little googling if they would but take the time.

For the ones who want it mostly handed to them so they can find ways to argue....

They have slowly been collecting the evidence that the predisposition is genetic... Doesn't surprise me a bit, I've watched it devastate members of my family following back to one particular great grandfather who was institutionalized. And 2 cousins currently suffer it. It skips generations so far as I can tell, so the defect is sneaky and I will have to watch my own children carefully to try to stop it before too much damage is done. It's a degenerative process as well and tends to worsen without some kind of treatment, with physical changes to the cerebral tissues, especially the frontal lobes. But I guess if a person can regenerate teeth, a brain is no sweat, right? Oh... wait.... no one can do teeth either.

Functionally, it's like trying to use broken machinery. Say you bought a car with a V-8. You try to use it and it doesn't run right and you find that 2 of the cylinders in the block were never even bored out..... You can exchange cars and engines, but brains and bodies? Not so easy. Of course, if one of you is a real looney tune, you can go blow out her brains and force her to exchange bodies if that is what you believe. Now just who is up for that? Let's see a show of hands! You will get ride in a overupholstered van and a nice new white jacket to take you there to boot. I promise. Just let me know where to pick you up.(sorry, that is indelicate and even in bad taste in my book too, but no more so than some things people have already said)

And the unfortunate sufferer is trapped in the broken machinery. It's a living hell. Even the best auditor on earth can't audit damaged machinery (for those who advocate such) and communications in and out are distorted or altered into the unrecognizable, so good communication is very difficult. And I am painting a pretty picture compared to how it plays close up.

If that is what the child suffers? Oh... so not good. So very not good.

 

[CornPie]

...obsession about lobotomies? There was nothing in the article about the little girl having a lobotomy. (And yes, to try to avoid yet another frolic and detour, there is also nothing in the article about giving the girl [shock treatment] electroconvulsive therapy.)

If AAA brings up Hitler, then BBB speaks of the Holocaust, does that mean BBB sees the world through skinhead-colored glasses?

You want to talk about criminals (Psychs), but you refuse to hear of their crimes (lobotomies and shock treatment). It is YOU who "frolics and detours", attempting to divert talk of these actions towards scientology.

So what if the article said nothing about lobotomies and shock treatment, or an article mentions Hitler without discussing the Holocaust? It is only natural to associate villains, with their worst actions -- especially when they show no remorse, justify their shameful actions, and continue their non-reversable practices.

 

[nexus100]

Scientology and psychiatry have gone down pretty much the same road. That is the path of “if we can’t help ‘em, we sure can affect ‘em”. Both groups moved from an effort to locate the real source of issues into creating an effect in their subjects that would allow the two to continue making money despite obvious ineptitude. In Scientology this meant the stringing along of their field, relying on the occasional win and a vituperative team “spirit” to avoid departures. Psychiatry, armed with the credibility of medical history and better PR, teamed with drug companies, developing a pharmaceutical “cure” for every possible complaint and inventing a horde of new ones. Like Scientology they rely for their success on the exceedingly constricted focus of the general populace, which they encourage.

They also rely on the factor of reality. It is likely true that the smaller the reality, the more that reality is going to insist it is true. This is understandable. When one has little, what one has is more precious. This also means as in Scientology one is likely to believe what one hears rather than test it against one’s personal experience.

The reason this happens is the following: The best way to examine a new viewpoint is to thoroughly understand it, then move back to one’s own viewpoint on that subject and match them up. One comes out with both viewpoints, but one reality. A very small reality is likely to simply observe another for agreement, then assume an identity of that viewpoint. The reason is that it is difficult for a small reality to see more reality. Think of a man who has been brought up to believe that one room of a house is all that exists. He is not likely to accept there is more to life till you take him outside.

That sort of look for agreement isn't likely to change one's reality. In practice one operates as one assumes that other viewpoint would operate, without really understanding it.

Another option is to move to that other viewpoint and stay there. This happens often in Scientology because one is encouraged not to have a viewpoint of one’s own. One in effect loses one’s own viewpoint. This also negates understanding as one sees only one side of things. Understanding consists of adding viewpoints.

Part of leaving Scientology involves recovering one's own viewpoint. This is not necessarily very easy.

However in getting back that viewpoint it is useful not to reject the Scientology viewpoint. One does not have to use it to live, but understands what it is. That means understanding other, similar viewpoints might get easier.

For me, I don’t believe any psychiatric maladies or cures have any broad or really useful application. I think that group does a great deal of harm in that they encourage one not to look, through application of crippling mind drugs and offering easy false answers to life's issues. One learns most through locating what one does not see, not what one does.

The two "sciences" are both sham and we would be better off without them, my opinion. Others are welcome to theirs.

 

[Lee_from_phx]

1 -- I've heard right here on ESMB, that Lobotomies "are" being done.

2 -- You "hope" shock treatments are a last resort, but you can not know. Because it's all under the table.

3 -- As with any other profession, it's a sure thing that some Psychs are "demons", some are nuts, and some are suicidal. We all hope the instances are small, but rumor has it the numbers are higher than with other professions. It's just that in this profession they are free to administer life altering processes, without accountability. I think the reason I don't hear about checks and balances, is because there aren't any.

So you've heard that lobotomies are being done. Well I've heard that there is a man in Washington who will pay my mortgage. Doesn't make it true.

Rumors of there being a higher incidence of psychiatrists being bastards are exactly that, rumors. That might be good enough for the tabloids, but it ain't good enough for me.

As for there being no accountability, I'd suggest you stop and consider why doctors pay so much for malpractice insurance.

You need to stop looking at the world through scilon-coloured glasses. All of the awful, horrible, terrible things that you heard about psychiatrists and psychologists for years in the cult is 99% bullshit, and 1% actual wrongdoing. Nothing in the real world is 100% good. Look hard enough at enough people over a long enough span of time and you'll find sufficient tragedies and atrocities to satisfy anyone's desire for these. But the overwhelming majority of what you will find will be good men and women doing the right thing.

What the cult has done is like what the communist apologists did during the Vietnam war when they labeled our troops as "baby killers" based off the psychotic behaviour of an isolated few.

They had an agenda to push, namely that the US military was bad. The basis for this agenda was that our military was killing their communist allies in south east asia. But you see they can't come out and say that because they would be revealing themselves as traitors. So instead they looked for any excuse they could find to say that our guys were bad, and eventually they found a few. Meanwhile the real story was lost, namely that 99% of our guys fought bravely and honourably.

The cult is doing the same thing. It hates psychology and psychiatry precisely because these are the two professions whose members are best equipped to call the cult on its bullshit, just as they called Hubbard on his bullshit years ago. For the cult to realize its dreams of world dominion, these fields must be discredited and destroyed. So they search far and wide for any excuse they can find to do so.

Everything that the cult does is a lie, and this is no exception. They spent years lying to you and telling you that these people were bad, when they are not. A few of them are bad of course, just as a few mailmen are bad, and a few high school teachers, and a few policemen, and a few anything. But just like most mailmen are decent blokes, so are most psychiatrists. In fact, there is a strong argument to be made that they are better than most because they do what they do out of a desire to help people. Anyone can deliver the mail, but it takes someone special to try and help others live happier and more productive lives.

 

[Kha Khan]

Re Jani, one factor not being taken into account is the possibility that she sees and interacts with genuine spiritual beings in her environment in addition to imaginary ones.

How would one tell the difference between the "genuine spiritual beings" and the "imaginary ones?"

Is that sort of like the distinction between the "genuine" body thetans and the imaginary body thetans?

 

[Dark Phoenix]

My brother was diagnosed with chronic Paranoid Schizophrenia 2 years ago. He'd actually been suffering from the condition for for the past 6-7 years. Before being officially diagnosed, he had actually disappeared for 4 years and was living a reclusive life in a remote part of the country. Then around the fall of 2007 he reached some sort of a turning point where he wanted to be around family again and he got in contact with me

He was in terrible shape when I first saw him for the first time in 4 years. He was painfully thin from not eating properly. He couldn't watch TV or listen to the radio because he believed the people and voices were speaking directly to him, trying to control his thoughts. He would hear several chatting voices inside his head on a pretty much non-stop basis. He was afraid to go outside for fear of being attacked by anyone and everyone. He was a total nervous wreck. He was also using self-medicating with alchohol and pain killers. Not good. Luckily however he was cognizant enough to know that he couldn't go on for much longer like that, and opted for the option of getting help. Thank goodness for his paralyzing fear of death and eternal damnation, as he admitted that that was what kept him from commiting suicide.

So I took him to hospital where he was diagnosed, admitted and treated. He stayed for 6 weeks and is now treated as an outpatient. All in all I'd say it took 3-4 months for the medication - a combination of anti-psychotics and anti-anxiolytics - to really kick in and allow him to function quite normally. The voices slowly reduced to murmurs, and eventually to silence. The delusions of persecution and ideation of thought control from an external source gradually lost their grip and disappeared. He was finally able to watch TV and listen to music. He no longer experiences an agoraphobic paranoia when he goes outside.

He still gets his bad days. The 'dark emotional blanket' he calls it. His motivation can be quite poor and it's very often an effort just to make it through the day. He still finds it harder than most to cope with certain levels of stress and having to make tough or complicated decisions. But thanks to psychiatric treatment, he's progressed a long way from where he was when I first saw him 2 years ago. He was so isolated and disconnected from everyone, living alone with his tormented mind, nearly scared of his own shadow.

But one of the unfortunate things about the way his schizophrenia developed, as it does in the vast majority of cases, is that the negative symptoms usually always develop first, and are very similar, if not identical, to depression. Apologies to those of you who may already know this, but schizophrenia is often broken down or understood in terms of negative and positive symptoms. This is meant in the mathmatical sense, not as a value. Negative symptoms are those that appear to reflect a diminution or loss of normal functions, essentially what gets 'subtracted' from the sufferer. This may include a marked decrease in interest in personal grooming, a lessened desire for social interaction, a loss or enthusiasm for hobbies, no motivation to deal with every day stuff, a flatening or blunting of the emotions, and a general withdrawal from the world. Becasue these symptoms are very similar to those presented in depression, the schizophrenic patient can be misdiagnosed as suffering from depression and treat with anti-depressents, which have no affect on schizophrenia, when an anti-psychotic drug should be prescribed. Hence, the schizophrenia in the misdiagnosed patient is allowed to develop further, and this is the sad part; like most illnesses, getting the correct treatment as early as possible, the 'nipping in the bud' if you will, means a quicker recovery period and a lessened likelyhood of relapse It's ony when the positive symtoms develop - and this can be up to 2 years after the negative symptoms have firmly taken hold. But it's only when the positive symptoms develop can the patient be diagnosed correctly, and treated accordingly. The positive symptoms are those characteristics that get 'added' on to the patient, and are a much more obvious indication of psychosis. The positive symtoms usually include such things as hearing internal voices, paranoid delusions, a belief that that the thoughts are being controlled and manipulated by an outside source or experiencing other sensations not connected to an obvious source (hallucinations). Another symptom can be assigning unusual significance or meaning to normal events or holding fixed false personal beliefs. And while anti-psychotics can be very successful in treatig the positive symptoms, the negative can still persist.

There are of course cases where, though not as common as the development pattern describe above, both negative and postive symptoms manifest at the same time, or the rare case where only the positive symptoms display.

 

[Dark Phoenix]

Following on from my pervious post, I just want to add a little bit about ECT

I had spoken about my brother and his battle with Schizophrena. Well he attends a weekly support group with fellow sufferers of Schizophrenia. He has spoken to two people in the group who received electroshock treatment, and they've shed some light their experience of the proceedure.

Both these people were suffering from what's termed as 'drug-resistant' Schizophrenia. They had been tried on some of the most effective anti-psychotics, as well as many of the older kind, put there was no improvement. Both people said that the ECT transformed their lifes for the better. No more delusions, no more voices, no more paranoia and no more suicidal ideation. They also explained how the procedure was done. Firstly, they were asked to give their consent for the procedure. Infact, informed consent is a standard of modern electroconvulsive therapy. Involuntary treatment is uncommon in countries that follow contemporary standards and is typically only used when the use of ECT is believed to be potentially life saving. So anyway,they were also fully informed of both the risks(temporary memory loss) and the benefits( the change to live a normal life that the medication could not provide and ECT may reverse some of the damaging effects of serious psychiatric illness) of the procedure. The Wikipedia entry for ECT, states that in certain jurisdictions inputs from other medical professionals or legal professionals may even be required. Also from Wikipedia - "The American Psychiatric Association and the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence have concluded that the procedure does not cause brain damage in adults"

Before the proceedure proper gets underway, a short-acting anesthetic is administered. Electrodes are placed one on either side of the patient's head. Unilateral ECT is used first to minimize side effects (memory loss).

The electrodes deliver an electrical stimulus and the seizure threshold is carefully montored. After a few sessions of the ECT, both patients began to notice a decrease in their anxiety levels, the delusions, and the return of a long forgotten desire to actually live.

No doubt some countries may differ is how they administor the ECT, prehaps doing more harm than good. And ECT is certainly not without it's flaws. But my point is that it has certainly evolved as a more humane practice that recognises the patients right to make an informed decision on whether to go ahead with the proceedure. If I was suffering day in day out for years from the crippling torment of a mental illness, despite having tried a whole plethora of medication, and to no avail, I would personally consider the ECT option

 

[nexus100]

One of the handier operations used by anyone who wants to pawn off a brand of healing is to create an effect. That effect is generally in line with a current reality of what is better.

Someone is upset, suicidal, unhappy or in this place, simply not understanding what is going on. Provide a reality change through effect and that may be crowned as success. Maybe it will not, as in suicides and mass murders and failed treatments of who have accepted such solutions. You are familiar with failed Scientology I can tell you after talking to several people in the psych field that they are not nearly so certain that they know what they are doing as it might seem.

Regardless, there is one factor always extant in such an operation. One does not understand why the solution "works". One can have it explained as in brain theory or thetanology but for oneself, there is no "reason". One simply feels different. One is not looking at the problem that was there. It seems easier to focus and participate.

My opinion is this shift from looking into what is going on is seldom, if ever, a good idea. This setup is not for body societies. It simply isn't. The more one moves into body viewpoints and explanations for spiritual issues the less one is likely to stumble upon a real reason for any issue. Because the real reason is something outside where you are presently looking.

Besides the general ignorance of the medical community toward the myriad of environmental allergies that can affect bodies, there is a very simple fact that is staring us all in the face. Your progress toward greater understanding is composed of UNDERSTANDING. That means seeing more. It means getting through what is the current emotion, however difficult, and moving into a geniunely new and greater reality. There is no shortcut. There is no easy path.

I don't like trying to impose my ideas. But I also don't like seeing the lunatic fringe who have absolutely no idea what is going on pawn their solutions off on people. You bit on Scientology. You did that because you could not see the picture of how such an operation could not be successful. It is easy to move that same reality to another solution. There is no pill or magic wand or instant karma to the whole issue. There is a path toward understanding, step by step, if one sees fit. If one does not, so be it. But plying a solution off on others because you can "know" what you're talking about? Geez, I thought you didn't like that idea when recently done to you.

 

[JustanotherEX]

One of the handier operations used by anyone who wants to pawn off a brand of false spiritualhealing is to create an effect. That effect is generally in line with their current reality of what is better.

.

There, fixed that for you.

I can't believe you don't mean well.... But reality, shmeality! Too much of the Hubbardian "if it's true for you, then it's true" spiel echoes thru it. Seriously, there is such a thing as first person observation of factual matters being superior to the armchair spiritual hypotheses that people love to bandy about in regards to reality around here.

Herr Doktor, what treatment do you prescribe? Have you cured others suffering similarly in the past? Where are your patients, I should like to ask of them questions.

I wouldn't argue that some things can indeed be affected and improved via a spiritual approach, but, in my own first hand observations, it just isn't the cure all answer for all things. Nexus, do you have Hubbard stuck in your head somehow? (That's not derision you sense, it's concern, tho I am certain there will be no thank you involved.)

If I were an evil person I might wish a little dose of schizophrenia on people to let them see it firsthand..... but wait, there are already enough people around here with very fixed and completely immutable concepts that cannot be affected with fact. Hmmm... maybe some suffer it already. Certainly they suffer that particular symptom. Pity....

@ Dark Phoenix: My heart goes out to you and your family and I hope your brother progresses well! One of my cousins was diagnosed recently... almost too late. They are a goodly distance from me and I had no idea until they mentioned he was having problems..... They had just been sweeping it under the rug. He's doing better now, not out of the woods but better.

 

[CornPie]

...a belief that that the thoughts are being controlled and manipulated by an outside source...

I see that you began posting at ESMB 2 days ago.

Since you so openly discussed your brother's 'paranoid schizophrenia' -- I have 2 short questions, perhaps you could ask him:

1) Was your brother ever involved in scientology, as your posts indicate you were?

2) And if he was involved, do you know if he was ever declared an SP by the cult, or if he was particularly troublesome to scientology?

The reason I ask this is, your post stated, "he had thoughts of being controlled and manipulated by an outside source". So if he was in scientology, and if he was declared SP, and if he was 'gaslighted', and since scientology's stated objective of 'gaslighting' is to drive people crazy. Perhaps he was mis-diagnosed as per the 'Martha Mitchell Effect'. See the quote below.

Gaslighting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
Martha Mitchell Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Mitchell_effect

Martha Mitchell Effect (extracts from WikiPedia):

Sometimes, improbable reports are erroneously assumed to be symptoms of mental illness," due to a "failure or inability to verify whether the events have actually taken place, no matter how improbable intuitively they might appear to the busy clinician." They note that typical examples of such situations, may include:

a) Pursuit by practitioners of organized crime
b) Surveillance by law enforcement officers
c) Infidelity by a spouse
d) Harassment or gaslighting by scientology [ESMB's CornPie added this line]

Quoting psychotherapist Joseph Berke, the authors note that "even paranoids have enemies." Any patient, they explain, can be misdiagnosed by clinicians, especially ones with a history of paranoid delusions.

 

[justaguy]

I see that you began posting at ESMB 2 days ago.

Since you so openly discussed your brother's 'paranoid schizophrenia' -- I have 2 short questions, perhaps you could ask him:

1) Was your brother ever involved in scientology, as your posts indicate you were?

2) And if he was involved, do you know if he was ever declared an SP by the cult, or if he was particularly troublesome to scientology?

The reason I ask this is, your post stated, "he had thoughts of being controlled and manipulated by an outside source". So if he was in scientology, and if he was declared SP, and if he was 'gaslighted', and since scientology's stated objective of 'gaslighting' is to drive people crazy. Perhaps he was mis-diagnosed as per the 'Martha Mitchell Effect'. See the quote below.

Gaslighting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
Martha Mitchell Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Mitchell_effect

Martha Mitchell Effect (extracts from WikiPedia):

Sometimes, improbable reports are erroneously assumed to be symptoms of mental illness," due to a "failure or inability to verify whether the events have actually taken place, no matter how improbable intuitively they might appear to the busy clinician." They note that typical examples of such situations, may include:

a) Pursuit by practitioners of organized crime
b) Surveillance by law enforcement officers
c) Infidelity by a spouse
d) Harassment or gaslighting by scientology [ESMB's CornPie added this line]

Quoting psychotherapist Joseph Berke, the authors note that "even paranoids have enemies." Any patient, they explain, can be misdiagnosed by clinicians, especially ones with a history of paranoid delusions.

I like how you tried to invalidate this person because they've only been posting for 2 days. Good job there.

As far as I can tell, you're trying to argue that paranoid schiozphrenia doesn't exist, or that her brother doesn't have it.

Is that the case? Because I think she knows her brother better than you do. I think your idle speculation is not helping.

Also: you menteioned earlier that psychiatrists are criminials. I take offense to that. I have good friends who are a) psychiatrists and b) certainly not criminals.

You've taken an entire class of people and designated them as inferior, evil.

Also: Psychiatry is not the same as electroshock therapy. ECT is one tool that psychiatrists may use. There's a whole other field out there, which I suspect you're not interested in learning a thing about before you criticize it, except to cherry-pick quotes from isolated poeple and try and make them work to your advantage.

So people can be misdiagnosed. Do you think Jani is misdiagnosed? She doesn't seem to have paranoid schizophrenia? Is Dark Pheonix's brother misdiagnosed? All DP said is that her brother was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, and the first thing out of your mouth is "there's a good chance he was misdiagnosed". What the hell? What about "I'm sorry your brother is suffering?". What about "seeing as you have first-hand experience with something like this, I might be willing to consider your view and learn from you?".

But no, first you attacked the poster for "only being here for two days" and then tried to invalidate her statement by suggesting that her brother was misdiagnosed.

Perhaps when your responses begin to have real, actual relevance to what people say and aren't blatant attempts to attack psychiatry at every turn, people will start listening to you. Think about it.

 

[CornPie]

justaguy said>
I like how you tried to invalidate this person because they've only been posting for 2 days. Good job there.

My (CornPie) reply>
It seemed suspicious that she happened to start posting just as the topic of shock treatment came up.

justaguy said>
As far as I can tell, you're trying to argue that paranoid schiozphrenia doesn't exist or that her brother doesn't have it. Is that the case? Because I think she knows her brother better than you do. I think your idle speculation is not helping.

My (CornPie) reply>
Your accusation that I think "paranoid schiozphrenia" doesn't exist, or that I'm speculating is ridiculous. I'm only researching if perhaps one person 'may' have been mis-diagnosed in 'this' case, considering that she has been a sciengologist, and MAYBE her brother was too. By the way, it's silly of you to say, "she knows her brother better than I", because the issues in my previous post were never mentioned or on the table.

Some people don't want to talk about their association with scientology. So I wouldn't expect that she did or didn't know about it. That's why I suggested that she ask him.

I asked her "2 short questions", so why don't you butt out and let her answer them. Are you afraid they won't be the answers you want to hear?

justaguy said>
Also: you menteioned earlier that psychiatrists are criminials.

My (CornPie) reply>
I used it as an analogy, I realize that it was not a good analogy. If you re-read my post #43, perhaps you can give me the benefit of the doubt on that one. If not, tough. I never said, and I don't think ALL of them were criminals but they're not going to sweep this one under the rug.

justaguy said>
Also: Psychiatry is not the same as electroshock therapy.

My (CornPie) reply>
Jack the Ripper was a mass murderer.
Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme took people for millions.
OJ was in a trial with world attention.
Jose Canseco took steroids.
Psychs do shock treatments and lobotomies.

I made the point that people, professions, and organizations are associated with their worst acts, that's life, you may find that frustrating. When any of them are brought to the table, the acts are going to come up, and up, and up. To complain about that, I think, is diverting the argument.

Also, my post #51 was not only intended for her, it was for others to read for years to come. It was to bring to light the concepts of 'gaslighting' and the 'Martha Mitchell Effect' -- and that Psychs can mis-diagnose people as 'paranoid schizophrenics'. It happened to Martha Mitchell, it can happen to others. Especially considering her circumstances, and possibly his, if he was a scientologist, and if he spoke out.

 

[well_that_sucked]

justaguy said>
Also: Psychiatry is not the same as electroshock therapy.

My (CornPie) reply>
Jack the Ripper was a mass murderer.
Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme took people for millions.
OJ was in a trial with world attention.
Jose Canseco took steroids.
Psychs do shock treatments and lobotomies.

I made the point that people, professions, and organizations are associated with their worst acts, that's life, you may find that frustrating. When any of them are brought to the table, the acts are going to come up, and up, and up. To complain about that, I think, is diverting the argument.

Jack the Ripper is one person

Bernie Madoff is one person

OJ is one person

Jose Canseco is one person

The above are not all of the citizens of london, the investors on wall street, black men or baseball players..

Yours is a list of individuals and their crimes, until you get to pychiatry, which is where you try and sneak in the broad sweeping generality that ALL psychiatrists shock and lobotomize people? WTF?

Why do you feel the need to demonize an entire profession based on the lies of the cult of scientology?

 

[justaguy]

here lie my disjointed answers

Most of your answers I'll accept, except to say that no, I'm not afraid of her answers. Why would I be?

As far as my statements as far as what you were saying about paranoid schizophrenia, there's a reason I put in "as far as I can tell."

I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

*You* associate professions with their worst practitioners. I, however, prefer to believe that all kinds of people can be found in every profession. Your subject-less "are associated" does not include me and many I know. When making such a sweeping statement, I would hope you'd have something to back it up.

The acts are going to come up, and up, and up, if you bring them up, and up, and up. It is fully possible to talk about something without talking about its worst aspects. If you can't do that, I feel sorry for you. I like to talk baseball without talking about steroids. If you can't have that pleasure, I'm sorry to hear it.

In this case, lobotomy and ECT wasn't anywhere near the article nor anywhere near the case. Psychiatry is a vast field, with much about it to discuss. Yet you seem to be only interested in discussing these two parts of it. In the case of lobotomies, we're talking its history.


Let me ask you something: do you understand the position that ECT is permissible under certain circumstances? I understand the position that ECT is criminal, though I disagree with it. Do you understand why I disagree with it? Or am I (as someone said) part of the "lunatic fringe"? None of the above? I'm sure that plenty of evidence besides documentaries about the 1950's and fiction movies has been presented to you. Are you capable of understanding the opposing point of view here?

P.S. How was the statement that dark pheonix joined up 2 days ago relevant to anything? You just mentioned it for the hell of it?

 

[Patricia Curtis]

Cornpie, you brought the gaslighting thing up again and it reminded me of something. Your friend AnonOrange has a long history of being gaslighted -- which he has documented on other boards -- yet he has never once responded to your oft repeated pleas for board members to share their gaslighting experiences. I wonder why that is?

Of late, AnonOrange has been posting favorably toward psychologists and psychiatrists in other threads, yet, as outspoken as he is with his opinions, he remains silent in this thread. I wonder why that is?

Cornpie, you call yourself a human rights activist. Well, I, too, am a human rights activist, and I'm curious. Besides posting on this board, do you participate in any other types of abuse advocate activities? Do you protest much? Work with the media? Contact key political figures? You're not one of those keyboard jockeys AnonOrange is always complaining about, are you?

 

[JustanotherEX]

Jack the Ripper is one person

Bernie Madoff is one person

OJ is one person

Jose Canseco is one person

The above are not all of the citizens of london, the investors on wall street, black men or baseball players..

Yours is a list of individuals and their crimes, until you get to pychiatry, which is where you try and sneak in the broad sweeping generality that ALL psychiatrists shock and lobotomize people? WTF?

Why do you feel the need to demonize an entire profession based on the lies of the cult of scientology?

Now, WTS, don't you get it? Madoff, Simpson, and Canseco are all PEOPLE, therefore all of humanity are stealing, murdering, cheats, right? 1=1=1=1=1=1=1=1=1=1=1=1=1

That's probably not helpful.... but what the hey, it's a holiday weekend. I actually enjoy some of Cornpies posts too.... but not so much on this thread.

 

[CornPie]

well_that_sucked said>
is one person, is one person, is one person.

My (CornPie) reply>
Ok, FINE! For crying out loud.
lawyers are in it for the money, they run up the bill.
auto mechanics make up things wrong with cars, they run up the bill.
psychs do shock treatments and lobotomies.
Maybe the percentages are small, but it happens often enough.

well_that_sucked said>
Psychiatry is not the same as electroshock therapy.

My (CornPie) reply>
Yes psychs ARE the same as shock treatment and lobotomies.
And lawyers are the same as dragging things out, and running up the bill.
And auto mechanics are the same as inventing things wrong with your car.

Any time these professions come up, you can expect to hear about it. Stop acting so surprised. If it's shocking enough (no pun intended), you can expect to hear it, every time the subject of the profession comes up.

justaguy said>
...lobotomy and ECT wasn't anywhere near the article...

My (CornPie) reply>
That's my point, stupid!
If somebody brings up a lawyer or an auto mechanic, whether it was in some article or not, the profession is going to get ripped. Regardless of how infrequently it may occur in their profession, a lot of people joke about them, and don't trust them.
-----
This seems like such a simple concept. I'll give you the last word.

 

[justaguy]

Yes, but do you believe all the jokes? Do you believe that all lawyers are selfish?

You generalized "people" implies all of us. Well, I'll give you my personal experience.

When I talk to most people about psychiatry, their first response isn't to talk about electro-shock therapy and lobotomies.

When I talk to scientologists, their first response is to *always* talk about electro-shock therapy and lobotomies.

But I'm not going to make the sweeping generalization that only scientologists and ex-scientologists talk about ECT and lobotomies, because I wouldn't have any evidence to back up my generalization. My example there is only my personal experience. I'm not going to infer a general result from my personal experience.

Do you have any evidence to back up your generalizations?

The only thing you've proven here so far is that when psychiatry comes up, *you* talk about ECT and lobotomies. I'm not yet willing to extend that to your nebulous "a lot of people". How many is a lot?

I'm going to throw out a rough figure, by the way, and say about 90% of the non-scientologists I talk to about psychiatry don't mention ECT. Again, since "the people I talk to" is not a very good sample, I'm not going to draw any conclusions from it.

 

[CornPie]

From your post #59

You win.