The true face of psychiatry

33

Priori wrote: »

Perhaps we should leave 'diagnosing' up to supercomputers...

One Nanostep for Technology, One Quantum Leap for Psychiatry

Taken from your link, these are the pioneer's, the visionaries, the mad scientists, a couple of years down the road we'll all have our implants and be thoughting posts here, no escape from kingmob:eek:.
We'll just think of somebody and message them, or think of a post and it will appear here.

Hope when they integrate computers and brains I don't get hacked and my thoughts stolen or implanted, or catch the deadly virtual black plague.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15sh05wrQ6Y

Its a strange oul world, and its not getting any better. I think the direction the world is heading needs its own thread.
Imagine none of the 2012, planet x, messiah, end of days happens and 100 years from now what type of world will our decendants be living in, it's looking bleak, without the usual suspect threats we are quite capable of doing away with ourselves within the next 100 years either deliberate or by accident, or maybe even slaves to more intelligent computers.
These views are my own and may or may not contain sarcasm, dont ask for proof or links because I'm not integrated yet so wouldn't know a lot about it.

Yitzhak Rabin

Ive deleted a load of offtopic posts. Please don't come here to dictate how other posters should post.

33

^^^^^Robbed my spot:mad:^^^^^^

Psychiatric hospitals have very much been places to do the undoable, testing grounds, have a look at willowbrook state school, NY, residents were sexually abused by staff and intentionally infected with hepatitis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willowbrook_State_School

China has a few bad cases of people being put in institutions when they shouldnt, take this mans words as an example.

Sun yelled to the doctor coming to him, “I am not lunatic! I am just going to petition!”

And Japan

It is necessary for nurses to recognize that their professional responsibility is primarily to patients, not to organizations

Seem's in the UK any old joe can open a mental hospital.

The Government wants to encourage small businesses, social enterprises and mutuals as part of its plan to roll-out the "any willing provider" philosophy across the public sector, especially in areas such as mental health, where the NHS has a poor track record.

Another one of the many, many US psychiatric scandals

So reads the formal apology issued by the Secretary for the Health and Human Sciences Department of the US in response to findings that between 1946 and 1948, some 695 Guatemalan prisoners, soldiers and psychiatric patients were deliberately infected with syphilis as part of a systematic medical experiment.

Ireland and its backward old ways, are they really old or just covered up, heres a story of a continuing cover-up, child guine pigs in a home, maybe mothers had that psychiatric problem called being pregnant and not married.

More than 123 of these infants and toddlers were residents in children's homes in Dublin, Cork and the midlands when the trials took place in the 1960s and 1970s.

Trial one involved 58 children in five children's homes in Dublin, Cork, Westmeath and Meath. The trial investigated what would happen if four vaccines -- diphtheria, pertussis (also known as whooping cough), tetanus and polio -- were combined in one overall four-in-one shot.

The trial was published in the 'British Medical Journal' in 1962. The final paragraph of it read: "We are indebted to the medical officers in charge of the children's homes. . . for permission to carry out this investigation on infants under their care."

Then the Canadian orphans

The Duplessis Orphans were the victims of a scheme in which several thousand orphaned children were falsely certified as mentally ill by the government of the province of Quebec, Canada, and confined to psychiatric institutions.

Or how this for therapy

It is also a damning criticism of those “professionals” entrusted with the task of helping people who are extremely fragile emotionally.
On October 31, 2002, French psychotherapist Jean-Pierre Tremel was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping and sexually abusing two young patients that the court recognized as being extremely vulnerable. Tremel, age 52, claimed his “treatment” was based on an “Oriental tradition” wherein “old men introduce girls to sexual practices.”
Such “treatment” is never help. It is a disgusting betrayal in the guise of help, an all-too-frequent occurrence in the mental health industry:


Or this
Child Drugging: Psychiatry Destroying Lives

Quick Facts about Psychiatry
While posing as “authorities” on the mind and mental health, psychiatry has no scientific basis for any of its treatments or methods. Presented herein is specific evidence debunking several of the main claims and methods of this pseudo-science.

“In short, the whole business of creating psychiatric categories of ‘disease,’ formalizing them with consensus, and subsequently ascribing diagnostic codes to them, which in turn lead to their use for insurance billing, is nothing but an extended racket furnishing psychiatry a pseudo-scientific aura.”

—Dr. Thomas Dorman, Member of the Royal College of Physicians of the United Kingdom and Canada


In 2003, the Colorado State Board of Psychologist Examiners revoked the license of Dr. John Dicke, whose treatment of a 5-year-old boy included using sex toys. According to the boy’s father, his son had been “stripped naked, tortured, restrained, verbally abused, sexually abused, brainwashed and horrified by a dildo” during the alleged therapy.

Psychologist Ordered to Stop Using
Sex Toys When Treating Children

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed by and between the State Board of Psychologist Examiners ("Board") and John A. Dicke Ph.D. ("Respondent" or "Dicke")



In 1989, Dr. Paul A. Walters, psychiatrist in charge of student health at Stanford University, California, and former head of Harvard University’s Health Services’ Mental Health Division, was forced to resign after allegations of his having “frequent sex” with a female patient. The woman, who had been the victim of sexual abuse as a child, was awarded more than $200,000 in an out-of-court settlement. She said Walters had used her to perform oral sex on him, “sometimes as often as two out of three psychiatric analysis sessions per week.”


http://www.mental-health-abuse.org/psychRape.shtml

King Mob

You really should look at the sources you're using to make sure they aren't as guilty as you think real medical professionals are.

The CCHR is owned and operated by the Church of Scientology who profit enormously by being a creepy cult that claims to be an alternative to psychiatry.

So how are these guys immune to the same corruption as mainstream doctors?

33

King Mob wrote: »

You really should look at the sources you're using to make sure they aren't as guilty as you think real medical professionals are.

The CCHR is owned and operated by the Church of Scientology who profit enormously by being a creepy cult that claims to be an alternative to psychiatry.

So how are these guys immune to the same corruption as mainstream doctors?

I didn't know that about CCHR, I will look into it, thanks.

Heres a horror story from their site

An Orange County, California, psychiatrist, James Harrington White, was convicted of the forced sodomy of a male patient. After an investigation by Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), White was found to have drugged young men, then videotaped himself having sex with them. White was sentenced to prison for almost seven years.

so before I believe this I will google his name and see if I can confirm this is true from other sources and find this.

http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/james-harrington-white

So its beginning to look like he may have sexually molested that man or maybe he was set up.

King Mob

33 wrote: »

I didn't know that about CCHR, I will look into it, thanks.

So you do believe that they are just as untrustworthy as mainstream sources?

33 wrote: »

Heres a horror story from their site

An Orange County, California, psychiatrist, James Harrington White, was convicted of the forced sodomy of a male patient. After an investigation by Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), White was found to have drugged young men, then videotaped himself having sex with them. White was sentenced to prison for almost seven years.

so before I believe this I will google his name and see if I can confirm this is true from other sources and find this.

http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/james-harrington-white

So its beginning to look like he may have sexually molested that man or maybe he was set up.

Ok and what is the relevance of this?
I'm sure I can find car factory workers who have been convicted of just as bad stuff. I'm sure there are a few horror stories involving conspiracy theorists.
Does this mean that car factories and conspiracy theories are inherently evil?

33

Just saw something there about the mentioned John Dicke, the dildo therapist, seems he was a keen writer and had a few books out.



Dr. John Dicke holds advanced degrees in both law and psychology. He handled criminal cases as a public defender in Ohio and Colorado and was a regional counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. As a former forensic psychologist, Dicke was involved in complex forensic cases, including those of serial killers and rapists. Dicke has appeared as an expert witness in over 60 trials, has also provided on-camera analysis of the Columbine High School shootings for CBS, Fox, PBS and MSNBC, and has published op-ed pieces in various newspapers about the tragedy.
http://www.johndicke.com/

Guilt by Association

Ralph Fisch's ties to John Dicke may cost him his job

http://www.westword.com/2002-03-14/news/guilt-by-association/

Theres plenty of nooks and crannies to be searched in the murky hidden away world of psychiatry and mental illness, almost seems some people follow this line of profession and study hard with the thought in the back of their mind that they will have access to vulnerable people, does it not.

33

King Mob wrote: »

So you do believe that they are just as untrustworthy as mainstream sources?


Ok and what is the relevance of this?
I'm sure I can find car factory workers who have been convicted of just as bad stuff. I'm sure there are a few horror stories involving conspiracy theorists.
Does this mean that car factories and conspiracy theories are inherently evil?

Its too late to get into this now, so this will be my last post then goodnite from me.

I believe they would be biased, although I found sources to their stories elsewhere so they didn't just make it up.

I'm sure you will find the number of psychiatric employees who sexually abuse people will be higher than the average car factory worker, and what was the relevence of that?, comparing car factory workers?, and the relevence was and still is that I found other stories that showed that it wasn't exclusively tthat scientologist site that just made it up, I found other stories about the same incident.

King Mob

33 wrote: »

I believe they would be biased, although I found sources to their stories elsewhere so they didn't just make it up.

So, not familiar with the concept of spin or using a true story to scaremonger?

33 wrote: »

I'm sure you will find the number of psychiatric employees who sexually abuse people will be higher than the average car factory worker,

And are you basing this on any particular evidence or just assuming.

33 wrote: »

and what was the relevence of that?, comparing car factory workers?,

Because what a handful of individuals do, does not reflect their profession as a whole.
A mental health worker that is convicted of the above no more proves that psychiatry is evil than a car factory worker convicted of the same thing proves that car factories are evil.

33 wrote: »

and the relevence was and still is that I found other stories that showed that it wasn't exclusively tthat scientologist site that just made it up, I found other stories about the same incident.

So what about these ones?:
http://www.cchr.org/quick-facts/introduction.html
http://www.cchr.org/cchr-reports/child-drugging/introduction.html

Or all the opinion on spin in this one?:
http://www.cchr.org/cchr-reports/psychiatric-rape/introduction.html

Are they accurate or trustworthy?

33

King Mob wrote: »

So, not familiar with the concept of spin or using a true story to scaremonger?


And are you basing this on any particular evidence or just assuming.

Because what a handful of individuals do, does not reflect their profession as a whole.
A mental health worker that is convicted of the above no more proves that psychiatry is evil than a car factory worker convicted of the same thing proves that car factories are evil.


So what about these ones?:
http://www.cchr.org/quick-facts/introduction.html
http://www.cchr.org/cchr-reports/child-drugging/introduction.html

Or all the opinion on spin in this one?:
http://www.cchr.org/cchr-reports/psychiatric-rape/introduction.html

Are they accurate or trustworthy?

I would say more psychiatric workers would be and are sexual predators because of the secret nature of the business, rather than toyota workers.
Numerous psychiatric institutions have been implicated in some form of sexual crime by members of staff, not every one is, some are.

OK cchr are a scientology front and not to be trusted, they have an agenda, but you failed to show where anything they say is wrong, so what exactly that they say is wrong, and why do you assume it is, just because scientology is a weird outfit doesn't make what they say wrong.

I also had other links that you ignored in favour of cchr, so please explain (apart from scientology) why anything I quoted from cchr is wrong, maybe they are 100% right when it comes to psychiatry and wrong about their other beliefs.

Nurse-patient sexual contact in psychiatric hospitals.


Have a read of this.

King Mob

33 wrote: »

I would say more psychiatric workers would be and are sexual predators because of the secret nature of the business, rather than toyota workers.
Numerous psychiatric institutions have been implicated in some form of sexual crime by members of staff, not every one is, some are.

And again, have you any evidence to support this assertion or are you just assuming it?

33 wrote: »

OK cchr are a scientology front and not to be trusted, they have an agenda, but you failed to show where anything they say is wrong, so what exactly that they say is wrong, and why do you assume it is, just because scientology is a weird outfit doesn't make what they say wrong.

Well most of their claims about how psychiatry isn't scientific and that it's a giant conspiracy. Pretty much all of their claims are total nonsense or when they are actually based on the truth they are twisted to suit their agenda.
Unless of course you can show that psychiatrists are responsible for both the Holocaust and terrorism?

But do you not find it hypocritical that you're saying this about scientology's front group, but you'd also dismiss any mainstream source out of hand because they could profit from it?

33 wrote: »

I also had other links that you ignored in favour of cchr, so please explain (apart from scientology) why anything I quoted from cchr is wrong, maybe they are 100% right when it comes to psychiatry and wrong about their other beliefs.

I picked out the CCHR because it's another example of CTers using an obviously biased source that has as much to gain as the evil mainstream medicine industry. I'm trying to see if there's any reason you guys are so trusting of these sources other than the source is simply anti-mainstream/government.

33

King Mob wrote: »

And again, have you any evidence to support this assertion or are you just assuming it?


Well most of their claims about how psychiatry isn't scientific and that it's a giant conspiracy. Pretty much all of their claims are total nonsense or when they are actually based on the truth they are twisted to suit their agenda.
Unless of course you can show that psychiatrists are responsible for both the Holocaust and terrorism?

But do you not find it hypocritical that you're saying this about scientology's front group, but you'd also dismiss any mainstream source out of hand because they could profit from it?


I picked out the CCHR because it's another example of CTers using an obviously biased source that has as much to gain as the evil mainstream medicine industry. I'm trying to see if there's any reason you guys are so trusting of these sources other than the source is simply anti-mainstream/government.

Ok, can you please explain why and how their claims on psychiatry are wrong, forget the rest, just that bit please.

King Mob

33 wrote: »

Ok, can you please explain why and how their claims on psychiatry are wrong, forget the rest, just that bit please.

http://www.cchr.org/quick-facts/introduction.html

Let's take a few of these. Not arsed to do everything you've posted because you aren't arsed to actually back it up.

Real Disease vs. Mental “Disorder”

Psychiatric disorders are not medical diseases. There are no lab tests, brain scans, X-rays or chemical imbalance tests that can verify any mental disorder is a physical condition. This is not to say that people do not get depressed, or that people can’t experience emotional or mental duress, but psychiatry has repackaged these emotions and behaviors as “disease” in order to sell drugs. This is a brilliant marketing campaign, but it is not science.

Psychiatric Disorders Voted Into Existence

Psychiatry’s diagnostic criteria are literally voted into existence and inserted into the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM). What is voted in is a system of classification of symptoms that is drastically different from, and foreign to, anything in medicine. None of the diagnoses are supported by objective evidence of physical disease, illness, or science.

These are lies, distortions and untruths.
Various psychiatric and developmental disorders are examined by researchers by scientific means, as evidenced by the actual peer reviewed scientific papers published on the subject. Once a newly discovered disorder is discovered and study and categorised it is decided whether it meets the standards to be properly classified as a disorder then added to the DSM.
Most psychiatric and developmental disorders are treated without drugs.

Psychiatry Admits It Has No Cures

“We do not know the causes [of any mental illness]. We don’t have the methods of ‘curing’ these illnesses yet.” —Dr. Rex Cowdry, psychiatrist and director of National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), 1995

Because mental disorders are complicated and don't have a single easily identified source. There are many medical diseases that don't have a cure, is medicine a total fraud too?
(Btw, guess who claims they can actually cure all mental disorders?)

Side Effects

Psychiatrists can’t predict what adverse side effects you might experience because not one of them knows how their drugs work.

Psychotropic drugs are increasingly being exposed as chemical toxins with the power to kill. Psychiatrists claim their drugs save lives, but according to their own studies, psychotropic drugs can double the risk of suicide.

All drugs are tested for side effects and safety. Not all drugs are the same, so their claim that they all double suicide rates is bull from the get go.
Also I like how they use "chemical toxins" as scary words.

No Genetic Proof of Mental Illnesses

“No claim for a gene for a psychiatric condition has stood the test of time, in spite of popular misinformation.” —Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, Harvard Medical School psychiatrist

That's because a lot of mental disorders aren't genetic and the ones that are have many complicated factors. Though there's a lot of evidence that autism (which scientology says doesn't exist) has a genetic component.

Interestingly pretty much all of these things are actually applicable for scientology.

So is there any particular reason we should believe anything from the CCHR or similarly biased sources like Natural News? Do you think these sources are trustworthy?

CiaranMT

33 wrote: »

Ok, can you please explain why and how their claims on psychiatry are wrong, forget the rest, just that bit please.

Do you seriously doubt that psychiatry relies on scientific methods to treat patients?

Take a step back and think about that. To doubt it would be to think that G.P.s, paediatricians, surgeons etc aren't reliant on scientific evidence when they treat their patients.

33

King Mob wrote: »

http://www.cchr.org/quick-facts/introduction.html

Let's take a few of these. Not arsed to do everything you've posted because you aren't arsed to actually back it up.


These are lies, distortions and untruths.
Various psychiatric and developmental disorders are examined by researchers by scientific means, as evidenced by the actual peer reviewed scientific papers published on the subject. Once a newly discovered disorder is discovered and study and categorised it is decided whether it meets the standards to be properly classified as a disorder then added to the DSM.
Most psychiatric and developmental disorders are treated without drugs.


Because mental disorders are complicated and don't have a single easily identified source. There are many medical diseases that don't have a cure, is medicine a total fraud too?
(Btw, guess who claims they can actually cure all mental disorders?)

All drugs are tested for side effects and safety. Not all drugs are the same, so their claim that they all double suicide rates is bull from the get go.
Also I like how they use "chemical toxins" as scary words.


That's because a lot of mental disorders aren't genetic and the ones that are have many complicated factors. Though there's a lot of evidence that autism (which scientology says doesn't exist) has a genetic component.

Interestingly pretty much all of these things are actually applicable for scientology.

So is there any particular reason we should believe anything from the CCHR or similarly biased sources like Natural News? Do you think these sources are trustworthy?

Well I have as much reason to trust or distrust all of the above, the medical mafia v's sceintology is like saying crips v's bloods and trying to argue that one side is good and one bad.

The brain is the least understood thing maybe in the universe and it's right there on the road in iraq or in the hand of some pathologist, yet so not understood.

Was just reading earlier about anti-depressants growing brain cells and thought WTF?, WTF are these mad scientists playing at, they are doing live blind experiments with live guinepigs, actually growing brain cells in humans using stem cells, what if these new brain cells are not perfect and the people become zombie like, as they do already, void of feeling, this just highlights that they know nothing, like how every year fairy liquid can clean more plates or Ariel can wash clothes better each year, meaning the one before was really crap, this happens over and over, except were not talking about clothes or dishes, but human brains, live ones, and the ongoing experiments.
here's the link
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_how-anti-depressants-create-brain-cell_1533248

King Mob

33 wrote: »

Well I have as much reason to trust or distrust all of the above, the medical mafia v's sceintology is like saying crips v's bloods and trying to argue that one side is good and one bad.

That would be true if both sides are on equal standing.
Except the evil mainstream medicine has oversight and needs to do proper published science. Scientology just needs to make **** up and use conspiracy theories to explain away any gaps in their narrative.

33 wrote: »

The brain is the least understood thing maybe in the universe and it's right there on the road in iraq or in the hand of some pathologist, yet so not understood.

And least understood does not mean we know nothing about it. And it certainly doesn't mean you can do what scientology does and fills the gap with nonsense.

33 wrote: »

Was just reading earlier about anti-depressants growing brain cells and thought WTF?, WTF are these mad scientists playing at, they are doing live blind experiments with live guinepigs, actually growing brain cells in humans using stem cells, what if these new brain cells are not perfect and the people become zombie like, as they do already, void of feeling, this just highlights that they know nothing, like how every year fairy liquid can clean more plates or Ariel can wash clothes better each year, meaning the one before was really crap, this happens over and over, except were not talking about clothes or dishes, but human brains, live ones, and the ongoing experiments.
here's the link
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_how-anti-depressants-create-brain-cell_1533248

Or maybe they give us superpowers?
Seems as likely and as scientific as your Hollywood science level rant there.

33

CiaranMT wrote: »

Do you seriously doubt that psychiatry relies on scientific methods to treat patients?

Take a step back and think about that. To doubt it would be to think that G.P.s, paediatricians, surgeons etc aren't reliant on scientific evidence when they treat their patients.

I don't need to step anywhere, psychiatry relies on mad science basically and lots of money, now you step back and take a look at how the business is run, the diagnosis given, the medication to treat the patient.

Now think about this, if it were all so sewn up and understood with sound scientific data, then why are people misdiagnosed so often, or one doctor saying one thing and another saying the opposite, if it were all so rosy in the garden there would never be a need for a 2nd opinion would there, or that mad doctor in drogheda who was ripping womens wombs out to treat ingrown toenails.

King Mob

33 wrote: »

Now think about this, if it were all so sewn up and understood with sound scientific data, then why are people misdiagnosed so often, or one doctor saying one thing and another saying the opposite, if it were all so rosy in the garden there would never be a need for a 2nd opinion would there, or that mad doctor in drogheda who was ripping womens wombs out to treat ingrown toenails.

Ok. Wow.
If you think this is sound reasoning I don't think we can use facts and logic to convince you.

33

King Mob wrote: »

That would be true if both sides are on equal standing.
Except the evil mainstream medicine has oversight and needs to do proper published science. Scientology just needs to make **** up and use conspiracy theories to explain away any gaps in their narrative.

And least understood does not mean we know nothing about it. And it certainly doesn't mean you can do what scientology does and fills the gap with nonsense.


Or maybe they give us superpowers?
Seems as likely and as scientific as your Hollywood science level rant there.

Yea sorry about the rant.

You still havent said how the scientology stories were wrong though, they may make **** up but you have only given your opinion, which is as good or as bad as sceintologys really, but hasn't shown anything to be wrong or lies, just you believe it to be.

King Mob

33 wrote: »

Yea sorry about the rant.
You still havent said how the scientology stories were wrong though, they may make **** up but you have only given your opinion, which is as good or as bad as sceintologys really, but hasn't shown anything to be wrong or lies, just you believe it to be.

I specifically addressed some of the points they made in their list of "facts".
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71759338#post71759338

Apparently that was just me wasting my time.

33

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. Wow.
If you think this is sound reasoning I don't think we can use facts and logic to convince you.

convince me of what?, that psycho drugs are not pushed on people that don't need them to begin with, then even the people that do need something arent guarenteed they will be given what it is they need.

As I said earlier, millions of people around the world are being given psycho drugs they don't need, exercise, relaxation, vitamins especially D, minerals, sex, sunshine are ignored in favour of the addicive medication.

clever_name

33 wrote: »

Yea sorry about the rant.

You still havent said how the scientology stories were wrong though, they may make **** up but you have only given your opinion, which is as good or as bad as sceintologys really, but hasn't shown anything to be wrong or lies, just you believe it to be.

It seems that you are searching for evidence to support your theory instead of looking at evidence and seeing where it leads. this is based on your posting of links that "prove" your theory, links that you did not verify. then when its pointed out that the source is unreliable, you respond by saying yeah thats true but prove them wrong.

its like me saying that all doctors are controlled by a sinister cabal in a bunker under the ground in Mexico, don't believe me? well prove me wrong then.

Also cant believe this has not been posted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwAaHbmF5S4

33

King Mob wrote: »

I specifically addressed some of the points they made in their list of "facts".
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71759338#post71759338

Apparently that was just me wasting my time.

All you did was give your opinion, not prove anything wrong or false.

33

clever_name wrote: »

It seems that you are searching for evidence to support your theory instead of looking at evidence and seeing where it leads. this is based on your posting of links that "prove" your theory, links that you did not verify. then when its pointed out that the source is unreliable, you respond by saying yeah thats true but prove them wrong.

its like me saying that all doctors are controlled by a sinister cabal in a bunker under the ground in Mexico, don't believe me? well prove me wrong then.

Also cant believe this has not been posted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwAaHbmF5S4

No its not like that, its like this, kingmob gives his opinion, I dont take that as truth, he's biased, almost as biased as big pharma and scientology combined, so I ask him to show where its wrong and how its wrong and he cant, so its just his opinion, whatever the video is can you explain it as I cant look at it from this location, thanks, read the charter, you need to give an explanation with videos.

King Mob

33 wrote: »

All you did was give your opinion, not prove anything wrong or false.

I stated facts that contradict what scientology are claiming. If there's anything in that post you would like me to back up, then please point it out.
I'm not going to waste my time post references to every single part only to have you ignore them because it's not convenient for your narrative.

Now what do you have to show that their claims are accurate, unbiased and fairly presented?

33 wrote: »

convince me of what?, that psycho drugs are not pushed on people that don't need them to begin with, then even the people that do need something arent guarenteed they will be given what it is they need.

Convince you there's not a vast global conspiracy.
You've already decided there is one and selectively viewing evidence that supports your predetermined conclusion.
Your conclusion is not based on logic or verifiable facts, so using these to try and alter your opinion is frankly a waste of time.

33 wrote: »

As I said earlier, millions of people around the world are being given psycho drugs they don't need, exercise, relaxation, vitamins especially D, minerals, sex, sunshine are ignored in favour of the addicive medication.

Or you could be holding an ill-educated opinion that has no baring on reality because you're reading biased sources and are only looking at evidence that you think supports your pre-determined narrative.

33

Here's an interesting video of a freeman talking to a psychiatrist in his home with a hidden video camera, this is part 2, it doesn't say what medication was prescribed, and the fellas battery died after 20mins of a 1 hr interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI9FveMjTIM

clever_name

33 wrote: »

No its not like that, its like this, kingmob gives his opinion, I dont take that as truth,

What do you take as the truth?

Before answering please take a step back for a moment, take a deep breath and relax and accept that all you beliefs are safe. Ok.

I am looking at the posts here in what I see as a logical way, you posted links to support what you believe, you did not check if these links could be trusted,(no crime there, its a big Internet ) it was pointed out that the evidence from these links would be questionable. you accepted this but continue to ask for this evidence to be disproved.

33 wrote: »

I didn't know that about CCHR, I will look into it, thanks.

Heres a horror story from their site

33 wrote: »

OK cchr are a scientology front and not to be trusted, they have an agenda, but you failed to show where anything they say is wrong, so what exactly that they say is wrong, and why do you assume it is, just because scientology is a weird outfit doesn't make what they say wrong.

You continue to ask for a what you consider a disreputable source to be refuted despite the fact that you have already posted to say that they are not to be trusted.

Please look at the logic of what you are saying.

Priori

33 wrote: »

No its not like that, its like this

From what I can see, this quote seems to sum up your technique for argumentation.

33 wrote: »

Now think about this, if it were all so sewn up and understood with sound scientific data, then why are people misdiagnosed so often, or one doctor saying one thing and another saying the opposite, if it were all so rosy in the garden there would never be a need for a 2nd opinion would there, or that mad doctor in drogheda who was ripping womens wombs out to treat ingrown toenails.

Granted, psychiatry is a field prone to errors that can destroy lives. It does need to be improved, like any science still finding its feet. Personally I think there are major problems that need to be addressed in the field. But ask yourself this: are these problems likely to be addressed by making claims like the above? Linking the 'mad doctor in drogheda' to the failings of psychiatry??

Solair

CiaranMT wrote: »

Jesus, you'd think something as serious as a possible ASD diagnosis would automatically go to for a second opinion?

Yeah, you'd think so but consultants, including psychiatrists, often operate in narrow fields and don't know much about other areas of medicine.

CiaranMT

33 wrote: »

I don't need to step anywhere, psychiatry relies on mad science basically and lots of money, now you step back and take a look at how the business is run, the diagnosis given, the medication to treat the patient.

Now think about this, if it were all so sewn up and understood with sound scientific data, then why are people misdiagnosed so often, or one doctor saying one thing and another saying the opposite, if it were all so rosy in the garden there would never be a need for a 2nd opinion would there, or that mad doctor in drogheda who was ripping womens wombs out to treat ingrown toenails.

It seems to be pretty clear that you still have the Scientology Cult's ideas in your head when talking about psychiatry, even though they've been debunked.

Now, provide a reasonably unbiased example of this 'mad science' that you refer to.