Docu-drama about schizophrenia
Page 2 of 2

Author:  Dennis [ Tue May 13, 2008 7:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Docu-drama about schizophrenia

Steve, I had seen that ADHD video before, it's part of a DVD I have called Psychiatry, Industry of Death made by CCHR. It had quite some disturbing images and a bunch of sensible people commenting on psychiatry, though maybe the whole presentation was a bit too sensational, with lots of dramatic music and short clips. Fred Baughman makes a lot of sense to me, but unfortunately he's a Scientologist and is therefore being ignored by the mass media. Even Independent journalists quoting Scientologists are banned or ignored. I liked it when you said that if Scientology didn't exist, you would have invented it. And I still remember that billboard you saw, feeling like you're the only one seeing that it's all wrong. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people working 40 or more hours every week, feeding the media with pharmaceutical propaganda and how to come up with better ways to manipulate the people into buying more pills. And they receive billions of dollars for exactly those purposes.

I hear what you say about youtube. Real contact with people should be the number one priority but it doesn't hurt to promote yourself a bit like that. It can lead to real performances in the real world. I suppose Youtube got big because of all those bored kids in computer classes who feel they can let go of some steam by writing stupid one-line insults and provocations.

Lloyd, pretty disturbing, labels such as oppositional defiant disorder. We have adults (parents and teachers) who see a problem in a child and then take it to the doctor or psychiatrist. Now the weird things is that whatever the parent or teacher claims, is accepted as true - without any doubt - and that the child is the problem. Forget about an alcoholic father, a depressive mother, a controlling teacher, forget about their abusive behavior. A child cannot send his parents to a doctor for a head check. Let's control children before they control us. Don't let the children take over your life. Because if you do, you might relax and be happy for a while.

Genetics has no influence on behavior. In the 1990s there was a trend in certain circles to buy sperm from athletes, or high IQ academics, together with egg cells from the female counterparts for mothers who wanted to be impregnated with these super embryos so they would have a child with amazing abilities, and a head start in society. Now it showed that these mothers didn't get children with these abilities and they feel they have been misled. Duh! Genetics seems like a new religion. If you believe in it, it promises you miracles.


Sham 69 - If the kids are united (1978)

Author:  Steve [ Wed May 14, 2008 6:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Docu-drama about schizophrenia

Dennis wrote:
Fred Baughman makes a lot of sense to me, but unfortunately he's a Scientologist

I have found that he has been a spokesman/medical advisor for the CCHR (something I didn't know), which is often described as a Scientology front , but my understanding is that when Szaz co-founded it with them (1969) he welcomed anyone and any group that would participate, that it wasn't personal toy. Other than that, 30 minutes of searching didn't turn up any evidence either way, far as Baughman being affiliated with the actual "church". Can you point me toward your source? Has he come out and said it?


Author:  Dennis [ Wed May 14, 2008 6:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Docu-drama about schizophrenia

You are right, Baughman never claimed to be a member of Scientology. CCHR and their work is so many times interpreted as being Scientology, that many people just call it The Church of Scientology, incorrectly. Baughman has been a member of the board in CCHR. Though Scientology founded CCHR in 1969 and is the biggest financier, it cooperates with many independent researchers, academics and other people who are sympathizing to their cause. That said, Baughman never denied being a Scientologist and never criticized it either.

There's a lot of discussions on the net of course, and this one starts with uninformed people (though they always claimed to be experts, often because they claim to have a diagnosed child with Bipolar Disorder or ADHD) putting Baughman down. Then a woman called Jennifer brings in some good arguments and all the defenders of the psychiatric labels stop debating it furtherly. They go instead to another forum with their short-sighted comments to stir things up.

There's so much disinformation about this, it's hard to trace down the real motives. And much of the disinformation is targeted towards the critics of psychiatry. Scientology receives a huge load of criticism, being accused of so many crimes, that I wonder if only 1 percent is true, they would have been prosecuted and dissolved a long time ago. I think the stakes are much higher to defend for those being involved in the psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry because of their inhumane, fraudulent and damaging actions. Apparently it's somehow allowed to damage a person who is already damaged. They just interpret that as 'a fair try to make a person better'. And they claim you cannot deny a person in need of help, to try out a new method that may improve their lives. And when it comes to 'difficult' children, parents or teachers who want to improve THEIR lives are desperate to let doctors do anything, and no minute too late. Because changing themselves is not a road they think is necessary to take. They don't even suspect there's anything wrong with them. And damn all those who have the nerve to claim otherwise.


Author:  Steve [ Thu May 15, 2008 5:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Docu-drama about schizophrenia

Thanks Dennis,

Dennis wrote:
I wonder if only 1 percent is true, they would have been prosecuted and dissolved a long time ago

If 1-tenth of 1 percent of what is said about antidepressants is true, why hasn't there been one huge heck of a class-action lawsuit already fought and won? A lot of people get away with an awful lot.

The way, my opinion, for non-Scientologist critics to gain credibility is to distance themselves from Scientology, and be outspoken about it. Pat Robertson is more delusional than average, but he's right when it comes to things like not running up credit card debt, something way too many Americans in fact do too easily. I believe most economists would agree this is a fact. But if I were painted as a religious fundamentalist because I don't like paying interest, I think I'd puke. Scientologists being seen as the ones orchestrating the charge against them has been an unreal huge stroke of great luck for the pharmaceutical industry.

You'd think someone like Szaz, at least, would have understood that. When an airline passenger sees a speck of dirt on their food tray, they don't think "There's a speck of dirt," they think "The engines are two seconds from falling off." Scientology isn't a speck, it's a whole blob of Jello.

Interesting page regarding Jennifer. I found a lot of that too the other night, old stuff, except without anybody trying to do any rebutting.

Speaking of strange stuff, a year or so ago I heard David Letterman introduce R.D. Laing to his audience just as Tom Cruise was leaving the stage. Out walked this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artie_Lang

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group