Lundbeck Lunacy in Ireland

by michael strange Sat May 15, 2004 17:11

Isn't it ironic that they describe their drugs as 'therapies'. Depression, Schizophrenia , et cetera, are all described as 'diseases' on their website. Many psychiatrists today are reluctant to use the term 'disease.'

by guest Sat May 15, 2004 21:07

That is a very stupid post.

There is plenty of evidence that depression is related to a bio-chemical imbalance in the body, and that regulating this imbalance can improve a persons lifestyle.

Depression has most likely some genetic link which may trigger this imbalance.

Like many things in medicine there can never be any definitive proof. We can simply trial treatments and look at the results.

This is almost identical to the debate on smoking. There is no definitive proof that smoking causes cancer. There is very strong evidence of a link however.

You must remember that Doctors prescibing these medications have a much deeper understanding of how medication will affect a patient than the patient themselves.

Doctors are trying to help their patients and if they feel medication would be helpfull, the patient should trust their doctor, or seek advice from a different doctor.

by vincent Sat May 15, 2004 21:28

I'm sorry but there is no evidence that depression is an illness that is biological in origin. Do you have any idea what is bio-chemically balanced as opposed to imbalanced? If you have the evidence then present it. Depression is related to life circumstances. Evidence that depression is genetic or biological in origin is far from conclusive and you should have the intellectual honesty to admit that.Unfortunately the proponents of biological psychiatry are only interested in the wilful exploitation of people with mental health difficulties for the sake of producing profit.

by depixol junkie Sat May 15, 2004 22:05

our medical guest is talking rubbish by saying that this debate is identical to the one on smoking. One is clearly a disease of the body-cancer-the other is a disorder of the mind or so-called 'disease' of the mind. anyway how can you have a disease of the mind -the mind being non-physical? If that is a medical opinion, heaven help us all.

by guest Sat May 15, 2004 23:16

Vincent,

Here is an article detailing current medical opinion on depression.

http://cms.psychologytoday.com/conditions/dysthymia.html

You claimed there is no evidence that depression is an illness that is biological in origin. You are wrong. Here are examples of reseach which contradicts you :

From a paper by MRC Brain Metabolism Unit and Department of Psychiatry, University of Edinburgh. It was published in Volume 354 Issue 9187 of The Lancet, where you can find the full findings.

"a number of diverse factors are likely to be implicated, both genetic and environmental".

Also a German study directly contradicts you.
It was conducted at the Department of Psychiatry, Research Group of Clinical Psychopharmacology, Freie Universität Berlin by Bruno Müller-Oerlinghausen, Anne Berghöfer and Michael Bauer.

"Lower than normal concentrations of choline--a direct precursor of acetylcholine--have been reported in red blood cells of patients with bipolar disease and a history of predominantly manic episodes. Furthermore, concentrations of the dopamine metabolite homovanillic acid are usually decreased in the cerebrospinal fluid of depressed patients,11 whereas concentrations of serotonin and -aminobutyric acid might be reduced. At necropsy, concentrations of the serotonin metabolite, 5-hydroxyindol acetic acid, and 5-hydroxytryptamine are reduced in individuals who had bipolar disease."

"Results of family-studies and twin-studies suggest a genetic basis for bipolar disorder."

"Abnormalities in thyroid function are of particular importance in the clinical course of patients with the rapid cycling variant of bipolar disorder. They have a much higher frequency (about 25%) of grade II hypothyroidism (defined as increased concentration of serum basal thyroid-stimulating hormone with a normal serum thyroxine value) than depressed patients in general (2-5%). Thyroid hormones have profound effects on mood and behaviour, and seem to be able to modulate the phenotypic expression of major affective illness."

by guest Sat May 15, 2004 23:25

Depixol,

Firstly I did not say it was identical, I said almost identical. My point was that while we do not have definitive proof, we have enough evidence to suggest it is highly probable.

The brain is physical I'm afraid, and mood has been shown to be affected by chemicals in many studies. The main chemicals controlling mood are dopamine and seratonin.

If you even thought about this for a minute you would realise its obvious thought processes are altered by chemicals, even alcohol for example. Never done something drunk that you would not have done sober?

A quick google will find any more information you require.

If you believe depression is not linked to body chemistry how do you explain Post natal depression for example?

by vincent Sun May 16, 2004 00:55

In response to our medical guest s/he is making a fundamental error. We all understand that our moods and state of mind influence , affect and change bio-chemical make-up. There is without a doubt a relationship between feeling depressed and certain bio-chemical changes in the brain. This is different though from saying that this imbalance is related to an actual disease or real illness called depression for which I hasten to add there are no laboratory based tests. Alzheimer's disease as a real brain disease can be detected in laboratory tests whereas depression, schizophrenia, etc cannot.

The studies that our friend mentions may therefore only confirm what we already know in relation to certain bio-chemical changes. The recent revelations concerning Prozac and the company’s attempts to hide data concerning its harmful effects on children are an indication of the biological bias at work in many of the clinical trials.

What s/he also fails to comprehend is the fact that the neurotoxic drugs which these people may have been taking before the ‘studies’ would have influenced the chemical results of the tests. S/he has presented us with no evidence that clearly establishes the validity of "depression" or other "major mental illnesses" as biologically based brain diseases.

S/he has presented us with no evidence for a physical diagnostic exam -- such as a scan or test of the brain, blood, urine, genes, etc. -- that can reliably distinguish individuals with these diagnoses (prior to treatment with psychiatric drugs), from individuals without these diagnoses.

S/he fails to provide us with the evidence for a base-line standard of a neurochemically-balanced "normal" personality, against which a neurochemical "imbalance" can be measured and corrected by pharmaceutical means.


To take one ridiculous example s/he mentions -S/he mentions how a physical disorder in itself -hypothyroidism -relates to ‘depression’ as an actual disease. Both hypo- and hyper- thyroidism cause physical problems in the body. And both cause ‘depression’. This is only logical. It is hard to feel anything but bad emotionally when your body doesn't feel well or work properly.

Finally the following neuroscience study only confirms the fact that depression is not an actual DISEASE or ILLNESS that is biological in origin:

‘Another hypothesis is that severe unhappiness or depression is caused by lowered levels or abnormal use of another brain chemical, serotonin. Prominent hypotheses concerning depression have focused on altered function of the group of neurotransmitters called monoamines (i.e., norepinephrine, epinephrine, serotonin, dopamine), particularly norepinephrine (NE) and serotonin. ... Studies of the NE [norepinephrine] autoreceptor in depression have found no specific evidence of an abnormality to date. Currently, no clear evidence links abnormal serotonin receptor activity in the brain to depression. ... The data currently available do not provide consistent evidence either for altered neurotransmitter levels or for disruption of normal receptor activity" (The Biology of Mental Disorders New York Neurological Research Institute, Gov't Printing Office, 2000), pp. 82 & 84).

by guest Sun May 16, 2004 14:38

Vincent,

What you have presented is not even research, and its now 12 years old, it was not published in 2000 as you pretend. The icing on the cake is you spectacularly misinterpreting the findings. You say it confirms it is not a disease, in fact it did no such thing, it simply said they could find no link. Ten years ago they didnt know what to look for. There is a difference between finding no link and disproving something.

Take it from me - there has been plenty of advances in this field of research since 1992 which has yielded much more interesting results.

You seem, to rather ignorantly think that depression means simply feeling "bad emotionally". You use this to dismiss the thyroid function findings.

I can assure you that patients suffering from bipolar disorder are not simply feeling bad emotionally. You should at least develop some knowledge of how the disorder manifests itself before commenting.

I have already shown you the chemical tests which show a predisposition to depression.... I dont know what more you want? Bruno Müller-Oerlinghausens research shows exactly this.

As regards blood tests, yes we can take a blood sample and find people who are more likely to suffer from depression than others. Is this what you wanted?

As regards a base-line standard of a neurochemically normal profile we simply take the mean values for similar age and sex. You will find these on google very easily.

by guest Sun May 16, 2004 14:52

Just noticed the contradiction which makes even less sense ....

You say hyperthyroidism causes depression...... but your fundamental arguement is that depression cannot be caused by chemical changes in the body.

If you accept chemical abnormalities such those caused by hyper thyroisism can cause depression why can't you understand that medication which will counteract this abnormality would help the patient ?

by Vincent Sun May 16, 2004 15:55

Guest,

You have failed to prove that depression is a biologically based brain disease. You fail to grasp the distinction that I have continually tried to help you to understand. The studies you mention have not been sufficiently replicated. They are not reproducible in the clinical setting, as for example, tests are routinely carried out to diagnose known genetic conditions such as cystic fibrosis etc or brain diseases ,REAL ones, such as Alzhemisers.

Therefore I believe that, from a scientific perspective, it is very premature to presume that people who have been diagnosed as having 'depression' have a biologically based brain disease related to genes or bio-chemical imbalances in the brain. We do not have sufficient evidence to back up statements that depression as a REAL DISEASE is biological in origin. For decades now, doctors have expounded genetic/biological connections with mental health problems. Genetic/biological links remain tenuous, far too tenuous, and cannot even be described as probabilities. I am not ruling out physical/biological factors in ‘depression’. Orthomolecular medicine has proven how certain vitamin/mineral deficiencies are involved in feeling depressed. Take Graves Disease, a physical disease which results in one feeling depressed. The physical disease causes ‘depression’. It doesn't cause another DISEASE or brain disease called depression. Do you understand this?

Quite simply, there is as yet not sufficient scientific evidence to justify the biomedical model in depression and so-called mental illnesses such as as schizophrenia. It is worth reminding ourselves that many, many genetic/biological theories regarding the cause of mental health problems have been introduced over past 50 years or so. Virtually all have been debunked. This reality should caution us regarding conclusions regarding genes, bio-chemical imbalances, etc.

I present you with the following challenges again. Your refusal and inability to address them proves that you are willing to adhere to a model of biological psychiatry which is unproven. My conclusion is that you are therefore willing to exploit people who suffer from ‘depression’ for profit. Do you understand anything about the nefarious activities of some of the pharmaceutical companies?

Address the following please:

1. evidence that establishes the validity of "schizophrenia," "depression" or other "major mental illnesses" as "biologically-based brain diseases";
2. evidence for a physical diagnostic exam that can reliably distinguish individuals with these diagnoses (prior to treatment with psychiatric drugs) from individuals without these diagnoses;
3. evidence for a baseline standard of a neurochemically-balanced "normal" individual, against which a neurochemical "imbalance" can be measured;
4. evidence that any psychotropic drug can correct any "chemical imbalance" attributed to a psychiatric diagnosis;

by vincent Sun May 16, 2004 16:08

One of the theories behind 'depression' is the belief that it is the result of neuroendocrine abnormalities indicated by excessive cortisol in the blood. The test for this is called the dexamethasone-suppression test or DST. The theory behind this test and the claims of its usefulness have been found to be mistaken because many patients with well-defined so –called depressive illness have normal DSTs".

by Ray McInerney Sun May 16, 2004 17:12

It helped for somebody I know who was on medication for months for severe depression. The anti-depressants didn't make any significant difference to his well-being. Once he learnt to meditate, his depression reduced rapidily after about a week and he is now a much stronger and stable person.

by guest Sun May 16, 2004 17:52

Vincent,

There are very few proofs in medicine. We can only look at the evidence and make recommendations based on that.

Consider chemotherapy, we still cannot prove that it saves lives. Just because we can't prove it doesnt mean that we should ignore chemo as a treatment.

We can't prove that smoking causes cancer either, but most people accept that its probable.

We can't even make a chemical test for pregnancy that is 100% accurate. What we can do is make tests which we can be very confident in.

There are hundreds of things we can't prove 100% but we can still have faith in. We are forced to make judgements based on statistics.

In a similar fashion we can't prove the exact casue of depression. We can only show links which give evidence of a predisposition to depression.

What we do know, and can prove however is that many patients find anti-depressants helpfull.

Compared to a placebo group, the majority of patients on anti-depressants are happier, more stable and have a much improved quality of life. This is a fact.

You are right - we don't yet know the exact mechanism of how this works.... but we do think there is a link. If i had a depressive episode I would certainly take medication for it, just as I would take chemo if I needed to.

Do you understand the difference between say feeling down in the dumps for a few months and suffering from severe manic depression? What would you consider the differences to be?

by Ray McInerney Sun May 16, 2004 18:07

by Shankar Vedantam, Washington Post Staff Writer

The Washington Post
Washington, DC, United States
23 April 2004

Four popular antidepressants being used to treat thousands of depressed American children are unsafe, ineffective or both, according to the first comprehensive scientific review to include all available studies, including negative data that have long been withheld from public scrutiny by the pharmaceutical industry.

It is especially dangerous to prescribe Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and Celexa for children who are suicidal, said British researchers who conducted the analysis published yesterday in the journal the Lancet, because the data show a clear increase in the risk of suicidal behavior among children taking the drugs -- and no benefit.

The study calls into question the repeated assurances of the American psychiatric establishment, which has regularly encouraged use of the medications in depressed children. It also contrasts sharply with the position of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has had access to the same data but has never identified such serious problems.

The analysis involved no new data, but it is the first scientific 'meta-analysis' of all available trials to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. As such, it puts the scientific debate over the medications on a new footing and deepens the chasm between the predominantly positive American view of the drugs and a growing stream of negative reviews by Australian, Canadian and British psychiatrists. The Lancet analysis backs up the warning by British regulators last year not to prescribe the medications to depressed children.

In a sharply worded editorial, the Lancet's editors said the trust of patients had been abused by doctors and the pharmaceutical industry, and that safety had been compromised in the search for profits. The state of the research, the editorial concluded, is riddled with 'confusion, manipulation and institutional failure.'

'If I wanted to introduce a new drug for children who are suicidal and said this has very little proof of efficacy and it has an increased risk of suicide, people would say I was mad,' said Tim Kendall, director of the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health in London, and one of the authors of the new study.

Yet, Kendall said, that is precisely the situation with the four drugs. Kendall's analysis, which was funded by the British government, contrasted the largely positive results of studies published by drug manufacturers with negative data that the companies call proprietary and have not published. British regulators recently made the unpublished data available for study.

'In each of the published articles, the authors concluded the drug was either effective or safe or both,' Kendall said. 'When you look at the combined evidence, it is ineffective, unsafe or both.' . . .

...The number of American children being treated for depression in any year has surged in recent years; a majority are being treated with antidepressants.

FDA officials have consistently said the large number of failed antidepressant trials do not prove that the drugs are worthless, a position in conflict with the Lancet study. . . .

Wayne D. Blackmon, a Washington psychiatrist who has long said clinicians cannot rely on the integrity of the data they are being given, said Congress should force the FDA to take unpublished negative trials into account and force the companies to make all data -- positive and negative -- available for public scrutiny.

In the meantime, he said, clinicians should go back to the Hippocratic oath -- 'First, do no harm' -- and 'recognize that you are flying by the seat of your pants.'

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

by vincent Sun May 16, 2004 19:31

Guest,

It is clear that one cannot prove or conclude as a mater of fact that depression is a real disease. The science is clear on that (research scientific findings below). That is the essential point I am making. The ‘disease’model which you clearly adhere to needs to see a more social and holistic model which can help people who suffer severe mental distress. That is the way forward .I do not confuse real brain diseases with ‘diseases’ of the mind the way you do. I believe in depression as a form of mental distress or severe mental distress- not as a brain disease. I will not repeat this distinction again as it is becoming tiresome. One’s brain chemistry changes all the time. I believe there may be certain correlations between brain chemistry and depression. But it is a huge leap from this to saying that a certain brain chemistry points to depression as a disease. Given the many neurotransmitters in the brain and the huge complexity of the way they work and interact with each other we may never know what the exact nature of that relationship is which may also vary among individuals. People should not therefore believe that the drug ‘treatments’ interfering with neurotransmission are absolutely essential in their addressing the causes of their mental distress or their becoming less depressed. The human race has survived throughout millennia without them and I am sure we can continue to do so. You also ignore the terrible effects these drugs have had on many people. You clearly fail to address what some of the drug companies have been up to and the underhand way that they have been working at times. I mention the Seroxat scandal and the recent revelations surrounding Prozac. I do find it sad that you seem to have much blind faith in them and ignore the way the results of clinical trials can be presented in the favour of the companies who often fund the research. Your arrogant presumption that I ‘should take it’ from you that you are right should serve as a reminder to everyone of the contemptuous attitude of the proponents of biological psychiatry. I firmly believe that what you are saying is wrong and all the studies you mention are wide open to criticism.

I’ll address specifically some of what you seem to think are biological markers in depression as a brain disease.

You mention for instance low hydroxyindol acetic acid (5HIAA) levels in spinal fluids. However this is not specific. In people who have committed suicide there is considerable overlap between subjects and normal controls. See studies by (Valenstein, 1998).

Meta -analysis of controlled studies of the benefits of so-called anti-depressants put them far lower than suggested by drug companies. ( Kirsch and Sapirstein 1998) did an elaborate statistical analysis of double blind placebo studies (2318 patients) to determine ‘effect’ sizes. They found that the placebo was fairly consistently able to produce about 75% of the response of the active medication.

The example of the action of medication in the blocking of the reuptake mechanism of norepinephrine by antidepressants is often made. For many years, the prevailing hypothesis has been that depression is caused by an absolute or relative deficiency of monoamines, such as norepinephrine, in the brain. What the proponents fail to point out is that the monoamine theory of depression has been found insufficient to explain the aetiology of depression (Hirschfield, 2000). The theory was originally encouraged by the finding that reserpine, an antihypertensive and antipsychotic drug, which was thought to cause depression as a side effect, produces depletion of monoamines in the brain. However, it has been argued that reserpine does not in fact cause depression and the myth of this effect has been perpetuated because of a reluctance to discard the monoamine hypothesis (Baumeister, Hawkins and Uzelac, 2003).

Research findings do not support the monamine theory in its entirety (Nair and Sharma, 1989). For example, other neurotransmitter systems besides monoamines are affected by antidepressants, and different types of antidepressants exert widely differing effects on monoamine systems. Some antidepressants are, in fact, very weak inhibitors of monoamine systems (eg. iprindole) and others, paradoxically, enhance monoamine uptake (eg. tianeptine) (Hindmarch, 2001). Monoamine depletion has not been observed to produce depression in healthy individuals; nor is rapid elevation in monoamines correlated with quick antidepressant action (Heninger, Delgardo and Charney, 1996). Neither impairment of monoamine synthesis, nor excessive degradation of monoamines, is consistently present in association with depression. It is also not clear why there should be a time lag for the antidepressant effect as the biochemical effect on monoamine levels is acute (Duman, Heninger and Nestler, 1997). All these inconsistencies undermine the monoamine theory, and suggest it should be abandoned as the basis for understanding the effect of antidepressants in clinical practice


The truth is that we do not know the mechanism of psychotropic medications; nor can we say that their effectiveness is totally proven because of the methodological complications and uncertainties of randomised controlled trials. Certainly the effect of medication cannot be said to confirm the neurobiological basis of so called mental illness. Psychopharmacology developed in the 1950s on a wave of therapeutic optimism created by the marketing success of chlorpromazine for the treatment 'of schizophrenia'. Psychiatry also had to withstand a withering critique in the 1960s and 70s from what came to be called "anti-psychiatry". The response from mainstream psychiatry was to attempt to improve the reliability of psychiatric diagnoses by introducing operational criteria, as for example in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-III). It continues to take refuge in an over-defended biomedical model of mental illness.


Scientific research findings here:

Heninger, G.R., Delgardo, P.L. and Charney, D.S. (1996) The revised monoamine theory of depression: a modulatory role for monoamines, based on new findings from monoamine depletion experiments in humans. Pharmacopsychiatry, 29, 2-11

Hindmarch, I. (2001) Expanding the horizons of depression: beyond the monoamine hypothesis. Human Psychopharmacology, 16, 203-218

Hirschfield, R.M.A. (2000) History and evolution of the monoamine hypothesis of depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 61 (suppl 6), 4-6

Holtzman, N.A. and Marteau, T.M. (2000) Will genetics revolutionise medicine? New England Journal of Medicine, 342, 141-144

Joseph, J. (2003) The gene illusion. Ross-on-Wye: PCCS

Lewontin, R.C., Rose, S. and Kamin, L.J. (1984) Not in our genes. New York: Pantheon
Lidz, T. and Blatt, S. (1983) Critique of the Danish-American studies of the biological and adoptive relatives of adoptees who became schizophrenic. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 426-435

Moldin, S.O. (1997) The maddening hunt for madness genes. Nature Genetics, 17, 127-129

Moncrieff, J. and Double, D.B. (2003) Blinding trials. Mental Health Today, Nov, 24-26

Nair, N.P. and Sharma, M. (1989) Neurochemical and receptor theories of depression Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa, 14, 328-341

New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (2003) Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America. Final Report. DHHS Pub. No. SMA-03-3832. Rockville.
Pope, H.G. Jr., Jonas, J.M., Cohen, B.M. and Lipinski, J.F. (1982)

Failure to find evidence of schizophrenia in first-degree relatives of schizophrenic probands. American Journal of Psychiatry,139, 826-828

Roth, M. and Kroll, J. (1986) The reality of mental illness. Cambridge: University Press.

Sawa, A. and Snyder, S.H. (2002) Schizophrenia: diverse approaches to a complex disease. Science, 296, 692-695

Sulliva, P.F., Kendler, K.S. and Neale, M.C. (2003) Schizophrenia as a complex trait: evidence from a meta-analysis of twin studies. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60, 1187-1192

by guest Sun May 16, 2004 21:01

Vincent,

Thank you for copying and pasting from Doubles paper. One would almost think you were trying to pass of what you posted as your own idea.

This is getting boring, we have both made our points. You are free to believe what you like.

However you must accept that your initial claim that "no scientific evidence that points to depression being a disease related to a bio-chemical imbalance in the brain" was untrue and misleading.

You are right in saying that a holistic model of treatment is needed. That is current medical thinking. Medication is often a usefull tool in treatment.

And even if it is simply placebo effect, at least the patients condition is improved and that is the most important thing at the end of the day.

by vincent Sun May 16, 2004 21:33

Guest,

I would suggest you read the following article below. I take my information from qualified critical psychiatrists. You have a limited understanding of psychiatry and fail to grasp the complexity of the subject we are dealing with. You have failed to address the questions I put to you by misunderstanding certain distinctions, making unhelpful comparisons and drawing false conclusions from insufficent evidence. I suggest you read this article written by an Irish psychiatrist critical of the system which you unthinkingly adhere to. It also points out the experience of users of the ‘mental health’ services in Ireland. Good luck and may you enjoy financial rewards without exploiting the vulnerable in society.

http://www.critpsynet.freeuk.com/Lynch.htm

by guest Sun May 16, 2004 23:35

Vincent,

Are you trying to wind me up here?

Terry Lynch is not a psychiatrist.

He has done a course on psychotherapy but that is a far cry from being a "qualified psychiatrist".

You are deliberatly exaggerating your evidence to make it look better. It was the same with the 12 year old study you "accidentally" quoted as being recent.

Does it not strike you as strange that you need to make stuff up to give your view some credence?

The alternative is that you can't even understand the difference between a psychiatrist and a general practitioner. If this is true you have no hope of assimilating different research and coming to a meaningfull conclusion.

by Ray McInerney Mon May 17, 2004 00:15

By Sean Fleming - Irish Association Against Psychiatry.

by guest Mon May 17, 2004 00:59

Ah now I understand.

I had started thinking he was taking the mickey, but its easy to make that mistake with scientologists :)

by Stephen R Mon May 17, 2004 02:11

I see stupid people... they're everywhere... they walk around like everyone else... they don't even know that they're dumb ....

Pseudo-Science really annoys me - it lets stupid people think they are clever. There is a reason why almost everyone has a different opinion to you - its because your wrong ! You need to go back to you own psychiatrist and start taking those little tablets he was telling you about.

by Depression Sufferer Mon May 17, 2004 06:42

Our suffering is real. It's not for self-righteous "informed" people to make political points out of, a reason to run up t-shirts with some self-indulgent pretentious solgans on them, or engage in some mind of Michael Moore-esque narcissistic lecturing of the rest of us.

Depression is real and it's an appalling disorder from which to suffer.

You have NO interest in depression or its treatment, or the people who suffer from it. Instead, what you are engaging in here is a political propaganda exercise based on your own prejudices against capitalism, private medicine, America or whatever.

It's an insult to read this kind of horseshit, totally based on the premise that you know what is best for people, and others don't have the information , or to ability, to make a decision about their own lives. And now, here we go, doing the same about mental health.

Medication has helped me deal with depression, as part of therapy as I seek to come to terms with this challenge. So I find your pontification not arrogant, selfish and mis-informed but ill-considered given what I go through on an almost daily basis. Frankly, depression it's none of your fucking business.

I will be writing to LundBeck to congratulate them. Thanks for pointing out how to do this.

Lundbeck (Ireland) Ltd
14 Deansgrange Business Park
Blackrock
Co Dublin
Ireland

by vincent Mon May 17, 2004 11:46

Guest,
I apologise in relation to my error concerning Lynch. Let me say this though. He has helped many people who suffer from depression and is in fact the author of an excellent book on the subject. His treatments have made a real difference in the lives of people who have suffered depression. Also I am entitled to take information from qualified Critical psychiatrists - you mention Double. They are more knowledgeable on the subject than you and me. You put faith in drugs which do not work in the way they are alleged to. You believe in a theory that depression is a real brain disease yet you are unable to back it up with sufficently strong scientific evidence. You ignore the fact that these drugs have for many people made life worse.There are also no tests whereby it can be proven that someone has a brain disease called depression. You ignore the whole subject of so-called anti-psychotic drugs and their devastating effects on people labelled as 'mentally ill'.You ignore the nefarious activities of the drug companies. You acknowledge that the placebo is more effective than the so-called anti-depressant. You admit that there are no blood tests which prove that depression is a real brain disease. You ignore the fact that therapy, counselling, etc do not get the same focus as drug treatments within psychiatry. You are blind and ignorant to the symbiotic relationship between psychiatry and the drug companies. You refuse to address the drug scandals concerning seroxat and prozac. Your willingness to adhere to the beliefs of biological psychiatry leads me to conclude that your alliegience to the drug companies and their lies is greater than your desire to help those who suffer severe mental distress.

by vincent Mon May 17, 2004 11:53

Guest,

I provided you with a whole list of studies and scientific research which contradicts the nonsense which you tried to argue proved the existence of depression as a real brain disease. Have you taken the time to research them or are you disputing their authenticity? Also in relation to the writer who mentioned scientology- I have no connections with this cult.

by guest Mon May 17, 2004 12:17

Of course I am disputing their authenticity !

You repeatedly have made claims which turned out to be untrue.... eg. pretending a paper was recent, claiming Lynch was a psychiatrist , claiming there was no evidence of chemical depression etc etc

If you want to believe such an ignorant and outdated idea thats up to you, and frankly I dont care... but please whatever you do stop lying, its very dangerous.

by vincent Mon May 17, 2004 13:04

How can you dispute the scientific authenticity of the following?

Heninger, G.R., Delgardo, P.L. and Charney, D.S. (1996) The revised monoamine theory of depression: a modulatory role for monoamines, based on new findings from monoamine depletion experiments in humans. Pharmacopsychiatry, 29, 2-11

Hindmarch, I. (2001) Expanding the horizons of depression: beyond the monoamine hypothesis. Human Psychopharmacology, 16, 203-218

Hirschfield, R.M.A. (2000) History and evolution of the monoamine hypothesis of depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 61 (suppl 6), 4-6

Holtzman, N.A. and Marteau, T.M. (2000) Will genetics revolutionise medicine? New England Journal of Medicine, 342, 141-144

Joseph, J. (2003) The gene illusion. Ross-on-Wye: PCCS

Lewontin, R.C., Rose, S. and Kamin, L.J. (1984) Not in our genes. New York: Pantheon
Lidz, T. and Blatt, S. (1983) Critique of the Danish-American studies of the biological and adoptive relatives of adoptees who became schizophrenic. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 426-435

Moldin, S.O. (1997) The maddening hunt for madness genes. Nature Genetics, 17, 127-129

Moncrieff, J. and Double, D.B. (2003) Blinding trials. Mental Health Today, Nov, 24-26

Nair, N.P. and Sharma, M. (1989) Neurochemical and receptor theories of depression Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa, 14, 328-341


Failure to find evidence of schizophrenia in first-degree relatives of schizophrenic probands. American Journal of Psychiatry,139, 826-828



This research acknowledges that the brain disease hypothesis of depression is just that - a hypothesis. When will the penny drop?
I have also apologised for the error concerning Lynch. In an earlier posting you were unable to make the distinction between brain and mind. You seem unable to comprehend the dangers in pathologising thoughts and behaviour. You can’t make the distinction between depression as a condition (a form of severe mental distress) and the theory of it being a brain disease. You continue to perpetuate the myth that depression is a real brain disease which is totally unproven. It is in the interests of the drug firms to perpetuate this myth because it makes a packet for them. Why don’t you acknowledge that these drugs have actually made life no better or in fact worse for many people? If you really wish to help people I suggest you adopt a more critical view of psychiatry.

by guest Mon May 17, 2004 13:20

Look I am really getting tired of this.

Everybody accepts that the medication we are talking about improves the conditions of patients. All we disagree on is the mechanism.

You claim it is placebo effect. I claim it is science.

I dont really care how it works. All I care about is that the patients condition is improved dramatically, and in the vast majority of cases this is without any signifigant side effects.

If you ever come up with a proper alternative I'll listen to you, otherwise leave it to people who know best.

by vincent Mon May 17, 2004 13:36

At least seven studies I cited refer to depression written by medical experts. Are you saying that you know more than they do?


I am coming to the conclusion that you may be suffering from a mental disease called ‘naivete disorder’ – it’s characterised by total willingness to believe the drug companies and the claims of biological psychiatry. This can be very serious as it can, in the more advanced stages, develop into"corporate asskissingitis." Would you be willing to take a brain-damaging drug to help treat the symptoms?

by Ray Mon May 17, 2004 14:33

Have you actually read the studies you cite, or just the titles?
if you've read them, what relevant qualifications do you have that make you competent to assess their findings?

by Vincent Mon May 17, 2004 14:38

Depression sufferer,
I have never heard such appalling rubbish! I have done a lot of work in the area of mental health and am trying to help a number of people recover from neuroleptic drugs with the help of a sympathetic doctor . Your foul and abusive language has no place on Indymedia and you clearly need to develop a more critical view of psychiatry.

by vincent Mon May 17, 2004 14:44

Ray, the point is they are medical experts and their research contradicts the belief that depression is a brain disease. There is no strong scientific evidence in favour of this belief. Do you believe that depression is a real brain disease or illness?

by Ray Mon May 17, 2004 14:51

"Ray, the point is they are medical experts and their research contradicts the belief that depression is a brain disease"

Have you read the papers? Can you judge their content? If the answer to either question is 'no', then how do you know what their research means?

As for what I believe, I think its obvious that changes to the physical structure or chemical balance of the brain will change a person's mental state. (Which doesn't in itself rule out movement in the opposite direction) The question then is, are there changes that you can make to the brain that will cause a depressed person to no longer be depressed. The answer to that seems to be yes.

You have a different opinion. What makes your opinion more valuable than the opinion of any other random person?

by vincent Mon May 17, 2004 14:59

Ray, depression as a brain disease is a theory. That being so one can then understand that the drugs and way it is ‘believed’ they work is therefore also a theory. Drug companies lie therefore when they say that the drugs help to redress the bio-chemical imbalance.These drugs affect a whole network of neurotransmitters in the brain – not just one or two. Hence we have the serotonin theory of depression or the dopamine theory in schizophrenia. What we are dealing with here is therefore pure speculation. We cannot work on the basis that depression is a brain disease which is the way psychiatry works. We may speculate and some people critical of psychiatry don’t rule it out completely. The point I made about Alzhemisers is very relevant because here we have a real brain disease that can be detected in laboratory tests- not so with depression, schizophrenia, bi-polar disease, etc.
It has been shown in numerous trials that placebo is just as if not more effective than the so-called anti-depressants. look into the drug scandals surrounding seroxat and prozac - companies prepared to lie and the damage that they have done to people and a section of society. look at the way the results of clinical trials can be manipulated to present the drugs as being effective – the fact that the drug firms often fund this research.

by Ray Mon May 17, 2004 15:07

Have you read the papers you cite, and do you have the qualifications needed to understand them?
Or are you just pulling the titles of likely-looking papers off the net?
Or are you a scientologist who has been given a list of impressive-looking citations by a senior figure, and never bothered to check them?
(Correction. Silly me, scientologists are never 'given' anything by senior figures. They have to pay for the 'training course')

The scientific (not to mention philosophical) consense is that brain states *are* mental states. Change the brain and you'll change the mind. Since the brain is a physical entity, its subject to the same physical laws as everything else. Chemical changes in the brain (such as an increase in the level of serotonin) are triggered by other chemical events.
Your argument seems to be that the chemical state of the brain can be changed by something else. The 'soul'? Yogic flyers? Clams?

by guest Mon May 17, 2004 15:15

Vincent - You are a stupid man. Sadly stupid people can also be very dangerous.

Luckily most people will be able to see through the thin veil of pseudo-science you use to conceal your ignorance.

Luckily most people will have the intelligence to read the evidence presented by both sides of the debate and reach a sensible conclusion.

The onle sensible conclusion is that neither vincents opinion nor that of almost the entire medical and scientific world can be proved 100% true. However anybody with an ounce of sense will understand that the view of almost the entire medical and scientific world is more likely to be true than that of Vincent and his crazy scientologist friends.

by vincent Mon May 17, 2004 15:16

Ray,

I'm sorry I thought you were being serious and I was prepared to have a serious dialogue with you. I earnestly tried to address your points and you slur me with scientology. I repeat again- I have absloutely no contacts, links with this cult- I've never even come across a member of this cult. The medical citations are by medical experts. your comments are facial and display a kindergartan mentality. It's obvious to me that you are impervious to reason.

by Ray Mon May 17, 2004 15:18

Conclusion:
He hasn't actually read the papers he cited.
He doesn't have the qualifications to understand them, even if he did read them.

by vincent Mon May 17, 2004 15:19

Guest, it is now obvious to me that you can't even read . I've made it clear- I've no connections at all with scientology . You clearly possess the intellect of a frozen pea.

by Ray McInerney Mon May 17, 2004 16:03

''Your argument seems to be that the chemical state of the brain can be changed by something else. The 'soul'? Yogic flyers? Clams?''

Ok Ray, I'm assuming that you're disputing the claim that people practicing some form of meditation can have a measurable effect on the brain chemistry or brain wave patterns of others. However, there is plenty of scientific evidences showing that different forms of meditation can change the brain chemistry, at a different rate to sleep or waking activities, in the practitioner.

BTW Yogic Flying is a form of meditation.

by Ray Mon May 17, 2004 16:12

First off, Raymond, have you seen anyone flying yet? Hovering even? Doing anything other than bouncing on their thighs like an idiot? Just checking.

Second, of course meditation can effect brain state. Looking at a picture of someone you find attractive also changes your brain state. hearing a piece of music you like can change your brain state. All of these things can lead to an increase in observed levels of seratonin.

But in each case, the serotonin increase has immediate physical causes. Seratonin levels rise because certain hormones are released, because particular neurons have fired. Even though you can associate certain brain state changes with mental events, these changes also have a proximate, physical cause. Always. There is no point at which a ghost steps in and pulls a lever somewhere in the cortex. Everything the brain does can be understood as an effect of physical change - and since mental states are the result of brain states, all mental states can be understood as having a physical cause.

by SP Mon May 17, 2004 16:31

and if the cause of depression is certain social or life factors (poverty, deprivation , unemployment) and their effect on the brain the solution to the depression lies in those factors being addressed.

by Ray McInerney Mon May 17, 2004 16:47

Ray, I haven’t seen anybody hovering. You’re still not on about that 1976 advertisement?

I don’t think too many people believe that some form of being comes into your central nervous system and starts playing with its hardwire.

by Ray Mon May 17, 2004 17:01

It used to be that the Mahagettingrichfromgullibleidiots would say that advanced bouncers had hovered and then flown. Nowadays, they'll admit that no-one has actually managed to do more than bounce on their arse.
Its funny how the Mahalaughing at you didn't say this from the start. Oh now, back then, TMers were promised that soon they'd be flying along beside the buses. It took ten years of requests for demonstrations before they owned up. But they still promote arse-bouncing as the first stage of a process that will eventually lead to hovering and flying.

Take a week off, Raymond. Go somewhere to think about your life. Are you so ashamed of admitting you've made a mistake that you're going to persist in this laughable enterprise?

by Gaillimhed Mon May 17, 2004 17:08

Scholarly qoutations from the Lancet do not a consensus make.
Any one who knows anything useful about depression knows that there is almost nothing known.
the problem is the usual one, the disease is of the mind, the mind is non-physical, but the mind has effects on the physical body: these are the SYMPTOMS, the symptoms are not the disease, in the same way as the vomitting is not the Salmonella.
Modern medicine in its arrogance and stupidity treats symptoms, not causes. Although maybe not so stupid -it is a very lucrative business -

by Ray McInerney Mon May 17, 2004 17:11

that I'll notify when it will be shown without doubt that large groups of people practicing TM and Yogic Flying together has a positive effect on national and global consciousness.

I would give it at least four months.

Watch this space.

by Ray Mon May 17, 2004 17:19

They've been saying this for at least thirty years now.

Is there anything that could falsify your belief in TM? You say something impressive is going to happen in the next four months? Tell you what - give it to the end of the year. If, in that time, nothing has happened that puts TM on the front page of the Irish Times, London Times, or Washington Post, or makes TM the lead story on RTE news at 9, BBC news at 10, or Channel 4 news at 7, will you admit that you are being strung along? Or will you start making excuses?

by SP Mon May 17, 2004 17:53

some interesting discussion here. if you are attacked in the street a reaction in the brain causes trauma, distress, etc. So experiences that happen to us outside our physical body are also important and can be the cause of brain reactions, etc and resultant mental/emotional states. so we can't reduce everything to what goes on within the brain. what happens out there, outside, could be viewed as mind or part of our mind and the brain as the reception centre for what is going on around us.

by Ray McInerney Mon May 17, 2004 18:15

TM has been in the front pages of numerous newspapers and featured in news programmes over the years.

There will be no excuses. Positive events will occur throughout the world as soon as the Vedic Pandits from India are fully trained in consciousness based technologies, and are practicing together in large groups in India and throughout the world.

by Ray Mon May 17, 2004 18:21

Front page, above the fold story, in one of those named newspapers and/or lead story in one of the named bulletins.
Do you agree that it will be that big a story?
Do you agree that when this doesn't happen, it will be time to re-evaluate your commitment to TM?
Are you willing to stake your belief on this, or will you invent excuses when nothing happens?

(I don't want apologies, public renunciations, or anything of the sort. I just want you to take an honest look at what you are being told, and make a commitment _to yourself_ that if this doesn't come through, you will make an honest and critical examination of the role of TM in your life)

by Ray McInerney Mon May 17, 2004 18:37

In short, once the large groups of vedic pandits are set up, the world will be a much safer, healthier world to live in.

by Orla Mon May 17, 2004 19:18

I too used to sound like Vincent et al while I was a practising scientologist. Luckily I was helped to leave the movement and now enjoy a healthy relationship with my friends and family once again. You have very little chance of making these people understand science as they have been brainwashed into accepting what their superiors tell them without question. Scientologists are not encouraged to think independently rather they are force feed junk and told that it is everyone else are the people who have been brainwashed.

by vincent Mon May 17, 2004 19:37

Orla, learn to read . For the umpteenth time I am not a scientologist.

by Orla Mon May 17, 2004 19:42

Did they tell you to say that?

Or was it the voices in your head?

by Orla Mon May 17, 2004 19:44

Anyway when did I say you were a scientologist?

by vincent Mon May 17, 2004 19:49

Orla, it was clear from your posting what you were insinuating. If you want to keep that idea in your wee head so be it. It's a handy way of putting down people who are trying to expose the biological bias in psychiatry

by Stephen Mon May 17, 2004 20:06

Out of curiosity Vincent have you ever been advised to take medication for any psychiatric illness?

Maybe you wouldnt be quite so crazy if you had taken it.

by Ray Tue May 18, 2004 09:34

"In short, once the large groups of vedic pandits are set up"

Is this going to happen this year?
Is this going to have an effect that will be covered in the news sources mentioned above, with the prominence specified, and that is clearly due to these trained arse-bouncers?

How confident are you that this is going to happen? Are you prepared to stake your belief on it?

by Pat Wed May 19, 2004 12:53

http://www.talkingcure.com/docs/Seidels_Dissertation.doc

by Ray Wed May 19, 2004 12:59

Some bloke's doctoral thesis! Take that, academic orthodoxy!
What are you going to link to next - the blog of the guy you met last night in the pub?

by ?! Wed May 19, 2004 13:03

if some bloke's doctoral thesis is good enough to start a war to find WMD which could fit into 87% of new homes built in Penn USA last year, then it should be enough to get your prescription.
"scripT" as they say.

by Pat Wed May 19, 2004 13:29

see:

www.breggin.com

by Ray Wed May 19, 2004 13:59

other than the fact that you agree with him?
How many 'top psychiatrists' disagree with him?

by Pat Wed May 19, 2004 14:01

Another top psychiatrist, Loren R. Mosher, and former member of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) confirms the fact that so-called anti-depressants and neuroleptics are brain –damaging. See his letter from resignation from the APA

http://www.moshersoteria.com/resig.htm

by Ray Wed May 19, 2004 14:06

Are you going to start citing the individual scientists who don't believe in evolution?

The overwhelming majority of psychiatrists support the 'biopsychiatric ontology of mental disorders'. Isn't that true?

by Pat Wed May 19, 2004 14:15

Thomas Szasz, Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus at the State University of New York Health Science Center in Syracuse, New York , says so-called mental illness is a myth

See:

http://www.szasz.com/

by pat Wed May 19, 2004 14:35

See:
http://www.astrocyte-design.com/pseudoscience/index.html

by guest Wed May 19, 2004 15:04

The article you quote says "Put 100 patients on any antidepressant, and about a third will respond beautifully. Another third will have a partial response"

You think a treatment which you accept gives an improvement in patient condition in 66% of cases is useless?

How does that make sense?

You say depression is caused only by life cicumstances.... This means for someones depression to lift one assumes the patient would need to change their life circumstances or thier view of those circumstances.

How does taking the medication change the persons life circumstances in 66% of cases ???

by Ray Wed May 19, 2004 15:07

There are 6 billion people on the planet.
Tens of thousands of them have some connection to psychiatry. There could be hundreds of such people who 'question biological psychiatry', and they would still be a tiny minority. So posting links to all of their web pages isn't going to accomplish anything.
I'll repeat my question to you
Isn't it true that the overwhelming majority of psychiatrists support the 'biopsychiatric ontology of mental disorders'?
And just in case you're Vincent posting under anothe name
Have you actually read all of the pieces you're linking to?
Do you have any relevant education that qualifies you to comment on them?

by Pat Wed May 19, 2004 15:20

Psychaitry's attempt to locate everything in the brain and therefore where everything needs to be corrected is finally manifested in the terrible barbaric assault on the dignity of the human being in ECT. Proponents of biological psychiatry are guilty of assault and even extrajudicial murder because their drugs and ECT ruin and destroy peoples lives.

see:http://www.sntp.net/ect/ect3.htm

by guest Wed May 19, 2004 15:35

Pat \ Vincent

You are just ranting now - This is not a competition to see who can post the most links.

Are you unable to address my point directly?

D.

by pat Wed May 19, 2004 15:41

Prominent psychiatrists are stating that schizophrenia is a brain disease like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or multiple sclerosis. These statements are disconfirmed by scientific facts: no neurologist can independently confirm the presence or absence of schizophrenia with laboratory tests because the large majority of people diagnosed with schizophrenia show no neuropathological or biochemical abnormalities and a few people without any symptoms of schizophrenia have the same biophysiological abnormalities.

see:
http://www.webcom.com/thrive/schizo/articles/ehss.html

by pat Wed May 19, 2004 15:52

So-called anti dpreassants are brain damaging drugs. The pharmaceutical companies lie about the benefits to get them on the market.They control the research and clinical trials and so are able to manipulate the results.see:

http://www.breggin.com/prozac.html

by guest Wed May 19, 2004 16:06

Wow a link to a page writte by a soldier turned psychologist ..... a person with almost no training in anatomy and physiology !

If you want to question his authority you can ask the people he cites as his references I suppose -

Nick Head
Training Officer
US Postal Service, Arizona
(602) 225-5493

or

Barbara Ritter
Bethell School District (Washington)
(253) 582-7497

His school teacher and someone in the post office??????

Thats hardly impressive for a "Prominent psychiatrist" ! Well I suppose its not bad considering he isnt even a psychiatrist , never mind prominent.

Is that the best you can do?

Of course I refer to the article you copied and pasted ( without citation ) from written by the "expert" Al Siebert

by guest Wed May 19, 2004 16:19

Just Looked up one of your other citations .... hey i'm bored today.

Anyway , the link http://www.astrocyte-design.com/pseudoscience/index.html beats the one by your soldier friend.

Not only is the guy who wrote that not a psychiatrist, he's not even a psychologist. He has no background in medicine at all, he studied computers in college. And what is he working at now? He manages a shop.

Hardly lends weight to your theory now does it?

Again is that the best you can do?

by vincent Wed May 19, 2004 16:21

I see guest has joined the fray again. I would advise readers to pay no heed to his/her words words. She (I believe it is a she) refuses to apologise for accusing me of being influenced by scientology despite the fact that I have continually pointed out the fact that I have no connections with this cult.

Let’s look at her errors:
1. believes depression is a brain disease- unproven by the scientific information available
2. believes so-called anti-depressants help to redress bio-chemical imbalance- unproven -only a theory
3. refuses to acknowledge the nefarious activities of the drug companies
4. is unable to make the distinction between brain and mind
5. is unable to distinguish between depression as severe mental distress and the theory that it is a brain disease
6. can’t understand the distinction between certain biological factors such as thyroid /hormone /vitamin /mineral deficiencies in causing severe mental distress and the theory that these are related to an actual brain disease
7. ignores fact that placebo is just as if not more effective than so-called anti-depressant
8. does not recognise that talking therapies are often more effective because of her biological bias
9. does not recognised the fact that depression is very much related to life experience
10. stigmatises people by saying they have a mental illness which cannot be confirmed by any objective physical test
11. has greater allegiance to the drug companies than the psycho/social model of mental health

Finally I demand that you apologise for linking me to scientology

by vincent Wed May 19, 2004 16:31

Guest,
Also three psychaitrists have been mentioned in earlier postings by Pat and not by me.Why do you ignore them? you are very selective and are displaying a rather sad, snobbish and arrogant mentality.Does everything in your book have to be written by a medical expert.Some people may be experts by profession- others are experts by their experience of using these 'mental health' services.

by guest Wed May 19, 2004 16:37

Are you going to apologise for the lies that you posted ? I refer to the dates you changed etc

Would you like to exlain how 66% of patients showing a measureable improvement in their wellbeing is a bad thing?

by guest Wed May 19, 2004 16:41

"others are experts by their experience of using these 'mental health' services"

How in the name of God does having a mental illness automatically qualify people to give meaningfull comment on such a technical and complex issue as the ongoing research in the area of neurology?

by vincent Wed May 19, 2004 16:59

Guest,

your arrogance and stupidity are unbelievable. We can't have a debate if you are going to discredit the critical psychaitry viewpoint by accusing me of scientology- which I have repeatedly denied -and demeaning those labelled 'mentally ill' . Your only agenda to Lundbeck and the drug companies and to hell with those who suffer as a result of their drugs. One day you'll regret the choice you made.

Apologise your your false accusation !

by Ray Wed May 19, 2004 17:07

Have you actually read the papers you cited above?
Do you have any relevant qualifications?

by vincent Wed May 19, 2004 17:23

Ray,
I refuse to dialogue until Guest apologises for her lie linking me to scientology

by vincent Wed May 19, 2004 17:28

That scurrilous lie linking me to scientology must be withdrawn

by Ray Wed May 19, 2004 17:30

Or you'll just never answer anybody's questions ever again?

by vincent Wed May 19, 2004 17:32

there is little point in my saying anything if I am being falsely accused of Scientology

by guest Wed May 19, 2004 18:25

Great :) At least we won't have to listen to your rubbish anymore.

by vincent Wed May 19, 2004 18:32

You make a serious accusation in saying I am linked with scientology. You refuse to apologise. Until I receive an apology I can’t continue to debate this subject as you are becoming irrational in trying to put out this lie about me and scientology – still given your allegiance to the drug companies I shouldn’t be surprised, they do lie and you would make a good liar for them.

by guest Wed May 19, 2004 18:44

I thought you promised you would stop replying after you gave up .... I'm all disappointed now.

Can we talk to your alter ego Ray McInerney or Pat instead?

by vincent Wed May 19, 2004 18:54

Sounds like you're self-projecting.

You've lost the argument.

There is nothing else to say .

you refuse to apologise for your lie linking me to scientology.

At least I had the grace to apologise earlier. you are clearly a sad woman who has probably damaged her children through your beliefs.

Apologise for your lie linking me to scientology

by guest Wed May 19, 2004 19:06

Vincent I never called you a scientologist. Read the posts.

It was in reference to a separate aticle posted by Ray McInerney, who I am sure is not you under a different name.

Why are you so concerned about being linked to scientology anyway? Your views are identical to the church of scientologists re this topic.

by Vincent Wed May 19, 2004 19:15

comment from earlier posting by Guest:

“... However anybody with an ounce of sense will understand that the view of almost the entire medical and scientific world is more likely to be true than that of Vincent and his crazy scientologist friends.”

by guest Wed May 19, 2004 19:59

Erm , hate to point this out to you but I didn't call you a scientologist....... if i had said "scientologists like Vincent" that would be different, but i didnt.

Anyway, do you find it easier to debate this than the main issue here?

Did you just give up because you dont have an answer for any of the questions you were asked?

by vincent Wed May 19, 2004 20:51

I asked you to apologise for LINKING me to scientology you buffoon. Apart from your ‘naivete disorder’ and ‘corporate asskissingitis’ I believe you may also suffer from ‘severe blinderitis’. You are out of touch with yourself and with what is going on with other people esp. those with mental health difficulties and can’t admit where you have gone wrong. It is hard for you to face the truth. I will try to understand your suffering by recognising that it may be a brain disease related to some bio-chemical imbalance in your little head.

by guest Wed May 19, 2004 21:01

Well the scientologists are the main proponents of this crazy anti-psychiatry idea, so its logical to assume you draw your ideas from some of their teachings, whether you realise it or not.

If you are drawing ideas from scientology that links you to it. Why have you such a big problem with this?

by vincent Wed May 19, 2004 21:11

A great many people involved in the critical/anti-psychaitry movement have no such links and no wish to develop such links with scientology . Our ideas are based on the need to move away from the present biomedical model to a more social and holistic model. Like anything in life just because two things share certain features it doesn't mean they are the same.

The last thing people who suffer from mental distress need is to end up joining what I believe is a CULT. You slur me by saying I am connnected with this cult. Once again, I ask me to withdraw a false accusation linking me to scientology.

In the round you have lost the argument. You have embarrassed yourself and now are engaging in semantics.We can resume a debate on the issues if you wish if you simply apologise for linking me to scientology

by guest Wed May 19, 2004 21:25

Yes but it means there is a link, in the same way as there is a link between protestantism and catholicism .

Things can be linked, yet separate.

by vincent Wed May 19, 2004 21:36

There are big differences between Catholic theology and Protestant theology - even today significant differences remain.

I can’t speak for every single person in the critical/anti psychiatry movement. There may well be a few scientologists just as there have been Nazi psychiatrists. People in this movement have always made it clear that THEY DON’T WANT SCIENTOLOGISTS INVOLVED with them. I feel the need to put so many words in capital letters because I do believe you are seriously lacking. Are you now saying that this movement has been brain washed by scientologists? You are leaving rational thought behind all together.

You say I am linked with a cult called scientology. I have no connection with this cult. You say I have CRAZY SCIENTOLOGY FRIENDS. That is a lie. I have no friends who are scientologists nor would I wish to have any friends who are connected or involved in this cult. Do I make myself clear?

The anti-critical psychiatry is based on the experiences of people who have suffered as a result of psychiatry. You slur them. You have lost the argument and are becoming increasingly desperate to discredit critical psychiatry ideas. You are bereft of any sensible arguments. Guest, I have won the argument.

by guest Wed May 19, 2004 21:52

I dont care if you think you have won the arguement, the rest of the world laughs at your ideas, and other ideas which the scientologists foster.

They are simply stupid. There is no meaningfull evidence to back up your wild claims. Why oh why do you think you know so much more than the majority of medics worldwide?

by vincent Wed May 19, 2004 21:55

Just to make one point for the readers:

If a scientologist tried to get involved with a critical/anti-psychiatry group or user/survivor group of psychiatry they would be shown the door very quickly. I am sure I speak for 99.9% of the movement.

Heaven knows we’ve suffered enough from the likes of people like Guest to then have to deal with CULTS.

by guest Wed May 19, 2004 22:17

Thats a plain lie.

The church of scientology is the driving force behind anti-psychiatry.

The largest anti-psychiatry group, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), was founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology.

Any decent publicity anti-psychiatry gets is because of scientology events such as this one:

http://members.cox.net/batchild1/psych2.jpg

Some of the citations earlier in the thread are from Thomas Szasz who co-founded CCHR. He remains strongly linked to both Scientology and the anti-psychiatry movement.

by vincent Wed May 19, 2004 22:41

the CCHR does not in any way represent the anti-psychiatry movement. That is another lie.


The following are all critical/anti-psychiatry movements and represent the vast majority viewpoint and are not connected with scientology.

Support Coalition International

Mad Pride (UK)

Mad Nation (UK)

No Force Campaign (UK)

World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry

Asylum (UK)

European Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry

Critical Psychiatry Network (UK)

Campaign Against Psychiatric Oppression (UK)

International Association Against Psychiatric Assault

by guest Wed May 19, 2004 22:54

Most of those organisations are miniscule compared to the CCHR. It is clear that the CCHR is by far the biggest group promoting anti-psychiatry.

You claim those groups are "not connected with scientology". Even some of the ones you list are strongly connected.

For example, The International Association Against Psychiatric Assault websites main content is articles by our friend Szasz who founded the CCHR..... are you really telling me this is not a connection???

Perhaps it is simply another puppett organisation to mask the scientology connection.

http://www.iaapa.ch/

I didn't bother looking at all the other organisations, I'm sure plenty of them have similar associations with the Scientologists.

by vincent Wed May 19, 2004 23:00

Guest,

I gave you a whole list of groups and that represents the 99.9% viewpoint.They are not miniscule. You are lieing again. I gave you the World and European network groups

No -one person represents the anti-psychiatry movement not even Szasz.

Just because a couple of articles by him are on the IAAPA site does not mean they are all raving scientologists. There is even one by our friend Lynch

Withdraw lie linking me to scientology

by vincent Wed May 19, 2004 23:20

You might though learn something about the distinction between mind and brain if you read one of his articles.

You continue to slur the anti-psychiatry movement with this lie about scientology. The vast vast majority has nothing to do with it.

Withdraw lie against me and scientology.

Some of Szasz’s articles have even appeared in the British Medical Journal and he is a Professor of Psychiatry– so he can’t be all that bad - why don't you look at the number of nazi psychiatrists there were and who gassed hundreds of thosands of people because they thought they were inferior.

by guest Wed May 19, 2004 23:24

Look you silly man , you said they were in no way connected to scientology, but at least one of them is in some way connected to scientology. Can you not see how this directly contradicts what you said?

So the questions is this, did you not know the background to these organisations and just grab them from google, or did you lie when you said there was no link between them and the scientologists?

In terms of size none of those organisations have has large a membership as the one formed by Szasz and the scientologists. That is a fact. If you disagree prove it with numbers.

by vincent Wed May 19, 2004 23:29

look guest- you clearly have a low level of intelligence and are losing rational thought all together. The vast vast majority of the anti-psychiatry movement has no links with scientology

withdraw lie about me and scientology

by vincent Wed May 19, 2004 23:36

Check out the other groups and don’t say that because one group has articles by Szasz that they are linked to the cult of scientology . That 's like saying that because Ian Paisley believes in Jesus as the Son of God then he must be a Catholic.

Anyway, At least Szasz has a brain!

by guest Wed May 19, 2004 23:44

You say the "vast vast majority of the anti-psychiatry movement has no links with scientology" , but

1. The CCHR is the longest running anti-psychiatry movement

2. The CCHR is the best funded anti-psychiatry movement

3. The CCHR is the most active anti-psychiatry movement, it has more large scale protests than anyother anti-psychiatry movement.

4. The CCHR is the largest anti-psychiatry movement, its recent gala ceremony was attended by over 800 people including Tom Cruise

5. The CCHR is basically the church of Scientology


This seems to indicate that CCHR *is* the vast vast majority of the anti-psychiatry movement

Do you dare disagree with any of those 5 points?

The small groups of non scientology based anti-psychiatry groups are insignifigant compared to CCHR.

by vincent Thu May 20, 2004 00:22

Guest,
think-
World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry -world or global- the planet

European Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry
think - European- a continent

Support International- many countries

The vast vast majority are not involved in the cult of scientology.
I and others like me have never come across them ever - so wise up!

I have other things to do over the next couple of days,I shall resume debate Saturday -give you some time to come up with more lies

by guest Thu May 20, 2004 15:32

Its stupid to argue that just because they have the word World , European or Global in their title that they are large organisation. Your idea on this makes absolutly no sense.

It's typical of the stupid ideas rolled out by loony scientologists.

by guest Thu May 20, 2004 16:39

You say the groups you cite are the majority of the anti-psychiatric movement.

Take the European Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry, again it was the first and only one I bothered looking up. It has only had one meeting this year. Guess how many people were present.

Three. Yes, not only were Mary and Gabor there but Peter managed to make it also ! Don't believe me? Read the minutes of the meeting :http://www.enusp.org/minutes/2004-january.htm

So lets do some simple maths. Lets say All the groups you listed are similar in size to European Network of Users. ( One assumes you would pick the main organisations for you list ).

If they each had 3 at each AGM that means 30 people in all. Just for fun, lets pretend they are in fact 10% larger for that, in case we are underestimating their size. So we run with a figure of 33

Compare it to the CCHR, who had over 800 at their rally : 33/833: is less than 4%.

If the CCHR has 96% of all the member ship of the entire movement, how are the 4% you cite responsible for 99.9% of the movement ?????

The figures show 96% of the movement is scientology. But lets assume that figure is a little high. Lets say Vincent was so stupid he doesnt even know much about his own movement. So lets double it in size just to be sure we arent underestimating it.

Still means Scientology is behind at least 92% of the movement.

by Ray McInerney Fri May 21, 2004 14:40

The maker of Serzone will pull the controversial antidepressant off the U.S. market next month, blaming a decline in sales rather than concern about a risk of liver failure.

The end to U.S. sales comes after Serzone was pulled off the market in many other countries, and as maker Bristol-Myers Squibb was under mounting pressure from lawsuits. Serzone has been linked to dozens of cases of liver failure and injury, including at least 20 deaths.

The end to sales "is long overdue," said Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the consumer group Public Citizen. "None of the other antidepressants causes liver damage like this."

The World Health Organization and Canadian regulators last year compared a number of popular antidepressants and found only Serzone was linked to an increased risk of serious liver injury.

Canadian authorities said they banned the drug because there was no way to predict which patients would be at risk for liver failure. Routine liver tests haven't reduced that risk, they said.

by vincent Fri May 21, 2004 15:44

Guest,
the European Network meeting was a board meeting.Support International has a great many members as do the European network -its meeting was about making arrangements for contact between different members and groups.The IAAPA has a great many members too as can be seen from their website- instead you slander them with scientology. The World Network group has many members and groups that keep in contact- I,ve been in touch with some recently. You ignore the Critical Psychiatry Network in the UK and No Force and many other groups. You ignore the growing advocacy network in Ireland.

by vincent Sat May 22, 2004 19:35

To the reader:

Guest is slandering the anti/critical psychiatry movement by claiming that it is linked to scientology. I suggest the reader if s/he is at all interested in this subject that they read the link below about anti-psychiatry written by an objective and neutral source. It will prove that the movement is not run, linked or controlled by scientologists. Part of it deals with Szasz who I hasten to add is not a Scientologist.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry

by guest Wed May 26, 2004 00:34

Vincent,

You are capable of copying and pasting from old papers, but I'm afraid you cannot understand the works which you cite.

Even the site you posted in conclusion completly disagrees with what you are saying. The site you think somehow supports your stupid ideas says :

"The discovery of evidence suggestive of biological and genetic bases for some mental illnesses has eroded support for the more extreme claim among portions of the anti-psychiatric movement that mental illness is more a social label than a biological disorder, but such claims persist."

This is in stark contrast to your claim that there is no evidence supporting depression as a phsical illness.

Your old fashioned and ill informed opinion is based on ignorance - not science or medicine.

Any idiot can see that anti-psychiatry is funded and promoted by scientology. To deny this is to lie.

by vincent Wed May 26, 2004 01:19

The point of my posting was to show how the critical/anti-psychiatry movement is not linked , run or controlled by scientology. Of course, there are points in the piece that would contradict what I believe but anyone looking at the history and present day situation would have to admit that the movement is not linked to Scientology

Also on the Anti-psychaitry coalition website you will find the following statement:

“No Scientologists, please: Volunteers will be asked for assurance they are not affiliated with the "Church" of Scientology or its Citizen's Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), which have publicized the harm done by psychiatry but which we want no affiliation with”


http://www.antipsychiatry.org

by vincent Wed May 26, 2004 01:27

You should also note that it said:
“discovery of evidence SUGGESTIVE of biological and genetic bases for some mental illnesses”

The evidence in favour of the hypothesis that mental illnesses are brain diseases/disorders related to bio-chemical imbalances or genetic defects is not as strong as you seem to think

by guest Wed May 26, 2004 18:35

have you changed your mind?

Previously you said :

"I'm sorry but there is no evidence that depression is an illness that is biological in origin".

Have you accepted you were wrong when you said this?

by vincent Wed May 26, 2004 19:25

You need to grasp the distinction. I stand over my belief that so-called mental illness as an actual brain disease is a hypothesis which unfortunately is often presented as a fact by orthodox psychiatry. The evidence in favour of this hypothesis is not sufficiently strong enough to enable us to state as a matter of scientific fact that depression, schizophrenia are biologically based brain diseases or illnesses.

I believe that depression as a form of severe mental distress may be related to certain biological factors-hormones/thyroid/vitamin deciencies, abuse of drugs/alcohol, but this is different from the biomedical psychiatric viewpoint and that of the drug manufacturers of so-called anti-depressants and so-called anti-psychotics who believe that depression, schizophrenia, etc, are actual real brain diseases in the same way as Alzheimer’s is a real brain disease. Hope this clarifies the matter.

The social and critical model of psychiatry calls for much greater attention to the personal, societal and environmental factors in causing severe mental distress or what you would call mental illness or disease. Perhaps one day clear biological markers detected through laboratory tests will be discovered that proves a certain genetic or biological cause to certain manifestations of psychological abnormality. Time may tell.

I believe that addressing the above through holistic and therapeutic treatments is the way forward.

Perhaps now you would start to address the issues I raise instead of resorting to insults, abuse and false allegations which betray a lack of confidence and faith in your own views.

by guest Thu May 27, 2004 15:32

Well finally we can agree on something.

When you say "I believe that depression as a form of severe mental distress may be related to certain biological factors" you are agreeing with me and the overwhelming body of medical opinon.

I'm glad you finally have begun to understand the disease and moved on from your original extreme views.

by guest Thu May 27, 2004 15:34

Its also worth noting that current medical thinking agrees with you in another point - medicaion should *never* be the only form of treatment offered to a patient. This applies to all illness tho, remember the saying "treat the patient not the disease" ?

We are in agreement on this also.

by vincent Thu May 27, 2004 16:23

Guest,

I am glad that you seem to be grasping the distinctions. I do not wish though to be seen to be moving towards your point of view. Your views are damaging to peole who suffer severe mental distress- your alligence is clearly to the drug companies and the drive for profit despite the fact there is a lack of real credibility where these drugs are concerned. You refuse to apologise for sluring me with scientology and you are out of touch and lacking in insight where many of the issues are concerned. I for my part wish along with many others to see a new model of psychiatry -not one where a symbiotic relationship with the drug companies exists and unproven theories take precedence over all other theories. Your problem is your unwillingness or inability to see different poits of view. You would not be able to relate to the problems faced by people with severe mental distress and their complexity.Your attitudes and views leave a lot to be desired.The truth is you don't understand psychiatry nor do you understand depression.

by guest Thu May 27, 2004 19:14

Well if you understand it so well how come you have been forced to lie and change your opinion over the course of the debate?

by vincent Thu May 27, 2004 19:52

what is wrong with you?

you are clearly warped in your whole outlook.

I thought I might have been getting through to you but you are too blind and ignorant to see or understand anything.

You have lied about me and scientology.

you refuse to address any of the issues

You who can't distinguish between brain/mind, distress and disease.

You are a fool and a liar.

by guest Thu May 27, 2004 20:21

Vincent,

You are a raving lunatic.

You have been forced to personalise this debate from the start. Because your rediculous claims are without any sound evidence you have resorted to attacking me.

You can't understand that just because the drug companies operate for profit doesnt mean that their products cant help millions of people.

Even your own figures show that 66% of patients improve when taking anti-depressants. This is why they are so popular, not because of some crazy conspiracy.

by vincent Thu May 27, 2004 20:32

what hypocrisy from you considering the insults you have hurled at me . your language portrays the contempt you have for people who suffer severe mental distress. I only hope that they don't come int contact with you and your sort. depression is not a brain disease and drugs do not address the causes of severe mental distress. I will not let you get away with slurring me and people like me with scientology you liar.

by guest Thu May 27, 2004 21:47

You go talk to the 66% of patients who improve when taking anti-depressants and tell them that the medication isnt helping them.

by vincent Thu May 27, 2004 22:32

you try telling them they have a brain disease-tell them about the mischief and phoney trials funded by drug companies-tell them the fact that in many trials that have been carried out placebo performs better- tell them about the risks and the harm they have done to others and depression becoming more severe -tell them how children have been targeted by drug companies and the fact that they tried to cover up the damage that they have inflicted on children .

go away , stop wasting my time-you are a danger to others

by guest Fri May 28, 2004 00:33

Yes, I could tell them that, and after that I'd tell them there was a 66% chance the medication would help them.

I'd tell them just because the drug companies have done wrong doesnt mean we should ignore the fact that they will most likely feel much better taking the medication.

I'd tell them about the millions and millions of people all over the world these medications help. Id explain a very small number of people had suffered side-effects.

I'd explain that it was a calculated risk, and that my advice, and that of almost all the scientific and medical community around the world was to take the medication.

by vincent Fri May 28, 2004 00:48

i am glad that at last you admit that the drug companies have done some wrong!

You are wrong to believe that people have a brain disease-that is rubbish!

placebo has been proven to be more successful- the drugs do not help redress a bio-chemical imbalance -that's speculation

you lie by saying that i am linked to scientology and and I will persist - no matter how long it takes-in exposing you as a liar on this.

I find it sad that for so long you tried to cover up the abuse of children that was taking place by these drug companies- that makes you complicit in the harm they have inflicted. Shame on you!

by vincent Fri May 28, 2004 01:20

why would they believe you anyway given the lies and half-baked ideas you have come off with?

by guest Fri May 28, 2004 02:11

Vincent, I refuse to argue anymore, you are crazy.

by vincent Fri May 28, 2004 09:21

guest, you're limited and superficial . You are a threat to those who suffer mental distress- go away. we don't want you on indymedia .your contribution has been useless.

by guest Fri May 28, 2004 12:05

Look you crazy little man, logic is obviously beyond you.

Learn to listen to people who know better than you.

by vincent Mon May 31, 2004 18:17

guest refuses to condemn the drug abuse of children and continues to perpetrate the foolish idea that the anti-psychiatry movement is involved in scientology. She does not understand that psychaitry believes that depression is an actual brain disease

by vincent Tue Jun 01, 2004 17:45

Lundbeck boasts of the fact that some of their products have been approved by the American Psychiatric Associsation. This Association was founded by a racist whose face STILL adorns the seal of the American Psychiatric Association. Rush believed that the skin clour of blacks was caused by a disease called Negritude and that they had to kept apart from whites. In much the same way today the so-called mentally ill are believed to have a real disease or illness and that coercion is in their best interests

by guest Fri Jun 04, 2004 12:51

Well I you have finally showed your true colors there. You took that post from the CCHR website, and you can certainly not deny your link to scientology anymore.

From the very same site that you quoted - "We are proud to have been founded by the Church of Scientology, which has a long and impressive history of human rights achievements."

I can't believe you managed to prove my suspicions right - I didnt think even you would be that stupid.

by vincent Tue Jun 08, 2004 13:44

more lies. It was not taken from the cchr site. Are you denying biological phychiatry's links to racism?

by guest Sun Jun 13, 2004 21:05

The reader can draw their own conclusions.

Vincent : "whose face STILL adorns the seal of the American Psychiatric Association"

CCHR : "whose face today still adorns the seal of the American Psychiatric Association"

Whether he knows it or not, Vincent is quoting directly from scientology. This is the site where the article is available.

http://www.cchr.org/racism/pooaa1.htm

I am tired of reading rubbish from cults, you are clearly either stupid or brainwashed.

by vincent Sun Jun 13, 2004 22:01

It is a historical fact that the man was a racist. Even if that part of my quote is mentioned on the cchr site it does not alter the fact that he was a racist nor does it prove my involvement in scientology. A historical fact is a historical fact. Do you not find this disturbing- the fact that a racist is honoured in this way by this Association?

Also on the website of the Anti-Psychiatry Coalition which has members in many countries it states:

"No Scientologists, please: Volunteers will be asked for assurance they are not affiliated with the "Church" of Scientology or its Citizen's Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), which have publicized the harm done by psychiatry but which we want no affiliation with."

Where is the evidence of scientology please?

I challenge you to go the website of Support Coalition International, an anti-psychiatry organisation which has members in many countries and prove to me that they are involved in scientology.

www.mindfreedom.org

I challenge you to go to the website of a critical/anti-psychaitry movement in the UK and prove to me that they are involved in scientology

www.criticalpsychiatry.co.uk

I challenge you to go the the website of the International Association against Psychiatric Assault and prove to me that they are involved in scientology

www.iaapa.ch




I challenge you to to site of World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychaitry (WNUSP )and prove to me that they are involved in scientlogy

www.wnusp.org

I challenge you to go the website of the European Network of (ex-)Users and Survivors of Psychiatry and prove to me that they are involved in scientology


http://www.enusp.org/

That should keep you going. I could mention others . The fact of the matter is guest you are telling a despicable and dangerous lie that the anti-psychiatry movement is involved in scientology. Telling a lie like this about a great many people is a very low thing to do.If you had any decency as a person at all you would withdraw this.

by guest Sun Jun 13, 2004 22:37

For gods sake Vincent why are you afraid to discuss the actual science behind the scientologists wild claim ????

Why do you feel the need to constantly discuss side issues such as racism instead of science????

Racism has nothing to do with science. Scientology ( despite its name ) has nothing to do with science.

Why do you feel the need to discuss "abuse" instead of science????

Its obvious to any reader at this stage that you have been brainwashed by the scientologists.

You have contradicted yourself so many times we no longer need to continue this thread.

by vincent Sun Jun 13, 2004 22:54

Firstly, you are using the issue of scientology to distract from the many reasonable points that people in the critical/anti-psychiatry movement make. In the history of psychiatry we see a great deal of harm being done and the genetics argument etc, has been used to pursue a racist agenda at times.

I'm sorry guest but you clearly have some deep-seated problems that you need to address. Your attitude and your lies are dreadful.You accuse me of not addressing the issues which is laughable considering your fixation on scientology. You started this thread on scientology which most people know is simply absurd. if you are willing I am prepared to address the real issues. You could start by withdrawing your slur against the whole anti-psychiatry movement - then we can get back into the issues.

by vincent Sun Jun 13, 2004 23:02

Paul Durman and Dominic Rushe June 06, 2004 Copyright 2004 Times Newspapers Ltd. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8209-1135320,00.html

by guest Mon Jun 14, 2004 15:47

Vincent, if you can provide me with evidence, eg a photo, of an anti-psychiatry event with more than 800 people present which has NOTHING to do with Scientology I will accept that I was wrong.

That is the only way you can show that anti-psychiatry is not driven mostly by Scientology.

by vincent Mon Jun 14, 2004 20:12

I'm afraid I cannot provide you with photo documentary evidence though I notice you completely ignore the groups I mention in an earlier posting. I am sure you will find that the combined membership of those groups exceeds many times the figure of 800. I would appreciate it if you would withdraw your slur that the anti-psychiatry movement is involved in scientology. There are many many groups who are not. It really is a most absurd comment and does no justice to those who support the present biological bias in psychiatry. It would be good if we could return to discussing the real issues or perhaps you fear having your views challenged.

by guest Tue Jun 15, 2004 00:55

Ok I suppose it would be hard to find a picture which allowed you to count the number of people in it.

I will also accept I was wrong if you can find a report from any reputable source ( major news agency ) which reports at least 800 people present at a non-scientology anti-psychiatry rally.

by vincent Tue Jun 15, 2004 19:10

Guest, This is really turning into a most unproductive use of my time. I could be engaged in far more meaningful discussion with reasonable people. Your latest fixation is now on rallies. I’m sorry but this is ridiculous. I am not spending my time proving you wrong on one point only for you to change tact and bring up other things.

If you take the critical psychiatry network in the UK of which I am a member at the last count there were over 350 members. They are one of many such groups in the UK. I haven't meet one who was a scientologist.

Also you ignore all the other groups I mention- Support Coalition, IAAPA, the World Network, Euro network. I am absolutely certain that the combined total would be more than 800. You are free to remain in your delusion that the critical/anti-psychiatry movement is run by scientologists- absolutely absurd.

by guest Tue Jun 15, 2004 19:57

Vincent,

I'm not sure if you have the intelligence to remember, but we ended up agreeing on the effectiveness of anti-depressants. We both accept that 66% of patients improve when treated with anti-depressants. In fact the 66% was your own figure.

The only question that remains is whether that is an acceptable success rate to indicate their use. I think it is, for some reason you must not.

I don't know what your talking about with regard to the Scientology link. What I said was that the bulk of the anti-psychiatry movement is run by Scientology. You cannot give any evidence which shows *any* activity of a comparable scale to that of CCHR. This indicates my assertion must be correct.

You "are absolutly certain" .... well why can't you prove it so? Why can't you give me evidence? Why can't you give me a link to a news report of a large demonstration? Why can't you give me reliable figures? Is it because there simply is no evidence?

by vincent Tue Jun 15, 2004 20:32

Guest,
you must be incredibly thick!

by vincent Tue Jun 15, 2004 21:35

Shamed Glaxo's u-turn on 'suicide' drug by BEEZY MARSH and TIM UTTON, Daily Mail

Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/thehealthnews.h tml?in_article_id=306667&in_page_id=1797&in_a_source= 08:49am 15th June 2004

Britain's biggest drugs firm has caved in dramatically and revealed research which shows a leading anti-depressant can cause children to attempt suicide. In an astonishing u-turn, Glaxo-SmithKline finally published full details of nine scientific studies and two clinical reviews which expose the dangers posed to under-18s who take Seroxat.

of course the imbecilic guest doesn't have a problem with this.

by vincent Tue Jun 15, 2004 22:07

The following message was sent by Ann Blake Tracy of International Coalition for Drug Awareness (ICFDA) http://www.drugawareness.org

Canadian authorities have issued strong warnings on antidepressants for those of ALL AGES - warnings of behavioural and emotional changes along with an increased risk of harming themselves or others. .

by vincent Tue Jun 15, 2004 22:16

There may be a problem with the link to the article in Daily Mail above. Before guest jumps up and down in imbecilic delight at having discovered an error -try:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/thehealthnews.html?in_article_id=306667&in_page_id=1797&in_a_source=

by guest Wed Jun 16, 2004 14:30

Vincent you ask me to discuss the real issues and then when I do your only retort is to insult me.

This shows how ignorant and ill informed your ideas are.

by vincent Wed Jun 16, 2004 20:19

sorry guest, but look at the constant insults you have made against me right from the start.

I only insult after I've been insulted first - never before. I am not as low a person as you obviously are.

by vincent Wed Jun 16, 2004 21:53

GARDINER HARRIS
NEW YORK TIMES
After a decade of lies, deception, and cover-up of evidence linking antidepression drugs (such as, Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft) to acts of suicide in previously non-suicidal people (children and adults, some of who were depressed, others not) a front page article in The New York Times has finally opened the much needed public debate in the United States….

“An eye witness who testified before the FDA panel in 1991 recalled „the drug company representatives - a huge panel of dark suits sitting right up front next to the panel breathing down their necks and laughing a jeering at those who were testifying to the horrors their families had experienced "

“The most horrifying reports one could imagine were being made by family members and they were laughing at them. I could not believe my eyes or ears!" Dr. Martin Teicher was invited to present information about the problems with these drugs he was cut off immediately and not allowed to speak. It was such an obvious sham.”

by guest Thu Jun 17, 2004 19:04

Vincent,

You say the debate resumes on the safety of these drugs?

Have we now accepted 66% as the efficacy level for these SSRI's ? Its just at the start you refused to accept the drugs worked at all.

Regarding the safety of these drugs, which specific side effects of which drug are you concerned about? What do you think is the percentage chance of a patient taking that suffering this side effect?

by vincent Thu Jun 17, 2004 19:20

Actually, if you'd bothered to check you would have realised that it was the title of the article.

I also see little point in getting into a debate with you any longer. You are clearly impervious to reason and common sense.

In future, I may just use this thread to draw the Indymedia reader's attention to the harm being done by so-called anti-depressants and psychaitry.

Have you been following the news- are you aware of the scandals surrounding Glaxo at present?

Oh no , silly me, that must just be crazy scientologist propaganda.

by guest Thu Jun 17, 2004 22:51

I laughed aloud when I read your last post.

How typical of you to write we are about to resume a debate and then chicken out of it.

How typical of you to mock me for confirming what we are debating and then refusing to debate it.

The only thing we both agree on is an improvement in patient condition in 66% of cases. At least I managed to educate you a little.

by vincent Thu Jun 17, 2004 23:07

UK - Safety alert on adult use of antidepressants-Sarah Boseley, health editor Monday June 14, 2004. The Guardian

: “The modern antidepressant drugs which were thought to be a miracle cure for 20th century misery only 10 years ago are expected to suffer a second big blow this year when the UK authorities will warn that some of them can cause adults to become suicidal…”

by guest Tue Jun 22, 2004 16:11

L. Ron Hubbard late in 1952 wrote a book called "What To Audit",
later renamed "The History Of Man". It is still sold by the
Church Of Scientology and this book contains many of the basic
beliefs of the Church Of Scientology. It is considered by many
connosieurs of kook literature as a true classic of kook nonsense
and it is well worth looking for this book in used books stores
if you are indeed interested in a book that proves that there isn't
anything so stupid that people won't believe in it if it's in a book.

L. Ron Hubbard in the introduction claimed it was "a cold blooded
look at your last 60 trillion years." How could this be wrong?
He also claimed his book finally proved the theory of evolution.

(Patience, we will get to them clams soon enough.)

This following excert of History Of Man is taken from the book
Bare Faced Messiah by Russell Miller, a fine book for the neophyte
Scientologist watcher and clam afficionado.
Thanks also to Diane Richardson who originally typed this excerpt
up and posted it to ARS.

In a narrative style that wobbled uncertainly between
schoolboy fiction and a pseudo-scientific medical paper,
Hubbard sought to explain the the human body was occupied by
both a thetan and a 'genetic entity', or GE, a sort of low-
grade soul located more or less in the centre of the body.
To underpin his new science, Hubbard created an entire
cosmology, the essence of which was that the true self of
an individual was an immortal, omniscient and ominpotent
entity called a 'thetan'. In existence before the beginning
of time, thetans picked up and discarded millions of bodies
over trillions of years.

('The genetic entity apparently enters the protoplasm line
some two days or a week prior to conception. There is some
evidence that the GE is actually double, one entering on the
sperm side...') The GE carried on through the evolutionary
line, 'usually on the same planet', whereas the thetan only
came to earth about 35,000 years ago to supervise the
development of caveman into homo sapiens. Thus the GE was
once 'an anthropoid in the deep forests of forgetten
continents or a mollusc seeking to survive on the shore of
some lost sea'. The discovery of the GE (Hubbard hailed
every fanciful new idea as a 'discovery') 'makes it possible
at last to vindicate the theory of evolution proposed by
Darwin'.

Much of the book was devoted to a re-working of evolution,
starting with 'an atom, complete with electronic rings'
after which came cosmic impact producing a 'photon
converter', the first single-cell creature, then seaweed,
jellyfish and the clam.
^^^^^^ Look! Clams!

Many engrams, for example, could be traced back to clams.
The clam's big problem was that there was a conflict
between the hinge that wanted to open and the hinge that
wanted to close. It was easy to restimulate the engram
caused by the defeat of the weaker hinge, Hubbard pronounced,
by asking a pre-clear to imagine a clam on a beach opening
and closing its shell very rapidly and at the same time
making an opening and closing motion with thumb and
forefinger. This gesture, he said, would upset large
numbers of people.

'By the way,' he warned, 'your discussion of these incidents
with the uninitiated in Scientology can cause havoc.
Should you describe the "clam" to some one [sic], you may
restimulate it in him to the extent of causing severe jaw
pain. Once such victim, after hearing about a clam death,
could not use his jaws for three days.'

Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!

Does your jaw ache, dear reader?
Bwahahahhahahahaha!
Clams! And people pay to be taught stuff like this from silly lads
who believe stuff like this. And they claim it is science!

by vincent Tue Jun 22, 2004 16:41

Statement on website of Anti-Psychiatry Coalition website:

"No Scientologists, please: Volunteers will be asked for assurance they are not affiliated with the "Church" of Scientology or its Citizen's Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), which have publicized the harm done by psychiatry but which we want no affiliation with."

www.antipsychiatry.org

by vincent Tue Jun 22, 2004 18:55

The drug company Eli Lilly are on the offensive against Peter Breggin, a psychiatrist who has exposed the lies pedelled by the drug company in relation to their drug Prozac:

He states:

"Eli Lilly & Co., the multi-billion-dollar manufacturer of the antidepressant drug Prozac, has been conducting a McCarthy-like campaign to discredit me and my work. They have tried, falsely, to associate me with the Church of Scientology."

"One aim of Eli Lilly's campaign is to discourage the media from discussing or reviewing my recent book, Talking Back to Prozac, co-authored with my wife Ginger Breggin. Talking Back to Prozac discloses the behind-the-scene machinations before Prozac was approved by the FDA. It documents how it was known from early on, and suppressed, that Prozac has a dangerous stimulant effect similar to the amphetamines and cocaine, including the production of agitation, anxiety, nervousness, hyperactivity, insomnia, nightmares, and weight loss. Also like the classic stimulants, the book points out, Prozac can cause mania, paranoia and violence, as well as "crashing" with depression and suicide."

Peter R. Breggin, M.D. psychiatrist and author of Talking back to Prozac

http://www.heall.com/holistic_psychology/your_drug_may_be_your_problem.html

by guest Wed Jun 23, 2004 15:29

What is the overall goal of Scientology? To "clear the planet", right? Wrong; for it turns out that L. Ron Hubbard secretly abandoned this goal in 1969, in a secret minute which he sent to his wife Mary Sue, Controller of the Guardian's Office (GO). The document in question was one of the tens of thousands released by the US Government following the criminal conviction of Mary Sue Hubbard and her GO colleagues in 1979.

We've all seen examples of how obsessively paranoid Hubbard was about psychiatry, a trait very much institutionalised by Scientology. In Ron's Journal '67 (RJ67), a tape which is still required listening for Scientologists, he declares:

Our enemies are less than twelve men. They are members of the Bank of England and other higher financial circles. They own and control newspaper chains and they, oddly enough, [run?] all the mental health groups in the world that had sprung up ...

Their apparent programme was to use mental health, which is to say psychiatric electric shock and pre-frontal lobotomy, to remove from their path any political dissenters ... These fellows have gotten nearly every government in the world to owe them considerable quantities of money through various chicaneries and they control, of course, income tax, government finance — [Harold] Wilson, for instance, the current Premier of England, is totally involved with these fellows and talks about nothing else actually. They organise these mental health groups which sprung up simultaneously all over the world and anything that has mental health in it — in its name — or mental hygiene or other things of that character — such names as that — are part of the organisation which stems from these from these less than a dozen greedy men.

He had already tried to play an active part in bringing down psychiatry. In 1966 he issued a confidential directive, "Project Psychiatry" (SECED 61 WW of 22 February 1966), which is almost certainly still in force — as well as being a study item for GO recruits, it is listed as one of the items on the President CSI Full Hat Checksheet completed by Scientology President Heber Jentszch in 1988. Hubbard declares, without any noticeable sense of irony or, for that matter, any awareness of grammar:

There is a conspiracy here we has [sic] gotten across the path of. Any person in the world can be pronounced "insane", killed or assaulted and made incompetent at the whim of any psychiatrist. Further they pretend they can suspend civil rights! This is a violation of human rights. And far too much power for one group composed of men who at best act insanely when faced with any challenge.

(Replace "psychiatrist" with "Scientologist" here and this passage takes on an interesting new meaning! It is also ironic, not to say hypocritical, that in "Introduction to Scientology Ethics", Hubbard should write: "As the society runs, prospers and lives solely through the efforts of social personalities, one must know them as they, not the anti-social, are the worthwhile people. These are the people who must have rights and freedom." Anyone who criticises Scientology is, by definition, an "antisocial personality" and therefore logically should not have rights and freedom.)

Hubbard demanded in "Project Psychiatry" that Scientologists and Scientology-hired private investigators should find

Psychiatric bloodsports. Psychiatric Auschwitz all proven by individual cases ...

We want at least one bad mark on every psychiatrist in England, a murder, an assault, or a rape or more than one.

This is Project Psychiatry. We will remove them.

Unfortunately for Hubbard, the private investigator he hired leaked his minute to The People newspaper, which duly denounced him ("One Man Britain Can Do Without", The People, 20 Mar 1966). This deterred him not a jot. By the end of the 1960s he was criss-crossing the Mediterranean in a motley fleet of ships, getting into trouble with governments across the region. His paranoia deepened dangerously. He became convinced that the problems encountered by Scientology were the product of a sinister international conspiracy, which he detailed in a minute to Mary Sue Hubbard, "Concerning Intelligence" (10 March 1970):

... The exact type of attack pattern ... repeats itself in every country and it led me to a conclusion that it was directed from some place high up and that it had a central operational headquarters ...

Now, on studying this thing further, I find amazingly enough, that there are definite connections with regard to the National Association of Mental Health and the World Federation of Mental Health ...

Everything the enemy is doing would be embraced in what is modernly considered to be a public relations company or activity ... [The] "Tenyaka Memorial", that plan of campaign against Scientology, all files, all correspondence, all training and everything else is resident in a PR firm which has international connections ... this is what is their control of international news media such as we have discovered.

The scale of this supposed conspiracy eventually prompted Hubbard to make a momentous decision: he would change entirely the stated goal of Scientology and Dianetics since their establishment 20 years previously. At the end of "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health", he urged: "For God's sake, get on and build a better bridge!". Since then, the promotion and distribution of "The Bridge to Total Freedom" was his top priority. But no longer.

Only a small number of Scientologists — probably not more than a few score members of the Guardian's Office — saw Hubbard's minute of 2 Dec 1969 to Mary Sue, "Intelligence Actions — Covert Intelligence — Data Collection". It was and presumably remains highly classified; for my money, it is perhaps the most important single document to have been released following the trial of the GO felons. The last page of the document is headlined "The War". Underneath Hubbard declares:

Our war has been forced to become "To take over absolutely the field of mental healing on this planet in all forms."

That was not the original purpose. The original purpose was to clear Earth. The battles suffered developed the data that we had an enemy who would have to be gotten out of the way and this meant that we were at war ...

By showing him to be brutal, venal and plotting we get him discarded.

Our direct assault will come when they start to arrest his principals and troops for crimes (already begun).

Our total victory will come when we run his organisations, perform his functions and obtain his financing and appropriations.

Hubbard is here saying that Scientology's core goal is no longer the spread of his "tech" but the complete destruction of all other mental health practices. This was not idle talk, as the GO made strenuous efforts to attack psychiatrists — an effort which is still going on, in the shape of Scientology's continued denunciations of psychiatrists and psychiatric drugs such as Prozac. There is certainly little doubt that Scientology's current leaders share Hubbard's objective of the eradication (extermination?) of psychiatry. David Miscavige has been reported to have pledged that psychiatry will have been eliminated by the year 2000. No doubt this promise will quietly be dropped when the millenium comes around and psychiatry continues in rude good health.

This statement by Hubbard is, of course, not one which has ever been publicised. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the many thousands of people who joined Scientology while this policy was in force — it may still be — were, in a sense, parting with their money under false pretences. Scientology makes much of the need to "get tech in" and "clear the planet", objectives which (in non-Scientology-speak) most other religions share. One wonders what the reaction of ordinary Scientologists would have been if they had learned that their leader had secretly committed them to an entirely different goal.

This secret policy change also has a major impact on an argument ongoing elsewhere on a.r.s. Roland Rashleigh-Barry suggested last week that Scientology might at some point opt for a mass suicide. In the light of its war against psychiatry, this seems distinctly unlikely. It is made all the more so by the fact that Hubbard's anti-psychiatry complex worsened still further in the years before his death. In the 1950s and 1960s, he frequently claimed that psychiatry was a perverted Russo-German doctrine, which he contrasted with Scientology as "the only Anglo-Saxon science of the mind" (there was a strong nationalistic tinge to it in the early days).

By the mid-1970s he had become firmly convinced that psychiatry was more than just an Earthly problem. He had already alluded to the role of psychiatrists in Xenu's genocide in 1968's OT 3 and his 1977 script "Revolt in the Stars" (based on OT 3). While in hiding in Washington, D.C. around 1975, he began secretly to research what he believed was the underlying secret of the universe: a cosmic war between the "Soldiers of Light" and the "Soldiers of Darkness". He characterised people as being either "players", "pieces" or "broken pieces". Only a small number are the players, these being the Soldiers of Light and Darkness, manipulating the rest to achieve their ends.

The Soldiers of Darkness have appeared in various forms through the "trillenia", generally as priests or psychiatrists. According to Hubbard, they return life after life to sabotage the work of the Soldiers of Light and torment the degraded beings, the PTSes and the "robots" (ordinary people, whom he regarded as being incapable of decision). Most of the bulletins in which Hubbard outlines these theories are reportedly highly classified and have never received broad distribution, but I recall having seen one — HCO Bulletin of 26 August 1982, "Pain and Sex" — in one of the red Tech Volumes. It is extraordinary even by Hubbard's standards — he claims that both pain and sex were invented long ago by cosmic psychiatrists to torment people. (Presumably this was written during one of Hubbard's periods of impotence).

I think you can guess who the Soldiers of Light are supposed to be!

It's highly likely that Hubbard has left his successors a number of documents detailing the cosmic psychiatric conspiracy which has caused, as he put it, "the ruin of this sector of the universe". I can't see any chance of Scientology deciding to physically eliminate itself before it manages to take out psychiatry — which, at the current rate, is going to take a very long time indeed. Psychiatry, remember, is no longer just an Earthly but a universal problem; there is no escape to a psych-free place. In fact, as Scientology is (according to Hubbard) the first and only technology of its kind anywhere in the universe, Earth is the first and currently the only place where psychiatry *can* be beaten. Until it is, there could be no mass suicide or departure for a better place. There *is* no better place.

In short, Hubbard's own manic paranoia has trapped Scientology into trying to achieve a fundamentally impossible goal: I would willingly bet that there will be psychiatrists for far longer than there will be Scientologists, and who knows? I might even collect my bet before I die of old age...

by vincent Wed Jun 23, 2004 17:27

One can understand the harm psychiatry can do from the following bit of research I’ve done.

The reader should note that I am not a scientologist.

The American pharmaceutical company, Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP produce Risperdal, one of the most commonly prescribed so-called anti-psychotics. On their website they say:

“Exactly how RISPERDAL works is unknown. However, it seems to readjust the balance of dopamine and serotonin.”

Isn’t that comforting? They don’t even know how it works!

http://www.risperdal.com/consumer/schizophrenia/risperidone/index.jsp

Yet in an article in the British Medical Journal, the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning letter to Janssen on 27 April saying:

“One of the recommended drugs was Janssen's antipsychotic medicine risperidone (Risperdal)—a drug that has recently been found to have potentially lethal side effects. The Food and Drug Administration issued a warning letter to Janssen on 27 April saying that Janssen's "Dear Healthcare Provider" letter about risperidone was "false or misleading" because it failed to disclose or minimised risks of the drug relating to "serious adverse events including ketoacidosis, hyperosmolar coma, and death."

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7449/1153

These are the drugs regularly being doled out to psychaitric patients. The FDA has already discontinued the use of Stelazine in the US given its lethal side effects.

Sadly, in Britain and Ireland, the drug continues to be prescribed.

It is appalling that in our world today people continue to be hurt by psychiatry in this way.

by minipod Wed Nov 16, 2005 06:53

Are there more sinister elements abound when there are so many people getting 'mentally ill' thru ordinary lifestyles ?

Take the UK and the US governments for instance - they have been running Mind Control covertly on it's own citizens - without recognising the harm and damage it has done to its peoples. How far will they go to achieve the object of total mind control slaves ?

How many lives will be ruined so that they can cover what they are doing ? How many doctors and psychiatrists know of these secret tests on patients who are just ordinary people who are being selectively tortured with subliminal and psychotronic devices, with no regard to them or anyone who they eventually hurt ?

How many persons have been diagnosed with illnesses that have been the result of black projects ? These projects have been used on many occasions to introduce illnesses, maybe it be radioactive or may it be drug induced, may it be the result of dormant radio waves or the Tao Hum these government tests should be stopped as they destroy, destroy, destroy.

Big business profits in this by advertising these drugs as the cure of all these victims' illnesses - there is no such thing as a cure when the covert devices are being used to keep these victims insane.

How many people die because they find out really what is happening ? How many people will end up dead for just talking about the subject of Mind Control ?

by romperstomper - None Tue Oct 30, 2007 09:57

Dear Ladies and gentlemen. I actually am a Scientologist. I have read with keen interest many of the comments on this page about my religion.
I feel strongly enough to comment on this.

Firstly, Scientology disagrees with psychiatry from both a philosophical and practical view. We believe that the basic tenents of psychiatry are flawed. If the basics tenents of a "science" like this are flawed then everything else about it will be questionable. The notion of the brain being the centre of thinking is a basic mistake. Also supposing that chemical imbalance in the brain causes mental illness is equally laughable.

The proof in all this is based on the amount of people actually cured by psychiatry. There are NO studies available to suggest ANY cures have been made. Therefore, the idea must be not to cure but to "manage" or "control" the alleged illness. And this is the cess pool of wanton drugging of people by flooding their systems with foreign chemical agents.

Secondly I would like to comment on the general religious bigotry and racism from almost every contributor on this comment arena. I doubt it if any of you know anything about Scientology apart from the sexy headlines or crazy commentary. I find it quite interesting that you lot slur Scientology yet without Scientology you guys would not be having this debate. You would all be sucked in by the REAL dangerous cult on this planet: Psychiatry. It was Scientology that first alerted mankind to the evil of psychiatric drugging, ect and lobotomies. Because of this we have been fought unmercilessly by the APA, AMA, FDA and its bum buddies in the media to get rid of us. We are a HUGE threat to the multi-trillion dollar drug industry.

Lastly for those commentators (esp solitary trees) who skulk around the Internet spreading falsity and malice against my religion...just remember we are still here and we are expanding like you would not believe. Thats because we are doing what we say we are doing and we are VERY effective in letting people know the truth about this planet. And the truth about this den of iniquity: psychiatry

by Vincenzo Fri Jul 18, 2008 18:55

May I ask why Vincent continues to slate Lundbeck while not one of the drugs that have been mentioned are Lundbeck products. I just seem to notice that his posts such as "Lundbeck Lie's" etc have no founding.

There is a very strong weight of evidence both clinical and anecdotal that companies Like Lundbeck who specialise in treating CNS disorders have helped significant amounts of people to cope with Illness such as Depression,Alzeihmers,Parkinsons etc.

I cant help but feel that you Vincent must have had a bad experience with Lundbeck, please tell?