21 Reader Responses

1. RedNeckMystic Says:
   December 27th, 2005 at 12:29 am

   The CCHR exhibit has been in Hollywood for a number of years and I recently visited it for a class that I was taking for my masters in Clinical Psychology: yes, it would seem that I would have a definite bias but the comments that Tim has made about the site really fall apart once you visit the museum. Literally 95% of the statistics that are quoted at the CCHR in their walk through exhibit are over FIFTY YEARS OLD. While I admit that contemporary American culture is quick to rely on medication for a magic bullet cure for a plethora of conditions, the CCHR makes horrendous insinuations by generalizing facts and in many cases, outright lies. Additionally, the displays, while slickly down with eye popping graphics, have numerous spelling and grammatical errors. If these slip through, you can imagine how little work was done to actually suppor the “facts” that are stated.

   I’ll be the first one to admit that there are a great number of problems in the mental health industry, but these have more to do with our government, our economy, the coporatization of healthcare and pharmaceutical industry than those of us that are here to offer support through the individual’s journey.

2. alistair Says:
   December 27th, 2005 at 1:07 am

   what does a masters in clinical psychology allow a person to do, other than research? the psychiatric profession relies on the biblical dsm iv, which is revised as more lobbying allows certain conditions in or out, as the case may be. there is only one modality in the modern psychiatrist`s clinic. drugs. the writer above wants to be innocent of this process by blaming governments, economies and corporatization before taking responsibility for his/her own patients.
   i am called a quack, a witchdoctor and dangerous by the same people who merrily prescribe drugs to neurotics, depressives and phobics and begin a pharmaceutical roller coaster ride which, for most patients, never ends. the new “miracle” ssri and mao inhibitor drugs have been demonstrated to be able, within a short period of time, to alter brain chemistry in unpredictable ways. these medical professionals are giving this stuff to kids. granted there is pressure on doctors to earn money but is that any different for any of us?
   ethics?
   scientology is certainly self-serving in it`s attack on the psychiatric profession, but the psychiatrists make themselves an easy target by thier track record.
   only a doctor would think to apply electric current to the brain at sufficient voltage to crack teeth, or guess which one of a hundred similar ssri s to begin experimenting with a depressed patient after a few minutes in a consultation.
   how many years of post graduate study does it take to leaf through a book and pick a pill?
   oh, and by the way, here`s a bit of simple deductive logic for you. where is the epidemic of psychiatric illnesses found that justify the wellspring of new drugs?
   in the psychiatrists office, with a little help from school teachers who refuse to teach johhny unless he`s medicated.

3. j.c. jones Says:
   December 27th, 2005 at 1:33 am

   I have to admit I’m becoming irritated with Scientology’s anti-psychiatry crusade, because in some places, I’m starting to see everyone who criticizes psychiatry, or suggesting that there are times when medication does more harm than good, getting accused of being a Scientologist or a Scientology sympathizer. In other words, they’re actually doing the pharmaceutical companies a favor by painting anti-psychiatry viewpoints as “Scientology beliefs,” as a cult.

   I have my own issues with psychiatry because I was scared into taking a medication which didn’t help me much for several years, as I had been told by doctors that I “couldn’t get better” on my own, and would have to take the drugs for the rest of my life. That said, though, I’ve known a few certain people– not a majority, but they’re definitely out there– for whom some drug or another really did work exactly as it was supposed to. What I’m opposed to is the indiscriminate dispensing of drugs and the biodeterministic tendency towards blaming every problem under the sun on genetics and congenital chemical imbalances. I’m one of the thorns in their side– someone whose supposedly inborn brain disease was cured after I stopped taking the drugs which were supposedly the only things standing between me and total dysfunction.

4. tim boucher Says:
   December 27th, 2005 at 10:29 am

   but the comments that Tim has made about the site really fall apart once you visit the museum.

   what comments are those? i recommended fact checking and careful consideration, and suggested they raised interesting questions. i still think that.

5. alistair Says:
   December 27th, 2005 at 1:48 pm

   hers a little something that may shed some light on the position of medicine in our society.
   http://www.rense.com/general19/enemy.htm
   we are conditioned to believing institutions such as the ama are serving our best interest.
   i believe there are individuals who want to help others and become doctors, therapists and other public servants. i believe this because i`m one of those people. i have also been prescribed ssri medications and was told by my doctor that i would always have to take some form of these medications because of thew nature of my brain chemistry. i have thought it remarkable that his professional was able to deduce this from a few short consultations and no blood chemistry evaluations or other diagnosis. my conclusion was that this doctor didn`t much care that i was suffering or that the meds would alleviate the situation. he was interested in prescription and ongoing modification of the prescription over time. i`m glad he didn`t go into auto mechanics.
   my final withdrawl from the medication was through the gradual reduction of the dose of the pills until i finally stopped taking them altogether. i still went through a week or so of disorientation and concern for my sanity. this step was taken after learning about st. john`s wort, co-enzime q-10 and other vitamins and diet, which gave me the confidence to take the steps necessary to get off the drugs.
   my original condition? i was depressed over the failure of my marriage.
   the ama in an enourmously powerful entity, with connections to the highest levels of government and industry. what it wants, it gets. what it wants now is for children as young as 18 months old to be evaluated psychologically with the thought to medicate people who don`t conform to narrow behavioral guidelines. this is a bill that is in circulation right now. it makes 1984 seem like a holiday camp. we won`t need big brother, we will be drugged into submission.

6. alistair Says:
   December 27th, 2005 at 2:40 pm

   here`s a link to the bush psychiatric initiative;
   http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2...to_impose_psychiatric_drug_regime.htm

7. slomo Says:
   December 27th, 2005 at 2:50 pm

   My opinion about SSRI’s, based in part on personal experience, is that they can be helpful in times of crisis but should be used ongoingly only with caution.

   People can get themselves into an emotional sinkhole that becomes difficult to escape, and an SSRI can be a useful technology to break the self-perpetuating cycle of depression. However, in such situations I would think about 6 months would be enough to build up a store of positive (albeit artificial) energy sufficient to build something of a foundation for positive life change.

   I’m against casual use of SSRIs. It is difficult for me to believe that a large percentage of a heterogeneous population such as ours can suffer from a chronic neurochemical imbalance that requires pharmaceutical intervention indefinitely.

   If so many of us are depressed, then maybe there is something wrong with the culture and not our heads?

8. alistair Says:
   December 27th, 2005 at 4:12 pm

   hmmm, maybe it`s just that we are supposed to have more to hunt. my best periods are ones where i have a balance of intellectual pursuits, challenges and processes and intense physical activity. when i lessen my involvement in one or the other or both, my mood declines.
   and i think that we have to really look at the definition of depression as it is applied in our society. it certainly isn`t a fixed state. it rises and falls in intensity, as do all conscious states.
   in my work i constantly challenge a patient to describe thier deppression in terms of how they know when they are depressed and then i make them defend thier condition. the state they find themselves in in that exercise is a resourceful one full of flexibility. it`s impossible to be depressed at that point.
   a lot of depression is stored in the body poses and gestures that we make. a depressed person walks and talks differently than an agitated or angry or motivated or happy person.
   we sometimes confuse causes and effects regarding emotions and out of habit walk around depressed, when we actually aren`t. or we only have one way to respond to a given situation.
   when my wife and i split i found myself pre-supposing that i could only behave in one fashion. depressed. through training a person can choose other ways of responding to a given situation. i`m not saying that one should rejoice when your cat dies……but if the emotional state you find yourself in as a response to a given situation is limiting your ability to function over time, then some flexibility over states is necessary other than drugs that can effect changes in brain chemistry that are unpredictable.

9. dragonfly Says:
   December 27th, 2005 at 4:18 pm

   As a mother and consumer, the biggest problem I have with psychiatry is that it provides no resolution to the mental problems it identifies, only endless treatments for which there is no guaranteed outcome, no accountability and too many scapegoats. This is a problem with the profession and its techniques, NOT with the government.

   Who advises the government on mental health issues anyway? The APA is composed of Psych “professionals”, don’t forget. These people are placed as false authorities on how people should live and think - a position they have NEVER earned as evidenced by their lack of having discovered even a single cause or cure for any purported “mental illness”. After over a hundred years of research, they “still don’t know enough about the brain…”. Well. have they ever considered that maybe their whole basis of study (the brain or external stimulus) WASN’T where the problem was coming from? It doesn’t take a friggin’ genious to come to that conclusion. To keep doing the same thing hoping for a different result is one definition of insanity.

   The fact is, psychiatry has made religion (which encompasses thought, belief and behavior) over into medicine in order to obtain funding. That’s why the field will study the problem ad nauseum and never find a single cause or cure for mental problems.

10. alistair Says:
    December 27th, 2005 at 4:32 pm

    nicely put. have a look at nlp and hypnotherapy as ways to look at solutions to issues of consciousness. i am my owm guinea pig regarding the things that my clients and i get up to.
    to base a profession on the coke-induced ramblings of sickman fraud just staggers the imagination.

11. Manning Says:
    December 27th, 2005 at 11:44 pm

    RedNeckMystic: The CCHR exhibit has been in Hollywood for a number of years and I recently visited it for a class that I was taking for my masters in Clinical Psychology: yes, it would seem that I would have a definite bias but the comments that Tim has made about the site really fall apart once you visit the museum.

    I suppose I would be more concerned with whether or not any comments made fall apart outside of the museum. Meanwhile, here’s a story for you — my favorite one actually — about RD Laing. As the story goes…

    Laing had been invited to tour the psychiatric wing of a new hospital. During the tour, he was invited to peer through the window of a locked door. When he did, he saw a young girl inside; she had been stripped naked and was rocking back and forth. According to his tour guides (her doctors) she had not spoken to anyone in the four months since she’d been placed behind the locked door. “Can you think of anything to help her?” inquired one of the doctors.

    Laing promptly stripped himself naked, entered the room, and began rocking in time to the rhythm of the girl — within twenty minutes, she was speaking to him. Laing is reputed to have later quipped to the team of assembled experts, “I can’t believe none of you thought of that.”

    The critical difference between Laing and the others is that the “experts” held their patient’s at arm’s length; but like Jung, Laing entered into a relationship with his patients, climbing into the “madness” with them. This reflects a common complaint I hear from those who have sought psychological help — they feel unseen and unheard. Frequently, the purpose of their visit is not to doctor the human, it’s to doctor the prescription.

    …the displays, while slickly down with eye popping graphics, have numerous spelling and grammatical errors. If these slip through, you can imagine how little work was done to actually suppor the “facts” that are stated.

    Quite honestly, I find it of far more concern that someone with the smarts to pursue a master’s degree would allow some grammatical errors to influence their judgement. The absolute truth of the matter is, no matter how you spell it, psychiatry has a troubled and ugly history.

    I’ll be the first one to admit that there are a great number of problems in the mental health industry, but these have more to do with our government, our economy, the coporatization of healthcare and pharmaceutical industry than those of us that are here to offer support through the individual’s journey.

    I’d have to agree that many people enter the field with the intent to help, but I’ve also noticed that the field itself defines what that help should or could be. For example, I have a bit of experience with psychosis/schizophrenia. As far as psychiatry is concerned, I’m a non-statistic because I went through that experience outside of the field: I’ve never seen a doctor, I was not hospitalized, and I’ve had no medication or formal therapy, during or since. Not long ago I shared portions of that experience with a clinical psychologist who had thirty years of experience under his belt. I asked him, “Have you ever known anyone to recover from psychosis without anti-psychotics?”

    “No,” he replied. “Not personally.”

    Overall, psychiatry reminds me somewhat of obstetrics wherein, once upon a time, the local midwife knew how to deliver a breech baby. Yet, in this era, all breech babies are automatically pencilled in for a surgical delivery, much as sad people (who may well be sad for good reason) are pencilled in for anti-depressants; pre-schoolers for ritalin; and mystics/shamans for anti-psychotics. It makes me wonder about that ancient history that psychiatry stems from.

12. laura jane Says:
    December 28th, 2005 at 12:07 am

    wow, i will DEFINITELY be paying a visit to this museum in the very near future.

13. alistair Says:
    December 28th, 2005 at 2:04 am

    and then there`s this;
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20051228/h...antidepressantsmayspurbraincellgrowth
    in rats.

14. j.c. jones Says:
    December 28th, 2005 at 2:47 am

    This reflects a common complaint I hear from those who have sought psychological help — they feel unseen and unheard. Frequently, the purpose of their visit is not to doctor the human, it’s to doctor the prescription.

    There was a psychiatric clinic I once went to which had a real ‘factory’ feel to it– the waiting room was always packed, and everyone just sat around, staring at the walls or glancing at magazines, never talking to or looking at each other. I think the general ethos was “Everyone else probably thinks I’m here because I’m crazy, so I can’t do anything which would support that perception in any way.”

    The way they ushered you through, it felt like an assembly line. The only thing they ever did at that clinic was to adjust your medication; they never talked to you about anything else. They never asked you what might be going on in your personal life to precipitate feelings of depression, anxiety, etc. That was completely irrelevant: all that mattered was your drugs and which ones you were on and how high your dose was.

    I’ve read descriptions of doctors who seem to perceive patients as being nothing but collections of organs, but I have never so strongly encountered that attitude as I did at that clinic. If you weren’t treated like that, then they’d treat you as if they thought you were a junkie trying to get a fix of Ativan or Valium by claiming symptoms you didn’t have. If you genuinely were in need of drugs of that type, even if only on a short-term basis, you practically had to beg for them, and then they would interpret your begging to be proof that you were a desperate addict who shouldn’t be allowed to have them.

15. slomo Says:
    December 28th, 2005 at 8:23 am

    What I find interesting about the curren state of psychiatry is the assumption that, whatever your symptom, its “cause” is neurochemical. We’ve now taken it to the next level, where everybody is looking for genetic associations with psychiatric disease. (In my field — medical research — everything is now thought to be caused by genetics, so this incursion into psychiatry would be expected).

    It is no longer acceptable to link biographical events with psychological problems.

    To her credit, the psychiatrist who prescribed SSRIs for my depression last year first asked about what was going on in my life. But we both understood that the real purpose of my visit was to score some happy pills.

16. Manning Says:
    December 28th, 2005 at 11:16 am

    j.c. jones: If you genuinely were in need of drugs of that type, even if only on a short-term basis, you practically had to beg for them, and then they would interpret your begging to be proof that you were a desperate addict who shouldn’t be allowed to have them.

    Ahh, yes. The double binds of psychiatry. I consider myself to have been exceptionally fortunate to have bypassed all that. Some would easily brand me as “anti-psychiatry” as a result, but I’m not really — what I am is “highly-selective psychiatry”. There are some exceptionally skilled clinicians out there, but more often than not, they’re also the ones who are bucking the system while fighting being silenced by that system. Case in point: Loren Mosher.

    slomo: What I find interesting about the curren state of psychiatry is the assumption that, whatever your symptom, its “cause” is neurochemical. We’ve now taken it to the next level, where everybody is looking for genetic associations with psychiatric disease.

    A woman I met through Al Siebert’s “Successful Schizophrenia” website has since started blogging. She offers a timely example: Messages off the T.V.

17. alistair Says:
    December 28th, 2005 at 11:54 am

    the symptoms are neurochemical. the question is though, what are the symptoms being driven by? we are having experiences that we have learned to react to in certain ways. these reactions are are both learned and innate. by taking pills to effect neurochemistry, we have stopped the process of adapting to situations with flexibility. when searching for mental health, both personally and with my clients, i have applied skill in learning to master my own neurochemistry and i show my clients how to do the same thing. it is a lifetime of work and certainly nothing that can be accomplished in a seven minute consultation.
    in this forum we arrive with a healthy will to ask questions and add our own piece to the puzzle. in the doctor`s office there are two people looking for oblivion. here we are switching on and in there they are switching off.
    niel slade has a proces which he calls clicking forward. it is a thought practice whereby one imagines stimulating the amygdala, a small area in the brain behind the eyes. when done right the result is a rush of pleasure. whether it`s one`s imagination or not, it`s pleasureable and is another tool that i use in helping my clients to do something other than regenerate depressive brain-states.

18. Manning Says:
    December 29th, 2005 at 3:16 am

    Re: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Exactly how many links is considered to be life-threatening anyway? Thus far, I’ve figured out that more than 3 is skirting danger.

19. Manning Says:
    December 29th, 2005 at 3:18 am

    Ooops! Apparently 0 links is enough to warrant the call of the moderator.

20. Tim Boucher Says:
    December 30th, 2005 at 1:41 pm

    Exactly how many links is considered to be life-threatening anyway? Thus far, I’ve figured out that more than 3 is skirting danger.

    I’m pretty sure its set to moderate at 3 links. I was away on vacation with my family, or I would have responded to this sooner.

21. Manning Says:
    December 30th, 2005 at 8:12 pm

    Thanks for the info. I’ll do my best to keep my links to under three.