|
Kickle
Wanderer
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,947
Last seen: 1 minute, 45 seconds
|
|
Quote:
psilocyberin said:
Quote:
I am not trying to insinuate that you yourself disagree with any of these points, but rather that some in this thread seem to have a grudge against psychiatry, that I simply can not understand.
let me touch on some of the finer points of psychiatry and maybe you will understand a little better.
1) until 2001 some psychiatrists labelled homosexuality as a mental disorder. It was removed from the DSM III-R in 1987 as a mental disorder.... but not in China until 2001. So here is just one crow the APA has had to eat. I often wonder how many homosexuals were drugged, detained and told that they were mentally ill during that time. Not only did they have to admit that they were dead wrong about it, it is also an admittance that their methods, classification, and even the procedure of classification of mental illness is inherently flawed.
First point, I do not understand. Why is this psychiatries fault exactly? If everything is a result of our culture, isn't this cultures fault? Or is psychiatry the only driving force of culture? Sure, there was a heavy stigma against homosexuals. Sure, it looks like psychiatry reflects that. Similarly, the court system was very unbalanced when racism was a pressing issue. The underlying problem wasn't the courts, but rather the racism itself.
Quote:
psilocyberin said: 2) Convulsive therapy was introduced in 1934 by Hungarian neuropsychiatrist Ladislas J. Meduna who, believing mistakenly that schizophrenia and epilepsy were antagonistic disorders, induced seizures with first camphor and then metrazol (cardiazol). Within three years metrazol convulsive therapy was being used worldwide. over 70 years ago, one dumbass who thought himself a practitioner of science, induced seizures in people and it catches on world-wide use in three years..... this turned into the more commonly known "shock-therapy" which has been shown to cause memory loss and brain damage. But, that is barbaric, right? no one does that anymore....... right?
Medical science also did some very bizarre things in order to try and cure diseases. Would you have resented these attempts to help? It's a learning process. I am very glad that we are trying to learn from it, but I still do not understand the hatred. This doesn't clarify it at all to me, as you single out only psychiatry, when they are not the only ones to have learned in less that humane ways.
As for your third point, I feel that individual did some very immoral things. He knew better, and continued on. The actions of a few do not represent the whole. I can understand a distaste for the said person, but again, to generalize outward to all of psychiatry with this is a bit extreme to me.
Quote:
psilocyberin said:oh, and the other guy that makes shock machines....
The most interesting aspect of this article to me, was that they didn't attack his information at all. The rest of it was the same stuff you've been saying all along. They make money. Really, come on now, if you expect me to distrust an individual, there has to be more than 'they make money'. While I agree, that on the informed consent, he should be required to list his involvment, I don't think it would make much difference. If his research is sound, and they are unable to find bad practice, I don't understand the problem.
Quote:
psilocyberin said: but these are isolated incidents...... right? surely a person could not say that every aspect of psychiatry is for financial gain.
but what does that prove?
look up zyprexa....
Again, to me, you're pointing at problems with more than just psychiatry. Clearly, politics played a huge factor in this, and should share equal blame, no? And it of course goes far beyound politics as well. Money corrupts individuals. I don't understand why the focus isn't on this, instead of pointing the finger solely at psychiatry, which is merely a piece of the whole.
Quote:
psilocyberin said: 5)DSM. Every psychiatric expert involved in writing the standard diagnostic criteria for disorders such as depression and schizophrenia has had financial ties to drug companies that sell medications for those illnesses, a new analysis has found.
Of the 170 experts in all who contributed to the manual that defines disorders from personality problems to drug addiction, more than half had such ties, including 100 percent of the experts who served on work groups on mood disorders and psychotic disorders http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/19/AR2006041902560.html here is the PDF.... http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PDF/DSM%20COI.PDF
so the very people who are classifying mental disorders are the ones with financial ties to the companies that are making the "cures" for the mental disorders......
Good article, although, when we talk about science, they are interjecting a LOT of speculation in the mix. They address something that was my concern - were they on the payroll before or after the writing of the DSM. The answer is, they do not know. There is no way for them to know, and as a result, there is no way for me to know, as well as you. Speculation is one thing, but assumptions are another.
Quote:
psilocyberin said: I wish I could get a jury of my best friends too!.
Sigh. It is all too easy to say things like that. I think this is a part of our counter-culture.
Quote:
psilocyberin said:6) off-label usage.
The FDA does not equal psychiatry. And it spans far outside of psychiatry. Wasn't the original argument convincing me that psychiatry is the one to blame? Either way, I think it is a load of BS what the FDA does.
Quote:
psilocyberin said:I really could go on all day..... any maybe tommorrow I will fill another 20 pages of credible information regarding why psychiatry is quite possibly the most creul practice on the face of this earth.... but for now, just mull some of this over.
Ok, but please keep it to psychiatry if that is the goal.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
Edited by Kickle (05/12/07 01:05 AM)
|
Kickle
Wanderer
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,947
Last seen: 1 minute, 45 seconds
|
|
Quote:
spiritualemerg said: Kickle: It certainly warrants looking in to, however, I myself will remain a skeptic until such a time. I urge all to push for it, as I feel you are, and encourage an open mind for anything to help. No matter how much we discuss such matters, I hold that we do not know enough to state one way or another at this point, though.
I have to disagree with that point Kickle. The evidence from the WHO itself should be an eye-opener; the number of deaths being produced by the medication should be an eye-opener; the depth of involvement by big pharma should be an eye-opener but nothing happens.
I think the evidence of who lends more credit to psychiatry than it takes away. It shows that those inside are also trying to fight the state things are in. I don't see them saying that psychiatry is invalid, but that it is quite out of control. Same with the rest, I don't see it invalidating the practice, but some serious reforms are in order.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
Edited by Kickle (05/12/07 01:06 AM)
|
Kickle
Wanderer
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,947
Last seen: 1 minute, 45 seconds
|
|
Quote:
psilocyberin said: This is about..... my 10th thread so far where there has been very lengthy discussion on this topic.
It is so odd that everytime I make those very long posts citing the crimes of psychiatry, the financial ties, the lack of science, the lack of FDA transparency, and the flaws of the DSM.... the opposers drop out of the discussion, only to appear a month or so later in a similar thread, spewing their rhetoric and insults.
Why do you place those who oppose you into this general group? I have neither insulted you, dropped out of the conversation, or posted on any thread of yours about psychiatry before. It would be appreciated if you didn't try to belittle the "competition".
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
Edited by Kickle (05/12/07 01:03 AM)
|
Anonymous #1
|
Re: Psychiatry the fraud *DELETED* [Re: SneezingPenis]
#6904989 - 05/12/07 04:04 AM (16 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by AnonymousReason for deletion: .
Edited by Anonymous (06/11/17 11:45 AM)
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: Psychiatry the fraud [Re: Kickle]
#6905017 - 05/12/07 04:43 AM (16 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said:
Quote:
psilocyberin said:
Quote:
I am not trying to insinuate that you yourself disagree with any of these points, but rather that some in this thread seem to have a grudge against psychiatry, that I simply can not understand.
let me touch on some of the finer points of psychiatry and maybe you will understand a little better.
1) until 2001 some psychiatrists labelled homosexuality as a mental disorder. It was removed from the DSM III-R in 1987 as a mental disorder.... but not in China until 2001. So here is just one crow the APA has had to eat. I often wonder how many homosexuals were drugged, detained and told that they were mentally ill during that time. Not only did they have to admit that they were dead wrong about it, it is also an admittance that their methods, classification, and even the procedure of classification of mental illness is inherently flawed.
First point, I do not understand. Why is this psychiatries fault exactly? If everything is a result of our culture, isn't this cultures fault? Or is psychiatry the only driving force of culture? Sure, there was a heavy stigma against homosexuals. Sure, it looks like psychiatry reflects that. Similarly, the court system was very unbalanced when racism was a pressing issue. The underlying problem wasn't the courts, but rather the racism itself.
first, let me say thank you for actually responding. And I am sorry for lumping you in with the others. You are debating in a very civil way, and giving more than "that shit is just dumb d00d".
why is this psychiatry's fault? because it promotes itself as a science... As a science it gains the trust of the people to hold itself in a transparent, unbiased organization devoted to the pursuit of knowledge through logic for the advancement of human kind. Society, is not a science, and as such, does not hold the trust of the people (meaning you vs "them")... and while homosexuals have been subjugated by the majority over the past years, they dont have a higher code of honor to live up to. Society is fickle, it is a frenzied and emotional mob that is swayed easily.... swayed easily, by the very organizations that we put complete trust into - scientists, doctors and airline pilots. The reason science gains so much trust, is because, when used properly, it transcends the bias that is human nature.
Quote:
psilocyberin said: 2) Convulsive therapy was introduced in 1934 by Hungarian neuropsychiatrist Ladislas J. Meduna who, believing mistakenly that schizophrenia and epilepsy were antagonistic disorders, induced seizures with first camphor and then metrazol (cardiazol). Within three years metrazol convulsive therapy was being used worldwide. over 70 years ago, one dumbass who thought himself a practitioner of science, induced seizures in people and it catches on world-wide use in three years..... this turned into the more commonly known "shock-therapy" which has been shown to cause memory loss and brain damage. But, that is barbaric, right? no one does that anymore....... right?
Medical science also did some very bizarre things in order to try and cure diseases. Would you have resented these attempts to help? It's a learning process. I am very glad that we are trying to learn from it, but I still do not understand the hatred. This doesn't clarify it at all to me, as you single out only psychiatry, when they are not the only ones to have learned in less that humane ways.
well.... there is one huge difference here.... medical science has a history of curing things. Can you think of one thing psychiatry has cured? First off, Psychiatry is barely regulated. It takes a lot for a psychiatrist to lose thier license when compared to a physician. Just like the link in the beginning of this thread, it talked about how people had to say "Yes you are right! your method worked, im cured" to get out of the grasp of psychiatry. They make their own rules. They have classified mental illness, as well as what positive progress is. This isnt so for the medical profession. If I have polio, it isnt a doctor making a personal judgement disguised as scientific diagnosis that decides whether or not I am sick, nor is it that same doctor giving his opinion on whether or not I am healthy again. The doctor will show me bloodwork, or some other tangible proof that I have polio, and later show me tangible proof that i have been cured. What is objective about Psychiatry?
I have no problem with people dying in the name of objective scientific research. We can objectively look back and say "yeah, it was a huge mistake to drill holes in that guys head all because his nose was bleeding, when all he needed was to chew a leaf that made his blood thicker". We cant objectively look back and say " yeah it was a huge mistake to remove part of this guys brain, when all he really needed was a friend and a pat on the back." There is no science to human emotions, not in the classification of them, nor in the treatment of them. We cannot objectively classify what anger is. Is it punching something? is it grinding your teeth? is it yelling? is it plotting revenge? There will never be any true advancement in the field of Psychiatry, only regrets that lead to curbing acts deemed inhumane.
Quote:
As for your third point, I feel that individual did some very immoral things. He knew better, and continued on. The actions of a few do not represent the whole. I can understand a distaste for the said person, but again, to generalize outward to all of psychiatry with this is a bit extreme to me.
Quote:
Psychosurgery is a psychiatric practice which creates permanent and irreversible brain damage. It is a brain operation in which healthy brain tissue is intentionally mutilated or removed for the purpose of behavior control.
After a few ill-fated attempts at the turn of the century, Portuguese neurosurgeon Egas Moniz pioneered this psychiatric nightmare in 1935 by stabbing a long, thin blade into the brains of his victims through holes drilled in their skulls. In ironic testimony to the results of his work, Moniz was shot and paralyzed by one of his lobotomy victims in 1939 and, in 1955, was beaten to death by another.
Though Moniz is credited with the "discovery" of the technique, he was preceded by Gottlieb Burckhardt, the superintendent of a Swiss insane asylum, who was the first person in modern times to publish the results of psychosurgery experiments on humans.
Unlike modern psychiatrists, Burckhardt was not restricted by a need to shroud his intentions in euphemistic terms like "therapy," and admitted his aim was that "the patient might be transformed from a disturbed to a quiet clement [insane person]." There was no inention to "help" the patient. The goal was only to eradicate the behavior which others found undesirable.
To achieve this, he removed parts of the brain from six human subjects.
Although one of them died, Burckhardt was not displeased with the results as several of those who lived apparently became easier to handle in the asylum wards which, rather than effecting a recovery of sanity, was his major purpose.
Making docile patients and controllable people is largely the true goal of psychiatric methods. There is no attempt or intention to bring about sanity, happiness, causitiveness or repsonsiblity for the patient. This is obvious by a close study of it's history.
One year after Moniz's 1935 experiment, an American psychiatrist, Walter Freeman, was using a variation whose main "advantage" was the rapidity with which a mind could be destroyed. By plunging an ice pick through the thin layer of bone at the back of the eye socket instead of through holes drilled in the skull, Freeman could achieve the same effect as Moniz in minutes.
During his "career," he performed an estimated 3,500 or more lobotomies, fully aware of the destruction he was causing.
Characterizing lobotomy as "mercy killing of the psyche", Freeman wrote, "patients …must sacrifice some of the virtue, of the driving force, creative spirit or soul." This is not surprising since modern psychiatric theories all but ignore and deny a creative spirit or soul, and more recently deny even the mind itself. Minimally, they completely ignore it in favor of manipulating behavior alone. What good could ever come from a field whose basic theories deny the very things which define man as separate from all other creatures - his mind, spirit and soul? His thoughts, feelings, emotions, hopes and dreams?
Patricia Derian, during the 1940s a student nurse at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, described a typical lobotomy, performed in an amphitheater with witnessing doctors:
"As each patient was brought in, Dr. Freeman would shout at him that he was going to do something that would make him feel a lot better. The patients had been given electroshock before they were brought in; that's probably why he yelled at them. The shock was the only medication they received, he gave them nothing for the pain, no anesthesia, no muscle relaxant.
After the patient was placed on the table, Dr. Freeman would clap his hands and his two assistants would hold up an enormous piece of green felt the color of a pool table. That was the photographic backdrop. Dr. Freeman would direct the placement of lights so that each operation could be photographed, and he checked carefully to be sure that the cameraman was ready, that they had a good angle showing Dr. Freeman with his instrument, that there was no shadow to spoil the picture. His main interest during the entire series of lobotomies seemed to be on getting good photographic angles. He had each operation photographed with the icepick in place.
When all was ready, he would plunge it in. I suppose that was part of his surgical technique, if there's a technique for such surgery. You probably have to plunge it in to break through the back of the eye socket. He lifted up the eyelid and slid the icepick-like instrument over the eyeball. Then he would stab it suddenly, check to be sure the pictures were being made, and move the pick from side to side to cut the brain."
Notice what psychiatry does. It renames brutal procedures as "surgery", using "technique" and medical "instruments". The guy slammed an ice-pick into the brains of living human beings! That is the simple truth of it. All else is playing with words and meaning. Calling this a "cure" for anything is delusional.
Scheflin and Opton in The Mind Manipulators state that 100,000 people received lobotomies between 1946-1955, with half of the operations occurring in the U.S.
The lobotomy victim’s "sacrifice" was substantial. Psychiatrists Franz Alexander and Sheldon Selesnick noted that through psychosurgery:
"an area essential to the human being - his personality - is forever destroyed".
Technically, lobotomy refers to the surgical cutting of nerve connections between the frontal lobes and the rest of the brain. The frontal lobes are unique to human beings and are the seat of the higher functions such as love, conern for others, empathy, self-insight, creativity, initiative, autonomy, rationality, abstract reasoning, judgment, future planning, foresight, will-power, determination and concentration. Without the frontal lobes it is impossible to be "human" in the fullest sense of the word; they are required for a civilized, effective, mature life. Depending on the amount of damage done, the effect can be partial or relatively complete. In a complete lobotomy, the patient becomes obviously demented with the deterioration of all higher mental functions.
Lobotomist P. MacDonald Tow wrote in 1955:
"Possibly the truest and most accurate way of describing the net effect on the total personality is to say that he is more simple; and being more simple he has rather less insight into his own performanace. The mental impairement is greater in the higher and more peculiarly human functions. Deprived of their autonomy, initiative, or willpower, their performance is considerably better in a structured situation". -Personality Changes Following Frontal Leukotomy
Obviously, there is no concern for the individual's viewpoint, happiness, success or anything else. The only concern is whether they keep quiet and don't upset the extremely controlled environment of the mental hospitals where the surgeries were originally conducted. A mother said about her daughter, "She is with me in body but her soul is in some way lost. The deeper feelings, the tenderness, are gone. She is hard, somehow." A friend says, "I'm living now with another person. She is shallow in some ways."
Modern psychosurgery sometimes attacks areas beneath the frontal lobes, in the emotion-regulating limbic region. The effects are the same with emotional blunting and a more controllable person. Methods employing electrodes to melt portions of the brain have similar effects with a "weakening of initiative and (the patient's) ability to structure his situation". Simply, people become more robotic after damage to their frontal lobes and limbic region. There is no way to hide the true purpose of this procedure. There never has been and never will be an attempt by psychiatry to help the person "solve" their problems to become a more responsible, attentive, productive and happy person. In fact, brain surgery of this type destroys all chances of ever honestly "helping" a person in the future with a more mentally-directed therapy. The only people who benefit are the surgeons, hospitals and staff who have an easier time handling the person. It's ALL a matter of control and profits.
This barbaric practice is another example of the type of method experimented with and endorsed by psychiatry during it's sadistic development. Look at the results of their methods and don't listen to their PR and authoritarian verbiage. Remember, only 50 years ago an entire country of millions of people (Germany) were indoctrinated into and largely agreed with what was basically a psychiatric-based viewpoint which led to the destruction of over 6 million lives. Sadly, people will believe just about anything. Modern man is certainly not immune to this tendency, especially when psychiatry (as a belief system) has successfully infiltrated all the major colleges, goverment, and social services.
Look into their past and current actions yourself. Learn the truth about their destructive history. Push past all the PR and authoritarian posturing. What sort of depraved logic takes the simple inhumanitarian facts of brain butchery and renames it "therapy", pretending to "help" and "assist" the patient? But this sort of logic IS psychiatry. The psychiatric "profession" then conducts further "research" by destroying different areas of the brain, in differing amounts, using various techniques, and tries to call this "science". It's a sham, which sadly, too many people fall for.
Above all else, do not allow yourself or others to undergo any of their supposed "treatments" for any reason. Brain surgery is an obvious and overt crime against a human being. The practice involves the intentional destruction of sections of the human brain. Today's psychistrist continues along his familiar path of human pain and misery under the guise of "helping". Electric shock is obviously just as insidious as brain surgery, but psychiatric drugs are not so obvious and have been packaged and sold as the new "safe" solution to man's every problem. It is the same game, with the same wolves in sheep's clothing.
Psychiatry's only and entire approach has been the application of force to a human being, whether this force be physical (involuntary commitment, straight jackets, restraints, abuse, torture, brain surgery), electrical (ECT, shock treatments), or biochemical (drugs). The aim is always to alter behavior, forcibly, with no appeal to the person themselves - their mind, thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, goals, intentions, responsibility or desires are ignored and even largely denied by modern psychiatric theories and methods.
it isnt just one psychiatrist that did shock "treatments", nor was it just one person that shoved ice picks into peoples head to make them better. "Shit dude, did you hear about that psychiatrist in germany who is getting great results from highly psychotic patients?" "no, what are the results?" "well, they are vegetables, like they just drool on themselves now, but they arent psychotic anymore!" "Sweet, lets go get some ice picks".
I am not faulting psychiatry because of the actions of one man, but rather the lack of restraint and objective research done before following the herd. "Did you hear about that Aussie who is curing young men of chronic masturbation?" "no, what is he doing?" "He cuts their fucking arms off! and it works! they arent jerking off anymore" "Sweet, lets go get some bone saws".
Quote:
Quote:
psilocyberin said:oh, and the other guy that makes shock machines....
The most interesting aspect of this article to me, was that they didn't attack his information at all. The rest of it was the same stuff you've been saying all along. They make money. Really, come on now, if you expect me to distrust an individual, there has to be more than 'they make money'. While I agree, that on the informed consent, he should be required to list his involvment, I don't think it would make much difference. If his research is sound, and they are unable to find bad practice, I don't understand the problem.
what research? you mean shocking people until they say "im feeling better now, please dont shock me anymore". Do you not see how entangled these "findings" are in the methods they use? there is no way to get real informed consent from a person loaded up with Thorazine, anything they sign is not a legally binding agreement. If they are "insane" in the first place, then they cannot give informed consent... Also, if Abrams so vehemently attacks another psychiatrist regarding saving some money on using sports mouth guards, because he in fact sells mouth guards along with the ECt machines, what other lengths has he gone to falsly promote his method and products? Would you be ok with your child getting Electroshock therapy after finding this information out? honestly?
Quote:
Again, to me, you're pointing at problems with more than just psychiatry. Clearly, politics played a huge factor in this, and should share equal blame, no? And it of course goes far beyound politics as well. Money corrupts individuals. I don't understand why the focus isn't on this, instead of pointing the finger solely at psychiatry, which is merely a piece of the whole.
it is just politics when a company suppresses information that proves they were negligent in reporting harmful side-effects and death? This is a discussion about psychiatry, because I dont go on about the evils of republicans or the impact of vibrators on third world religions doesnt mean I am unfairly singling out Psychiatry.... nor does it make it "ok" for Psychiatry to do it, if everyone else is.
Quote:
Quote:
psilocyberin said: 5)DSM. Every psychiatric expert involved in writing the standard diagnostic criteria for disorders such as depression and schizophrenia has had financial ties to drug companies that sell medications for those illnesses, a new analysis has found.
Of the 170 experts in all who contributed to the manual that defines disorders from personality problems to drug addiction, more than half had such ties, including 100 percent of the experts who served on work groups on mood disorders and psychotic disorders http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/19/AR2006041902560.html here is the PDF.... http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PDF/DSM%20COI.PDF
so the very people who are classifying mental disorders are the ones with financial ties to the companies that are making the "cures" for the mental disorders......
Good article, although, when we talk about science, they are interjecting a LOT of speculation in the mix. They address something that was my concern - were they on the payroll before or after the writing of the DSM. The answer is, they do not know. There is no way for them to know, and as a result, there is no way for me to know, as well as you. Speculation is one thing, but assumptions are another.
what does it matter if they were on the payroll, before or after? They still stood to make money based on their decision either way. You said it yourself, money corrupts. go back and look at the graphs as well. The areas that represent the interest of pharmaceutical companies, like anxiety (81%), mood disorders (100%),neuroleptics (87%) psychotic disorders (100%) have the highest percentages of all of them (except anxiety). Of those 4 categories, it covers the majority of products put out by big Pharma.
|
spiritualemerg
Stranger
Registered: 03/28/07
Posts: 366
|
|
pB0T: That being said. I hope anyone reading this who is having problems and thinking of going to a psychiatrist for help won't be scared off by this biased thread.
Psychiatrists can operate independantly of the negative aspects of their profession, although it's difficult. I don't feel comfortable suggesting that whistleblowers should feel ashamed -- after all, there was a time when people were encouraged to seek out their local priest and that didn't always go so well. This scenario is not all that different for these days, in this culture, for better or worse, psychiatrists and psychologists have become our priests and shamans. Just as some bus drivers or school teachers are better at what they do than others, so too, some psychiatrists/psychologists are also more skilled.
My own rule of thumb has been: if you can deal with what you're going through on your own, do that. If you can't, seek outside assistance from your family and friends. If that still won't do the trick, consider enlarging the scope of your peer group (i.e., local self-help groups; online peer support networks). If that still doesn't help, the services of a professional therapist, counselor, psychologist or psychiatrist may be appropriate. This article may help you to determine which profession will be most effective for you: How To Choose A Competent Counselor. In all cases, if you want to harm yourself or another, that's an indication that you may be in need of professional assistance.
When it comes to the issue of medication, it's very much a personal decision. I firmly believe that all individuals are entitled to full disclosure of potential benefits and risks, because only they can determine if the benefits outweigh the risks. Aside from that, it's their choice.
If the situation is one of psychosis I recommend that individuals seek out someone with a background in depth psychology or transpersonal psychology; a familiarity with trauma theory can also be helpful.
.
-------------------- ~ Kindness is cheap. It's unkindness that always demands the highest price. Blogs: Spiritual Emergency | Spiritual Recovery | Voices of Recovery | A Jungian Approach to Psychosis
|
Kickle
Wanderer
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,947
Last seen: 1 minute, 45 seconds
|
|
Quote:
psilocyberin said: why is this psychiatry's fault? because it promotes itself as a science... As a science it gains the trust of the people to hold itself in a transparent, unbiased organization devoted to the pursuit of knowledge through logic for the advancement of human kind. Society, is not a science, and as such, does not hold the trust of the people (meaning you vs "them")... and while homosexuals have been subjugated by the majority over the past years, they dont have a higher code of honor to live up to. Society is fickle, it is a frenzied and emotional mob that is swayed easily.... swayed easily, by the very organizations that we put complete trust into - scientists, doctors and airline pilots. The reason science gains so much trust, is because, when used properly, it transcends the bias that is human nature.
I agree, society can be very easily swayed. I also believe that every science that exists has gone through its period in time where society had a pull on it. The world is flat, and if you disagree, you're going to jail. As we go further into history, and look at early medicine, it is similarly dysfunctional.
http://dpsinfo.com/wb/medhistory.html
Quote:
The colonial and early federal periods marked the height of "heroic medicine," where purgings, bleedings, and high doses of toxic drugs like calomel constituted treatment for almost every condition. Since many diseases are self-limited, the "cures" may have killed more people than the diseases themselves. Between heroic medicine and a geographically very diverse population that demanded a high level of self-reliance, the public developed a very skeptical attitude towards regular doctors. In the early 19th century, the spirit of Jacksonian democracy was common across America, which further heightened the "do it yourself" attitude of many Americans. Irregular medical sects were popular worldwide in the 19th century, but they were particularly common in the United States. These sects, while they freely gave medical advice, emphasized the participant of the patient in his or her own treatment.
and
Quote:
Another reaction against heroic medicine was homeopathy. It was started by a university-trained German doctor named Samuel Hahnemann. Hahnemann said that doctors were giving their patients too much medicine. He believed that tiny amounts of drugs should be diluted in water before being given to a patient and that practitioners should take very thorough medical histories of each patient.
Quote:
Quackery was basically a way to fool people into believing they were being cured while making money from them. Quackery had even been licensed in London, but it was completely ignored by the America government for hundreds of years. While some quackery did come from otherwise eminent physicians (Dr. William Hammond, one of the first neurologists in America, developed the theory of isopathy, in which animal extracts were used to treat a number of diseases from impotence to a weak heart.[8]), most of it was created by hucksters. Quackery could be deadly, since there was no regulation of what patent medicine could contain. Once the American Medical Association got started, it went after quacks and fought with the government over making the sale of quack medicine illegal. Eventually, with the banning of narcotics for non-prescription drugs, the impact of quack medicine was lessened.
All of this is sounding very familiar to me. I guess I am hopeful about what psychiatry could become. I don't feel it is all worthless, and I feel that out of this something much more refined will be born. Psychiatry is very new, and all of the sciences at their birth went through some very unhealthy practices. It is unfortunate that history repeats itself, and in a time when we feel we should know it all, we don't. But I see trends that are not really new in psychiatry. I hope that they overcome the challenges facing them, and put a lot of this debate to rest. But how many years will it take before the tide changes? I can only hope that it isn't too many. As I said when responding to spiritual, the fact that those within psychiatry are questioning, is to me, the biggest hope. If those within start to make changes, it will happen sooner rather than later.
Quote:
psilocyberin said: well.... there is one huge difference here.... medical science has a history of curing things. Can you think of one thing psychiatry has cured? First off, Psychiatry is barely regulated. It takes a lot for a psychiatrist to lose thier license when compared to a physician. Just like the link in the beginning of this thread, it talked about how people had to say "Yes you are right! your method worked, im cured" to get out of the grasp of psychiatry. They make their own rules. They have classified mental illness, as well as what positive progress is. This isnt so for the medical profession. If I have polio, it isnt a doctor making a personal judgement disguised as scientific diagnosis that decides whether or not I am sick, nor is it that same doctor giving his opinion on whether or not I am healthy again. The doctor will show me bloodwork, or some other tangible proof that I have polio, and later show me tangible proof that i have been cured. What is objective about Psychiatry?
I have no problem with people dying in the name of objective scientific research. We can objectively look back and say "yeah, it was a huge mistake to drill holes in that guys head all because his nose was bleeding, when all he needed was to chew a leaf that made his blood thicker". We cant objectively look back and say " yeah it was a huge mistake to remove part of this guys brain, when all he really needed was a friend and a pat on the back." There is no science to human emotions, not in the classification of them, nor in the treatment of them. We cannot objectively classify what anger is. Is it punching something? is it grinding your teeth? is it yelling? is it plotting revenge? There will never be any true advancement in the field of Psychiatry, only regrets that lead to curbing acts deemed inhumane.
The start of medicine wasn't really 'curing' anything. The majority of the treatments were ineffective, and the patients either died as a result, or got better on their own. It hasn't been until recently that they have been able to get a grasp on it all. To me, if you're going to compare medicine and psychiatry, you better compare early medicine with psychiatry. They seem to be in a comparable stage to me. There are a lot of similarities.
Psychiatry is trying to cure things, but, at this point is ineffective. Again, I must stress that psychiatry is new. It is tackeling the unknown. And we will never agree on what is possible, because you deny there being any sort of genetic link what so ever. It seems strange for me to think that, every part of our body has our genetics in it, including our brain, and yet, they don't play any factor in cognition.I think time will reveal a lot more on this, as techniques get refined.
It could show you are 100% right, and if that's the case, psychiatry will have to shift drastically, or be blown out of the waters. Until then, though, neither of us really know which is true. If it is unprovable at this point, I'm willing to wait and see what turns up before I make my conclusions. As for there being no science to human emotions, perhaps you're right if you feel that science needs to be 100%, no exceptions to the rule kind of deal. To me, in psychology and psychiatry, if something can be measured, and replicated, it is doing its job scientifically. There is so much we don't know about emotions right now, that there will always be something that makes us go back and rethink the method of measure. But for a general scheme, it fits pretty good. To me, science is all about being falsifiable. Nothing is 100%, ever, and has the opportunity to be proven wrong at any point. It's flexible in that way, and ever changing and expanding. The ability to look at emotions objectively is a point that I don't think we would ever agree on. So I'll leave it at this.
Quote:
Psychosurgery is a psychiatric practice which creates permanent and irreversible brain damage. It is a brain operation in which healthy brain tissue is intentionally mutilated or removed for the purpose of behavior control.
Beginning of the article. Seems to be a lot of bias. If they're going to publish an article, I'd rather they kept their personal beliefs of what psychosurgery is to themselves, and stick to facts.
Quote:
After a few ill-fated attempts at the turn of the century, Portuguese neurosurgeon Egas Moniz pioneered this psychiatric nightmare in 1935 by stabbing a long, thin blade into the brains of his victims through holes drilled in their skulls. In ironic testimony to the results of his work, Moniz was shot and paralyzed by one of his lobotomy victims in 1939 and, in 1955, was beaten to death by another.
Though Moniz is credited with the "discovery" of the technique, he was preceded by Gottlieb Burckhardt, the superintendent of a Swiss insane asylum, who was the first person in modern times to publish the results of psychosurgery experiments on humans.
Unlike modern psychiatrists, Burckhardt was not restricted by a need to shroud his intentions in euphemistic terms like "therapy," and admitted his aim was that "the patient might be transformed from a disturbed to a quiet clement [insane person]." There was no inention to "help" the patient. The goal was only to eradicate the behavior which others found undesirable.
To achieve this, he removed parts of the brain from six human subjects.
Although one of them died, Burckhardt was not displeased with the results as several of those who lived apparently became easier to handle in the asylum wards which, rather than effecting a recovery of sanity, was his major purpose.
Ok, at least they picked quotes that support their side. Unfortunately, they only provided a quote for one person, and at that, interpreted his words for me. Gee, thanks, I couldn't have done that myself. It's so interesting to me, that in a discussion about control, they are trying to use their influence as an article writer to direct how I interpret things.
p.s. this was just filler before the next piece which I will address
Quote:
Making docile patients and controllable people is largely the true goal of psychiatric methods. There is no attempt or intention to bring about sanity, happiness, causitiveness or repsonsiblity for the patient. This is obvious by a close study of it's history.
I really dislike the assumptions and generalizations. They quoted one person, and suddenly, based on their interpretation of his words, this is the goal of ALL of psychiatry. Whoa... that seems a bit drastic.
If you don't mind, I'm going to skip the rest and come back to it in another post. I have to find a book I own to give a more proper response.
Quote:
psilocyberin said:what research? you mean shocking people until they say "im feeling better now, please dont shock me anymore". Do you not see how entangled these "findings" are in the methods they use? there is no way to get real informed consent from a person loaded up with Thorazine, anything they sign is not a legally binding agreement. If they are "insane" in the first place, then they cannot give informed consent... Also, if Abrams so vehemently attacks another psychiatrist regarding saving some money on using sports mouth guards, because he in fact sells mouth guards along with the ECt machines, what other lengths has he gone to falsly promote his method and products? Would you be ok with your child getting Electroshock therapy after finding this information out? honestly?
What research? Research on the effectiveness of ECT, as well as the side effects, I would assume. But that is an assumption, and I don't really know. I do know that in an article attacking his credibility, they did not attack any of his findings.
From everything I know about ECT, it is more or less a last resort for major depression. Abrams seems to believe it shouldn't be a last resort, but that is his professional opinion (and possibly one influenced by money, but who really knows?) It still remains that it is a last resort all the same. Also, it's interesting you mentioned Thorazine, as it was used in medicine before psychiatry.
As for whether I would let my child get ECT, that information wouldn't have effected my decision in any way. It would have been a no before, and it would have been a no after. The reasons aren't that the guy has financial ties, either.
Quote:
It is just politics when a company suppresses information that proves they were negligent in reporting harmful side-effects and death? This is a discussion about psychiatry, because I dont go on about the evils of republicans or the impact of vibrators on third world religions doesnt mean I am unfairly singling out Psychiatry.... nor does it make it "ok" for Psychiatry to do it, if everyone else is.
My argument was quite simply, why such a grudge against psychiatry. The grudge seems to be against much more than simply psychiatry. It seems to be against society. I agree that it is a problem in psychiatry, I also believe it is a problem in politics, medicine, computer software, the court system, and any number of other things. Why not attack the underlying problems instead of those areas in which the problems lie. I can see reasons to do it the way you are, but I want to know your reasoning behind it.
Quote:
what does it matter if they were on the payroll, before or after? They still stood to make money based on their decision either way. You said it yourself, money corrupts. go back and look at the graphs as well. The areas that represent the interest of pharmaceutical companies, like anxiety (81%), mood disorders (100%),neuroleptics (87%) psychotic disorders (100%) have the highest percentages of all of them (except anxiety). Of those 4 categories, it covers the majority of products put out by big Pharma.
Weren't you going on about correlation not being cause? Just because they received money, doesn't mean that money was the cause. To me it matters if they received the money before or after, because if they received it before, I would be more prone to believe it was a part of the cause. If they received it after, I would be less likely to believe that money was the cause of the decision, but rather the decision was the cause of the money. The decision being independent of the money, and the money being dependent on the decision.
If this is the case, it would make sense that as a result of the decision, the money is going to come in. And that, to me, is why it is important.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
Edited by Kickle (05/12/07 12:32 PM)
|
Kickle
Wanderer
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,947
Last seen: 1 minute, 45 seconds
|
|
Ok, this is in response to the lobotomy quote:
In regards to Freeman, again, we’re talking about one person, who looks to be on an extreme end of the spectrum for such a topic. He sounds slightly disturbed with his obsession with photographing the icepick inside of the individual. This does not to me represent the psychiatric population. It represents one individual, inside of practice that was developed within psychiatry, and even this practice does not represent psychiatry to me. Perhaps I’m beginning to sound repetitive in this individual speech, but no matter how many individuals you address, it doesn’t represent psychiatry to me. There are so many psychiatrists who get nothing written about them, for the sole fact that they aren’t doing anything wrong. So taking one individual and saying ‘this is everyone’ doesn’t float for me.
Quote:
Notice what psychiatry does. It renames brutal procedures as "surgery", using "technique" and medical "instruments". The guy slammed an ice-pick into the brains of living human beings! That is the simple truth of it. All else is playing with words and meaning. Calling this a "cure" for anything is delusional.
All surgery can be broken down in such a way. They are all procedures, and they all can be stated by their actions. Modern surgery involves lasers, and a lot of cutting, but to put it in those terms doesn’t change the fact that it is surgery. I’d argue that this author put a lot more word play in this small paragraph, than calling a medical procedure surgery ever will.
Quote:
Lobotomist P. MacDonald Tow wrote in 1955:
"Possibly the truest and most accurate way of describing the net effect on the total personality is to say that he is more simple; and being more simple he has rather less insight into his own performanace. The mental impairement is greater in the higher and more peculiarly human functions. Deprived of their autonomy, initiative, or willpower, their performance is considerably better in a structured situation". -Personality Changes Following Frontal Leukotomy
Note the date of P. MacDonald Tow’s writings. The very end of the lobotomy era.
To say that psychiatry hasn’t evolved forth as knowledge has been gained, to me, is a lie. Lobotomy is a practice of the past. There are less harmful practices now, albeit at what cost? They are certainly more widespread and as a result the damage may actually be higher. But if given to the same amount of people, they are FAR less harmful, and as a result, are advancement.
I have to ask why medicine is so much better in regards to pills. A person very much can avoid a majority of the sicknesses out there. A good diet, exercise, and sleep take care of a large percentage of illnesses. Yet a majority of people don’t bother, because there is a medicine to ease the suffering of their life choices. Antibiotics are overused, and the mutations that have the potential to occur could be devestating. Why is this so much better than alternative treatments?
Quote:
it isnt just one psychiatrist that did shock "treatments", nor was it just one person that shoved ice picks into peoples head to make them better. "Shit dude, did you hear about that psychiatrist in germany who is getting great results from highly psychotic patients?" "no, what are the results?" "well, they are vegetables, like they just drool on themselves now, but they arent psychotic anymore!" "Sweet, lets go get some ice picks".
While it's true, it isn't just one psychiatrist doing these things, it is currently no psychiatrists performing labotomy. And while you're correct in saying that it was widespread in the time, I will post some of my own information about that when I return home. I have people waiting on me, so this will have to wait.
Also, people weren't vegetables.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: Psychiatry the fraud [Re: Kickle]
#6908549 - 05/13/07 03:12 AM (16 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
His name is Edgar and he is the product of one of the most bizarre and disturbing episodes in United States medical history: the years from 1936 to 1960 when between 40,000 and 50,000 Americans were subjected to brain operations -- often without their knowledge or permission -- in a popular crusade to cure, or at least render manageable, the nation's mental patients.
Today, an estimated 200 to 500 lobotomies are performed annually by perhaps a dozen doctors in the United States. But the medical standards and legal restrictions of 1980 bear only small resemblance to those of the heyday of the lobotomists.
While it is no longer an ice pick near the eye, it still goes on.
Quote:
Kickle said: I agree, society can be very easily swayed. I also believe that every science that exists has gone through its period in time where society had a pull on it. The world is flat, and if you disagree, you're going to jail. As we go further into history, and look at early medicine, it is similarly dysfunctional.
there is only about a 40 year difference between the establishment of the AMA and the APA... IOW, before they were regulated and organized. Still, I would take a 1967 physician over this years psychiatrist. While Psychiatry, IMO, is akin to the travelling "tonic" salesman, it is in no way chronologically fair to compare these two eras to each other.
Quote:
The colonial and early federal periods marked the height of "heroic medicine," where purgings, bleedings, and high doses of toxic drugs like calomel constituted treatment for almost every condition. Since many diseases are self-limited, the "cures" may have killed more people than the diseases themselves. Between heroic medicine and a geographically very diverse population that demanded a high level of self-reliance, the public developed a very skeptical attitude towards regular doctors. In the early 19th century, the spirit of Jacksonian democracy was common across America, which further heightened the "do it yourself" attitude of many Americans. Irregular medical sects were popular worldwide in the 19th century, but they were particularly common in the United States. These sects, while they freely gave medical advice, emphasized the participant of the patient in his or her own treatment.
Another reaction against heroic medicine was homeopathy. It was started by a university-trained German doctor named Samuel Hahnemann. Hahnemann said that doctors were giving their patients too much medicine. He believed that tiny amounts of drugs should be diluted in water before being given to a patient and that practitioners should take very thorough medical histories of each patient.
Homeopathy isnt really life endangering. It is just speculation that someone who died because they didnt go the western medicine route and went the homeopathic route died because of that choice. Also, we can say that physical medicine has advanced itself, and society the entire time since the creation of the AMA.... I see no way in which we can say that about psychiatry and the APA... unless you count recognizing every ten years that what you are doing is inhumane and then going on to another inhumane ten year run. See, the life span of people has increased, we can give a lot of credit to modern medicine for that. Can we really say that society has become happier since psychiatry has been around? can you honestly say that there is less anxiety, paranoia, and depression?
Quote:
All of this is sounding very familiar to me. I guess I am hopeful about what psychiatry could become. I don't feel it is all worthless, and I feel that out of this something much more refined will be born. Psychiatry is very new, and all of the sciences at their birth went through some very unhealthy practices. It is unfortunate that history repeats itself, and in a time when we feel we should know it all, we don't. But I see trends that are not really new in psychiatry. I hope that they overcome the challenges facing them, and put a lot of this debate to rest. But how many years will it take before the tide changes? I can only hope that it isn't too many. As I said when responding to spiritual, the fact that those within psychiatry are questioning, is to me, the biggest hope. If those within start to make changes, it will happen sooner rather than later.
Psychiatry isnt new. It has been around for a very long time.
Quote:
The first hospital wards for the mentally disturbed opened from the 8th century in the Middle East, notably at Baghdad Hospital under Rhazes, with the first dedicated asylums opening from the 15th Century in Egypt, Spain and then the rest of Europe, notoriously at Bedlam in England.
-wiki
Quote:
The start of medicine wasn't really 'curing' anything. The majority of the treatments were ineffective, and the patients either died as a result, or got better on their own. It hasn't been until recently that they have been able to get a grasp on it all. To me, if you're going to compare medicine and psychiatry, you better compare early medicine with psychiatry. They seem to be in a comparable stage to me. There are a lot of similarities.
Psychiatry is trying to cure things, but, at this point is ineffective. Again, I must stress that psychiatry is new. It is tackeling the unknown. And we will never agree on what is possible, because you deny there being any sort of genetic link what so ever. It seems strange for me to think that, every part of our body has our genetics in it, including our brain, and yet, they don't play any factor in cognition.I think time will reveal a lot more on this, as techniques get refined.
refer to above statement.
Quote:
To me, in psychology and psychiatry, if something can be measured, and replicated, it is doing its job scientifically. There is so much we don't know about emotions right now, that there will always be something that makes us go back and rethink the method of measure. But for a general scheme, it fits pretty good. To me, science is all about being falsifiable. Nothing is 100%, ever, and has the opportunity to be proven wrong at any point. It's flexible in that way, and ever changing and expanding. The ability to look at emotions objectively is a point that I don't think we would ever agree on. So I'll leave it at this.
We can objectively declare what is normal physical health, but we cannot objectively declare what normal mental health is..... IOW... sanity. Where do you pin down sanity? where does psychiatry pin down sanity? someone who is happy? is happiness objective? no. If you want to split hairs, then yeah, stabbing someone in the face with an icepick, or removing healthy brain tissue, and repeating enough to show that it changes them, is science. Just like I can cut the arms off boys, repeat it enough, and show that it drastically decreases how much they masturbate.... BAM... science! Science isnt just finding a problem, and then stopping that problem without respect to all the other problems you have created. Consider this: lets say you have an equation, and you are unable to solve it with your math skills, so you just scribble down a bunch of numbers and letters and call that your answer. Well, it is the answer, you have solved the problem, because now your new problem is deciphering that answer. That is what I feel the logic and basis of Psychiatry is. It isnt that it has to change a few things, or go through a paradigm shift, the entire theory of psychology and psychiatry is fundamentally flawed.
Quote:
Quote:
Psychosurgery is a psychiatric practice which creates permanent and irreversible brain damage. It is a brain operation in which healthy brain tissue is intentionally mutilated or removed for the purpose of behavior control.
Beginning of the article. Seems to be a lot of bias. If they're going to publish an article, I'd rather they kept their personal beliefs of what psychosurgery is to themselves, and stick to facts.
yes, the article is biased, but what you quoted is fact. Psychosurgury is killing healthy brain tissue.... that is what it is.
Quote:
Quote:
It is just politics when a company suppresses information that proves they were negligent in reporting harmful side-effects and death? This is a discussion about psychiatry, because I dont go on about the evils of republicans or the impact of vibrators on third world religions doesnt mean I am unfairly singling out Psychiatry.... nor does it make it "ok" for Psychiatry to do it, if everyone else is.
My argument was quite simply, why such a grudge against psychiatry. The grudge seems to be against much more than simply psychiatry. It seems to be against society. I agree that it is a problem in psychiatry, I also believe it is a problem in politics, medicine, computer software, the court system, and any number of other things. Why not attack the underlying problems instead of those areas in which the problems lie. I can see reasons to do it the way you are, but I want to know your reasoning behind it.
I agree that there are lots of problems with society. In some of my other threads where ADD/ADHD is discussed I go on about the idiotic stance that society takes regarding scholarly interest. We expect every kid to be equally intrigued by economics, even though economics was invented by man, it isnt a biologically fundamental experience like sex. Give a group of teenagers an economics book and a Hustler and see which one they all want to read. Also, I have no problem with someone sitting on a couch talking to someone about their problems. There is no danger there really, it is advice and you choose to take it or leave it, just like a medical doctor saying "stop smoking and drinking and jog a little". But when the psychiatric community starts having parents labelled as negligent for not putting their 8 year old on amphetamines, and having that child taken away by the state.... that is where it is no longer a practice.... it is fascism masked as science.
Quote:
what does it matter if they were on the payroll, before or after? They still stood to make money based on their decision either way. You said it yourself, money corrupts. go back and look at the graphs as well. The areas that represent the interest of pharmaceutical companies, like anxiety (81%), mood disorders (100%),neuroleptics (87%) psychotic disorders (100%) have the highest percentages of all of them (except anxiety). Of those 4 categories, it covers the majority of products put out by big Pharma.
Quote:
Weren't you going on about correlation not being cause? Just because they received money, doesn't mean that money was the cause. To me it matters if they received the money before or after, because if they received it before, I would be more prone to believe it was a part of the cause. If they received it after, I would be less likely to believe that money was the cause of the decision, but rather the decision was the cause of the money. The decision being independent of the money, and the money being dependent on the decision.
If this is the case, it would make sense that as a result of the decision, the money is going to come in. And that, to me, is why it is important.
correlation is enough to distrust an organization, not enough to put children on schedule 2 drugs.
|
anniepema
Stranger
Registered: 05/18/07
Posts: 1
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
|
Re: Psychiatry the fraud Thank you for the reference to the Washington Post Article [Re: spiritualemerg]
#6935721 - 05/18/07 05:53 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
[url=http://autism-prevention.blogspot.com/]autism prevention [/url][url=http://how-old-is-too-old.blogspot.com/]Paternal age effect[/url]Psychiatry is a major racket and scam for those who are tied to the pharmaceutical industry. They all know the causes of autism and they changed its definition in 1994 to milk it for all the money and research jobs etc. they can get. Here is some information I have collected. Please pass it on because no one else but me has this info together.
http://autism-prevention.blogspot.com/ http://how-old-is-too-old.blogspot.com/
http://ageofthefatherandhealthoffuture.blogspot.com/
http://themalebiologicalclock.blogspot.com/ http://absurdrealities.blogspot.com/
http://fathersageandsinglegenedisorders.blogspot.com/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/10/021018080014.htm
|
JTB22
Stranger
Registered: 01/31/08
Posts: 105
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
|
Re: Psychiatry the fraud [Re: Sterile]
#7982847 - 02/05/08 02:06 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Just saw a CCHR vid. I believe it.
|
|