Travolta might have seen the light....

[dudalb]

I want to make it clear this is just a rumor, but if true the CO$ might have a huge embarassment on it's hands.

From the INternet Movie Base (IMDB) news section:

Travolta Turning His Back On Scientology?
27 July 2009 3:01 PM, PDT


John Travolta is reportedly set to abandon Scientology after losing faith in the controversial religion following the death of his teenage son.

The Grease star and his wife Kelly Preston, two of Scientology's most prominent followers, are still struggling to come to terms with 16-year-old Jett's tragic demise after he suffered a seizure during a family holiday in the Bahamas in January.

Jett was rumoured to have battled seizures since childhood, but the youngster was not prescribed any medication to treat the alleged condition as Scientologists are generally opposed to drugs.

The sudden loss is said to have left Travolta with doubts about the religion he's followed for the last 34 years.

Scientology expert, lecturer Rick Ross, tells DailyMail.co.uk, "There have been strong rumours coming out of Scientology that John Travolta is disappointed that the religion was not able to help his son more. It's led him to question his faith

[Marduk]

he's not on his own is he, all religions consistently fail to perform miracles
;)

[desertgal]

I want to make it clear this is just a rumor, but if true the CO$ might have a huge embarassment on it's hands.

From the INternet Movie Base (IMDB) news section:

It might be true...but there is one little thing:

Scientology expert, lecturer Rick Ross, tells DailyMail.co.uk, "There have been strong rumours coming out of Scientology that John Travolta is disappointed that the religion was not able to help his son more. It's led him to question his faithIt's the Daily Mail. :p

I hope it's true, though.

[ravdin]

I won't hold my breath- but a high profile defection like this would make my day!

[wicked_ways]

I had no idea Jett suffered from a treatable condition. How incredibly sad!
I didn't pay much attention after the news came out, Travolta has been a favorite actor and/or hunk of mine since 'Welcome Back Kotter'.
Hopefully, they will emerge from their grief and the Church of Scientology quickly.

[dudalb]

I won't hold my breath- but a high profile defection like this would make my day!



That is my stand. Very skeptical, but if Travolta does bolt it would be a VERY bad day for the Super Adventure Club.

[Audible Click]

How sad to lose a child to a treatable condition. I really do hope that Travolta and his wife are rethinking their commitment to that cult.

[dudalb]

he's not on his own is he, all religions consistently fail to perform miracles
;)


Ture, but most churches do not encourage you to give up all medical treatment and rely on miracles.
That is what makes the CO$ so dangerous.

[Dunstan]

Given that the Church probably has a very thick file of materials from Travolta's "auditing" sessions that would embarrass him, this would be a very brave thing for him to do.

I'm no fan of the Catholic church, but at least I have to give them credit for treating confessions as confidential, whereas the Scientologists apparently regard them as blackmail material.

[desertgal]

I had no idea Jett suffered from a treatable condition.

Alleged treatable condition.

I don't doubt that Jett's condition was, in all likelihood, treatable, BUT the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. Fact is, we have no idea what conditions Jett may have suffered from, what treatments his parents used, if they secretly used treatments in defiance of Scientology doctrine, or, even, the detailed circumstances of his death. Without any of that information, we have no way of knowing if his condition(s) was treatable and/or if his death could have been prevented.

That said, though, I sincerely hope the Travoltas break with the CoS. If Scientology doctrine failed Jett, then his parents have paid too high a price already, and they SHOULD question their faith. I certainly would.

No parent should outlive their child. It happens too often, but it is no less tragic when it does, regardless of the circumstances.

[desertgal]

Travolta Remains a Scientologist (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32177870/ns/entertainment-celebrities/)

John Travolta’s faith in Scientology remains firm. A July 25 report in Britain's Daily Mail newspaper claiming that Travolta, 55, had grown disenchanted with his longtime religion in the wake of his son Jett's death in January is "totally false," his rep Paul Bloch tells PEOPLE.

[dudalb]

SOme people never learn..sadly.

[Big Les]

I wouldn't be surprised if he did finally defect at some point. He was (AFAIK) the only Celeb to ever speak out against the church whilst still in it, back in 1983 I think. He's clearly been drinking the Hubbard-Ade the whole time, but he did at least question the church as an organisation.

[Makalu G]

I'll bet they "got" to him...:eek:

[fredcarr]

True, but most churches do not encourage you to give up all medical treatment and rely on miracles.

That sure isn't the Church of Scientology. We have very strict policy about sending parishioners to medical doctors for treatment.


BTW lol @ the wild speculation that occurs on such a skeptical site.

[AgeGap]

wild speculation

WTF? From the OP it was made clear that it was just a rumour and dudalb was posting that the rumour was going about. Anyone who fails to see that it either dumb or in need of more auditing. HTH

[Epok]

Given that the Church probably has a very thick file of materials from Travolta's "auditing" sessions that would embarrass him, this would be a very brave thing for him to do.

I'm no fan of the Catholic church, but at least I have to give them credit for treating confessions as confidential, whereas the Scientologists apparently regard them as blackmail material.

It wouldn't really matter what they tried to say about him to give him bad press. Noone is really gonna believe it, at least I sure wouldn't. But this whole fiasco has got to be hard on Travolta, I mean, he just lost his kid. Thats gotta be rough on any parent. And even if he does stick with Scientology I would feel bad about making fun of him over something like this.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

That sure isn't the Church of Scientology. We have very strict policy about sending parishioners to medical doctors for treatment.

:dl:
Take it up with LRon:
HCOPL 26 July 1965 "Release Declaration Restrictions, Healing Amendments
.
.

BTW lol @ the wild speculation that occurs on such a skeptical site.I though $camology was supposed to make you brain work better? :confused:

[Cleon]

It wouldn't really matter what they tried to say about him to give him bad press. Noone is really gonna believe it, at least I sure wouldn't. But this whole fiasco has got to be hard on Travolta, I mean, he just lost his kid. Thats gotta be rough on any parent. And even if he does stick with Scientology I would feel bad about making fun of him over something like this.

He lost his kid, he's obviously rather depressed, and there's a whole bunch of people on the Internet who are pestering him to leave the Church.

Honestly, the entire hoopla around Travolta seems kinda ghoulish. This isn't our proudest moment, I don't think.

[fredcarr]

Here are a couple comments on a thread that started with the statement that this is just a rumor:

It might be true...but there is one little thing:

It's the Daily Mail.

I hope it's true, though.

I won't hold my breath- but a high profile defection like this would make my day!

I had no idea Jett suffered from a treatable condition. How incredibly sad!
I didn't pay much attention after the news came out, Travolta has been a favorite actor and/or hunk of mine since 'Welcome Back Kotter'.
Hopefully, they will emerge from their grief and the Church of Scientology quickly.

How sad to lose a child to a treatable condition. I really do hope that Travolta and his wife are rethinking their commitment to that cult.

Ture, but most churches do not encourage you to give up all medical treatment and rely on miracles.
That is what makes the CO$ so dangerous.

Given that the Church probably has a very thick file of materials from Travolta's "auditing" sessions that would embarrass him, this would be a very brave thing for him to do.

I'm no fan of the Catholic church, but at least I have to give them credit for treating confessions as confidential, whereas the Scientologists apparently regard them as blackmail material.

I'll bet they "got" to him..

[fredcarr]

He lost his kid, he's obviously rather depressed, and there's a whole bunch of people on the Internet who are pestering him to leave the Church.

Somehow I doubt that there are a bunch of people on the net pestering John to leave his church. There are certainly a bunch of people hoping he does though:)

[Big Les]

I seriously doubt he, or many other celebrity, pays any attention to the court of internet opinion.

[YoPopa]

Ture, but most churches do not encourage you to give up all medical treatment and rely on miracles.
That is what makes the CO$ so dangerous.

IMHO, it is the Fair Game policy which makes CO$ dangerous. Withholding Psychiatric medication harms only Scientologists. "Fair Game" allows them to harm anyone who is getting in the way.

[fredcarr]

More wild speculations...

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/652-the-latest-gossip-about-travolta-and-scientology.html

lol!

[desertgal]

Here are a couple comments on a thread that started with the statement that this is just a rumor:

It might be true...but there is one little thing:

It's the Daily Mail.

I hope it's true, though.

I also pointed out that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. I pointed out that the Daily Mail article refers to an alleged treatable condition, not a confirmed one. I pointed out that we have no idea what conditions Jett may have suffered from, what treatments his parents used, if they secretly used treatments in defiance of Scientology doctrine, or, even, the detailed circumstances of his death. Without any of that information, we have no way of knowing if his condition(s) was treatable and/or if his death could have been prevented. I specifically said that If Scientology doctrine failed Jett, then his parents have paid too high a price already, and they SHOULD question their faith. I certainly would. I pointed out that no parent should outlive their child-it happens too often, but it is no less tragic when it does, regardless of the circumstances. I also took the time to verify whether the rumor about Travolta leaving the CoS was true or not, and posted the correction by his agent.

Don't cherry pick my quotes to imply that I indulged in baseless speculation. I didn't.

[Wowbagger]

I remain skeptical that Travolta will leave Scientology. Even if he was disillusioned by it, at one point, his mind will "recover". He'll find some justification for sticking with it. He might be too far invested, and the church might be too far threatening, for him to turn back, now. Cognitive dissonance is like that, I'm afraid.

Parts of me hope that I am wrong. But, not the realistic ones. :(

[wicked_ways]

I also pointed out that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. I pointed out that the Daily Mail article refers to an alleged treatable condition, not a confirmed one. I pointed out that we have no idea what conditions Jett may have suffered from, what treatments his parents used, if they secretly used treatments in defiance of Scientology doctrine, or, even, the detailed circumstances of his death. Without any of that information, we have no way of knowing if his condition(s) was treatable and/or if his death could have been prevented. I specifically said that If Scientology doctrine failed Jett, then his parents have paid too high a price already, and they SHOULD question their faith. I certainly would. I pointed out that no parent should outlive their child-it happens too often, but it is no less tragic when it does, regardless of the circumstances. I also took the time to verify whether the rumor about Travolta leaving the CoS was true or not, and posted the correction by his agent.

Don't cherry pick my quotes to imply that I indulged in baseless speculation. I didn't.


desertgal,
You were quick to correct me on the "alleged" treatable condition and quite right about it.

I am deeply sorry John and Kelly have lost a son, I cannot imagine that pain.

My opinion of Scientology remains the same, but maybe I should not have combined this terrible tragedy with my sour opinion about Scientology.

[desertgal]

desertgal,
You were quick to correct me on the "alleged" treatable condition and quite right about it.

I am deeply sorry John and Kelly have lost a son, I cannot imagine that pain.

My opinion of Scientology remains the same, but maybe I should not have combined this terrible tragedy with my sour opinion about Scientology.

Well, I believe we share the same opinions about Scientology. :)

[fredcarr]

"Don't cherry pick my quotes to imply that I indulged in baseless speculation. I didn't."

I'm not implying. I'm directly stating. And you did and are speculating wildly and without basis.

[Klaymore]

That sure isn't the Church of Scientology. We have very strict policy about sending parishioners to medical doctors for treatment.

I love how this guy takes it for granted that it's appropriate for a church to "send" their parishioners for medical treatment. If they don't obey, do they have to undertake re-education?

[Apology]

That sure isn't the Church of Scientology. We have very strict policy about sending parishioners to medical doctors for treatment.


BTW lol @ the wild speculation that occurs on such a skeptical site.

And another strict policy that doesn't allow them to take the medications the doctor prescribes. Tory Christman wasn't allowed to take her epilepsy medications, ergo it isn't much of a stretch to assume that the Travoltas were told by their Scientology advisors that Jett Travolta shouldn't take his epilepsy medication either, and now he's dead.

Looks like the auditing and vitamins failed again, this time with fatal results.

[Bill Thompson]

A friend of comedian Kathy Griffin told her after she was in the church to do research for a tv pilot that Travolta and Cruise are in the church and are afraid of leaving because auditors have gay confessions in their file cabinets (or file closets?).

[Akhenaten]

Well, I believe we share the same opinions about Scientology. :)

Kewl.

:grouphug7

[desertgal]

"Don't cherry pick my quotes to imply that I indulged in baseless speculation. I didn't."

I'm not implying. I'm directly stating. And you did and are speculating wildly and without basis.

Where?

More wild speculations...

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/652-the-latest-gossip-about-travolta-and-scientology.html

lol!

You keep asserting that, but you consistently fail to prove otherwise. Smoke and mirrors. If the speculation is baseless, prove it.

That sure isn't the Church of Scientology. We have very strict policy about sending parishioners to medical doctors for treatment.

Really? You only go to the doctor if your church tells you to?

[Cainkane1]

John Travolta is disappointed that the religion was not able to help his son more. It's led him to question his faith. This religion like any other religion that forbids its members to use medicine causes people to die. If his son needed medicine to keep his seizures in check then he should have had the damn medicine. Travolta should leave this idiotic religion and he should never have been a member in the first place.

[Sean84]

A friend of comedian Kathy Griffin told her after she was in the church to do research for a tv pilot that Travolta and Cruise are in the church and are afraid of leaving because auditors have gay confessions in their file cabinets (or file closets?).

Like an already public picture of Travolta kissing another man on the mouth on the steps of a jet? The cult has a lot more black mail material than simple sexual indiscretions.

That is how they maintain their existence: brainwash, extort.... I should shut up....

[Ladewig]

That sure isn't the Church of Scientology. We have very strict policy about sending parishioners to medical doctors for treatment.


Even for illnesses such as depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder?

[desertgal]

John Travolta is disappointed that the religion was not able to help his son more. It's led him to question his faith.

How do you know? Not saying that it isn't true, but you are stating it as fact.

[wicked_ways]

Kewl.

:grouphug7

:D YAY! grouphug! it is the kewlest!:p

[wicked_ways]

Even for illnesses such as depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder?

yes, fredcarr, what about these serious illnesses?
or is this a glib quetion?

[Ladewig]

yes, fredcarr, what about these serious illnesses?
or is this a glib quetion?

It took me a moment to recognize why you used the word glib. I am, however, very interested in fredcarr's answer.

[Lothario]

That sure isn't the Church of Scientology. We have very strict policy about sending parishioners to medical doctors for treatment.


If the CoS cannot cure them, it's because they didn't believe enough. Or they were blocking the energy.

[fredcarr]

Really? You only go to the doctor if your church tells you to?

Not at all. In thirty years I've only been told once or twice to go see the doctor by someone at a church. All the other times I have gone to see the doctor is because I decided to go. (Or my wife made me!)

And we take our kids to the doctor at the first sign of any trouble. No one needs to tell us to do this as its just good common sense. (It also helps to have good health insurance.)

[fredcarr]

Even for illnesses such as depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder?

Usually people coming in our doors with those types of diagnosis's have already been treated by a psychologist or psychiatrist and are still being treated by them. We refer them to a medical doctor as well if they ask us to help them get off the treatments they've been put on.

I've had many people ask me for help that were on medications for those types of diagnosis's. I just tell them to go see a doctor. Sometimes they get upset with me because I refuse to help them. I tell them I didn't screw them up with all the crap they've been prescribed. I tell them to go see a doctor if they want help. If they are really upset then they should bitch the person out who betrayed them by making them worse by putting them on that stuff.

If they really insist I tell them some books they can read. (Usually Dr. Breggins books.)

[Rrose Selavy]

Usually people coming in our doors with those types of diagnosis's have already been treated by a psychologist or psychiatrist and are still being treated by them. We refer them to a medical doctor as well if they ask us to help them get off the treatments they've been put on.



So you consider depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder merely to to be "diagnosis" not illnesses?


-

[Ladewig]

Usually people coming in our doors with those types of diagnosis's have already been treated by a psychologist or psychiatrist and are still being treated by them. We refer them to a medical doctor as well if they ask us to help them get off the treatments they've been put on.

I've had many people ask me for help that were on medications for those types of diagnosis's. I just tell them to go see a doctor.


I'm confused here. If a person is under the treatment of a doctor (i.e. a psychiatrist), then you tell them to see a doctor. What exactly do you expect this second doctor to do?

Sometimes they get upset with me because I refuse to help them. I tell them I didn't screw them up with all the crap they've been prescribed. I tell them to go see a doctor if they want help. If they are really upset then they should bitch the person out who betrayed them by making them worse by putting them on that stuff.

Is it your position that some people with mental illnesses are "betrayed" and "made worse" with medications or that all people with mental illnesses are "betrayed" and "made worse" with medications?

[fredcarr]

I'm confused here. If a person is under the treatment of a doctor (i.e. a psychiatrist), then you tell them to see a doctor. What exactly do you expect this second doctor to do?



Is it your position that some people with mental illnesses are "betrayed" and "made worse" with medications or that all people with mental illnesses are "betrayed" and "made worse" with medications?

Point #1 - If a person is under psychiatric treatment currently I (personally) have a strict policy of not interfering. I don't care if they go back to their original doctor, another doctor or no doctor. Not my business. If they are desperate I usually recommend a book or two and leave it at that. It's just not something I deal with. (I'm painting this with some pretty broad strokes.)

Like I said if they want helping coming off of their medications I tell them to go see a doctor. I don't really care who they go see as I'm not going to work with the person in any case.

Point #2 Some. I find absolute statements to be generally untenable.

[Ladewig]

Point #2 Some. I find absolute statements to be generally untenable.

O.K. Then which of the following (if any) best describes your viewpoint of using medications to treat mental illness:

1) the majority of patients are helped
2) perhaps half the patients are helped
3) only a minority patients are helped
4) only a very small minority of patients are helped
5) so few patients are helped that twenty-first century psychiatry should not be a considered a branch of medicine.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ETA: if your response differs from the official teaching of the church, then please give the church's viewpoint as well.

[fredcarr]

O.K. Then which of the following (if any) best describes your viewpoint of using medications to treat mental illness:

1) the majority of patients are helped
2) perhaps half the patients are helped
3) only a minority patients are helped
4) only a very small minority of patients are helped
5) so few patients are helped that twenty-first century psychiatry should not be a considered a branch of medicine.

Somehow I knew this question was coming next:)

There is no doubt in my mind that symptoms are eased, nullified, hidden or what have you for some. I have no idea of the percentages just as I have no idea of the percentages of those made worse by lets say Effexor.

I suppose this would have to be broken done by each medication and each and every combination of medications, etc, etc, etc. Then there would have to be a definition for helped as well as harmed. I simply don't know enough to even make an educated guess.

If by helped we mean whatever condition the person is complaining of bothers them less and we don't consider new conditions brought on as a result of taking said medications then I'd think the percentage would be pretty high.

Of course this is an over simplistic look at this involved issue. I'll leave it up to people much smarter than me to figure this out. I simply don't have the time anymore to keep up with every thing in this area. (I have kids now!)

[fredcarr]

Ladewig - Sorry didn't see your last line tell after I posted. I wonder why it didn't come across when I quoted your post?

"ETA: if your response differs from the official teaching of the church, then please give the church's viewpoint as well."

I don't know what the church's offical viewpoint on this question is. I'm not sure it has one. There are a lot of places where Ron mentions psychiatric treatments and that they haven't one single cure on their books. But that's hardly noteworthy as many a psychiatrist will agree they don't cure anything as well.

[fredcarr]

Written by Harriet Hall There are hints that John Travolta may be reconsidering his relationship with the Church of Scientology after his son's death.
The boy was taken off his seizure medication because it was no longer working. Standard practice would be to try a different medication or a combination of medications, but apparently this was not done. Instead, he was treated with saunas, food supplements, Vitamin B and vegetable oils. He died of a seizure.
Travolta is allegedly disappointed that the church couldn't help his child more. He is also said to be "upset that senior members of the sect have instructed him to undergo intensive sessions with one of Scientology's 'ethics officers', trained to question the actor and other grieving family members to establish whether their 'negative influences' might have contributed to the tragedy." Gee, I'd be pretty upset about that; wouldn't you?
It is thought that Travolta's son was autistic, a diagnosis that is rejected by Scientology. Instead, Travolta claims he had Kawasaki syndrome, but it doesn't sound to me like his symptoms fit with that diagnosis.
There are rumors that if Travolta tries to break with the church, they will release embarrassing information about him, such as allegations of homosexuality.
These are just unconfirmed rumors at this point, but they may provide some hints about the workings of Scientology. Wouldn't it be interesting if one of Scientology's biggest celebrity representatives defected?Just to get back on topic for a moment. (The above quote came from the blog section of randi.org)

As an aside, It's very strange that such a rumor laden article would be allowed on a board devoted to skeptical thinking.


Point #1 Where are the so called "hints" coming from?
Point #2 Where is this person getting the data that after he was taking off of his seizure medication he was put on a "Instead, he was treated with saunas, food supplements, Vitamin B and vegetable oils."
Point #3 Why bother commenting about an alleged rumor - "Travolta is allegedly disappointed that the church couldn't help his child more."
Point #4 "It is thought that Travolta's son was autistic, a diagnosis that is rejected by Scientology." Pure BS. The church doesn't "reject" or "not reject" a diagnosis.
Point #5 Sounds like the person writing the article is doing the diagnosis. "Instead, Travolta claims he had Kawasaki syndrome, but it doesn't sound to me like his symptoms fit with that diagnosis."

The rest is of such tripe that it offends the sensibilities.

[desertgal]

And we take our kids to the doctor at the first sign of any trouble. No one needs to tell us to do this as its just good common sense. (It also helps to have good health insurance.)

Please show me where I said otherwise. :confused:

For that matter, you avoided the first question I asked - please show me where I indulged in 'wild speculation'. Since you were willing to make the accusation, you are willing to back it up, right? (I'm guessing not, since you avoided answering.)

[fredcarr]

Please show me where I said otherwise. :confused:

For that matter, you avoided the first question I asked - please show me where I indulged in 'wild speculation'. Since you were willing to make the accusation, you are willing to back it up, right? (I'm guessing not, since you avoided answering.)

Upon reviewing all your posts on this thread and comparing them to the others and the article I mentioned from the blog section I agree that you haven't been wildly speculating at all. So sorry to get you confused with other posters. I apologize.

Re, the doctor answer I wasn't implying you said otherwise. I only said that to make it clear to any poster that wanted to continue down the track of we don't seek medical treatment, etc.

"And we take our kids to the doctor at the first sign of any trouble. No one needs to tell us to do this as its just good common sense. (It also helps to have good health insurance.)"

[geni]

That sure isn't the Church of Scientology. We have very strict policy about sending parishioners to medical doctors for treatment


The case of Lisa McPherson proves otherwise. I don't think you can credibily claim that the Flag Service Organization is not scientology.

[desertgal]

Upon reviewing all your posts on this thread and comparing them to the others and the article I mentioned from the blog section I agree that you haven't been wildly speculating at all. So sorry to get you confused with other posters. I apologize.

Thank you.

Re, the doctor answer I wasn't implying you said otherwise. I only said that to make it clear to any poster that wanted to continue down the track of we don't seek medical treatment, etc.
Fair enough.

As to this:
Point #1 Where are the so called "hints" coming from?
Point #2 Where is this person getting the data that after he was taking off of his seizure medication he was put on a "Instead, he was treated with saunas, food supplements, Vitamin B and vegetable oils."
Point #3 Why bother commenting about an alleged rumor - "Travolta is allegedly disappointed that the church couldn't help his child more."
Point #4 "It is thought that Travolta's son was autistic, a diagnosis that is rejected by Scientology." Pure BS. The church doesn't "reject" or "not reject" a diagnosis.

It reads as if much of this is taken from the Daily Mail article-and I have to agree with you: not to slam the blog author or the JREF, but using the DM as a source doesn't quite cut it as responsible journalism. Sorry, not meaning to offend, but the only verified fact in the DM article appears to be the date.

Point #5 Sounds like the person writing the article is doing the diagnosis. "Instead, Travolta claims he had Kawasaki syndrome, but it doesn't sound to me like his symptoms fit with that diagnosis."Don't know much about Kawasaki syndrome, so can't say, but if you mean that Travolta didn't claim that Jett suffered from KS, that is incorrect. Kelly Preston was candid about that issue when Jett was a small child. But, again, since we don't know what all of Jett's symptoms were as he grew older, saying that those symptoms didn't fit Kawasaki Syndrome IS speculation...and unworthy of the JREF.

Obviously, I don't agree with much of CoS doctrine-and, as I said before, if the church failed Jett Travolta in some manner, then it would be understandable if his parents were questioning their faith. BUT, the ultimate responsibility for his care belonged with his parents, not the CoS-and, reportedly, the Travoltas are devoted parents who have been devastated by this (the loss of a child-it doesn't get worse than that). There is no solid evidence that they didn't make every effort to help their son, or that his death could have been prevented. Choosing not to make his conditions public knowledge isn't negligence-the young man had the right to the same privacy as the rest of us.

People need to let this one go. There's certainly enough out there already to debate about Scientology-but shouldn't that debate be based on factual information about CoS doctrine-not tabloid speculation concerning Jett Travolta's life and death?

[fredcarr]

Thank you.
People need to let this one go. There's certainly enough out there already to debate about Scientology-but shouldn't that debate be based on factual information about CoS doctrine-not tabloid speculation concerning Jett Travolta's death?

I agree. If only that would occur I would be contented. The Travolta story (and the horrible things that are being said) hits close to home as I have two boys. My experience as a Scientologist and caring for them and their issues is so misrepresented by things said about the Travolta story, my church and by extension what I do or do not do.

Just the face to face conversations I have had with people who have gotten their story from the net makes it a bit annoying to say the least. Its funny when someone is visiting us as I'm giving one of my kids something for his fever and they go "gosh! I thought you didn't "believe" in meds." I want to reply "yep we worship at the altar of medications and drugs every day." But I don't as my wife would be pissed at me:)

Almost as funny as being accused of not "believing" in calculus! (I make the sign of the cross every time I walk by my math books on the shelf at home. j/k!)

[AgeGap]

The woman’s parents had allegedly denied her access to psychiatric medication due to their Scientology beliefs. (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/20679/scientology-stabbing-2)

Psychiatry kills (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Scientology_psychiatry_kills.jpg)

[Ladewig]

Ladewig - Sorry didn't see your last line tell after I posted. I wonder why it didn't come across when I quoted your post?


I added it later. The acronym ETA indicates that the post was "edited to add" the following information

[desertgal]

I agree. If only that would occur I would be contented. The Travolta story (and the horrible things that are being said) hits close to home as I have two boys. My experience as a Scientologist and caring for them and their issues is so misrepresented by things said about the Travolta story, my church and by extension what I do or do not do.

Just the face to face conversations I have had with people who have gotten their story from the net makes it a bit annoying to say the least. <snipped for brevity>

Well, I think, and I'm sure you already know this, you have to keep two things in mind: first, the death of a young man like Jett Travolta is one of life's greater injustices, so it's a natural human reaction to want to blame someone. I'm just not sure there is anyone or anything to be blamed when it comes to Jett Travolta. And, again, the ultimate responsibility belonged to his parents. Even if CoS doctrine preaches against, say, medication for seizure disorders (and I'm not saying it does, because I don't know), his parents were still responsible for putting Jett's best interests before the doctrine of their church (and I'm not saying they didn't, because I don't know.) That wouldn't make the CoS right, in my opinion, but it also wouldn't make them solely responsible.

That's not to say that I wouldn't be among those to consider the CoS responsible to a large degree if it came to light that Scientology doctrine may have influenced the Travoltas to the detriment of their son. I just prefer verified facts over speculation.

Secondly, you know, it doesn't help the wider public separate the myths from the facts about the CoS when one of your biggest celebrity members goes after Brooke Shields with unprovoked criticism and then rants to Matt Lauer about the evils of psychiatry and psychotropic medications. People don't just get their information and misconceptions from the net-when someone like Tom Cruise decides to publicly spaz out, it has a ripple effect.

[fredcarr]

Well, I think, and I'm sure you already know this, you have to keep two things in mind: first, the death of a young man like Jett Travolta is one of life's greater injustices, so it's a natural human reaction to want to blame someone. I'm just not sure there is anyone or anything to be blamed when it comes to Jett Travolta. And, again, the ultimate responsibility belonged to his parents. Even if CoS doctrine preaches against, say, medication for seizure disorders (and I'm not saying it does, because I don't know), his parents were still responsible for putting Jett's best interests before the doctrine of their church (and I'm not saying they didn't, because I don't know.) That wouldn't make the CoS right, in my opinion, but it also wouldn't make them solely responsible.

That's not to say that I wouldn't be among those to consider the CoS responsible to a large degree if it came to light that Scientology doctrine may have influenced the Travoltas to the detriment of their son. I just prefer verified facts over speculation.

Secondly, you know, it doesn't help the wider public separate the myths from the facts about the CoS when one of your biggest celebrity members goes after Brooke Shields with unprovoked criticism and then rants to Matt Lauer about the evils of psychiatry and psychotropic medications. People don't just get their information and misconceptions from the net-when someone like Tom Cruise decides to publicly spaz out, it has a ripple effect.


I hear ya. A relatively minor examination of some of our more beginning texts should make it clear what our doctrines are in regards to seeking out the best care for our progeny. That is what makes the whole thing ridiculous with the media reports (and I'm being generous when using the term 'media') re. Scientology' supposed and alleged interference with the Travolta's care for their son due to our doctrines. Never once are the most basic and fundamental of "our" beliefs ever quoted. They aren't brought up, of course, as that would defeat the purpose of creating controversy, etc.

(I'll pass on commenting about the Tom Cruise issue as I don't want to derail this thread too much. Besides I think there is another thread on that already.)

[Apology]

The woman’s parents had allegedly denied her access to psychiatric medication due to their Scientology beliefs. (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/20679/scientology-stabbing-2)

Psychiatry kills (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Scientology_psychiatry_kills.jpg)

I'll see your proof, and I'll raise you a proof:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elli_Perkins

Of course, Scientologists now say that Wikipedia is biased against them, due to the banning any further edits from Scientology IP addresses, and that Jeremy Perkins was never a Scientologist, but we know that's not true:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/JeremyPerkins/CoverUp/
http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/j/jeremy-perkins.html

[Sherlock]

For those who may be interested, Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty (CHILD, Inc.) is a non-profit national membership organization established in 1983 to protect children from abusive religious and cultural practices, especially religion-based medical neglect. CHILD opposes religious exemptions from duties of care for children such as those of the Christian Science church, and actively supports state legislation to protect children in need of professional and accredited medical treatment rather than only faith based prayer support. CHILD is a member of the National Child Abuse Coalition. I have been a member since the 1980's when the founder of CHILD spoke at a CSICOP (now CSI) conference in Buffalo, N.Y. See the CHILD website at http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/

[fredcarr]

For those who may be interested, Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty (CHILD, Inc.) is a non-profit national membership organization established in 1983 to protect children from abusive religious and cultural practices, especially religion-based medical neglect. CHILD opposes religious exemptions from duties of care for children such as those of the Christian Science church, and actively supports state legislation to protect children in need of professional and accredited medical treatment rather than only faith based prayer support. CHILD is a member of the National Child Abuse Coalition. I have been a member since the 1980's when the founder of CHILD spoke at a CSICOP (now CSI) conference in Buffalo, N.Y. See the CHILD website at http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/

Looks like an organization with a noble purpose.

I must admit my eyebrows go up when the topic of forcing parents to make their children submit to medical treatments comes up. (I should say I'm not sure what a good answer is to the problems this organization is attempting to address.)

I do however get concerned when it comes to forcing children to take harmful medications or undergo other harmful treatments. Florida is in the midst of some serious problems with the outrageous levels of drugs being prescribed to foster kids.

This is one of the reasons I work so hard so I can afford to send my children to a private school. I am less concerned with a teacher reporting my child as in need of "treatment" because they are hyperactive or some other label. I'd sure hate for some doctor to say my kids need to be put on ritalin and then have a court force me to make my kid take those meds, or worse.

But still, those issues aside, I agree its a tricky problem.

[Sherlock]

It's not a question of "forcing" but rather protecting children's rights and eliminating state legislation which may protect parents or religious bodies from eliminating proper medical options. The Christian Science church uses staff who do not have proper medical certifications or modern treatment skills. I personally feel that their medical procedures are just one step out of the dark ages --- but they certainly spend a great deal on lobbying to protect such "treatments" --- a reasonable sign that their members lack modern education in the sciences from accredited schools.

[fredcarr]

It's not a question of "forcing" but rather protecting children's rights and eliminating state legislation which may protect parents or religious bodies from eliminating proper medical options. The Christian Science church uses staff who do not have proper medical certifications or modern treatment skills. I personally feel that their medical procedures are just one step out of the dark ages --- but they certainly spend a great deal on lobbying to protect such "treatments" --- a reasonable sign that their members lack modern education in the sciences from accredited schools.

I know next to nothing about Christian Science so can't really comment on what they do or don't do.

Just to make sure I understand your post - So the goal is to get legislation repealed that currently protects parents/religious groups when they eliminate proper medical options for their children? Or in other words when a parent/religious group refuses to let their children be treated by a doctor there is currently legislation that protects this? What is it as I am unfamiliar with this law?

[Ladewig]

I don't know what the church's offical viewpoint on this question is. I'm not sure it has one. There are a lot of places where Ron mentions psychiatric treatments and that they haven't one single cure on their books.

A great deal of progress has been made in the 30 years since L.R. Hubbard's death.

But that's hardly noteworthy as many a psychiatrist will agree they don't cure anything as well.

A topic deserving of another thread; but I strongly disagree with your assertion. I also find it hard to believe that the church has no official position on psychiatry and psychiatric drugs.

[fredcarr]

A great deal of progress has been made in the 30 years since L.R. Hubbard's death.

A topic deserving of another thread; but I strongly disagree with your assertion. I also find it hard to believe that the church has no official position on psychiatry and psychiatric drugs.

Mr. Hubbard passed in 1986. What "great deal of progress" are you referring to?

Just ask a few psychiatrists if they have ever cured anything. This isn't hard to verify.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgKp6_QRNgk

(Of course since this is a video provided by CCHR, a group sponsored by Scientologists, I'm sure its content is will be questioned.)

The church has policies on psychiatry and psychiatric drugs of course. I don't know if it has any position on the percentage question you were asking. (see quote below.)

Ladewig - O.K. Then which of the following (if any) best describes your viewpoint of using medications to treat mental illness:

1) the majority of patients are helped
2) perhaps half the patients are helped
3) only a minority patients are helped
4) only a very small minority of patients are helped
5) so few patients are helped that twenty-first century psychiatry should not be a considered a branch of medicine.

Scientologists don't take psychiatric medications nor are they treated by psychiatrists.

I think the Code of a Scientologist and the Creed of Scientology may answer your question regarding the churches official position:

http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part14/Chp40/pg0735-c.html

Code of a Scientologist

1 To keep Scientologists, the public and the press accurately informed concerning Scientology, the world of mental health and society.

2 To use the best I know of Scientology to the best of my ability to help my family, friends, groups and the world.

3 To refuse to accept for processing and to refuse to accept money from any preclear or group I feel I cannot honestly help.

4 To decry and do all I can to abolish any and all abuses against life and mankind.

5 To expose and help abolish any and all physically damaging practices in the field of mental health.

6 To help clean up and keep clean the field of mental health.

7 To bring about an atmosphere of safety and security in the field of mental health by eradicating its abuses and brutality.

8 To support true humanitarian endeavors in the fields of human rights.

9 To embrace the policy of equal justice for all.

10 To work for freedom of speech in the world.

11 To actively decry the suppression of knowledge, wisdom, philosophy or data which would help mankind.

12 To support the freedom of religion.

13 To help Scientology orgs and groups ally themselves with public groups.

14 To teach Scientology at a level it can be understood and used by the recipients.

15 To stress the freedom to use Scientology as a philosophy in all its applications and variations in the humanities.

16 To insist upon standard and unvaried Scientology as an applied activity in ethics, processing and administration in Scientology organizations.

17 To take my share of responsibility for the impact of Scientology upon the world.

18 To increase the numbers and strength of Scientology over the world.

19 To set an example of the effectiveness and wisdom of Scientology.

20 To make this world a saner, better place.


http://www.scientology.org/world/worldeng/corp/creed.htm

Creed of Scientology

We of the Church believe:

That all men of whatever race, color, or creed were created with equal rights;

That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance;

That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives;

That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity;

That all men have inalienable rights to their own defense;

That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist or support their own organizations, churches and governments;

That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others;

That all men have inalienable rights to the creation of their own kind;

That the souls of men have the rights of men;

That the study of the mind and the healing of mentally caused ills should not be alienated from religion or condoned in non-religious fields;

And that no agency less than God has the power to suspend or set aside these rights, overtly or covertly.

And we of the Church believe:

That man is basically good;

That he is seeking to survive;

That his survival depends upon himself and upon his fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the universe.

And we of the Church believe that the laws of God forbid man:

To destroy his own kind;

To destroy the sanity of another;

To destroy or enslave another's soul;

To destroy or reduce the survival of one's companions or one's group.

And we of the Church believe that the spirit can be saved and that the spirit alone may save or heal the body.

[Ladewig]

I don't know what the church's offical viewpoint on this question is. I'm not sure it has one. There are a lot of places where Ron mentions psychiatric treatments and that they haven't one single cure on their books. But that's hardly noteworthy as many a psychiatrist will agree they don't cure anything as well.

Well, it took only a few minutes to find out that the church does indeed have a viewpoint on psychiatry. With literature titled "Psychiatry - the Ultimate Betrayal (http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part08/Chp29/pg0472.html)" and "Psychiatrists – the Men Behind Hitler (http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part08/Chp29/pg0472-a.html)," on its website, it seems rather safe to say that CoS is against the field of psychiatry.

"Not sure it has one" Riiiiiiight.

[Ladewig]

I posted number 68 before I read this response.

Mr. Hubbard passed in 1986. What "great deal of progress" are you referring to?

I am referring to the latest generations of drugs designed to treat mental illnesses.

[fredcarr]

It occurred to me that CCHR (Citizens Commission on Human Rights) does have official positions on the subject.

More can be found on this at www.cchr.org

[Apology]

Well, it took only a few minutes to find out that the church does indeed have a viewpoint on psychiatry. With literature titled "Psychiatry - the Ultimate Betrayal (http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part08/Chp29/pg0472.html)" and "Psychiatrists – the Men Behind Hitler (http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part08/Chp29/pg0472-a.html)," on its website, it seems rather safe to say that CoS is against the field of psychiatry.

"Not sure it has one" Riiiiiiight.

Oh, there definitely is one, and has been one, straight from Hubbard's pen, since 1969:


There is a conflict between Dianetics and political practices such as psychiatry since electric shock, brain operations and general degradation of the person may prevent the patient's recovery by Dianetics.

As answers exist now for insanity there is no reason to continue Medieval or
Fascist solutions to the problem of the psychosomatically ill or the insane and we are doing everything in our power against fantastic opposition to end the torture and killing of the insane regardless of the politically "desirable" ends envisioned by some groups.

Dianetics, like any other true treatment, like aspirin or penicillin, was originally
designed to handle the apparent basic cause of psychosomatic illness.

So, in short, mental illness is purely psychosomatic.

[desertgal]

I don't know what the church's offical viewpoint on this question is. I'm not sure it has one. There are a lot of places where Ron mentions psychiatric treatments and that they haven't one single cure on their books. But that's hardly noteworthy as many a psychiatrist will agree they don't cure anything as well.

Many a psychiatrist would also argue that 'cure' is not the same as 'successful treatment', which has been achieved in documented cases for quite some time now. Did Mr. Hubbard make that concession, or just dismiss all psychiatric treatment on the 'no cure' basis?

Is autism classified by the CoS as a "mental illness"?

[geni]

I think the Code of a Scientologist and the Creed of Scientology may answer your question regarding the churches official position:

The publicaly stated offical positions of the church of scientology have never been consistent withs it's behaviour.

[fredcarr]

Well, it took only a few minutes to find out that the church does indeed have a viewpoint on psychiatry. With literature titled "Psychiatry - the Ultimate Betrayal (http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part08/Chp29/pg0472.html)" and "Psychiatrists – the Men Behind Hitler (http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part08/Chp29/pg0472-a.html)," on its website, it seems rather safe to say that CoS is against the field of psychiatry.

"Not sure it has one" Riiiiiiight.

I thought you were referring to percentages. Those books are not part of our scriptures as they weren't authored by Mr. Hubbard. I'm sure its no real secret that Scientologists are against the many harmful abuses and practices of Psychiatry. I'm just not sure what you mean by an "Official Position". Though there may be something else to look at which could answer your question contained in enrollment agreements one signs to partake of services. Its been years since I've bothered reading them (they are quite long) but I'm sure there are "official positions" in there but I do not know if they address percentages.

So just to make sure there is no understanding: When you ask for an official position are you asking about church policies re psychiatrict treatment, what Mr. Hubbard has to say on the subject, what the average Scientologist thinks or an announcement made on the subject by a Scientology spokesman.

Here is something taken from our site that probably could be accepted as "official".

This seems pretty clear.

http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part12/Chp36/pg0670-b.html?locale=en_US



Why is Scientology opposed to psychiatric abuses?

As the stepchildren of the German dictator Bismarck and later Hitler and the Nazis, psychiatry and psychology formed the philosophical basis for the wholesale slaughter of human beings in World Wars I and II. Psychiatry uses electric shock, brain-mutilating psychosurgery and mind-damaging drugs to destroy a person and make him “docile and quiet” in the name of “treatment.”
Psychiatric methods involving the butchering of human beings and their sanity are condemned by the Church. Scientologists are trying to create a world without war, insanity and criminality. Psychiatry is seeking to create a world where man is reduced to a robotized or drugged, vegetable-like state so that he can be controlled.
Scientologists do not believe that psychiatrists should tell their patients what they think is wrong with them. This interjects lies or ideas which are not true for the individual himself, thereby violating his basic integrity. Scientologists believe that one should find out for himself the source of his troubles since this gives him the ability to improve conditions in his own life and environment.
Scientology and psychiatry will always be working at cross-purposes. Scientology is a religion and recognizes that man is a spiritual being. Psychiatrists view man as an animal. Psychiatry is strongly opposed to all religions as it does not even recognize that man is a spiritual being.
Scientologists disagree with the enforced and harmful psychiatric methods of involuntary commitment, forced and heavy drugging, electroconvulsive shock treatment, lobotomy and other psychosurgical operations.
By the Creed of the Church of Scientology, the healing of mentally caused ills should not be condoned in nonreligious fields. The reason for this is that violent psychiatric therapies cause spiritual trauma. At best, psychiatry suppresses life’s problems; at worst, it causes severe damage, irreversible setbacks in a person’s life and even death.


Further non-Scientological references:

Mad in America by Robert Whitaker
Toxic Psychiatry by Peter Breggin (He has other books as well.)
The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide by Robert Jay Lifton.

There are others but I don't have my list in front of me.

[geni]

Though there may be something else to look at which could answer your question contained in enrollment agreements one signs to partake of services.

What OT level are you?

[desertgal]

I'm sure its no real secret that Scientologists are against the many harmful abuses and practices of Psychiatry. I'm just not sure what you mean by an "Official Position".


This isn't an official position?
Scientologists don't take psychiatric medications nor are they treated by psychiatrists.

[fredcarr]

Many a psychiatrist would also argue that 'cure' is not the same as 'successful treatment', which has been achieved in documented cases for quite some time now. Did Mr. Hubbard make that concession, or just dismiss all psychiatric treatment on the 'no cure' basis?

Is autism classified by the CoS as a "mental illness"?

I don't even know if Autism is even mentioned in any of our works. (Mind you I haven't read everything but in thirty years I don't remember coming across the term. I sure hope its not in one of the books I've just read!)

I think I remember a comment in a media site stating that a spokesperson for the church said we don't diagnosis such things, but I can't find it.

Personally I don't know what it is, what the cure for it is and if its solely a medical condition, mental condition or a combination of both. I simply don't know. From the little research that I have done it seems to be the consensus that their is no cure for it. But again I really know next to nothing and haven't heard one way or the other from any Scientologist. (Not that what they would have to say on it would have any bearing on my own evaluation of the subject.)

[fredcarr]

desertgal - Mr. Hubbard said a lot of things about psychiatry. Far too numerous to quote here. At times in his writings and lectures he has been quite savage on the subject and other times hopeful that they would clean up shop and do a better job of taking care of the insane. (Hard to see that happening any time soon with such strong financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.)

[fredcarr]

I posted number 68 before I read this response.



I am referring to the latest generations of drugs designed to treat mental illnesses.
Ahh - got it. Thought that's what you were refrring to but I wasn't sure.

I guess time will tell on this one.

[fredcarr]

This isn't an official position?

Jeez I don't know. I guess so if were using this definition of "position" - 6. A point of view or attitude on a certain question.

Then sure - the "position" of all Scientologists (one of the agreements that binds us together as a group) is we don't take psychiatric medications/treatments. I still don't know what is meant by "Offical position" however but I think I've already quoted plenty that should answer that in any case.

I just wanted to add how pleasant discussing things on this thread has been compared to some of the posters and threads I have had to deal with in the past. (That ignore feature sure comes in handy!)

[desertgal]

I don't even know if Autism is even mentioned in any of our works. (Mind you I haven't read everything but in thirty years I don't remember coming across the term. I sure hope its not in one of the books I've just read!)

Autism has risen over 400% in the last 30 years. It now affects one in every 150 children born in the United States. I would certainly hope that, if the CoS doesn't address the issue of autism in their literature, they start to very soon.

I think I remember a comment in a media site stating that a spokesperson for the church said we don't diagnosis such things, but I can't find it.The CoS diagnoses illnesses and developmental disorders?

Personally I don't know what it is, what the cure for it is and if its solely a medical condition, mental condition or a combination of both.It is a developmental disorder. The cause(s) of it are not established, but it is believed to be caused by the over/under stimulation of a brain chemical (which has yet to be isolated). It is possibly genetic, and possibly combined with environmental triggers. There is no cure. There ARE many successful therapies and proactive tools that can be learned in dealing with autism. Seizure disorders can often accompany autism, although autism itself is not the cause of any seizure disorder.

It is not, strictly, a 'mental condition'. But, then, many 'mental conditions', such as schizophrenia, have roots in physical malfunctions in the brain that manifest as mental disorders.

It should be noted that Jett Travolta had physical characteristics that were highly indicative of autism. IF the CoS considers autism to be a 'mental condition', and advises against treatment for an accompanying seizure disorder because it is viewed as part of the alleged 'mental condition', that would be incredibly irresponsible of them. Especially if they haven't done their homework on the issue of autism to begin with.

[Maia]

I'm a psychatric social worker, and there's nothing sadder than seeing clients continually go off desperately needed medications. We can't force anyone to take medications, but we know the devastating consequences when people with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or schizoaffective disorder cycle on and off their meds. As wonderful as it would be if pharmaceutical companies didn't hold the reins when it comes to psych drugs, that is the situation right now, and it's what we have to deal with (is everyone riding a horse and giving up their cars because big oil controls the gas pumps??)

[applecorped]

I thought thetans were the cause of all illnesses?

[fredcarr]

Autism has risen over 400% in the last 30 years. It now affects one in every 150 children born in the United States. I would certainly hope that, if the CoS doesn't address the issue of autism in their literature, they start to very soon.



The CoS diagnoses illnesses and developmental disorders?



It is a developmental disorder. The cause(s) of it are not established, but it is believed to be caused by the over/under stimulation of a brain chemical (which has yet to be isolated). It is possibly genetic, and possibly combined with environmental triggers. There is no cure. There ARE many successful therapies and proactive tools that can be learned in dealing with autism. Seizure disorders can often accompany autism, although autism itself is not the cause of any seizure disorder.

It is not, strictly, a 'mental condition'. But, then, many 'mental conditions', such as schizophrenia, have roots in physical malfunctions in the brain that manifest as mental disorders.

It should be noted that Jett Travolta had physical characteristics that were highly indicative of autism. IF the CoS considers autism to be a 'mental condition', and advises against treatment for an accompanying seizure disorder because that was viewed as part of the alleged 'mental condition', that would be incredibly irresponsible of them. Especially if they haven't done their homework on the issue of autism to begin with.

The church doesn't diagnose illnesses and such. I'm not sure why they would put out literature on the subject. A brief explanation on this may help on this point: We study the works of Mr. Hubbard. Although at one time books were allowed from other authors to be part of our scriptures that is no longer the case. (This doesn't mean we won't study other texts on various topics. One such being Jack Trout and AL Reis's work on positioning. There are a few others but none of these have the classification of scripture to the best of my knowledge. There is more that could be said on this but that should be another thread.)

The CoS diagnoses illnesses and developmental disorders?

I thought I just said they don't. Maybe something got lost in the translation....

The church doesn't advise for or against treatments for seizure conditions. We leave that to competent medical doctors. Also the church doesn't even interfere in the private lives of families on these issues. There are certain services which you can do at our churches which it is required that you report what medicines you are taking but that is a very specific thing. I don't think in the last ten years I have had any communications with my church on what medications I have taken nor what I have given my children. It simply never comes up and frankly is none of anyone else's business what treatment my children are undergoing. Not only have they never told me how to treat my children no communication has ever occured about it at all.

They have nothing to say about autism so have no need to study up on it. It's not what they do. Period. I would hazard a guess that part of the problem is that there are other churches that do have "official views" on autism. If I had a child that had autism I would research everything I could on it to determine the best care for my child in conjunction with competent medical examiners, etc. I wouldn't rely on anyone else to do this for me. That is one of the principles of Scientology by the way - "To inspect an area and find out for oneself."

[desertgal]

Jeez I don't know. I guess so if were using this definition of "position" - 6. A point of view or attitude on a certain question.

Then sure - the "position" of all Scientologists (one of the agreements that binds us together as a group) is we don't take psychiatric medications/treatments. I still don't know what is meant by "Offical position" however but I think I've already quoted plenty that should answer that in any case.

Well, in this case, I would think that the collective position of all Scientologists members could be considered the 'official' position' of the CoS.

desertgal - Mr. Hubbard said a lot of things about psychiatry. Far too numerous to quote here. At times in his writings and lectures he has been quite savage on the subject and other times hopeful that they would clean up shop and do a better job of taking care of the insane. (Hard to see that happening any time soon with such strong financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.)

I can't really respond to that...it is too general an accusation. It appears that you are lumping all psychiatrists and their individual treatment of patients under "psychiatric abuses".

[fredcarr]

To continue the discussion the Church of Scientology doesn't fix cars either. Or build houses. Or a thousand other things.

It helps me to be more able, aware and in control of my life. Among many other benefits too numerous to list here.

I once had a very sick child on my hands. (I've mentioned this before on another thread.) Took a couple months before we fully got it resolved. Not once was my church involved in any of that. Numerous doctors that continued to misdiagnosis my child were involved though. It wasn't until I got him to, arguably, the best childrens hospital in the country on a Thanksgiving night that we finally got somewhere. And even then it was another ten to twelve hours of tests before we narrowed down what the problem was. Again my church had no bearing on the matter except for asking the doctors to respect my religious beliefs to stay calm and quiet around my son as some of the more painful test were done. (Which I might add they did without skipping a beat.)

So from my perspective the whole religion issue is complete hogwash. I haven't lived John Travolta's life so who knows what he had to deal with. And that is really the only thing that can be said - we don't know.

[fredcarr]

Well, in this case, I would think that the collective position of all Scientologists members could be considered the 'official' position' of the CoS.

Fair enough.



I can't really respond to that...it is too general an accusation. It appears that you are lumping all psychiatrists and their individual treatment of patients under "psychiatric abuses".

I agree that its way too general. And a bit off topic as well.

[fredcarr]

desertgal - But, then, many 'mental conditions', such as schizophrenia, have roots in physical malfunctions in the brain that manifest as mental disorders.

Now there is a topic for many a long discussion.

[desertgal]

I thought I just said they don't. Maybe something got lost in the translation....

Quite possibly.

The church doesn't advise for or against treatments for seizure conditions. We leave that to competent medical doctors.Psychiatrists are medical doctors. A number of them are competent.

Also the church doesn't even interfere in the private lives of families on these issues.Yet they advise against seeking psychiatric treatment.


There are certain services which you can do at our churches which it is required that you report what medicines you are taking but that is a very specific thing.If the CoS does "not interfere in the private lives of families on these issues [i.e. medical care]" why would they require any member to report what medicines they are taking? Isn't that contradictory?


I don't think in the last ten years I have had any communications with my church on what medications I have taken nor what I have given my children. It simply never comes up and frankly is none of anyone else's business what treatment my children are undergoing. Not only have they never told me how to treat my children no communication has ever occured about it at all.And if your child was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia?

They have nothing to say about autism so have no need to study up on it. It's not what they do. Period.Autism is a developmental disorder that is reaching epidemic proportions-I can guarantee you that the CoS has young members who are autistic. You don't think it is important for a church which allegedly offers moral and emotional support to its members to be conversant with the issues and problems that the members might be facing?

I would hazard a guess that part of the problem is that there are other churches that do have "official views" on autism. I don't know. I wasn't asking if Scientology has an 'official view'. I was asking if the general consensus of Scientology members considers autism to be a 'mental condition'. I phrased that poorly, I apologize.

If I had a child that had autism I would research everything I could on it to determine the best care for my child in conjunction with competent medical examiners, etc. I wouldn't rely on anyone else to do this for me.I wasn't suggesting that you should. :)

There are a lot of places where Ron mentions psychiatric treatments and that they haven't one single cure on their books. But that's hardly noteworthy as many a psychiatrist will agree they don't cure anything as well.

And not to harp on this particular position of LRH's...but there are many physicians who would agree that they don't cure illnesses as well. AIDS, cancer, lupus...even the common cold. Successful treatments, yes...cures, no. Did Mr. Hubbard advise against seeking medical care in light of that?

[fredcarr]

Here is an interview with a Scientology spokesperson on the subject of Autism.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Scientology/Scientology-Medicine-and-Life-After-Death.aspx

I think I made my views on psychiatry quite clear in earlier posts containing our creed, etc. I try not to get into a discussion of psychiatry in general as that is a long topic in and of itself. Read the books I mentioned and then we can debate the pros and cons of that subject on another thread. I don't want to rewrite them - the books that is.

If the CoS does "not interfere in the private lives of families on these issues [i.e. medical care]" why would they require any member to report what medicines they are taking? Isn't that contradictory?

Like I said. There are specific services that one can do at a church wherein the taking of medications can affect the outcome. So the church asks to be informed of this. These are technical procedures which are best explained by reading Dianetics. I think your comparing apples to oranges. (What a hackneyed phrase that is.)

Autism is a developmental disorder that is reaching epidemic proportions-I can guarantee you that the CoS has young members who are autistic. You don't think it is important for a church which allegedly offers moral and emotional support to its members to be conversant with the issues and problems that the members might be facing?


Epidemic sounds right if its 1 in 150. Wonder what the cause for the huge increase is?

Sorry - I have no idea how to reply to the second part of that last quote. I'd recommend reading some beginning books on the subject of Scientology as I think were speaking from entirely different frames of references.

[desertgal]

Here is an interview with a Scientology spokesperson on the subject of Autism.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Scie...ter-Death.aspx (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Scientology/Scientology-Medicine-and-Life-After-Death.aspx)

Thank you. That answered my question. For the record, I asked specifically about autism because I am the mother of an autistic savant, and I was curious for that reason, not simply because Jett Travolta may have been autistic.

Obviously, we're not going to see eye to eye on the debate about psychiatrists and psychiatric drugs, so we'll leave that alone. :)

Like I said. There are specific services that one can do at a church wherein the taking of medications can affect the outcome.

Uh, no. You didn't include the bolded part earlier. If you had, I wouldn't have confused apples with oranges. Sorry about that.

Epidemic sounds right if its 1 in 150. Wonder what the cause for the huge increase is?

Environmental triggers, possibly. Many studies suggest the triggers might be modern medications for other purposes that weren't used 30 years ago-such as Pitocin for inducing labor, etc. Hopefully sooner than later, we'll find out.

I haven't lived John Travolta's life so who knows what he had to deal with. And that is really the only thing that can be said - we don't know.

Agreed.

[fredcarr]

Thank you. That answered my question. For the record, I asked specifically about autism because I am the mother of an autistic savant, and I was curious for that reason, not simply because Jett Travolta may have been autistic.

Obviously, we're not going to see eye to eye on the debate about psychiatrists and psychiatric drugs, so we'll leave that alone. :)



Uh, no. You didn't include the bolded part earlier. If you had, I wouldn't have confused apples with oranges. Sorry about that.



Environmental triggers, possibly. Many studies suggest the triggers might be modern medications for other purposes that weren't used 30 years ago-such as Pitocin for inducing labor, etc. Hopefully sooner than later, we'll find out.



Agreed.


Interesting. I often hear the idea that it's not that there is a tremendous growth in the condition but rather that it has gone undiagnosed previously. Whats your take on that?

[desertgal]

Interesting. I often hear the idea that it's not that there is a tremendous growth in the condition but rather that it has gone undiagnosed previously. Whats your take on that?

Well, that's true-through most of the 20th century, I think it is safe to say that autism was either mislabeled as simply "mental retardation", or undiagnosed altogether. Personally, I think the increase in numbers is reasonably due to a combination of factors: accurate diagnosis/classification, larger population-hence more genetic sources, and modern environmental triggers.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Gee, Fred is being so reasonable.

Why all this nonsense about going to medical doctors, Fred? Ol' LRon claimed Dianetic "auditing" (being hectored for extended periods of time while holding a couple of tin cans connected to an ohmmeter) can raise people from the dead and "Cancer has been eradicated by auditing out conception and mitosis." History of Man, p. 20, L. Ron Hubbard

Was he wrong? Deluded?

Anyway:

Cancer is not caused - never has been and never will be ...

It always requires a second-dynamic or sexual upset, such as the loss of children or some other mechanism to bring about a condition known as cancer. This is cancer at the outset. I have examined too many cases not to have recognized this, because it is present in every single case that had cancer that I've ever examined - real wild curve on the second dynamic. And where we have helped a case with cancer we have processed such things as wasting babies and accepting babies, and mocking up babies and throwing them away, and doing suchlike and so on, and we have had a considerable change in the condition of the case. However, a person can get so far gone that he can hardly be processed or not processed at all, and when this is the case, why, the cancer gets him.
L. Ron Hubbard, The Scale of Havingness, lecture of 29 Nov 1959
:rolleyes:

I know Fred has me on ignore because I keep asking about all the stupid claims made in Dianetics: What one loony Made Up. However, for any lurkers involved . . . :dl:

[Akhenaten]

Ladewig - Sorry didn't see your last line tell after I posted. I wonder why it didn't come across when I quoted your post?

"ETA: if your response differs from the official teaching of the church, then please give the church's viewpoint as well."

I don't know what the church's offical viewpoint on this question is. I'm not sure it has one. There are a lot of places where Ron mentions psychiatric treatments and that they haven't one single cure on their books. But that's hardly noteworthy as many a psychiatrist will agree they don't cure anything as well.


Explain this:

Psychiatry - An Industry of Death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry:_An_Industry_of_Death)


And then explain why scientologists lie all the time.

[wardenclyffe]

Well, that's true-through most of the 20th century, I think it is safe to say that autism was either mislabeled as simply "mental retardation", or undiagnosed altogether. Personally, I think the increase in numbers is reasonably due to a combination of factors: accurate diagnosis/classification, larger population-hence more genetic sources, and modern environmental triggers.

I think in addition to the fact that autism in the past was often labeled as mental retardation, it was often also labeled as geekiness. The autism spectrum has now expanded to include everything from your average nerd to someone who is completely shut off from the world. I suspect that many people who post here (including myself) could easily be diagnosed with a mild form of Asperger Syndrome which is at the less extreme end of the spectrum. I think that this might also contribute significantly to the rise in diagnosed cases.

Ward

[Kochanski]

No comment on Jeremy Perkins, Fred? The CoS did such a good job with him.

Sorry, Fred, but the CoS approach to schizophrenia is irresponsible and outright dangerous. For this alone there should be Mental Health organizations across the US seeking to prosecute them.

[fredcarr]

Explain this:

Psychiatry - An Industry of Death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry:_An_Industry_of_Death)


And then explain why scientologists lie all the time.

http://www.cchr.org/#/videos/where-the-truth-lies

If I lie all the time then its pointless for me explain anything to you.

[fredcarr]

I think in addition to the fact that autism in the past was often labeled as mental retardation, it was often also labeled as geekiness. The autism spectrum has now expanded to include everything from your average nerd to someone who is completely shut off from the world. I suspect that many people who post here (including myself) could easily be diagnosed with a mild form of Asperger Syndrome which is at the less extreme end of the spectrum. I think that this might also contribute significantly to the rise in diagnosed cases.

Ward

Really? What criteria are used to decide such a thing?

I know a kid who has been diagnosed with autism. He certainly seem a little off but I wouldn't classify him as a nerd. I've known a few of those (cough, cough) but I don't see the resemblance. On the other hand this kid doesn't seem mentally handicapped. Over stimulated as earlier mentioned sure seems to be a good description though.

[Akhenaten]

If I lie all the time then its pointless impossible for me explain anything to you.





Fixed that for you.

[fredcarr]

Fixed that for you.

I appreciate that:)

[Aepervius]

Autism has risen over 400% in the last 30 years.


Just a nitpick. DIAGNOSE of autism has risen 400%. Not autism itself. If autism itself had rised by that much it would have rised a few eyebrow (epidemiologue, scientific, alarm bell sounding etc...). Most likely there is/was no change in autism prevalence in the last 30 years.

ETA: Ignore me I jsut see this was addressed in later post.

[wardenclyffe]

Really? What criteria are used to decide such a thing [Asperger Syndrome]?

I know a kid who has been diagnosed with autism. He certainly seem a little off but I wouldn't classify him as a nerd. I've known a few of those (cough, cough) but I don't see the resemblance. On the other hand this kid doesn't seem mentally handicapped. Over stimulated as earlier mentioned sure seems to be a good description though.

I'm neither a mental health care professional, nor a COS auditor, so I'm not really qualified to determine the criteria, but a simple google search on "Asperger Syndrome" will give you a wealth of information about the condition. Again, I think this has existed for centuries, but only recently has the "nerd disease" been diagnosed. Since it's considered autism, that means that all these new cases are now diagnosed, bumping up the numbers.

Ward

[SezMe]

What OT level are you?
Fred, this might have escaped your notice.

[AgeGap]

Gee, Fred is being so reasonable.

Why all this nonsense about going to medical doctors, Fred? Ol' LRon claimed Dianetic "auditing" (being hectored for extended periods of time while holding a couple of tin cans connected to an ohmmeter) can raise people from the dead and "Cancer has been eradicated by auditing out conception and mitosis." History of Man, p. 20, L. Ron Hubbard

Was he wrong? Deluded?

Anyway:


Cancer is not caused - never has been and never will be ...

It always requires a second-dynamic or sexual upset, such as the loss of children or some other mechanism to bring about a condition known as cancer. This is cancer at the outset. I have examined too many cases not to have recognized this, because it is present in every single case that had cancer that I've ever examined - real wild curve on the second dynamic. And where we have helped a case with cancer we have processed such things as wasting babies and accepting babies, and mocking up babies and throwing them away, and doing suchlike and so on, and we have had a considerable change in the condition of the case. However, a person can get so far gone that he can hardly be processed or not processed at all, and when this is the case, why, the cancer gets him.
L. Ron Hubbard, The Scale of Havingness, lecture of 29 Nov 1959

:rolleyes:

I know Fred has me on ignore because I keep asking about all the stupid claims made in Dianetics: What one loony Made Up. However, for any lurkers involved . . . :dl:

Why are you on ignore Gord?

[Dr. Lao]

Fred, have you ever enslaved a planet?

Or yelled at an ashtray?

Flunk!!

[dudalb]

Fred, how much money do you have to pay before they tell you about Xenu and the Boeing 727 shaped spaceships?

[Maia]

http://www.cchr.org/#/videos/where-the-truth-lies

If I lie all the time then its pointless for me explain anything to you.


Excuse me... I don't want to be rude or impolite, but do you understand that editing, dramatic music, and carefully selected quotes do not create research where it does not exist? Interviews are not research studies. Playing spooky music over the title of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders does not somehow prove that it is not based on research, and neither does the practice of taking snippets of psychiatrists' quotes out of context (and showing them in stark black and white to make the entire thing look creepy, I might add.) I am a mental health professional, and the wonderful and dedicated psychiatrists with whom I have worked understand that the DSM-IV-TR is a tool to be used in conjunction with clinical experience and client feedback, just as the ICD-10 is for medical disorders. I also have ADHD, and all I can say is, thank God for Ritalin. The stimulant drugs enable me to live a more normal life, to experience calm and the ability to pay attention and focus, and to help to balance my brain. So we might as well start up the ranting and raving about that too, while we're at it!

[fredcarr]

I'm neither a mental health care professional, nor a COS auditor, so I'm not really qualified to determine the criteria, but a simple google search on "Asperger Syndrome" will give you a wealth of information about the condition. Again, I think this has existed for centuries, but only recently has the "nerd disease" been diagnosed. Since it's considered autism, that means that all these new cases are now diagnosed, bumping up the numbers.

Ward

Sorry I meant Autism and not Asperger. Lots of info out there. Hard to narrow it down.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Why are you on ignore Gord?

I guess you could ask Fred. :D

My questions to him always reference some stupid claims by LRon. These are documented in his writings and publications. These show such ignorance of reality that I guess they may cause some sort of cognitive dissidence. For Fred's claims of the great reasonability of Scientology to be true, he has to reject what its founder has said.

Thanks for quoting my whole post. ;)

[wardenclyffe]

Sorry I meant Autism and not Asperger. Lots of info out there. Hard to narrow it down.

Then I'm afraid I don't understand your original question to me. My point was that Aspberger did not "exist" in the past. Now it does and is frequently diagnosed. It is classified as a type of autism, which has bumped up the numbers significantly in recent times. This, combined with other more accurate diagnoses seems to be a major contributing factor to the recent panic about an autism epidemic.

Ward

[Achán hiNidráne]

That sure isn't the Church of Scientology. We have very strict policy about sending parishioners to medical doctors for treatment.


BTW lol @ the wild speculation that occurs on such a skeptical site.

Was that before or after your "good friend" Lisa McPherson was left in a hotel room to die.

Scientology must be destroyed.
Its members committed to asylums.
Its leaders sent to prison.

[desertgal]

I think in addition to the fact that autism in the past was often labeled as mental retardation, it was often also labeled as geekiness. The autism spectrum has now expanded to include everything from your average nerd to someone who is completely shut off from the world. I suspect that many people who post here (including myself) could easily be diagnosed with a mild form of Asperger Syndrome which is at the less extreme end of the spectrum. I think that this might also contribute significantly to the rise in diagnosed cases.

Ward

I agree absolutely. This is what I meant by autism being 'undiagnosed altogether' in the past.

I also agree that, when one remarks on the 'rise in autism', they are generally referring to the rise in diagnosed cases because of the expansion of the definitions of autism.

But, and I'm not sure how to phrase this question, so it may come out poorly: Isn't it also fair to say that we are seeing a rise in diagnosed cases because possible genetic sources have increased proportionately with the increase in population, and because of possible environmental triggers that did not exist 30 years ago?

[wardenclyffe]

I agree absolutely. This is what I meant by autism being 'undiagnosed altogether' in the past.

I also agree that, when one remarks on the 'rise in autism', they are generally referring to the rise in diagnosed cases because of the expansion of the definitions of autism.

But, and I'm not sure how to phrase this question, so it may come out poorly: Isn't it also fair to say that we are seeing a rise in diagnosed cases because possible genetic sources have increased proportionately with the increase in population, and because of possible environmental triggers that did not exist 30 years ago?

At the risk of giving Jenny McCarthy ammunition, yes, it's possible that environmental triggers might play a role in the increased number of diagnosed cases. There is no evidence that any specific environmental trigger exists (that I'm aware of), but it's within the realm of possibility. The most common environmental factor that's accused is childhood vaccination. I'm not aware of any reputable study that supports this theory.

I'm not sure I fully understand the suggestion that a larger population would have such an impact. It would increase the numbers of all diseases/syndromes (however one properly labels autism), simply because there are more people, but it shouldn't increase the rate of diagnoses in relation to population growth.

I'm by no means any kind of expert on this. I suspect that because of your personal story that you have done far more reading on the subject than I have.

Ward

[Apology]

I guess you could ask Fred. :D

My questions to him always reference some stupid claims by LRon. These are documented in his writings and publications. These show such ignorance of reality that I guess they may cause some sort of cognitive dissidence. For Fred's claims of the great reasonability of Scientology to be true, he has to reject what its founder has said.

Thanks for quoting my whole post. ;)

I've been on ignore since 2007 as well, Gord :p Pretty much the same reason, making fun of L. Ron, asking questions that Fred can't answer--good times :popcorn1

Also, Fredcarr will never tell you what OT level he is. If you ask him any difficult questions, he claims ignorance and eventually puts you on ignore. I almost feel bad for him; he's charged with trying to defend Scientology's wacky policies and beliefs, but he can't actually do that without being exposed to severe cognitive dissonance. Therefore, he makes a few "I don't know what you're talking about/that's not Scientology" posts before he's backing into a corner, fingers in ears, humming "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" again. It was amusing for the first couple of years, but now it's just plain dull.

Fun fact: L. Ron Hubbard said that cigarette smoking was actually healthful and that asbestos wasn't a cause of cancer. :D


"Well, there are societies in England that are having an awfully good time fighting the cigarette. They can't do anything else, so they fight cigarettes. And they say that the cigarette causes lung cancer. And they've -- you've been hearing something of this, I'm sure. Yeah. Not smoking enough will cause lung cancer. Not smoking enough will cause lung cancer! If anybody is getting a cancerous activity in the lung, the probabilities are that it's radiation dosage coupled with the fact that he smokes. And what it does is start to run out the radiation dosage, don't you see. But I'd say that would be better than not running out any of the radiation dosage at all and the number of lung cancer cases which exist, of course, that don't smoke are just forgotten about by these societies, but they are very numerous.

Anyway, there's nicotinic acid in that cigarette. Inevitably, on inhalation of tobacco, you will get some of this phenomena of face flush, but in view of the fact that a cigarette isn't pushing its smoke over the outside of the body but on the inside, of course, you run it out internally."

You can listen to it straight from L. Ron's mouth over here:
http://www.xenu.net/archive/multimedia.html (about a third of the way down the page, under "smoking")

[Dr. Lao]

They were DC8 spaceships, 727's weren't flying when Madman Hubbard made stuff up.

[Akhenaten]

Fred, how much money do you have to pay before they tell you about Xenu and the Boeing 727 shaped spaceships?


They were DC8 spaceships, 727's weren't flying when Madman Hubbard made stuff up.


A squirrel! A squrrel! Stop him polluting teh Tech! :alien:


ETA: I just realised that we may have spoilt dudalb's fishing expedition. If so, sorry. :)

[fredcarr]

Then I'm afraid I don't understand your original question to me. My point was that Aspberger did not "exist" in the past. Now it does and is frequently diagnosed. It is classified as a type of autism, which has bumped up the numbers significantly in recent times. This, combined with other more accurate diagnoses seems to be a major contributing factor to the recent panic about an autism epidemic.

Ward


Ahh Got it. I see what your saying now. thanks.

[Sean84]

Ahh Got it. I see what your saying now. thanks.

And failed to answer every question because every answer is completely insane?

[fredcarr]

And failed to answer every question because every answer is completely insane?

Not sure what your saying here. Are you saying I failed to answer every question because the answers I gave were deemed insane by you?

[Sean84]

Not sure what your saying here. Are you saying I failed to answer every question because the answers I gave were deemed insane by you?

Forget I asked...

I have no reason to think that you're insane, just horribly mislead by a dead science fiction author.

[Akhenaten]

I don't know what the church's offical viewpoint on this question is. I'm not sure it has one. There are a lot of places where Ron mentions psychiatric treatments and that they haven't one single cure on their books. But that's hardly noteworthy as many a psychiatrist will agree they don't cure anything as well.


Explain this:

Psychiatry - An Industry of Death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry:_An_Industry_of_Death)


And then explain why scientologists lie all the time.


Not sure what your saying here. Are you saying I failed to answer every question because the answers I gave were deemed insane by you?


Let's just see whatever answer you have, before we make our judgements about its sanity.


This question is unlikely to go away. :)

[Akhenaten]

Still no responser?

I thought scientology had all the answers?

[Sean84]

Fred must have you on ignore. What are your crimes?

[Akhenaten]

I'm holding Xenu hostage in a Pyramid.

[dafydd]

Some quotes from the Great Ron L.

You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.

Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion.

Whenever he was talking about being hard up he often used to say that he thought the easiest way to make money would be to start a religion.

* Neison Himmel, briefly a roommate of Hubbard in Pasedena during the fall of 1945, in a 1986 interview, quoted in Bare-Faced Messiah, The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard (1987) by Russell Miller


* THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them.
o Lecture: "Off the Time Track" (June 1952) as quoted in Journal of Scientology issue 18-G, reprinted in Technical Volumes of Dianetics & Scientology Vol. 1, p. 418


Leukaemia is evidently psychosomatic in origin and at least eight cases of leukaemia had been treated successfully by Dianetics after medicine had traditionally given up. The source of leukaemia has been reported to be an engram containing the phrase 'It turns my blood to water.'

* Journal of Scientology Issue 15-G (1953)


People attack Scientology, I never forget it, always even the score. People attack auditors, or staff, or organisations, or me. I never forget until the slate is clear.

* Manual Of Justice (1959)


So we listen. We add up associations of people with people. When a push against Scientology starts somewhere, we go over the people involved and weed them out. Push vanishes.

* Manual Of Justice (1959)



Not smoking enough will cause lung cancer! If anybody is getting a cancerous activity in the lung, the probabilities are that it's radiation dosage coupled with the fact that he smokes. And what it does is start to run out the radiation dosage, don't you see.

* Saint Hill Special Briefing Course 35 (19 July 1961)


A psychiatrist today has the power to (1) take a fancy to a woman (2) lead her to take wild treatment as a joke (3) drug and shock her to temporary insanity (4) incarnate [sic] her (5) use her sexually (6) sterilise her to prevent conception (7) kill her by a brain operation to prevent disclosure. And all with no fear of reprisal. Yet it is rape and murder… 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.

* Confidential memo "Project Psychiatry" (22 February 19



I'm drinking lots of rum and popping pinks and greys.

* Letter to his wife (1967) as quoted in L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman? (1989) by Bent Corydon and L. Ron Hubbard, Jr (Ronald DeWolfe)


From 'The Science Of Survival'

There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the Tone Scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow.

* p. 170

* The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the Tone Scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered.
o p. 170

* A Venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.
o p. 171

More Quotes

Now, get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea. Every time we have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology, we have found crimes for which that person or group could be imprisoned under existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts.

* "Critics of Scientology" (5 November 1967)

Scientology Policy Letters

* If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace.
o Dept. of Govt. Affairs (15 August 1960)

* We're playing for blood, the stake is EARTH.
o (7 November 1962)

* There is no more ethical group on this planet than ourselves.

* When somebody enrolls, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe — never permit an "open-minded" approach... If they enrolled, they're aboard, and if they're aboard they're here on the same terms as the rest of us — win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half minded about being Scientologists. ... When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt in her eye into a fixed, dedicated glare. ... The proper instruction attitude is, "We'd rather have you dead than incapable."

* We're not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn't cute or something to do for lack of something better. The whole agonized future of this planet, every Man, Woman and Child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology.
o "Keeping Scientology Working" (7 February 1965)

* A political system seeking to function amongst ignorant, illiterate and barbaric people could have marvelous principles but could only succeed in being ignorant, illiterate and barbaric unless one addressed the people one by one and cured the ignorance, illiteracy and barbarism of each citizen.
o "Politics" (13 February 1965)

* A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable.
o "Ethics, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists" (1 March 1965)

* This is the correct procedure: Spot who is attacking us. Start investigating them promptly for felonies or worse using our own professionals, not outside agencies. Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them. Start feeding lurid, blood sex crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press. Don't ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way.
o "Attacks on Scientology" (25 February 1966)

* When you move off a point of power, pay all your obligations on the nail, empower all your friends completely and move off with your pockets full of artillery, potential blackmail on every erstwhile rival, unlimited funds in your private account and the addresses of experienced assassins and go live in Bulgravia and bribe the police.
o "The Responsibilities of Leaders" (12 February 1967) (Bulgravia is an acronym of BULgaria, GReece, Albania and YugoslaVIA]

* ENEMY: SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.
o "Penalties for Lower Conditions" (18 October 1967)

* The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.
This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.
o "Cancellation of Fair Game" (21 October 1968)

* The names and connections, at this time, of the bitterly opposing enemy are: 1. Psychiatry and psychology (not medicine). 2. The heads of news media who are also directors of psychiatric front groups. 3. A few key political figures in the fields of "mental health" and education. 4. A decline of monetary stability caused by the current planning of bankers who are also directors of psychiatric front organizations [that] would make us unable to function.
o "Targets, Defense" (16 February 1969)

* "Psychiatry" and "psychiatrist" are easily redefined to mean "an anti-social enemy of the people". This takes the kill crazy psychiatrist off the preferred list of professions ... The redefinition of words is done by associating different emotions and symbols with the word than were intended...Scientologists are redefining "doctor", "Psychiatry" and "psychology" to mean "undesirable antisocial elements"...The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as often as possible. Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards. This, so far as words are concerned, is the public opinion battle for belief in your definitions, and not those of the opposition. A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any success with this technique of propaganda.
o "Propaganda by Redefinition of Words" (5 October 1971)

* MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY.
o "Principles of Money Management" (9 March 1972)

[dafydd]

Freddyboy,your looney,dangerous cult should be banned

[fredcarr]

yes, fredcarr, what about these serious illnesses?
or is this a glib quetion?


There are a couple points:

First of all we don't diagnose medical conditions.

If a person came to us to have us cure their bipolar condition we would send them to a doctor.

Also we don't work with the insane.

There is enough information out there on these subjects both by Mr. Hubbard and others to supplant my having to write lengthy post on it.

I'd be more than happy to mention some texts but then I already have so I guess no need to keep going over the same ground. (Probably should be its own thread in any case.)

[Akhenaten]

I don't know what the church's offical viewpoint on this question is. I'm not sure it has one. There are a lot of places where Ron mentions psychiatric treatments and that they haven't one single cure on their books. But that's hardly noteworthy as many a psychiatrist will agree they don't cure anything as well.





Explain this:

Psychiatry - An Industry of Death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry:_An_Industry_of_Death)


And then explain why scientologists lie all the time.


Hmm?

[desertgal]

If a person came to us to have us cure their bipolar condition we would send them to a doctor.

In other words, you would advise them to seek treatment, including psychoactive medications that might benefit them, from a qualified psychiatrist?

Also we don't work with the insane.

What qualifies as 'insane' to Scientologists?

[Ashles]

There are a couple points:

First of all we don't diagnose medical conditions.

If a person came to us to have us cure their bipolar condition we would send them to a doctor.

Also we don't work with the insane.

How do you know who is 'insane' (I'm curious to see you define that word) and who isn't without some sort of diagnosis?

[fredcarr]

In other words, you would advise them to seek treatment, including psychoactive medications that might benefit them, from a qualified psychiatrist?



What qualifies as 'insane' to Scientologists?

Good questions:

a. No. We don't advise that. AFAIK we simply tell them to go to a doctor if they came to us to be cured of some illness.

If you want to discuss psychiatry I'd recommend a separate thread. (And several books on the topic.)

b. Not sure what qualifies as insane in this world:) If a person came to me and said they were diagnosed as biipolar, schizo or any of a number of classifications I guess I'd take their word for it and send them on their way. As this has happened on occasion I speak from experience. Usually they are already being treated for it as they received that diagnosis and a prescription for drugs as well. If they are unusually persistent I recommend a couple books by Peter Breggin and I still send them on their way.

Thinking it over I realize I shouldn't have used the word insane. Not being very specific on a message board sure can waste a lot of time. One other thing, I've never had a person come to me that had been given a diagnosis who wasn't already under treatment. (It's not that it "usually" happens its that it always happens that way.)

[fredcarr]

How do you know who is 'insane' (I'm curious to see you define that word) and who isn't without some sort of diagnosis?

A huge topic. Read Dianetics for a complete answer.

"and who isn't without some sort of diagnosis?" So true!

[fredcarr]

Forget I asked...

I have no reason to think that you're insane, just horribly mislead by a dead science fiction author.


How so?

[desertgal]

Good questions:

a. No. We don't advise that. AFAIK we simply tell them to go to a doctor if they came to us to be cured of some illness.

Ah. We weren't talking about 'some illness'. We were talking about bipolar disorder, which you specifically brought up - and which, by the way, is incurable. So, if they have 'some illness', you would advise them to go to the doctor, and if they have bipolar disorder, which would entail visiting a psychiatrist...well, then, they're pretty much screwed as far as any support from their Church is concerned?

b. Not sure what qualifies as insane in this world:) If a person came to me and said they were diagnosed as biipolar, schizo or any of a number of classifications I guess I'd take their word for it and send them on their way. As this has happened on occasion I speak from experience. Usually they are already being treated for it as they received that diagnosis and a prescription for drugs as well. If they are unusually persistent I recommend a couple books by Peter Breggin and I still send them on their way."Send them on their way"? Is that the same as Scientology not offering support for members with mental disorders?

If you want to discuss psychiatry I'd recommend a separate thread. (And several books on the topic.)No. Having read Dianetics, I have no wish to discuss the Scientology version of psychiatry. And since the mods have not seen the need to split this thread, I see no reason to start a new one. You keep bringing that up. If the mods aren't objecting to the thread drift, why are you?

[Akhenaten]

I don't know what the church's offical viewpoint on this question is. I'm not sure it has one. There are a lot of places where Ron mentions psychiatric treatments and that they haven't one single cure on their books. But that's hardly noteworthy as many a psychiatrist will agree they don't cure anything as well.





Explain this:

Psychiatry - An Industry of Death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry:_An_Industry_of_Death)


And then explain why scientologists lie all the time.


Hmm?

[fredcarr]

Ah. We weren't talking about 'some illness'. We were talking about bipolar disorder, which you specifically brought up - and which, by the way, is incurable. So, if they have 'some illness', you would advise them to go to the doctor, and if they have bipolar disorder, which would entail visiting a psychiatrist...well, then, they're pretty much screwed as far as any support from their Church is concerned?

"Send them on their way"? Is that the same as Scientology not offering support for members with mental disorders?

No. Having read Dianetics, I have no wish to discuss the Scientology version of psychiatry. And since the mods have not seen the need to split this thread, I see no reason to start a new one. You keep bringing that up. If the mods aren't objecting to the thread drift, why are you?

Well if bipolar disorder is incurable then there isn't much more to say about that.

Like I said the church doesn't engage in healing of the body. We leave that to doctors. (something must be getting lost in the translation here) Like I said I don't "treat" disorders.

I only mention the thread split as it was recently brought up that a thread had gone off topic and the thread was locked. Didn't want that to happen here. If its deemed on topic I'm fine with that. Not sure how a mod is going to act.

If you have read Dianetics then you should know the "Scientology version of psychiatry" is about as wrong as you can get. We don't shock people, cut their brains up nor give extremely dangerous drugs to people that hook them for life and cause a host of awful side effects (not to mention the numerous suicides and violence caused by these meds.)

If your going to be so insulting I'd rather talk about something else. (methinks your probably trolling me on the psychiatry comparison.)

[desertgal]

Well if bipolar disorder is incurable then there isn't much more to say about that.

Way to avoid answering the question. Do you respond the same when the disease is incurable brain cancer?

Like I said the church doesn't engage in healing of the body. We leave that to doctors. (something must be getting lost in the translation here) Like I said I don't "treat" disorders. And I never suggested that you did. I have no idea where you are getting that. But, usually, when a patient has an incurable, debilitating disorder, their Church will offer emotional and practical support. Which Scientology might do as well...except for mental patients. Apparently, they are on their own. (Funny, though, that I am asking you about mental illness, and you keep reciting the Church's position on illnesses that don't require psychiatric treatment. I wonder why?)

If you have read Dianetics then you should know the "Scientology version of psychiatry" is about as wrong as you can get. We don't shock people, cut their brains up nor give extremely dangerous drugs to people that hook them for life and cause a host of awful side effects (not to mention the numerous suicides and violence caused by these meds.)"Scientology version" was the wrong choice of words. "Scientology slant"...that's better.

Huh. I've been a psychiatric patient for 30 years, under treatment for a schizo disorder. I've never had a shock treatment, or had my brain cut up (so far), or become addicted to medications. I've had mild side effects, which were conquered by a simple medication adjustment. Treatment which has enabled me to lead a productive life with a happy 30 year marriage, six well grounded children, and a successful career. Maybe my doctors have been doing it all wrong.

And Elli Perkins? Is her death okay because she and her son stuck to Scientology doctrine?

If your going to be so insulting I'd rather talk about something else. (methinks your probably trolling me on the psychiatry comparison.)No, I'm not trolling you. I just don't get a church that provides no emotional or practical support for members with an incurable disorder. Or insists, through their position against psychiatry, that they follow alternative therapies that can have dire results.

Or former members, I guess. I'm sure you all cut them loose if they insist on seeking psychiatric care.

How am I being insulting? I didn't call you a liar, crazy, or anything else. I'm just asking questions.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Well if bipolar disorder is incurable then there isn't much more to say about that.

Like I said the church doesn't engage in healing of the body. We leave that to doctors. (something must be getting lost in the translation here) Like I said I don't "treat" disorders.

I only mention the thread split as it was recently brought up that a thread had gone off topic and the thread was locked. Didn't want that to happen here. If its deemed on topic I'm fine with that. Not sure how a mod is going to act.

If you have read Dianetics then you should know the "Scientology version of psychiatry" is about as wrong as you can get. We don't shock people, cut their brains up nor give extremely dangerous drugs to people that hook them for life and cause a host of awful side effects (not to mention the numerous suicides and violence caused by these meds.)

If your going to be so insulting I'd rather talk about something else. (methinks your probably trolling me on the psychiatry comparison.)

Oh no. We just ask them to hold two tin cans connected to an ohmmeter and then shout at them for hours while not permitting them any relief. In the real world, this called brainwashing. In Sci-speak it is called Auditing and once you have cleared all those nasty engrams you will be Clear. Once you are Clear you will have all sorts of magical abilities. None of which have ever been demonstrated.

Posted for the record as Fred has his fingers in his ears. ;)

[catbasket]

Like I said the church doesn't engage in healing of the body. We leave that to doctors. (something must be getting lost in the translation here) Like I said I don't "treat" disorders.

No healing of the body, just healing the mind? Seems to give CoS an intriguing possible 'out' - simply redefine illnesses as problems of the mind and heal the mind. Of course they wouldn't do anything like that ...

Leukaemia is evidently psychosomatic in origin and at least eight cases of leukaemia had been treated successfully by Dianetics after medicine had traditionally given up. The source of leukaemia has been reported to be an engram containing the phrase 'It turns my blood to water.'

* Journal of Scientology Issue 15-G (1953)

(Thanks dafydd)

[desertgal]

Leukaemia is evidently psychosomatic in origin and at least eight cases of leukaemia had been treated successfully by Dianetics after medicine had traditionally given up. The source of leukaemia has been reported to be an engram containing the phrase 'It turns my blood to water.'

* Journal of Scientology Issue 15-G (1953)

I'm sorry, but...Huh?

[Tyooby]

I really annoys me when scientologists start talking about the 'evil' of psychiatry. Psychiatry improved and saved many lives, including those of several people I know.

Anyway, if Fred starts blaming deaths on psychiatry, the same argument can be made in reverse: http://www.whyaretheydead.info/

[Wowbagger]

Some claim that Scientology helps build and reiforce family relationships. If that's the case, then why don't Scientologists hear much about L. Ron Hubbard's family?

Some claim that Scientology's "Training Routines" help improve one's communication skills. If that is the case, how come they require a person to sit perfectly still and not communicate anything, while being taunted by their coach? Seems a bit counter-productive to me, is all.

Oh... and I just finished reading the OTIII "Wall of Fire" document, recently. (and, I'm not dead from doing that, yet, by the way.) It just seems like cornball sci-fi, to me. (And a draft copy, at that!) I don't see what the big deal is with this big, hush-hush secret. Can you inform me why it should be treated as some "ultimate truth" worth sooooo much time and money to acquire?

[dafydd]

Quote:
Leukaemia is evidently psychosomatic in origin and at least eight cases of leukaemia had been treated successfully by Dianetics after medicine had traditionally given up. The source of leukaemia has been reported to be an engram containing the phrase 'It turns my blood to water.'

* Journal of Scientology Issue 15-G (1953)
I'm sorry, but...Huh?



Huh indeed! Silence from Fred.

[dafydd]

Some claim that Scientology helps build and reiforce family relationships. If that's the case, then why don't Scientologists hear much about L. Ron Hubbard's family?

His son commited suicide.

[Maia]

Well if bipolar disorder is incurable then there isn't much more to say about that.



No-- there's quite a bit more to say about that. Bipolar disorder is incurable in the same sense in which Type I diabetes is incurable. These are both diseases which cannot be literally cured, but which can be very successfully managed through medication, such as lithium or one of the newer generation of anticonvulsants. They cannot be managed or treated without medication. I want an explanation about why you posted that video attacking psychiatry, because none of us ever got one. And frankly, I want an explanation as to why you would refer anyone with a severe and persistent mental illness (such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia) to the work of Peter Breggin, who makes his living by writing what most experts believe to be unjustified and irresponsible attacks on standard medication-based treatment of mental disorders and mental illnesses, particularly ADHD. Here are some links about Peter Breggin:

Quackwatch's opinion (http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/breggin.html)

Dr. Russell A. Barkley's opinion (http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/NegativeBR/breggin.html)

Now, if you want to quote Peter Breggin, that is your right, but I really think you need to be more honest about who you are actually referring to here, because this person constantly makes nothing but unsubstantiated claims. Why don't you tell us about your understanding of Peter Breggin's work and how it fits into your opinions about biological psychiatry?

[Gytha Ogg]

I'm sorry, but...Huh?

Engrams are more Hubbard woo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engram_%28Dianetics%29

Supposedly, certain phrases spoken by a pregnant woman can 'imprint' on the 'reactive mind', affecting fetal tissue causing diseases in adult life. Of course, there is no evidence to back this up in the slightest. It's just more pseudoscientific rubbish made up by Hubbard.

Scientology doesn't get involved in physical or psychiatric treatments? Tell us about vitamins, Fred. Tell us about how dangerously high doses of vitamins can cure cancer or radiation poisoning. Or maybe you're familiar with Elli Perkins, who was stabbed to death by her schizophrenic son after refusing conventional medical treatment for him, instead using Scientology's methods? Did vitamins help Jeremy Perkins? I'm sorry, but the assertion that Scientology's practices don't conflict with conventional evidence-based medicine simply does not hold up.

[dafydd]

Dangerous people,scientologists.Avoid them as you would rabid dogs.

[dafydd]

In other words, you would advise them to seek treatment, including psychoactive medications that might benefit them, from a qualified psychiatrist?



What qualifies as 'insane' to Scientologists?

Well they are insane themselves,so how would they know?

[Eyeron]

So if parents can be forced to give birth through legislation outlawing abortion in order to protect the child, why shouldn't parents be forced to give their child medical care? I see no difference. If being born is the difference, why is it okay to trump a parents rights to harm their child while it is still developing in the womb but not okay to force a parent to give medical care in order to protect the child from harm after being born? I see absolutely no difference. If being pro-life means protecting the unborn child from harm, why should it just somehow magically stop when the child has been born? Why shouldn't it continue after the child is born until the child reaches legal adulthood? Rights of parents? Again, why doesn't the parent have the right to terminate an abortion while the child is still developing in the womb? In forcing the woman to give birth by restricting access to abortion through legislation, you've already trumped up her rights to decide to be a parent or not because abortion harms and kills children. If a parent has no rights over their child, it should not just end when it has been born.

[Empress]

Leukaemia is evidently psychosomatic in origin and at least eight cases of leukaemia had been treated successfully by Dianetics after medicine had traditionally given up. The source of leukaemia has been reported to be an engram containing the phrase 'It turns my blood to water.'

* Journal of Scientology Issue 15-G (1953)

After three bone marrow transplants and a year in the hospital, my brother died last year from a psycosomatic illness and some bizarro "engram". Wow. I have never personally loathed Scientology more than I do at this moment.

[gtc]

How so?

He wrote science fiction novels.

[gtc]

I really annoys me when scientologists start talking about the 'evil' of psychiatry. Psychiatry improved and saved many lives, including those of several people I know.

Anyway, if Fred starts blaming deaths on psychiatry, the same argument can be made in reverse: http://www.whyaretheydead.info/

Its just like homeopathy.

Homeopaths have a misguided view of the way real medicine was practiced over 100 years ago.

Scientologists have a misguided view of the way real psychiatry was practiced 50 years ago.

Both believe modern doctors/psychiatrists still operate according to their misguided view.

Both offer alternative treatments that lack evidence but cost a lot of money.

[Maia]

These are all valid points-- the only thing I'm afraid of is that they will make it too easy to dismiss the entire thing as a bunch of "emotional arguments" or label them as attacks. But it still comes down to the same question. I want to see some kind of explanation of why there was a link to that video which so completely dismissed the entire modern practice of psychiatry, and I do not want to see the question evaded and ignored, which is exactly what has happened so far. All I did was to ask for an answer on this topic, and I never got one-- none of us ever got one. I do not want to see other topics substituted and suddenly brought up for discussion instead. I don't want to hear about the church's position-- the church didn't put up a link to that video on this board, and the church didn't talk on this board about how it refers people to Peter Breggin. Why did this happen? What was the point? These are reasonable questions and I think that we all deserve answers to them. Silence or evasion will mean that an answer has also been received. This is the first time I've ever, ever taken a tone like this in any thread on this forum, and anyone who's followed my posts knows this. But this is a very serious issue.

[Eyeron]

the reason being is when L Ron first wrote Dianetics, he wrote to because he thought it would be accepted by the Psychiatry Organization and be accepted as a way of filling up the holes in psychiatry. It was rejected. So now it has become a bible of sorts to the cultists and because he was rejected so they reject the psychiatric organizations and practice.

[Gytha Ogg]

These are all valid points-- the only thing I'm afraid of is that they will make it too easy to dismiss the entire thing as a bunch of "emotional arguments" or label them as attacks. But it still comes down to the same question. I want to see some kind of explanation of why there was a link to that video which so completely dismissed the entire modern practice of psychiatry, and I do not want to see the question evaded and ignored, which is exactly what has happened so far. All I did was to ask for an answer on this topic, and I never got one-- none of us ever got one. I do not want to see other topics substituted and suddenly brought up for discussion instead. I don't want to hear about the church's position-- the church didn't put up a link to that video on this board, and the church didn't talk on this board about how it refers people to Peter Breggin. Why did this happen? What was the point? These are reasonable questions and I think that we all deserve answers to them. Silence or evasion will mean that an answer has also been received. This is the first time I've ever, ever taken a tone like this in any thread on this forum, and anyone who's followed my posts knows this. But this is a very serious issue.

If you're waiting for an honest answer from a Scientologist, and not an evasion, instruction to 'read Dianetics' or accusation of personal attacks, you'll be waiting a very long time. I understand your frustration and I'll be watching the thread with interest to see if Fred bothers to respond with anything other than the standard 'handling' script they read from.

[Sean84]

How so?

You defend, advertise, and perpetuate the fraud of a deeply disturbed, completely bat**** *********** nuts, drug addict who couldn't cut it as a science fiction author so he decided to con people into believing he knew the one and only way.

I suppose I should have used the term "brainwashed" rather than misled.

[dafydd]

I guess that Fred has departed to do some recruiting and brainwashing.Another day,another dollar.

[Tyooby]

Another day,another dollar.

Speaking of dollars, if this story (http://www.scientology-cult.com/portrait-of-a-ponzi-man.html) is true, David Miscavige has found yet another to squeeze money out of his cult's members, and he keeps most of it for himself..

[Akhenaten]

I guess that Fred has departed to do some recruiting and brainwashing.Another day,another dollar.


He'll be back closer to Thursday. Thursday 2:00 pm is stat time, and we're Fred's stat. He's bound to explain all this. Or I will. :)



Speaking of dollars, if this story (http://www.scientology-cult.com/portrait-of-a-ponzi-man.html) is true, David Miscavige has found yet another to squeeze money out of his cult's members, and he keeps most of it for himself..


I, for one, will swear that it's true. Or rather, the truth is actually worse. The truth is always worse than you imagine with scilontology.


Cheers,

XenuAkhenaten

[Gytha Ogg]

'Scientology - it's worse than you think.'

Miscavige is a stain on society. A pathetic, power-hungry, insecure, greedy maggot who has to beat his staff and humiliate them into staying loyal to him, because that's the only way he can.

What will you do when the spell is broken, Davey? Have you got an escape plan ready?

[Akhenaten]

Well said, Britfag.

;)

[Gytha Ogg]

:p

Those anons are blunt but do get to the heart of the matter. Poking digs at Davey is contagious, I apologise for coming over all channy. :D

[Maia]

'Scientology - it's worse than you think.'

Miscavige is a stain on society. A pathetic, power-hungry, insecure, greedy maggot who has to beat his staff and humiliate them into staying loyal to him, because that's the only way he can.



You know, you really must learn to say what you mean. No more beating around the bush!:rolleyes:

[Akhenaten]

:p

Those anons are blunt but do get to the heart of the matter. Poking digs at Davey is contagious, I apologise for coming over all channy. :D





Not at all. 'tis sweet music to my ears. :)



You know, you really must learn to say what you mean. No more beating around the bush!:rolleyes:


Your wisdom abounds as always, Goddess.

[fredcarr]

These are all valid points-- the only thing I'm afraid of is that they will make it too easy to dismiss the entire thing as a bunch of "emotional arguments" or label them as attacks. But it still comes down to the same question. I want to see some kind of explanation of why there was a link to that video which so completely dismissed the entire modern practice of psychiatry, and I do not want to see the question evaded and ignored, which is exactly what has happened so far. All I did was to ask for an answer on this topic, and I never got one-- none of us ever got one. I do not want to see other topics substituted and suddenly brought up for discussion instead. I don't want to hear about the church's position-- the church didn't put up a link to that video on this board, and the church didn't talk on this board about how it refers people to Peter Breggin. Why did this happen? What was the point? These are reasonable questions and I think that we all deserve answers to them. Silence or evasion will mean that an answer has also been received. This is the first time I've ever, ever taken a tone like this in any thread on this forum, and anyone who's followed my posts knows this. But this is a very serious issue.

Which link to what video?

I agree were discussing very serious issues here now that were discussing psychiatry. (A completely different subject than Scientology or Dianetics I might add.) Certainly the subject of psychiatry has implications that affect us all.

But since were on this topic a couple comments to address points brought up in several posts.

The church doesn't engage in psychiatric treatment of its parishioners. Probably an obvious statement but bears repeating. Re-looking at post I quoted above I see you don't want to hear about the church's position. So I won't discuss the church then. (I don't treat mental patients so not sure what you want to discuss. I might have missed an earlier post by you.)

An earlier post by desertgal says she doesn't want to discuss Dianetics so I guess speaking from that frame of reference is out.

I guess that leaves just talking about psychiatry.

desertgal says "I've been a psychiatric patient for 30 years, under treatment for a schizo disorder."

The first paragraph from wikipedia on Schizophrenia says

"Schizophrenia (pronounced /ˌskɪtsɵˈfrɛniə/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English) or /ˌskɪtsɵˈfriːniə/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)), from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek) roots skhizein (σχίζειν, "to split") and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-; "mind") is a psychiatric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry) diagnosis that describes a mental disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder) characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality. Distortions in perception may affect all five senses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense), including sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch, but most commonly manifest as auditory hallucinations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination), paranoid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia) or bizarre delusions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion), or disorganized speech and thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_disorder) with significant social or occupational dysfunction. Onset of symptoms typically occurs in young adulthood,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#cite_note-castle1991-0) with approximately 0.4–0.6%[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#cite_note-fn_34-2) of the population affected. Diagnosis is based on the patient's self-reported experiences and observed behavior. No laboratory test for schizophrenia currently exists.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#cite_note-DSM-IV-TR-3)"

Not sure what can be gained by discussing different points of views with someone who has this condition.

[dafydd]

What about the engram that causes leukemia Fred?Not that I'm expecting an answer,you're reading from a script.

[Maia]

Which link to what video?

I agree were discussing very serious issues here now that were discussing psychiatry. (A completely different subject than Scientology or Dianetics I might add.) Certainly the subject of psychiatry has implications that affect us all.

But since were on this topic a couple comments to address points brought up in several posts.

The church doesn't engage in psychiatric treatment of its parishioners. Probably an obvious statement but bears repeating. Re-looking at post I quoted above I see you don't want to hear about the church's position. So I won't discuss the church then. (I don't treat mental patients so not sure what you want to discuss. I might have missed an earlier post by you.)

An earlier post by desertgal says she doesn't want to discuss Dianetics so I guess speaking from that frame of reference is out.

I guess that leaves just talking about psychiatry.

desertgal says "I've been a psychiatric patient for 30 years, under treatment for a schizo disorder."

The first paragraph from wikipedia on Schizophrenia says

"Schizophrenia (pronounced /ˌskɪtsɵˈfrɛniə/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English) or /ˌskɪtsɵˈfriːniə/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)), from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek) roots skhizein (σχίζειν, "to split") and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-; "mind") is a psychiatric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry) diagnosis that describes a mental disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder) characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality. Distortions in perception may affect all five senses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense), including sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch, but most commonly manifest as auditory hallucinations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination), paranoid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia) or bizarre delusions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion), or disorganized speech and thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_disorder) with significant social or occupational dysfunction. Onset of symptoms typically occurs in young adulthood,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#cite_note-castle1991-0) with approximately 0.4–0.6%[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#cite_note-fn_34-2) of the population affected. Diagnosis is based on the patient's self-reported experiences and observed behavior. No laboratory test for schizophrenia currently exists.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#cite_note-DSM-IV-TR-3)"

Not sure what can be gained by discussing different points of views with someone who has this condition.

As I repeatedly stated, one thing which I would like is an explanation for your motives in posting a link to the video which so casually dismissed the entire practice of modern psychiatry and took quotes from psychiatrists completely out of context. The Church of Scientology did not come on this board and it did not post the link to that video, and it did not refer anyone to the works of Peter Breggin, so I am addressing the person who did.

I do not know if Desertgal was interested in discussing this subject with you or not, so I cannot speak for her. I do not know what she has or has not stated regarding any mental disorder she may or may not have. Whatever the case may be, I am a psychiatric social worker, and I am extremely familiar with clients who do have schizophrenia. Persons who are under treatment for schizophrenia are frequently able to live normal lives in every way, and are most certainly capable of carrying on more than rational discussions on various subjects. I hope that this information has enlightened you on the topic of "what can be gained by discussing different points of views with someone who has this condition." But I can certainly see how it might be difficult to understand if all you have ever seen is people who have schizophrenic disorders and are not being treated for them in any way.

I do have to say that it is rather difficult for me to understand why anyone who would post a link to a video which dismisses modern psychiatry would then turn around and quote Wikipedia on the topic of severe and persistent mental illness. If you would like further information about schizophrenia, however, I can certainly recommend more comprehensive and authoritative sources.

Because it seems so offensive to you to discuss this topic with someone who might have some sort of mental disorder, however, perhaps it would be more acceptable to discuss it with me. I would be more than happy to do so. As stated above, I am a psychiatric masters' level social worker with experience in working with clients who have severe and persistent mental illness, particularly geriatric clients. Since this seems to be so important to you, I will also tell you that I do not have schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, any personality disorder, or depression. I hope that this will suffice to meet your exacting standards, and I am sure that you will now be happy to engage in dialogue.

[fredcarr]

I really annoys me when scientologists start talking about the 'evil' of psychiatry. Psychiatry improved and saved many lives, including those of several people I know.

Anyway, if Fred starts blaming deaths on psychiatry, the same argument can be made in reverse: http://www.whyaretheydead.info/


Wow! It always amazes me when people rise up to defend the subject and practices of Psychiatry.

Tell you what: Read the books I mentioned and then we can discuss them. Otherwise its a waste of time and I'm not partial to the idea that the "net is pure truth". (Transformers 2 joke for those that haven't seen the movie.)

Here is a small list which won't take much time at all for you all:

1. Mad in America by Robert Whitaker
2. Toxic Psychiatry by Peter Breggin (I guess he has been proven to be debunked though so what he says is invalid. Guess I'll have to take him off of my recommended reading list then. j/k)
3. The Truth about the Drug Companies by Marcia Angell
4. Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber (One of my favorites)
5. The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide
by Robert Jay Lifton (I'm only half way through this one. Pretty tough to stomach.)
6. I'd like to add some books by Thomas Szasz but since he has so many and I have only read a few of his I guess we should leave him off the list. (Wait maybe he has been debunked as well! another j/k)

I could go on but I said we should keep this list short. I know I'm wasting my time typing this as it seems like a trend on the internet to rely on what you can find a link for but not to go and read a book on the subject. Much less go and find out for yourself.

Once this is done then we can discuss the real issues at hand:

1. Is there any validity to the subject of psychiatry at all?
2. Are SSRIs and antipyschotics really all that different than lobotomy and electric shock in the final analysis?
3. Are mental illnesses biological in nature?
4. What influence has public relations and propaganda had in pushing the "chemical imbalance" theory.

I guess since this all started with "Travolta might have seen the light" were all safely on topic:)

[fredcarr]

As I repeatedly stated, one thing which I would like is an explanation for your motives in posting a link to the video which so casually dismissed the entire practice of modern psychiatry and took quotes from psychiatrists completely out of context. The Church of Scientology did not come on this board and it did not post the link to that video, and it did not refer anyone to the works of Peter Breggin, so I am addressing the person who did.

I do not know if Desertgal was interested in discussing this subject with you or not, so I cannot speak for her. I do not know what she has or has not stated regarding any mental disorder she may or may not have. Whatever the case may be, I am a psychiatric social worker, and I am extremely familiar with clients who do have schizophrenia. Persons who are under treatment for schizophrenia are frequently able to live normal lives in every way, and are most certainly capable of carrying on more than rational discussions on various subjects. I hope that this information has enlightened you on the topic of "what can be gained by discussing different points of views with someone who has this condition." But I can certainly see how it might be difficult to understand if all you have ever seen is people who have schizophrenic disorders and are not being treated for them in any way.

I do have to say that it is rather difficult for me to understand why anyone who would post a link to a video which dismisses modern psychiatry would then turn around and quote Wikipedia on the topic of severe and persistent mental illness. If you would like further information about schizophrenia, however, I can certainly recommend more comprehensive and authoritative sources.

Because it seems so offensive to you to discuss this topic with someone who might have some sort of mental disorder, however, perhaps it would be more acceptable to discuss it with me. I would be more than happy to do so. As stated above, I am a psychiatric masters' level social worker with experience in working with clients who have severe and persistent mental illness, particularly geriatric clients. Since this seems to be so important to you, I will also tell you that I do not have schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, any personality disorder, or depression. I hope that this will suffice to meet your exacting standards, and I am sure that you will now be happy to engage in dialogue.

Not offensive to me in the least. Those are your words:) Just that it would probably be less than productive.

I can see why you took offense to a video that slams psychiatry now:) I have known a few under treatment for that 'condition' btw. Some were better off than others but I certainly haven't done a study on it.

As an aside and in the full interests of disclosure I should mention my Grandfather was diagnosed with the condition and then murdered by psychiatrists administering electric shock to him. So you'll have to forgive my less than tolerant and understanding viewpoint of a profession that has more blood on its hands than many wars combined. A viewpoint that is shared by many others.

Just read some of the books I mentioned and then we can discuss it in polite tones as I'm sure it's being discussed in doctors offices all over the country right now. ("Mrs Smith I see your depressed about your husband leaving you. In my expert opinion you might have a chemical imbalance. Lets get you started on Paxil right away....Side Effects? Not at all. Nothing could be safer.") RIP

[desertgal]

desertgal says "I've been a psychiatric patient for 30 years, under treatment for a schizo disorder."

The first paragraph from wikipedia on Schizophrenia says <definition snipped>

Not sure what can be gained by discussing different points of views with someone who has this condition.

Schizophrenia is only one disorder in the schizo spectrum, and I have never been diagnosed with it (well, except by you just now). I'd explain how schizotypal disorder differs from schizophrenia, but I'm not sure what can be gained with discussing different points of view with someone suffering from such an appalling level of ignorance and Scientology brain washing.

Good day to you, sir.

[fredcarr]

Excuse me... I don't want to be rude or impolite, but do you understand that editing, dramatic music, and carefully selected quotes do not create research where it does not exist? Interviews are not research studies. Playing spooky music over the title of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders does not somehow prove that it is not based on research, and neither does the practice of taking snippets of psychiatrists' quotes out of context (and showing them in stark black and white to make the entire thing look creepy, I might add.) I am a mental health professional, and the wonderful and dedicated psychiatrists with whom I have worked understand that the DSM-IV-TR is a tool to be used in conjunction with clinical experience and client feedback, just as the ICD-10 is for medical disorders. I also have ADHD, and all I can say is, thank God for Ritalin. The stimulant drugs enable me to live a more normal life, to experience calm and the ability to pay attention and focus, and to help to balance my brain. So we might as well start up the ranting and raving about that too, while we're at it!


So your saying the DSM-IV and ICD-10 are similar? (I'm only slightly acquainted with the DSM-IV and know next to nothing about the ICD-10)

(I found your earlier posts where you took offense against the video I linked to. Been a while forgot about that.)

I probably shouldn't have brought Thomas Szasz up in my earlier post then. Glad I didn't mention his book "The Myth of Mental Illness" then.

So what percentage of the comments by the psychiatrists on that video which were taken out of context are wrong?

[fredcarr]

Schizophrenia is only one disorder in the schizo spectrum, and I have never been diagnosed with it (well, except by you just now). I'd explain how schizotypal disorder differs from schizophrenia, but I'm not sure what can be gained with discussing different points of view with someone suffering from such an appalling level of ignorance and Scientology brain washing.

Good day to you, sir.

Really? So which version do you have? btw I didn't diagnose you. I find it interesting that you think I have though. BTW - You told me you had it.

desert gal - "Huh. I've been a psychiatric patient for 30 years, under treatment for a schizo disorder."


I merely cut and pasted from the first paragraph on wikipedia (a practice that is quite the fad on this board).


Continuing the fad:

Schizotypal personality disorder is characterized by an ongoing pattern in which the affected person distances him- or herself from social and interpersonal relationships. Affected people typically have an acute discomfort when put in circumstances where they must relate to others. These individuals are also prone to cognitive and perceptual distortions and a display a variety of eccentric behaviors that others often find confusing.
Read more: http://www.minddisorders.com/Py-Z/Schizotypal-personality-disorder.html#ixzz0OfiK25ZC

http://www.minddisorders.com/Py-Z/Schizotypal-personality-disorder.html

I must admit I am very ignorant on this subject. I'm not a psychiatrist!

[desertgal]

BTW - You told me you had it.

Really?

I've been a psychiatric patient for 30 years, under treatment for a schizo disorder.

Please show me where I said I have schizophrenia.

I must admit I am very ignorant on this subject. I'm not a psychiatrist!

Then perhaps you shouldn't remark on mental conditions until you know what you are talking about.

[fredcarr]

Really?

Please show me where I said I have schizophrenia.



I see the confusion now. You said "schizo disorder". When entering schizo into google you get as a top result..."schizophrenia". Its also defined the same in Merriam Webster. Guess it got lost in the translation.

I'll accept your statement that you have "schizotypal disorder". I surely don't want to waste either of our precious time and energy discussing differences and similarities between the different disorders. That could go on for years!

Besides I'm brainwashed (who is diagnosing who now?) and you have schizotypal disorder. Just imagine the discussions we could have.

Me: The moon is made of green cheese.
You: No its not. Its clearly made of yellow cheese.

lol! j/k The last was a joke. I don't think the moon is green at all.

[fredcarr]

Had another look at the video to refresh my memory of the main points it presented. Here they are:

1. DSM - not backed by science.
2. Time taken to diagnosis a patient. 1-2 hours per psychiatrists. Patients say ten minutes, some less.
3. Side effects - Psychiatrists say yes! Say they warn patients. Relatives of dead patients say no warning were given. (In my experience this is true.)
4. Psychiatrists say drugs are not addictive. Patients say very addictive.
5. Pharma money influences psychiatry and prescribing practices.
6. Psychiatrists say psychiatry is not scientfic.

[desertgal]

Ummm...I just did. Look at your posts.

Schizotypal disorder is not schizophrenia.

[fredcarr]

Schizotypal disorder is not schizophrenia.

Yeah I see that. Are they related?

[DogB]

Schizotypal disorder is not schizophrenia.

Can I suggest you stop trying to explain this to Fred? He knows it annoys you and so long as you let him he'll keep yanking your chain.

Besides the other readers on this thread are under no illusions as to which of the two of you is more mentally competent. ;)

[fredcarr]

Can I suggest you stop trying to explain this to Fred? He knows it annoys you and so long as you let him he'll keep yanking your chain.

Besides the other readers on this thread are under no illusions as to which of the two of you is more mentally competent. ;)

LMAO!!! That's pretty funny.

[dudalb]

:p

Those anons are blunt but do get to the heart of the matter. Poking digs at Davey is contagious, I apologise for coming over all channy. :D


But when it comes to taking apart the CO$, nobody has come near the merry guys at "South Park".

[desertgal]

Can I suggest you stop trying to explain this to Fred? He knows it annoys you and so long as you let him he'll keep yanking your chain.

Besides the other readers on this thread are under no illusions as to which of the two of you is more mentally competent. ;)

Oh, no worries...I'm done with Fred and his thetans.

[fuelair]

Given that the Church probably has a very thick file of materials from Travolta's "auditing" sessions that would embarrass him, this would be a very brave thing for him to do.

I'm no fan of the Catholic church, but at least I have to give them credit for treating confessions as confidential, whereas the Scientologists apparently regard them as blackmail material.If you have read even a little of L. Ron's background that cannot possibly be a surprise!.

[DogB]

LMAO!!! That's pretty funny.

Oh please - spare us. None of us are buying what you're selling so don't insult our intelligence.

[Tyooby]

Wow! It always amazes me when people rise up to defend the subject and practices of Psychiatry.

Tell you what: Read the books I mentioned and then we can discuss them. Otherwise its a waste of time and I'm not partial to the idea that the "net is pure truth". (Transformers 2 joke for those that haven't seen the movie.)

Here is a small list which won't take much time at all for you all:

1. Mad in America by Robert Whitaker
2. Toxic Psychiatry by Peter Breggin (I guess he has been proven to be debunked though so what he says is invalid. Guess I'll have to take him off of my recommended reading list then. j/k)
3. The Truth about the Drug Companies by Marcia Angell
4. Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber (One of my favorites)
5. The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide
by Robert Jay Lifton (I'm only half way through this one. Pretty tough to stomach.)
6. I'd like to add some books by Thomas Szasz but since he has so many and I have only read a few of his I guess we should leave him off the list. (Wait maybe he has been debunked as well! another j/k)

I could go on but I said we should keep this list short. I know I'm wasting my time typing this as it seems like a trend on the internet to rely on what you can find a link for but not to go and read a book on the subject. Much less go and find out for yourself.

Once this is done then we can discuss the real issues at hand:

1. Is there any validity to the subject of psychiatry at all?
2. Are SSRIs and antipyschotics really all that different than lobotomy and electric shock in the final analysis?
3. Are mental illnesses biological in nature?
4. What influence has public relations and propaganda had in pushing the "chemical imbalance" theory.

I guess since this all started with "Travolta might have seen the light" were all safely on topic:)

Fred, you seem to think you've found a clever way of surpressing dissent: totally ignoring the content of my post and giving me a long list of books to read. How is your post a reply to the list of scientology related deaths I linked to? How does a long list of book titles about psychiatry's flaws negate my argument that psychiatry improved and saved many lives, including those of several people I know? And most of all, what better alternative to psychiatry does your cult offer to people in need of mental treatment? (no, brainwashing doesn't count)

Since you seem to think we should be offering each other reading homework instead of replying to each other's arguments, here you go:
Bare Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard (http://www.amazon.com/Bare-Faced-Messiah-Story-Hubbard/dp/0805006540/ref=sr_1_39?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250722896&sr=8-39)
Escaping Scientology: An Insider's True Story (http://www.amazon.com/Escaping-Scientology-Insiders-True-Story/dp/1596690666/ref=sr_1_35?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250722896&sr=8-35)
The Complex: An Insider Exposes the Covert World of the Church of Scientology (http://www.amazon.com/Complex-Insider-Exposes-Covert-Scientology/dp/1903582849/ref=sr_1_4/182-6375826-3403023?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250722830&sr=8-4)

And I'd really advice you to explore this site (http://xenu.net/) with an open mind.

[Tyooby]

As an aside and in the full interests of disclosure I should mention my Grandfather was diagnosed with the condition and then murdered by psychiatrists administering electric shock to him.


Well that explains a lot. I'm very sorry for your grandfather. I can totally understand your resentment against psychiatry, knowing this.

Still, I'd advice you to keep an open mind, psychiatry's changed much since then. And I wouldn't call it murder, unless you know for a fact that your grandfather's psychiatrists intentionally ended his life.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Hmm. Fred seems a little enturbulated.

He is obviously being attacked by some of those nasty Thetans. This calls for some serious Auditing. Hang on to these tin cans Fred. :eek:

[elbe]

This seems like as good as any place to ask this: I've seen a couple mentions about scientologists asking about whistling during whatever interview spiel they give people. Is there supposedly something wrong with whistling?

I tried googling it, but all I ended up with was pages and pages of scientology whistle blower articles.

[Maia]

So your saying the DSM-IV and ICD-10 are similar? (I'm only slightly acquainted with the DSM-IV and know next to nothing about the ICD-10)

(I found your earlier posts where you took offense against the video I linked to. Been a while forgot about that.)

I probably shouldn't have brought Thomas Szasz up in my earlier post then. Glad I didn't mention his book "The Myth of Mental Illness" then.

So what percentage of the comments by the psychiatrists on that video which were taken out of context are wrong?

100% of them.

I'm very familiar with the work of Thomas Szasz, and of others who've made similar arguments that persons diagnosed with mental illnesses are not actually mentally ill; rather, society is. I particularly liked R.D. Laing's The Divided Self. . I have also read virtually everything ever written by Robert Jay Lifton, as well as Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, William Shirer, Peter Baldwin, Saul Friedlander, Martin Broszat, Allan Bullock, Robert G.L. Waite, Joachim Fest, Karl Dietrich Bracher, Israel Gutman, and Hannah Arendt. But yes, Lifton does provide a fascinating psychoanalytic explanation for how professional healers could become killers. Do you understand that the explanation itself relies on a psychoanalytic understanding of human motivations and behavior?

The Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision is the standard text for diagnosis of mental illnesses and mental disorders. The ICD-10 is the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition.. It is the international standard diagnostic classification for all general epidemiological and many health management purposes and clinical uses. The ICD-10 is more likely to be found in a GP's office; the DSM-IV in the office of a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other therapist.


It is impossible for me to address the broadside attacks you've made on the practice of psychiatry, because they really don't make any sense. However, I would happy to address specific arguments. For instance, how about if we discuss atypical antipsychotics? I would be more than happy to do a two-page post with numerous APA references on the various mental illnesses for which antipsychotics might be indicated, their exact mechanism of action, and the double blind studies published in peer-reviewed journals which support their use. '

However, I think it is only fair to warn you about two things. One is that when you run up against someone who knows how to do serious research, such as I, you will swiftly find that the rules you are used to playing with are changed. The other is that I don't have much patience for this. I'm sorry that you feel you have family history which has led you to these conclusions. But so do I, in my own way. My family was completely destroyed by my bipolar mother's consistent refusal to take prescribed medication or to undergo treatment. The difference is that my position is supported by all available evidence, and yours is not. No matter how anyone feels about it, that's how reality works.

[DogB]

This seems like as good as any place to ask this: I've seen a couple mentions about scientologists asking about whistling during whatever interview spiel they give people. Is there supposedly something wrong with whistling?

I tried googling it, but all I ended up with was pages and pages of scientology whistle blower articles.

This (http://www.clambake.org/archive/oca/) would seem to indicate that they think Whistling is a good thing (see Q27 and the 'correct' answer lower down).

Exactly what insane rationisation they use to justify this position is beyond me.

[dafydd]

And the engram that causes leukemia ?

[Akhenaten]

LMAO!!! That's pretty funny.


Deal with this, laughing boy.

Ladewig - Sorry didn't see your last line tell after I posted. I wonder why it didn't come across when I quoted your post?

"ETA: if your response differs from the official teaching of the church, then please give the church's viewpoint as well."

I don't know what the church's offical viewpoint on this question is. I'm not sure it has one. There are a lot of places where Ron mentions psychiatric treatments and that they haven't one single cure on their books. But that's hardly noteworthy as many a psychiatrist will agree they don't cure anything as well.


Explain this:

Psychiatry - An Industry of Death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry:_An_Industry_of_Death)


And then explain why scientologists lie all the time.


Hilarious.

[Sean84]

Don't feel too bad, he ignored me completely after I answered his question directly.

[Akhenaten]

I'm fine. :)

Reposting the link for others to follow makes me feel nice.

[aggle-rithm]

I guess that Fred has departed to do some recruiting and brainwashing.Another day,another dollar.

Well, HE won't make a dollar.

[aggle-rithm]

Once this is done then we can discuss the real issues at hand:

1. Is there any validity to the subject of psychiatry at all?


Yes.


2. Are SSRIs and antipyschotics really all that different than lobotomy and electric shock in the final analysis?


Yes, quite different.


3. Are mental illnesses biological in nature?


Partially. Some more than others. Some are genetic, some environmental, but all have something to do with biology, since the mind is a product of biology.


4. What influence has public relations and propaganda had in pushing the "chemical imbalance" theory.


How should I know?

There, that was easy.

[aggle-rithm]

This seems like as good as any place to ask this: I've seen a couple mentions about scientologists asking about whistling during whatever interview spiel they give people. Is there supposedly something wrong with whistling?


Whistling leads inevitably to whistle blowing.

Just like reading Harry Potter leads inevitably to Satan worship.

[Maia]

Aggle-rithm, you are so cool. :)

More answers yet:

Once this is done then we can discuss the real issues at hand:

1. Is there any validity to the subject of psychiatry at all?
Yes.

AR:
Maia: Ditto.
Quote:
2. Are SSRIs and antipyschotics really all that different than lobotomy and electric shock in the final analysis?
Yes, quite different.
Maia: Ditto here too. Also, we need to quantify whether we are talking about typical (Thorazine, Haldol, Orap) or atypical (Risperdal, Seroquel, Zyprexa) antipsychotics, although I think it's the latter because they're mentioned along with the newer selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.)

Quote:
3. Are mental illnesses biological in nature?
Partially. Some more than others. Some are genetic, some environmental, but all have something to do with biology, since the mind is a product of biology.

Maia: Ditto. As a matter of fact, I'm going to play devil's advocate here just to make a point. I'm going to talk about the ONE class of mental disorders that has absolutely no biological basis whatsoever and no heritability; the etiology is 100% environmental (although as AR pointed out, anything that is related to the brain is clearly biological in nature, and significant neurobiological changes do indeed take place in the brain as a result of these disorders.) These are the dissociative disorders. Does this mean that the Church of Scientology is eager to treat these disorders with standard psychotherapy, since they have no biological basis and there has never been any drug-based treatment for them??

Quote:
4. What influence has public relations and propaganda had in pushing the "chemical imbalance" theory.
How should I know?
Maia: Oh, I do know. No genuine researcher believes or studies a "chemical imbalance" theory, and this has been the case for quite a while. Even drug companies don't do this in the prescribing information included with medications (just do a Google search for any antidepressant and "prescribing information" to check this out.) Laypeople will sometimes still talk about this; that's true, and that certainly doesn't mean that anyone who isn't a researcher is dumb-- they're just not informed about that particular issue. Some drug companies tried to get away with it in commercials because it's a very simplistic explanation. But it isn't true, and nobody who really knows what the research says tries to argue it. Even Peter Kramer (an author who I wasn't outstandingly fond of, although he's certainly no Peter Breggin) never literally claimed that a "chemical imbalance" was the actual cause of depression. (Please, oh, please ask me for a cite on that.... )


There, that was easy.

Yes, it was! :) Good work, AR.

[dudalb]

Almost every professional Mental Health expert on one side, and a Fifth Rate Hack Sci Fi Writer on the other. I know who I am gonna believe.
How long until Fred begins with the "Psycharity was to blame for Nazi Germany" routine the Scienos occasionally use?

[wicked_ways]

Fred, you seem to think you've found a clever way of surpressing dissent: totally ignoring the content of my post and giving me a long list of books to read.

<snip>

Since you seem to think we should be offering each other reading homework instead of replying to each other's arguments, here you go:
Bare Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard (http://www.amazon.com/Bare-Faced-Messiah-Story-Hubbard/dp/0805006540/ref=sr_1_39?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250722896&sr=8-39)
Escaping Scientology: An Insider's True Story (http://www.amazon.com/Escaping-Scientology-Insiders-True-Story/dp/1596690666/ref=sr_1_35?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250722896&sr=8-35)
The Complex: An Insider Exposes the Covert World of the Church of Scientology (http://www.amazon.com/Complex-Insider-Exposes-Covert-Scientology/dp/1903582849/ref=sr_1_4/182-6375826-3403023?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250722830&sr=8-4)

And I'd really advice you to explore this site (http://xenu.net/) with an open mind.


Tyooby, thank you for the links. Looks like I have a lot of reading to do.:cool:

[Rrose Selavy]

The full text of Bare Faced Massiah is on line here:

http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm