The Truth About Psychiatry
- Thread starter Janna
- Start date
Peter Breggin is not nor has he ever been a Scientologist though he did work with them for a couple of years.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Breggin
Breggin testified as an expert witness in the Wesbecker case (Fentress et al., 1994), a lawsuit against Eli Lilly, makers of Prozac. Ultimately, the jury found for Eli Lilly. It was later revealed that the plaintiffs and defendants had secretly settled behind closed doors. Breggin alleges that pharmaceutical manufacturers have committed ad hominem attacks upon him in the form of linking him to Scientology campaigns against psychiatric drugs. In particular, Breggin levels this accusation against Eli Lilly. Breggin acknowledges that he did work with Scientology starting in 1972, but states that by 1974 he "found [himself] opposed to Scientology's values, agenda, and tactics", and in consequence "stopped all cooperative efforts in 1974 and publicly declared [his] criticism of the group in a letter published in Reason." Breggin has also stated that he has personal reasons to dislike Scientology since his wife, Ginger, was once a member.
ETA: Don't fall for that stuff that everyone who criticizes psychiatry is a Scientologist. Or that anyone who agrees with anything Scientologists say is also a Scientologist. IIRC, he CCRH site has a lot of valid information written by non-Scientologist taken from non-Scientologist source.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Breggin
Breggin testified as an expert witness in the Wesbecker case (Fentress et al., 1994), a lawsuit against Eli Lilly, makers of Prozac. Ultimately, the jury found for Eli Lilly. It was later revealed that the plaintiffs and defendants had secretly settled behind closed doors. Breggin alleges that pharmaceutical manufacturers have committed ad hominem attacks upon him in the form of linking him to Scientology campaigns against psychiatric drugs. In particular, Breggin levels this accusation against Eli Lilly. Breggin acknowledges that he did work with Scientology starting in 1972, but states that by 1974 he "found [himself] opposed to Scientology's values, agenda, and tactics", and in consequence "stopped all cooperative efforts in 1974 and publicly declared [his] criticism of the group in a letter published in Reason." Breggin has also stated that he has personal reasons to dislike Scientology since his wife, Ginger, was once a member.
ETA: Don't fall for that stuff that everyone who criticizes psychiatry is a Scientologist. Or that anyone who agrees with anything Scientologists say is also a Scientologist. IIRC, he CCRH site has a lot of valid information written by non-Scientologist taken from non-Scientologist source.
ShakespeareMamaX
New Member
That was a pretty harsh statement about psychiatrists in that video.
Yeah, I suppose a lot of them "wing it" when it comes to DXs, but because there are no bloodtests or biopsies available, symptoms are all there is to go on. With all the years of psychiatry, I'm sure there are some statistics and qualities that people fall under being similar enough to assume what worked for these 2,786 people, may work for this one.
They may point patients out to be more like failing guinea pigs, but, hey...if it gets me through the bulk of my life being able to function because some doctor thought Lexapro would calm my panic attacks long enough to let me get a few hours more sleep...
Bring it on.
Yeah, I suppose a lot of them "wing it" when it comes to DXs, but because there are no bloodtests or biopsies available, symptoms are all there is to go on. With all the years of psychiatry, I'm sure there are some statistics and qualities that people fall under being similar enough to assume what worked for these 2,786 people, may work for this one.
They may point patients out to be more like failing guinea pigs, but, hey...if it gets me through the bulk of my life being able to function because some doctor thought Lexapro would calm my panic attacks long enough to let me get a few hours more sleep...
Bring it on.
BusynMember
Well-Known Member
Peter Breggen is sympathetic to Scientology. He's anti-medications. As one who has to take medications, I'm anti-Breggen. He has no credibility in the medical community. Hey, if some like Breggen, so be it.
Marguerite
Active Member
Crikey, I was just reading the Wikipedia reference about this guy and getting steamed. I read the whole thing, there were internal clues which made me very suspicious as to the source and accuracy of the information. It almost read like a CV - worrying.
In the Aussie media at the moment - a lot of discussion about how Wikipedia gets edited selectively by those motivated by self-interest. Some lovely examples have been given, including how the Aussie Treasurer has had his staff edit out some particularly unflattering references which were nevertheless legitimate. Our NSW Premier has put in some especially flattering descriptions of himself. Other examples also.
There is now software to read who edits Wikipedia, when, and in what matter. I would very much like to analyse Breggin's entry in Wikipedia because I recognise a lot of the style in which it has been written - trying to sound impartial but still classic promotional material, thinly disguised. I emphasise, this is only how it seems to me - without that software I cannot confirm my suspicions. I'd lay bets on it, though.
Increasingly, Wikipedia is suspect because people who do not like their entries are among those (ie everyone) free to make changes. being able to track these changes is going to be an invaluable research tool.
So don't believe everything you read - not even Wikipedia.
Marg
In the Aussie media at the moment - a lot of discussion about how Wikipedia gets edited selectively by those motivated by self-interest. Some lovely examples have been given, including how the Aussie Treasurer has had his staff edit out some particularly unflattering references which were nevertheless legitimate. Our NSW Premier has put in some especially flattering descriptions of himself. Other examples also.
There is now software to read who edits Wikipedia, when, and in what matter. I would very much like to analyse Breggin's entry in Wikipedia because I recognise a lot of the style in which it has been written - trying to sound impartial but still classic promotional material, thinly disguised. I emphasise, this is only how it seems to me - without that software I cannot confirm my suspicions. I'd lay bets on it, though.
Increasingly, Wikipedia is suspect because people who do not like their entries are among those (ie everyone) free to make changes. being able to track these changes is going to be an invaluable research tool.
So don't believe everything you read - not even Wikipedia.
Marg
TerryJ2
Well-Known Member
Breggin has also stated that he has personal reasons to dislike Scientology since his wife, Ginger, was once a member.
LOL! Hey, if you dislike your wife then surely you'll dislike Scientology! Sorry, the syntax of that sentence just made me wonder if she was his ex-wife.
Marg, I agree. Wikipedia has no professional jurying process. There are competitors out there and others will come to the forefront in the next few yrs for exactly the reasons you state.
LOL! Hey, if you dislike your wife then surely you'll dislike Scientology! Sorry, the syntax of that sentence just made me wonder if she was his ex-wife.
Marg, I agree. Wikipedia has no professional jurying process. There are competitors out there and others will come to the forefront in the next few yrs for exactly the reasons you state.
I read that comment about him not liking Scientology because his wife use to be a member as an indication he was quite familiar with the organization and that he and his wife had rejected it.
If you doubt the Wiki article, check out the references listed at the bottom. The paragraph I posted had four or five footnotes which I deleted when I posted it.
But I guess those who buy the conspiracy theory that all who are "anti medications" are Scientologist will just claim that Breggin is lying about being a Scientologist for some reason or the other.
If you aren't a conspiracy theorist, perhaps his own words in a PBS Frontline interview will be a sufficiently reliable source.
... I have nothing to do with Scientology. For approximately 25 years, I have conducted reform work with nothing to do with Scientology. There is no issue whatsoever about me and Scientology. I'm the editor-in-chief of a journal with 40 professional members on it. I'm director of a center with 200 professional people on the advisory council and 1,000 general members. I have taught at Harvard and Johns Hopkins and George Mason. I have nothing to do with Scientology. It's a drug company PR campaign. ... I have the letters. If I had known you were going to go to this level of journalism, I would have brought the letters along where Eli Lilly tries to link people like me to Scientology.
My wife was a Scientologist, and is now so strongly anti-Scientology, that if I even took a phone call from a Scientologist, she'd be on my back. ... I don't want to take on the Scientologists. I've got enough trouble taking on psychiatry. ...</div></div>
ETA: The Frontline interview is pretty good. Breggin does a good job of explaining his point of view.
If you doubt the Wiki article, check out the references listed at the bottom. The paragraph I posted had four or five footnotes which I deleted when I posted it.
But I guess those who buy the conspiracy theory that all who are "anti medications" are Scientologist will just claim that Breggin is lying about being a Scientologist for some reason or the other.
If you aren't a conspiracy theorist, perhaps his own words in a PBS Frontline interview will be a sufficiently reliable source.
... I have nothing to do with Scientology. For approximately 25 years, I have conducted reform work with nothing to do with Scientology. There is no issue whatsoever about me and Scientology. I'm the editor-in-chief of a journal with 40 professional members on it. I'm director of a center with 200 professional people on the advisory council and 1,000 general members. I have taught at Harvard and Johns Hopkins and George Mason. I have nothing to do with Scientology. It's a drug company PR campaign. ... I have the letters. If I had known you were going to go to this level of journalism, I would have brought the letters along where Eli Lilly tries to link people like me to Scientology.
My wife was a Scientologist, and is now so strongly anti-Scientology, that if I even took a phone call from a Scientologist, she'd be on my back. ... I don't want to take on the Scientologists. I've got enough trouble taking on psychiatry. ...</div></div>
ETA: The Frontline interview is pretty good. Breggin does a good job of explaining his point of view.
Marguerite
Active Member
Thanks for that link, Sara. And I agree, just because someone is against psychiatry doesn't make them a Scientologist. A lot of Scientologists (most? all? be definition?) are against psychiatry, but there are others also against psychiatry for different reasons.
There are also many people FOR psychiatry, an increasing number these days as the field is better than it used to be. However, it's still less exact than, say, Pathology.
When I find out more about the software that helps you read where and how Wikipedia entries have been edited, I will send it on. I would then recommend that you look up various public figures and see what's been changed in their entries, and by whom. Should be very entertaining. Also probably will make for broader, more balanced information in Wiki. We do use it, but not as anything approaching a primary source. It's suggestive reference material, at best. The references can give you some guide although even they can be subjective if some of them have also been screened for possible negative content.
Then you get the idiots who will scrawl rubbish over someone's entry - that needs to be edited out too. But if those idiots who write the graffiti in the first place can now be tracked, maybe they'll think twice before tampering.
I'm going to go digging now through our recent news stories, see if I can find the details.
Marg
There are also many people FOR psychiatry, an increasing number these days as the field is better than it used to be. However, it's still less exact than, say, Pathology.
When I find out more about the software that helps you read where and how Wikipedia entries have been edited, I will send it on. I would then recommend that you look up various public figures and see what's been changed in their entries, and by whom. Should be very entertaining. Also probably will make for broader, more balanced information in Wiki. We do use it, but not as anything approaching a primary source. It's suggestive reference material, at best. The references can give you some guide although even they can be subjective if some of them have also been screened for possible negative content.
Then you get the idiots who will scrawl rubbish over someone's entry - that needs to be edited out too. But if those idiots who write the graffiti in the first place can now be tracked, maybe they'll think twice before tampering.
I'm going to go digging now through our recent news stories, see if I can find the details.
Marg
Marguerite
Active Member
Red Symons is a very smart man, used to be the bass player for a 70s Aussie rock band, Skyhooks. He's been in the media ever since. But he does tend to specialise in the really interesting stuff.
The recommendation is you use it to find which of your public figures have been sanitizing their Wikipedia entries. Oh, joy! It's even more fun than running your own name through Google...
Marg
The recommendation is you use it to find which of your public figures have been sanitizing their Wikipedia entries. Oh, joy! It's even more fun than running your own name through Google...
Marg
BusynMember
Well-Known Member
Sara, I know your son had a bad reaction to medications, and that you don't like them, and that's your right. But many of us can function BECAUSE of our medications. Like I said, there is no blood test for MS, but it exists. There is no test for being mentally challenged, but some people are. There is no blood test for ADHD, autism, schizophrenia, bipolar, etc. but differences that harm a person from functioning do exist and always have. It's why they used to have lock-down mental institutions. Psychiatry is in it's infancy, but that's no reason not to try to get help for your child if the child can't function. That doesn't mean there are no mistakes. There are. But I'm grateful for Psychiatry. It took a long time to find medications that helped me, but I finally have a life. I didn't really have much of a life before that, unless you consider considering how to kill myself, fighting with everyone, raging and being unable to get out of bed to work having a life. I'd like to see Breggen live that way and not try medication.
Marguerite
Active Member
As I see it, this is a topic that needs balance. I think I mentioned in an earlier thread, listening to a radio interview discussing depression in men, with an Aussie psychiatrist, Professor Ian Hickie. I know this man personally (through my charity work in the past) and I have also known a number of his patients. He will prescribe antidepressants and other medications, but on this radio program he was also making it clear that he also prescribes exercise, especially in depression. He is also a proponent of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy.
I have known other psychiatrists, professionally and personally. I view those like Ian as on the forefront of modern psychiatry, moving away from the patient as "object-under-the-microscope" view, and treating the patient more holistically as part of a multidisciplinary team. Ian has also done work with CDC in the past, he's worked both sides of the Pacific.
Then there are the other psychiatrists, the ones who reach for the prescription pad as first option. These are powerful medications, they need to be carefully considered and correctly chosen - the type, as well as the dose. The shrink I was seeing for my PTSD was very little help, for me - another patient of his told me a very similar story, she too chose to move on. At my first appointment, within minutes of me walking through the door, he was doing his darndest to prescribe medication. I was working just as hard to refuse. I succeeded and I think at that point he lost interest in treating me and probably doodled on his pad each session. He was an older man, probably educated in earlier days when psychiatry was still deserving its bad name.
We are fortunate in Sydney - we have some world-class psychiatrists like Ian Hickie and his teacher, Professor Gordon Parker. Both do a lot of sterling work in the field of depression primarily, but also in other areas. They are both heavily involved in "Beyond Blue", an organisation working to reach and support people in the community who are battling depression. And as I said, among Ian's first advice was exercise.
I haven't always seen eye to eye with him, I've argued with him at times, but I've always valued his professional expertise.
I do think that what we need, in all areas of medical treatment, is individual consideration and balance. The last thing we want from any doctor is a revolving door approach to diagnosis and treatment. I've met a few of those, too, and I think they should be struck off. But that is a separate issue.
Marg
I have known other psychiatrists, professionally and personally. I view those like Ian as on the forefront of modern psychiatry, moving away from the patient as "object-under-the-microscope" view, and treating the patient more holistically as part of a multidisciplinary team. Ian has also done work with CDC in the past, he's worked both sides of the Pacific.
Then there are the other psychiatrists, the ones who reach for the prescription pad as first option. These are powerful medications, they need to be carefully considered and correctly chosen - the type, as well as the dose. The shrink I was seeing for my PTSD was very little help, for me - another patient of his told me a very similar story, she too chose to move on. At my first appointment, within minutes of me walking through the door, he was doing his darndest to prescribe medication. I was working just as hard to refuse. I succeeded and I think at that point he lost interest in treating me and probably doodled on his pad each session. He was an older man, probably educated in earlier days when psychiatry was still deserving its bad name.
We are fortunate in Sydney - we have some world-class psychiatrists like Ian Hickie and his teacher, Professor Gordon Parker. Both do a lot of sterling work in the field of depression primarily, but also in other areas. They are both heavily involved in "Beyond Blue", an organisation working to reach and support people in the community who are battling depression. And as I said, among Ian's first advice was exercise.
I haven't always seen eye to eye with him, I've argued with him at times, but I've always valued his professional expertise.
I do think that what we need, in all areas of medical treatment, is individual consideration and balance. The last thing we want from any doctor is a revolving door approach to diagnosis and treatment. I've met a few of those, too, and I think they should be struck off. But that is a separate issue.
Marg
MidwestMom,
I'm not sure what my opinion about medication (which, incidently, you and others repeatedly and consistently get wrong) has to do with my setting the record straight about Dr. Breggin and what his positions are. I do get weary of that Scientology smear and don't like to see factual misinformation go uncorrected.
I'm not sure what my opinion about medication (which, incidently, you and others repeatedly and consistently get wrong) has to do with my setting the record straight about Dr. Breggin and what his positions are. I do get weary of that Scientology smear and don't like to see factual misinformation go uncorrected.
tiredmommy
Well-Known Member
I'm going to ask that comments be kept to a general nature or the thread will need to be locked. There is no need to make this discussion personal or about any one or two members. Please proceed respectfully and use good judgment.
