![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 29. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by one woman cine on January 25, 2007, at 0:52:21
In reply to Re: Nathaniel Lehrman had his license revoked in 1993, posted by ronaldo on January 19, 2007, at 13:45:22
Is run by the scientologists, maybe we should re-direct this to the religion board?
Posted by one woman cine on January 25, 2007, at 0:52:21
In reply to Citizens commission on Human rights, posted by one woman cine on January 19, 2007, at 13:57:58
Here's CCHR from the site -
"CCHR was founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology"
http://www.cchr.com/index.cfm/5258
This falls under the hubris of religion, not medical support and education. I feel strongly that it should be re-directed.
Posted by ronaldo on January 25, 2007, at 0:52:21
In reply to Re: Citizens commission on Human rights, posted by one woman cine on January 19, 2007, at 14:01:56
Hi One Woman Cine,
Cast your eye over this motley crew...
You might recognize somebody...
http://psychcrime.org/psychcrimes/crimesearch3.asp
Let me know if you find anyone you know and I will do my best to avoid reporting anything they have to say.
I fail to see why the Church of Scientology disqualifies the Citizens Commission on Human Rights from doing any good work. Are you saying that all the people who work for the CCHR are dyed in the wool Scientologists and therefore bad people? Are you saying that everyone working for a body commissioned by the CCHR is a Scientologist? Would you object so strongly if the commission had Jewish backing? Or was backed by the Catholic Church? or the Baptists or Buddhists or Methodists?
It really does not matter that much where they get their money from. What does matter is how they use it. If their investigations are honest I don't see any problem.
ronaldo
Posted by Quintal on January 25, 2007, at 0:52:21
In reply to While you are in a stone casting frame of mind... » one woman cine, posted by ronaldo on January 19, 2007, at 14:26:18
I agree. Unfortunately the only people likely to have a strong interest in countering the culture of overmedication are likely to be people who are on the outside for various reasons, so their opinions are automatically suspect and void. That's often the way it is with critics of all institutions though.
Most of the pdocs I've worked with in the UK were uneasy about the exotic cocktails being prescribed liberally in the US. Hard to know whether people are getting better treatment for paying privately or being overindulged. I know many of the people here would have been given their marching orders long ago and told to get on with life if they were relying on the NHS. Some of us have.
Q
Posted by xbunny on January 25, 2007, at 0:52:21
In reply to While you are in a stone casting frame of mind... » one woman cine, posted by ronaldo on January 19, 2007, at 14:26:18
> It really does not matter that much where they get their money from. What does matter is how they use it. If their investigations are honest I don't see any problem.
To me its highly improbable that the CCHR is free from a scientologist bias. Even if they claim to be independant do you think any conclusions they reach can be trusted as genuinely objective? Contrast this with a drug company funding 'independant' drug trails, would you trust the conclusions reached to be free from bias?
Bunny
Posted by med_empowered on January 25, 2007, at 0:52:21
In reply to re: while you are in a stone casting frame of mind » ronaldo, posted by xbunny on January 19, 2007, at 15:38:04
I think we need to be careful about criticizing religions. Would you criticize the CCHR if it were...a Jewish-funded group? A Christian-funded group? An atheist-funded group? And yes, there is bias, but there is bias in mainstream psychiatry, too. I think the CCHR does some important work in protecting human rights that no one else wants to touch--the ACLU has slacked off on psychiatric patient rights since the 70s or so, so somebody's gotta do it, and if they happen to be scientologists...fine.
Also, the fact that this one shrink misbehaved doesn't disprove his point. There is still no proven "chemical imbalance" or structural anomaly that leads to "mental illness". And there are still lots of problems, like over-prescribing antipsychotics to minorities, over-representation of women among psychiatric patients, that sort of thing. What's different now than in the 60s-70s is that, b/c of scientology's anti-psychiatry stance, anyone who criticizes psychiatry is accused of being a scientologist or compared to, say, Tom Cruise. It reminds me of the Inquisition--anyone who doesn't tow the line is a "heretic," and is either punished, ridiculed, or both.
There are plenty of people who are "anti-psychiatry" (or have serious issues w/ psychiatry) who aren't scientologists. Thomas Szasz, Erving Goffman, Foucault, Kate Millet...so on and so forth. Even a lot of "real" (non-psychiatric) docs have issues w/ shrinks..they use up valuable health care $$$ and expose patients to very real risks (TD, addiction, etc.). Lots of patients are over-medicated. "Relapse" and "treatment resistance" are both common. Growing numbers of people are "disabled" b/c of a mental health issue. Clearly, there are problems here that need to be addressed, and someone has to address them--if scientologists are the only people willing to do it, then let them do it.
Posted by one woman cine on January 25, 2007, at 0:52:22
In reply to While you are in a stone casting frame of mind... » one woman cine, posted by ronaldo on January 19, 2007, at 14:26:18
PB is for medical issues and psychopharm - I have no problem with scientology. I'm not casting stones, I'm pointing out a fact.
If this were buddhist, or jewish or whatever issue - it should still be on the religion board. I wouldn't come here and say the ADL says this about taking meds.... it's no a medical issue, it's a religious one.
This needs to be re-directed.
Posted by one woman cine on January 25, 2007, at 0:52:22
In reply to CCHR, posted by med_empowered on January 19, 2007, at 17:17:15
My problem is with transparency of posts.
The facts behind the posts are murky. A post with a link gets made, not that's an opinion, but that it's a fact - which is not true.When ronaldo posted something by an MD - he didn't qualify it by saying his license is revoked - & that takes away from the legitimacy of the link.
& he didn't qualify the CCHR with who funds it. If a pharm company did this, it would count as a conspiracy.
I would just like to see more transparent disclosure.
Posted by one woman cine on January 25, 2007, at 0:52:22
In reply to CCHR, posted by med_empowered on January 19, 2007, at 17:17:15
"Also, the fact that this one shrink misbehaved doesn't disprove his point."
But it does call into question the authority of the person he's quoting...
Posted by NYCguy on January 25, 2007, at 0:52:22
In reply to CCHR, posted by med_empowered on January 19, 2007, at 17:17:15
The CCHR is a biased front group for the "Church of Xenu" and as such has no place on the PBabble board. Scientology's irrational hatred for all things mental-health should not be presented as objective, especially not here, where people are trying to get legitimate help with real bio-chemical problems. Perhaps somehere else on this site, but not here where people come to discuss medications.
I know this may be hard to grasp for some Hollywood actors, but the casues of serious mental health problems are not the result of too many "thetans" in ones body.
Posted by NYCguy on January 25, 2007, at 0:52:22
In reply to Too many pills - too little TIME, posted by ronaldo on January 19, 2007, at 6:14:26
This is from a sourced document linked to Wikipedia on the Citizens Commission on Human Rights:
CCHR follows this line (of science fiction author and Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard) very closely, for instance describing psychiatrists and psychologists as "Professional Rapists, Perverts and Pedophiles"
Ask yourself: Does this sound like a reasonable or main-stream group to anyone? Those words above are the stated views of the Church of Scientology and the CCHR.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2007, at 0:52:22
In reply to Re: CCHR is absurd, posted by NYCguy on January 19, 2007, at 19:49:57
> CCHR is absurd
Please don't post anything that could lead others (such as Scientologists) to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by ronaldo on January 25, 2007, at 0:52:22
In reply to Re: CCHR, posted by one woman cine on January 19, 2007, at 17:29:32
I have to plead ingnorance on both counts.
I did not know that Nathaniel Lehrman had had his license revoked.
I did not know that the CCHR was funded by Scientology.
I still would have posted what I did post though.
It surprises me that Nathaniel Lehrman was invited to speak just eight years after his licence was revoked. Nobody was complaining in 2001. Why are we complaining in 2007?
ronaldo
> My problem is with transparency of posts.
>
>
> The facts behind the posts are murky. A post with a link gets made, not that's an opinion, but that it's a fact - which is not true.
>
> When ronaldo posted something by an MD - he didn't qualify it by saying his license is revoked - & that takes away from the legitimacy of the link.
>
> & he didn't qualify the CCHR with who funds it. If a pharm company did this, it would count as a conspiracy.
>
> I would just like to see more transparent disclosure.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 25, 2007, at 0:52:22
In reply to Re: Citizens commission on Human rights, posted by one woman cine on January 19, 2007, at 14:01:56
> Here's CCHR from the site -
>
> "CCHR was founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology"
>
> http://www.cchr.com/index.cfm/5258
>
> This falls under the hubris of religion, not medical support and education. I feel strongly that it should be re-directed.OWC,
You wrote,[...founded by The Church of Scientology...falls under the hubris of religion{>not< medical support and education}...].
Education is generally meant to mean that |knowlege| is >increased< as a result of what a person receives as to what the person sees or hears or experiances, etc.
To receive knowlege that neuroleptic drugs could do permanant damage, could be >medical<{education}, could it not? So could you identify what it is that you use to write as a resason as to why you write that[...falls under the hubris of >religion<...]which could be interpreted as being in the aspect of the serevice and worship of God?
Support could mean to {reinforce} something, but could not {support} also mean to have a |different point of view|? If there are different points of view, then could not suppport result from a discussion of those different points of view?
Also, could you clarify as to what you wrote ,[...founded by the Church of Scientology...] as to if that means to you that their stand concerning the use of psychotropic drugs is or is not {a religious issue} rather than a scientific issue?
Lou
Posted by ronaldo on January 25, 2007, at 0:52:22
In reply to Re: Citizens commission on Human rights, posted by one woman cine on January 19, 2007, at 14:01:56
> Here's CCHR from the site -
>
> "CCHR was founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology"
>
> http://www.cchr.com/index.cfm/5258
>
> This falls under the hubris of religion, not medical support and education. I feel strongly that it should be re-directed.You failed to mention that the CCHR was cofounded by the internationally acclaimed author, Dr. Thomas Szasz, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the State University of New York, Syracuse.
So it is not strictly true to say that the "CCHR was founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology" Thomas Szasz had a part in it as well.
http://www.cchr.com/index.cfm/5258
Posted by ronaldo on January 25, 2007, at 0:52:22
In reply to Re: CCHR, posted by one woman cine on January 19, 2007, at 17:29:32
Believe me one woman cine I am just an average citizen living in the United Kingdom. I had no idea that Nathaniel S Lehrman had had his licence revoked. I had no idea that the CCHR was funded by the Church of Scientology. I first learnt of the existence of Nathaniel Lehrman and the CCHR on the 19th of January.
One thing I will say, and perhaps you can comment on this, Nathaniel S Lehrman is mentioned in page after page on the internet and in every case he is referred to as Dr Nathaniel S Lehrman MD or as Dr Lehrman or as Nathaniel Lehrman MD. WHY? This is a man whose licence to practice was revoked. How come is he in such demand five or more years later to speak and to review books etc.? One woman cine I think you owe me the courtesy of an answer to this question. I suggest you try entering Nathaniel S Lehrman MD into your search engine and see the results for yourself. Why I ask do people refer to him as an MD and as a Dr years after his licence was revoked?
If perhaps you know something that I don't then I would be grateful to you if you would share it. You say you seek transparency well I seek the very same thing.
ronaldo
My problem is with transparency of posts.
>
>
> The facts behind the posts are murky. A post with a link gets made, not that's an opinion, but that it's a fact - which is not true.
>
> When ronaldo posted something by an MD - he didn't qualify it by saying his license is revoked - & that takes away from the legitimacy of the link.
>
> & he didn't qualify the CCHR with who funds it. If a pharm company did this, it would count as a conspiracy.
>
> I would just like to see more transparent disclosure.
Posted by one woman cine on January 25, 2007, at 0:52:22
In reply to Re: CCHR » one woman cine, posted by ronaldo on January 21, 2007, at 14:29:57
Ronaldo,
I understand you are saying you made an honest mistake. Caveat emptor in regards to the internet, not everything that is published is true or real. He is cited by organziations who are seeking to legitmize themselves, however they conveniently leave out the fact he had his license revoked. *Anyone* can get up and state their case at a NYS assembly.
Lehrman did not have his education degree taken away, but his license, so *technically* he could call himself an MD - MD means you went to a four year medical college and graduated, but thats all that it means.
I can only surmise why he is such high demand to speak when he lost his license - he needs income, he could moonlighting as a "consultant". But I make no assumptions either. I simply do not know.
As I mentioned before, just because it's on the internet does not make it fact. I don't trust info that I would read from a pharm company as fact either. Things printed on the internet need to be checked with an eye toward criticality and objectivity. That's all.
Posted by psychobot5000 on January 25, 2007, at 0:52:23
In reply to Re: While you are in a stone casting frame of mind..., posted by one woman cine on January 19, 2007, at 17:25:00
>PB is for medical issues and psychopharm - I have no problem with scientology. I'm not casting stones, I'm pointing out a fact.
>
>If this were buddhist, or jewish or whatever issue - it should still be on the religion board. I wouldn't come here and say the ADL says this about taking meds.... it's no a medical issue, it's a >religious one.
>Darn right. And I do not see the alleged witch-hunt against those questioning psychopharmacology. It gets lots of play in the media. So do psychopharmacology supporters. Nothing is being suppressed.
But the bottom line is, that many of those agitating against psychopharmacology do so for pre-existing reasons of faith or other principle. This calls the appropriateness of such opinions' presence in some contexts.
Posted by one woman cine on January 25, 2007, at 9:43:13
In reply to Lou's request for clarification to OWC-supanded » one woman cine, posted by Lou Pilder on January 20, 2007, at 7:21:21
Religious groups are not qualified to give advice on biology, science or medicine.
For example, we have a separation of church and state - while they overlap - they are not the the same.
I appreciate what your trying to say, but it does not apply in this case. Everything is not relative. sorry lou.
Posted by Lou PIlder on January 25, 2007, at 10:34:12
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification to OWC-supanded, posted by one woman cine on January 25, 2007, at 9:43:13
> Religious groups are not qualified to give advice on biology, science or medicine.
>
> For example, we have a separation of church and state - while they overlap - they are not the the same.
>
> I appreciate what your trying to say, but it does not apply in this case. Everything is not relative. sorry lou.OWC,
You wrote,[...Religious groups are not qualified to give advice on biology, science or medicine...church and state overlap but are not the same...what you are trying to say..does not apply in this case...everything is not relevant..sorry (L)ou...].
Religious groups often cite experts in regards to issues involving public health. For instance, a religious group could cite the dept. of health concerning the research that they already have in regards to, let's say, the adverse effects of the use of tobacco products or the use of alchohol.
So if a religious group gives advice that psychotropic drugs have the potential for what they are purporting, could they not be citing expert's research and not their own opinions?
As to that you write that church and state can overlap, could you expound more about that as to what that could mean as to the aspects of this discussion?
As to you writing that what I have written does not apply in this case, could you identify what parts, or if it is all the parts of what I have written that you are referring to that do not apply?
As to your use of the word,"sorry", could you clarify as to what you mean by your using the word? Are any of the following what you mean ?
A. you pity me, and if so for what?
B. what I wrote is worthy of contempt?
C. You {regret} that you were in the discussion?
D. What I wrote is worthy of ridicule?
E. A combination of the above?
F. Something else?
g. All of the above?
H. None of the above?
Lou
Posted by one woman cine on January 25, 2007, at 10:38:20
In reply to Lou's request for clarification to OWC-mvondntherd » one woman cine, posted by Lou PIlder on January 25, 2007, at 10:34:12
Posted by notfred on January 25, 2007, at 10:54:34
In reply to Re: CCHR » one woman cine, posted by ronaldo on January 21, 2007, at 14:29:57
> Believe me one woman cine I am just an average citizen living in the United Kingdom. I had no idea that Nathaniel S Lehrman had had his licence revoked. I had no idea that the CCHR was funded by the Church of Scientology. I first learnt of the existence of Nathaniel Lehrman and the CCHR on the 19th of January.
>Then why do not you just give this one up ? You posted some bad referances, it happens & we all do it.
Move on.
Posted by one woman cine on January 25, 2007, at 11:20:36
In reply to Re: CCHR, posted by notfred on January 25, 2007, at 10:54:34
Posted by Phillipa on January 25, 2007, at 11:39:50
In reply to Re: CCHR, posted by notfred on January 25, 2007, at 10:54:34
Is this the Social board or am I on the wrong one? Love Phillipa
Posted by one woman cine on January 25, 2007, at 11:41:03
In reply to Re: CCHR, posted by Phillipa on January 25, 2007, at 11:39:50
This is the 2nd re-direct....
It should be back on faith -
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.