Mr. Cruise needs a lesson

[marlow]

I'm sure this topic has been discussed already in this forum, but Tom Cruise's "Campaign Against Psychiatry" continues to be recycled on the 24-hour news networks and I can't stand it any longer. How can he challenge the efficacy of psychiatric medication and therapy and proclaim that he's "saved people" by informing them of the dangers of psychiatry when he in fact knows nothing about medicine or pharmacology? I don't mind when actors champion human or environmental rights, but please don't throw around "scientology technology" as the cure to disease and pathology. I can understand why the American Psychiatric Association might not send out a press release-- who would want to validate his idiotic statements-- but the general public needs to know that Mr. Cruise is not helping us by using his fame in an effort to "educate" us all. As much as I love H.G. Wells and Steven Spielberg, I don't think I'm going to go and see "War of the Worlds." But the love for Wells and Spielberg is too strong for others, and its likely that without the help of other SDN-er's, this movie is going to be a big hit. So who's with me...?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Anasazi23]

I think the best way to send Mr. Cruise the message is to send him the subpoena to appear in court for practicing without a medical license and manslaughter in the third degree (or whatever charge is appropriate) when the first post-partum depression woman kills her child after stopping her medication.

 

[f_w]

This is a long standing campaign by the scientology cult trying to discredit psychiatry. Unfortunately there is no shortage of psych patients who are willing to buy their crap.

 

[marlow]

Schizophrenia drug (Cinanserin) prevents, treats SARS

 

[VentdependenT]

one word: scientology

nuff said. the guy's a freak.

 

[theunraveler]

once again it shows that ppl in hollywood are pretty, rich and brainless...

 

[Anasazi23]

what, nobody likes my manslaughter idea?

 

[crazyvladif]

not gonna lie; this is really funny. cruise was "assaulted" by a squirt-gun microphone today.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/20/cruise.prank.ap/index.html

 

[OldPsychDoc]

what, nobody likes my manslaughter idea?

It's a fine idea, but what with OJ and Robert Blake walking, and the Fruitcake's recent acquittal, what do you think are the chances that it would even put a dent in his Ferrari? Or maybe we could get him on statutory rape charges on this Katie Holmes thing?

 

[marlow]

what, nobody likes my manslaughter idea?

I thought it was great. In fact, it's even better than my idea to boycott his film. Doesn't surprise me though... it's common knowledge that x-philes come up with great ideas

And the Katie Holmes statutory rape idea wouldn't work... she's a frighteningly young-looking 26 year old woman, possibly 28, but definitely older than 18. Unless Mr. Cruise made his way into her life long before we knew... heck, why not just investigate that venue as well.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

I thought it was great. In fact, it's even better than my idea to boycott his film. Doesn't surprise me though... it's common knowledge that x-philes come up with great ideas

And the Katie Holmes statutory rape idea wouldn't work... she's a frighteningly young-looking 26 year old woman, possibly 28, but definitely older than 18. Unless Mr. Cruise made his way into her life long before we knew... heck, why not just investigate that venue as well.

I just heard that she was quoted as saying that she used to have a Tom Cruise poster in her room and dreamed of marrying him...so maybe emotional manipulation of a "vulnerable adult"?

As my student said--"That's just...WRONG."

 

[bebella24]

As my student said--"That's just...WRONG."[/QUOTE]


HAHAHAHAAH...!!!!!

 

[MDgonnabe]

apparently matt lauer tried to do some public service:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/06/24/people.cruise.ap/index.html

 

[pingouin]

apparently matt lauer tried to do some public service:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/06/24/people.cruise.ap/index.html

with over 9000 votes in, the results are 20% agree/80% disagree with Maverick that "psychiatry is a pseudoscience". I'm glad he's been so successful in changing the opinion of the general population about the field.

strong work, Tom. Way to go.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

with over 9000 votes in, the results are 20% agree/80% disagree with Maverick that "psychiatry is a pseudoscience". I'm glad he's been so successful in changing the opinion of the general population about the field.

strong work, Tom. Way to go.

For more opinions about Tom's psychopathology, see this:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=322587

 

[Anasazi23]

It's just too much idiocy to even begin to correct. The actual interview was so disjointed and *****ic it was painful to read. Every discipline had outrageous archaic treatments during their inceptions. To single out psychiatry because of its history is shortsighted. Someone tell Tom he can talk after he graduates medical school.

I think I lost some IQ points listening to his "arguments."

Drudge report transcript

 

[Anasazi23]

"Someone tell Tom he can talk after he graduates medical school."

He'll have to finish high school first.

Good point. Though I'm not badmouthing high school dropouts. Some very brilliant successful people dropped out of high school. Unfortunately, Tom Cruise isn't one of them.

What a shock to see that Kid Rock didn't complete high school.

Then again, neither did Joltin' Joe.

High School Dropouts

 

[50960]

One of the most powerful idiots known to man!! To bad we have to be forced to listen to his BS, just because of top gun....... Ignore him..maybe he will shut him and save some of his humility.

 

[pingouin]

Good point. Though I'm not badmouthing high school dropouts. Some very brilliant successful people dropped out of high school. Unfortunately, Tom Cruise isn't one of them.

What a shock to see that Kid Rock didn't complete high school.

Then again, neither did Joltin' Joe.

High School Dropouts

On the way home last night, the radio program I had on was talking about the Matt Lauer interview. They had a PhD/MFT specializing in treating post-partum depression as a guest, and he refused to call Tom anything other than "Dr. Cruise". He also brought up a point that had been running through my mind- methinks Tom dost protest too much. Anyone know if he's been in treatment in the past?

 

[mobrol]

Dr. Cruise gets me sooo MAD! but its all right though, do you guys think that if his movie career ever goes down hill (which it will soon enough hopefully)and he may get into a severe depression because of it (due to huge ego damage) what will he do?
A.turn to scientology even more
B.Seek therapy
C.start self medicating with alcohol
D. start choice C, but say scientology cured him
E.Finish high school,then start junior college, then transfer to a four year college, then go to med school, take a year off for research, then do a 4 year residency, and then finally admit that psychiatric medication may work after all

 

[meisteckhart]

E.Finish high school,then start junior college, then transfer to a four year college, then go to med school, take a year off for research, then do a 4 year residency, and then finally admit that psychiatric medication may work after all

I don't think there is any way in hell that man would ever be let into medical school. For that matter, I have serious doubts that he could finish high school. What bothers me more than even his assertions about psychiatry is how he treats the people who are interviewing him when they try to express even the slightest hint that there might be a point of view other than his dogmatic ramblings. He sits there like some high and mighty king telling them how they haven't read what he's read and they shouldn't advocate for something they don't understand. Then he goes off with some argument that makes no logical sense based on presumptions and conjecture and acts like he is the most brilliant person in the world. God I wish he would just shut up.

 

[vnacyd]

Hey everyone! I'm about to start my second year of psych residency. I'm sure you're familiar with the Scientology's "Psychiatry Kills" paraphernalia. My classmates and I have made a t-shirt in response to wanna-be Dr. Tom Cruise. I won't post it here, but if you would like to see it, check it out in the classified section of the forums. I also have the transcript of the Matt Lauer interview, in case you need a copy.
-Vanessa

 

[MDgonnabe]

He sits there like some high and mighty king telling them how they haven't read what he's read and they shouldn't advocate for something they don't understand. Then he goes off with some argument that makes no logical sense based on presumptions and conjecture and acts like he is the most brilliant person in the world. God I wish he would just shut up.

my final diagnosis: tom cruise is most definitely a megalomaniac.

did you see the video footage of him getting squirted with water from the mike? the whole thing was intended as a freakin' joke. it was just harmless water on a no doubt very warm day. but what'd he do? he stood there lecturing the camera man on how he, the amazing tom cruise himself, was giving him the privilege of an interview. the whole thing was just surreal. that man, first and foremost, needs a lesson in humility. next, he needs a freakin' sense of humor. maybe after that he can work on growing a brain.

 

[PsychMD]

Out of curiosity, did anybody see either Dr. Scully on Friday with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, or Dr. Scharfstein (pres. of APA) this AM on the Today show- responding to the Tom Cruise/Scientology onslaught? What did they say? How did they do?

I didn't get a chance to see either of them, but I was somewhat curious about the APA's PR effort/quality.

I wouldn't really hold my breath...but who knows...I was hoping maybe they got more media-savvy in the last couple of years. (I'm still pretty disappointed in the APA website design though. I wish they'd hire someone really cool to re-design it. The way it's been looking for the last couple of years, I find myself kind of avoiding going there too often. )

 

[bigfrank]

Dr. Cruise gets me sooo MAD! but its all right though, do you guys think that if his movie career ever goes down hill (which it will soon enough hopefully)and he may get into a severe depression because of it (due to huge ego damage) what will he do?
A.turn to scientology even more
B.Seek therapy
C.start self medicating with alcohol
D. start choice C, but say scientology cured him
E.Finish high school,then start junior college, then transfer to a four year college, then go to med school, take a year off for research, then do a 4 year residency, and then finally admit that psychiatric medication may work after all

Hopefully, A and C simultaneously.

 

[MDgonnabe]

about freakin' time! and what an unfortunate waste of the apa's breath to be dealing with such a *****.

but i love how the article labeled him as "manic."

 

[meisteckhart]

Out of curiosity, did anybody see either Dr. Scully on Friday with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, or Dr. Scharfstein (pres. of APA) this AM on the Today show- responding to the Tom Cruise/Scientology onslaught? What did they say? How did they do?

I didn't get a chance to see either of them, but I was somewhat curious about the APA's PR effort/quality.

I wouldn't really hold my breath...but who knows...I was hoping maybe they got more media-savvy in the last couple of years. (I'm still pretty disappointed in the APA website design though. I wish they'd hire someone really cool to re-design it. The way it's been looking for the last couple of years, I find myself kind of avoiding going there too often. )

I personally can't stand watching Cruise anymore, but I don't think its a good idea for psychiatrists to respond specifically to his comments. The media is only covering this because Cruise is a celebrity and he and Katie Holmes have been doing some rather bizarre things lately. They just want the story. Most of them could care less about psychiatry. If we get involved, they'll just turn it into a shooting match between psychiatry and scientology. Plus, Cruise has made enough of an ass of himself already with his comments. We would do better just to respond by showing the public evidence that psychiatry works and avoiding any judgement specifically on how Cruise behaved.

 

[TommyGunn04]

Did anyone see Katie Couric's subsequent interview? I think it was aired the day after that Tom Cruise and Matt Lauer fiasco. She interviewed a couple experts about psychiatry, and had them comment on Cruise's claims. I missed the beginning so I don't know who they were, but interestingly, they actually echoed some of Tom's statements, admitting that he was correct to say that no one has ever proved the existence of a "chemical imbalance." It was a bit comical, because Katie was obviously getting fired up, because she really wanted Cruise to be wrong, and these experts kept saying that he was correct in many senses. Regarding his comment that antidepressants mask the "real problems," the experts remarked that drugs like Ritalin are indeed overprescribed, and that in many cases medication really is NOT the best answer to ADD or depression. I strongly agree after having read Dr. Lawrence Diller's book, "Running on Ritalin."

I don't doubt that antidepressants and stimulants like Ritalin have helped many people, but I think what Cruise is referring to here is a greater cultural problem that leads to a tendency to over-rely on medications. America is a very much a "quick-fix" culture, where the pill-for-every-ill mentailty is so prevalent that patients are often unwilling to make important lifestyle changes that would enable us to better help them. It's true for hypertension and hyperlipidemia, and it's no less true for mental health. So I agree with Cruise that psychotropic drugs are very often simply cover-ups for something else, are simply band-aids that fail to address the underlying problems that so often precipitate depression and childhood hyperactivity, such as problems at home, failing marriages, stress, loneliness, retirement, chronic illness, etc. But everyone wants a "magic pill" that will make their cares go away, like my friend who takes Paxil because it makes him "feel better," in the absence of any diagnosed indication for the medicine. So much of this is completley ridiculous.

 

[meisteckhart]

Did anyone see Katie Couric's subsequent interview? I think it was aired the day after that Tom Cruise and Matt Lauer fiasco. She interviewed a couple experts about psychiatry, and had them comment on Cruise's claims. I missed the beginning so I don't know who they were, but interestingly, they actually echoed some of Tom's statements, admitting that he was correct to say that no one has ever proved the existence of a "chemical imbalance." It was a bit comical, because Katie was obviously getting fired up, because she really wanted Cruise to be wrong, and these experts kept saying that he was correct in many senses. Regarding his comment that antidepressants mask the "real problems," the experts remarked that drugs like Ritalin are indeed overprescribed, and that in many cases medication really is NOT the best answer to ADD or depression. I strongly agree after having read Dr. Lawrence Diller's book, "Running on Ritalin."

I don't doubt that antidepressants and stimulants like Ritalin have helped many people, but I think what Cruise is referring to here is a greater cultural problem that leads to a tendency to over-rely on medications. America is a very much a "quick-fix" culture, where the pill-for-every-ill mentailty is so prevalent that patients are often unwilling to make important lifestyle changes that would enable us to better help them. It's true for hypertension and hyperlipidemia, and it's no less true for mental health. So I agree with Cruise that psychotropic drugs are very often simply cover-ups for something else, are simply band-aids that fail to address the underlying problems that so often precipitate depression and childhood hyperactivity, such as problems at home, failing marriages, stress, loneliness, retirement, chronic illness, etc. But everyone wants a "magic pill" that will make their cares go away, like my friend who takes Paxil because it makes him "feel better," in the absence of any diagnosed indication for the medicine. So much of this is completley ridiculous.

I cannot comment specifically on the experts who you referred to, but I would like to comment on a few of your assertions:

1) Have we proven that a relative increase or decrease in various neurotransmitters causes a variety of mental illness? No we haven't. However, we also haven't proven that high cholesterol causes heart attacks. We have evidence that high cholesterol correlates with atherosclerosis and we theorize that this leads to acute coronary syndrome, often by plaque rupture, which can cause a heart attack. Would any trained medical professional say we shouldn't give someone with a cholesterol level of 500 medication. Absolutely not. There are numerous studies that show that various mental illnesses correlate with increases or decreases in certain neurotransmitters. For example, an increase in dopamine seems to correlate with schizophrenia. When we give someone cocaine, it activates various dopamine pathways which can cause some symptoms that are similar to schizophrenia. Can we prove it? No because we would have to actually take a person and increase their levels to show that they become psychotic. Not only is that not ethical, but the mechanism is likely more complicated than simply changing one chemical.

2) Mr Cruise has not been referring to the cultural desire of Americans to take medications to rid all their problems as far as I can tell. He has repeatedly attacked psychiatry specifically, advocated that no one take psychiatric medications, and said instead that vitamins will solve their problems. He will not even admit that drugs are helping people at all. He claims they are "masking the problem" and not really treating it.

3) I take issue with the idea that their is a "quick fix" culture in American society. While that may be true of some cultures in the US, the majority of my patients often attach a stigma to taking medications. Many patients refuse to take medications outright, and I think uneasiness with taking meds is much more common than someone coming in and asking me to please put them on drugs. My experience is admittedly somewhat limited, but these people, by and large, are not drug seekers. (well... they aren't seeking my drugs anyway)

4) There certainly are many factors that contribute to mental illness beyond biology and failing marriages, stress, loneliness, retirement, and chronic illness are among them. There are various therapies, work placement programs, rehab units, etc to help deal with these issues. Some diseases are less biological than others, but I know few if any schizophrenics who have gotten better without medication, as an example. And its nice to say that one should try to deal with these issues without medication, but you can't always address these problems. How are you going to treat a bipolar patient who was repeatedly abused sexually as a child, dropped out of school at age 14, is homeless and addicted to cocaine and alcohol and has no job. If you want to try to address these issues to help her without medication, I challenge you to try. In the interim, she's going to be bouncing off the walls, getting in trouble with the law, and jumping from a 20th floor window because she's become psychotic and thinks she can fly. And even if you have a middle class working mom with none of these problems who also develops bipolar disorder, you could end up with a mess on your hands if you don't treat her with something other than vitamins and a nice pat on the head.

5) What your friend is doing is not an argument against psychiatry. Its an argument for psychiatry. He needs to be educated that paxil does not make you feel "high." It only works when prescribed correctly to someone who needs it. That argument is not an argument against using meds, it is an argument for educating the public about how to properly use them under the supervision of a trained psychiatrist or other physician. The problem is that people use these examples to justify fear of something they do not understand, and that only propogates ignorance. Medications work. I've seen them work. They do not work on everyone, and you need to have a patient who is invested in their own treatment and wants to get better. But it is wrong to deny medication to someone who has the opportunity to lead a better life, simply because one has an opinion that they should pull up their bootstraps and get themselves better. It doesn't work that way.

 

[qqq]

http://broadcast.organicframework.c...ruise-right-about-psychiatry___423,28848.html

June 27: Dr. Steven Sharfstein, president of the American Psychiatric Association, and Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, discuss the Tom Cruise’s statements about psychiatry with the “Today” show’s Katie Couric.


Sharfstein looks somewhat vexed with Glenmullen. Be patient with the intial commercial that pops up.

 

[lil pook]

I don't think there is any way in hell that man would ever be let into medical school. For that matter, I have serious doubts that he could finish high school. What bothers me more than even his assertions about psychiatry is how he treats the people who are interviewing him when they try to express even the slightest hint that there might be a point of view other than his dogmatic ramblings. He sits there like some high and mighty king telling them how they haven't read what he's read and they shouldn't advocate for something they don't understand. Then he goes off with some argument that makes no logical sense based on presumptions and conjecture and acts like he is the most brilliant person in the world. God I wish he would just shut up.

if anyone's ever heard a cult member talk about their beliefs, this guy sounds exactly like one of em. you can't reason with a cult member. they are so entranced, programmed and brainwashed that the slightest form of logic or reason is something that is just not within their reach.

trust me. i personally know some cult freaks and when you try to talk to them about anything remotely intelligent they go off into their rant about how everybody is wrong, they are right, and you are stupid for not knowing this. and they always have this weird look in their eyes. sort of a glazed, ax murderer look.

freaky.

i HATE cults. especially ones that try to take your money.

f****ing LOSERS.

 

[TommyGunn04]

I cannot comment specifically on the experts who you referred to, but I would like to comment on a few of your assertions

Meisteckhart, I basically agree with almost everything you've said! I think you greatly misunderstood my post. I'm not against psychiatry, nor am I averse to using meds, and I'm certainly not a scientologist. It's just that no one has even given Cruise a fighting chance here, yet the experts interviewed by Couric admitted that much of what he said is actually true, and I wanted to make sure people saw that and tried to understand his position. There's a lot of "straw man" argumentation going on here, with people attacking what they THINK is Cruise's position, when in reality they haven't even begun to make an effort to understand what he's trying to say. But I certainly do NOT agree with him about psychiatry as a profession, and there's no need for you to get so defensive about it. Furthermore, these are not my "assertions;" they are mostly Cruise's. I was simply playing devil's advocate and trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, which no one else seems to be doing. In fact, I AGREE that meds are often necessary, especially in the cases you described, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, but I maintain that certain medications, like Ritalin and its equivalents, are massively overprescribed in the US. I believe that this is the case because it's a lot easier to medicate a kid than to fix the problems at home, the overcrowding of schools, and address the individual educational needs of many children that so often lead to hyperactivity and a diagnosis of ADD/ADHD. And again, don't take my word for it...take a look at one of the many books about this topic, including my favorite, "Running on Ritalin."

The Ritalin example is one reason why I think America is a quick-fix culture, and many authors echo these sentiments. I imagine books like "Prozac Nation" would as well. We can agree to disagree on this issue, but I'm certainly not alone in thinking this, though SDN is probably not the time nor place to argue about it. I also want to point out that I wasn't using the Paxil example as an "argument against psychiatry." I'm not sure where you got idea that from. I was clearly using it as a example of the quick-fix, pill-for-every-ill mentality I described. Thanks, but no thanks, for trying to put ridiculous words in my mouth.

Again, I pretty much agree with most of what you said...so much for charitably interpreting people's arguments

 

[mdblue]

Meisteckhart, I basically agree with almost everything you've said! I think you greatly misunderstood my post. I'm not against psychiatry, nor am I averse to using meds, and I'm certainly not a scientologist. It's just that no one has even given Cruise a fighting chance here, yet the experts interviewed by Couric admitted that much of what he said is actually true, and I wanted to make sure people saw that and tried to understand his position. There's a lot of "straw man" argumentation going on here, with people attacking what they THINK is Cruise's position, when in reality they haven't even begun to make an effort to understand what he's trying to say. But I certainly do NOT agree with him about psychiatry as a profession, and there's no need for you to get so defensive about it. Furthermore, these are not my "assertions;" they are mostly Cruise's. I was simply playing devil's advocate and trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, which no one else seems to be doing. In fact, I AGREE that meds are often necessary, especially in the cases you described, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, but I maintain that certain medications, like Ritalin and its equivalents, are massively overprescribed in the US. I believe that this is the case because it's a lot easier to medicate a kid than to fix the problems at home, the overcrowding of schools, and address the individual educational needs of many children that so often lead to hyperactivity and a diagnosis of ADD/ADHD. And again, don't take my word for it...take a look at one of the many books about this topic, including my favorite, "Running on Ritalin."

The Ritalin example is one reason why I think America is a quick-fix culture, and many authors echo these sentiments. I imagine books like "Prozac Nation" would as well. We can agree to disagree on this issue, but I'm certainly not alone in thinking this, though SDN is probably not the time nor place to argue about it. I also want to point out that I wasn't using the Paxil example as an "argument against psychiatry." I'm not sure where you got idea that from. I was clearly using it as a example of the quick-fix, pill-for-every-ill mentality I described. Thanks, but no thanks, for trying to put ridiculous words in my mouth.

Again, I pretty much agree with most of what you said...so much for charitably interpreting people's arguments

1. majority of ritalin/stimulants are prescribed by pediatricians/non psychiatrists. I'll try to dig out later the study which was done couple of yrs back which suggested undermedication is more rampant than overmed. I apologize mentioning it w/o providing the link
2. majority of antidep/SSRIs are prescribed by PCPs which includes non-M.D. NPs and what not. If something is not right, the problem I presume is poor psychiatric knowledge base of the non-psychiatric M.D. prescribers.

 

[SeaviewMD]

For anyone interested, this link arrived in my e-mail yesterday. It seems to be picking up momentum...

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Tomkat/

 

[invitro]

I don't know why Tom is so incensed.....it must be the homoerotic tendencies he has to keep bottled up so he can keep making his millions.

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,8374,00.html

Nothing wrong with that, but I really think he should come out of the closet.

 

[TommyGunn04]

1. majority of ritalin/stimulants are prescribed by pediatricians/non psychiatrists. I'll try to dig out later the study which was done couple of yrs back which suggested undermedication is more rampant than overmed. I apologize mentioning it w/o providing the link
2. majority of antidep/SSRIs are prescribed by PCPs which includes non-M.D. NPs and what not. If something is not right, the problem I presume is poor psychiatric knowledge base of the non-psychiatric M.D. prescribers.

I'm not sure how this is a response to my post, as once again, I made it clear earlier that I'M NOT CRITICIZING PSYCHIATRY! I expect that you're indeed correct to say that most of the Ritalin and other such scripts are prescribed by non-psych people. I was only saying that stimulants are overprescribed...it wasn't meant as a criticism of psychiatry, but rather as a critique of certain tendencies in American culture. I also don't doubt that most antidepressants are prescribed by non-psych people. Again, I wasn't alleging that psychiatrists are the problem here, so I don't see how this is relevant to my post.

Perhaps you meant to hit the other reply button instead of quoting my post. Maybe you meant this as a general reply, not as a reply to my post specifically. Unlike others have done here, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and actually be charitable in my interpretation of your comments. After all, how can we even discuss these issues when people keep talking past each other, attacking "straw man" arguments instead of trying to understand what's actually being said? This is one of the big problems with discussing such issues in an electronic forum environment.

 

[elektra]

I think Tom Cruise should stay in the field that he knows, he is a good enterteinner (no doubt about that) and Im sure this new movie with Steven Spielberg will be a hit but be a Movie Star dont make you a genious cathedratic of pysichiatry or anyother sepcialities in medicine.....Come on!!!!
The guy think that by only reading a few books and articles will make you a doctor is just crazy and IRRESPONSIBLE too because a lot of impressionable people could believe these things......

 

[theprizefighter]

Hi, All

I'm certainly not seeing the new Tom Cruise flick or any other film he makes from now on. Ditto for Katie Holmes. These Scientologists are quacks. Plain and simple. You don't belive me? Just look below at the seven criteria the AMA uses to define a medical quack and you tell me:

1. He uses a special machine he claims can cure disease. (Scientologists use something stupid ass electrical device called an "E-meter")

2. He guarantees a quick cure. (Any Tom Cruise interview in the last month)

3. He advertises or uses case histories and testimonials. (Have you ever seen a Journal of Scientology? Have you ever seen their results published in JAMA or any other peer reviewd medical journal? No. It's all anecdotal evidence with their idiotic approaches.)

4. He refuses to accept the proved methods of medical research. (Just what papers and research is Mr. Cruise reffering to in his Matt Laurer interview? He never ever says. What are the authors? When was the work published? What methods did they use? Where did they publish in? Probably the Journal of Irreproducible Results).

5. He says medical men are persecuting him or are afraid of his competition. Listening to any scientologist or publication from that "Church", they make it sound like psychiatristrs are the forces of Satan. Oh, oh, I'm really sorry. I meant Xenu.

6. He believes that his methods are better than surgery, x-rays, or drugs. You know, if vitamins can cure mental disease instead of drugs I'll send Mr. Cruise and Ms. Holmes a Centrum care package to take care of their Scientology addled brains.

7. He uses high sounding titles easily confused with qualified scientific professionals and organizations. Did I mention that the science of mental health in Scientology is called Dianetics? Sounds an awful lot like Diabetics to me.

The criteria above are from "How to Spot a Medical Quack" by the American Medical Association.

 

[meisteckhart]

Meisteckhart, I basically agree with almost everything you've said! I think you greatly misunderstood my post.:

If it seemed that I misunderstood your intention or that my post was intended as a personal rant or attack against you, than I apologize. I simply enjoy aruging and for the most part, my posts on this site have been reasoned and sometimes passionate, but not meant to be personally offensive. I do not intend to make assumptions about people based on what they write, though that may occassionally happen and I certainly have very strong feelings about scientology. You do make a good point that it is important to understand where Mr. Cruise is coming from and I admit that I certainly do not understand him as a person, and I may not understand all the details of his position. However, in the public arena when he continues to attack my profession and many of the choices that my patients make, I feel it is important to speak up. I would also like to note that perhaps we do not understand his position becuase he never explains it. He simply says he understand it and you don't and that's the end of the discussion.

Also in reference to the assertion that my comments appear cultist and closeminded, I would say in my own defense that that particular post was more of an attempt to blow off steam than a reasoned arugment. If it offended anyone, I apologize for that as well.

On a brighter note, Lewis Black had some comments on the Tom Cruise fiasco on the Daily Show recently, should anyone be interested. Link is below:

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml

 

[OldPsychDoc]

I'm certainly not seeing the new Tom Cruise flick or any other film he makes from now on. Ditto for Katie Holmes. These Scientologists are quacks...

I refuse to believe Ms Holmes is actually a Scientologist. She is an innocent child who has fallen under an evil spell... She's too cute to be a cultist.

4. He refuses to accept the proved methods of medical research. (Just what papers and research is Mr. Cruise reffering to in his Matt Laurer interview? He never ever says. What are the authors? When was the work published? What methods did they use? Where did they publish in? Probably the Journal of Irreproducible Results).

Do not slander the JIR.

 

[rpkall]

4. He refuses to accept the proved methods of medical research. (Just what papers and research is Mr. Cruise reffering to in his Matt Laurer interview? He never ever says. What are the authors? When was the work published? What methods did they use? Where did they publish in? Probably the Journal of Irreproducible Results).

I like that one.

I was absolutely startled by Tom's promotion to Lobotomized Thetan Level IX, myself. I had no idea the whole situation was quite so wonky. Check out http://www.xenu.net/ for some interesting info from people who were scientologists and escaped.

ahaha! I wish I knew how to post this picture of Xenu right to the forum: http://www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenuleaf.htm. Maybe I'll go learn.

 

[Anasazi23]

I can't believe you let out secret OT III. When Xenu gets out, you're gonna be sorry.

I'm a huge x-files fan, and often the first to buy a good conspiracy theory, and I still think this is ridiculous.

 

[espbeliever]

I can't believe you let out secret OT III. When Xenu gets out, you're gonna be sorry.

I'm a huge x-files fan, and often the first to buy a good conspiracy theory, and I still think this is ridiculous.

so what is it like ot be in the specialty where by definition you are a quack if u are religious?

 

[bluebirdie]

so what is it like ot be in the specialty where by definition you are a quack if u are religious?

Oh brother...have you not been reading any of the posts? Tom Cruise is a total nut job not. Not religious.

 

[Anasazi23]

so what is it like ot be in the specialty where by definition you are a quack if u are religious?

I'm confused. By quack you mean (as is usual) the doctor? Are you referring to patients in general or Mr. Mapother in particular?

If you're referring to Mr. Mapother, people are on his case because he is an uninformed zealot who is spreading potentially dangerous misinformation in the name of a proven defunct money making organization.

 

[espbeliever]

im not referring to any one person in particular. neither am i a scientologist.

i am just pointing out what was recently pointed out to me, that according to "the bible" of psych, that all religion is a psycho/delusional problem. and only recently is it "acceptable" to have any beliefs at all. well not really acceptable, but rather something that is mainstream, so as not to throw everyone into the pot of crazy, they made it ok.

just wondering your thoughts. it is the average psychiatrist that is non-religious or why is this one of the basic sentiments of this profession?

 

[espbeliever]

im not referring to any one person in particular. neither am i a scientologist.

i am just pointing out what was recently pointed out to me, that according to "the bible" of psych, that all religion is a psycho/delusional problem. and only recently is it "acceptable" to have any beliefs at all. well not really acceptable, but rather something that is mainstream, so as not to throw everyone into the pot of crazy, they made it ok.

just wondering your thoughts. it is the average psychiatrist that is non-religious or why is this one of the basic sentiments of this profession?

"according to the very DSM-IV criteria, it isn't "insane" if it's covered by mainstream religion. The very structure of the diagnosis excludes Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. from being legally considered insane. Otherwise you could easily diagnosis a Christian fundamentalist as having a delusional disorder."

"5) Psychiatry is in a state of flux. DSM... IV! There was DSM, DSM-II, DSM-III, and DSM-III-R (Revised). Homosexuality was a disorder in earlier versions, but it is not now. What other "diagnoses" have come and gone? The very sequential numbering of the manuals destroys any claim of truth by psychiatry and other "professionals" whose practices depend upon its classifications."

http://bmei.org/brmm/1999july.php#T...nd Psychiatry

 

[Anasazi23]

"according to the very DSM-IV criteria, it isn't "insane" if it's covered by mainstream religion. The very structure of the diagnosis excludes Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. from being legally considered insane. Otherwise you could easily diagnosis a Christian fundamentalist as having a delusional disorder."

"5) Psychiatry is in a state of flux. DSM... IV! There was DSM, DSM-II, DSM-III, and DSM-III-R (Revised). Homosexuality was a disorder in earlier versions, but it is not now. What other "diagnoses" have come and gone? The very sequential numbering of the manuals destroys any claim of truth by psychiatry and other "professionals" whose practices depend upon its classifications."

http://bmei.org/brmm/1999july.php#T...nd Psychiatry

Fair questions. Allow me to address them.

1. In my training and experience thus far, I have found psychiatrists, perhaps more than any other medical profession, to be tolerant of lifestyles, be it alternative, bizarre, or religious. Nowhere in psychiatry training is it taught that religiousity is part of a larger disorder. Religious themes are common fodder for delusional processes, and to the unversed, it may appear as though psychiatrists attempt to squelch this sort of expression. It is important not to confuse the two, however. The basis of most branches of general therapy assume that the therapist, in this case, the psychiatrist, not make moral judgements about their patients, but take in the information given to better understand the patient.

2. The DSM doesn't employ the term "insane" for any disorder, least of all religious people. Insanity is a legal term, not a medical one. As for diagnosing a fundamentalist Christian as delusion, see the above description. Religion is an important part of psychiatry, and religious views are to be respected, unless they fall into the realm of bizarre or in other exceptional circumstances. This is a gray area, but in no way precludes a diagnosis of delusional disorder. The very front page of the American Psychiatric Association this moment advertises a book about spirituality and psychiatry.

"Psychiatry is in a state of flux. DSM... IV! There was DSM, DSM-II, DSM-III, and DSM-III-R (Revised). Homosexuality was a disorder in earlier versions, but it is not now. What other "diagnoses" have come and gone? The very sequential numbering of the manuals destroys any claim of truth by psychiatry and other "professionals" whose practices depend upon its classifications."

3. This is an extremely flawed argument. By this method of logic, all of medicine should be viewed as having "no claim to truth," since Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine is in its 15th edition.

Things change. In surgery, in hematology (remember blood letting?), nephrology, roentgenography, etc. etc. Issues such as homosexuality are admittedly difficult to classify, if it should be classified at all, since it is a politically charged issue. Likewise, the addition of a disorder at some future time would not assume the condition never existed, right?

The website you give is one unknown to me, and does not appear to be a credible source of psychiatric information, and more like a glorified blog.

 

[espbeliever]

Fair questions. Allow me to address them.

1. In my training and experience thus far, I have found psychiatrists, perhaps more than any other medical profession, to be tolerant of lifestyles, be it alternative, bizarre, or religious. Nowhere in psychiatry training is it taught that religiousity is part of a larger disorder. Religious themes are common fodder for delusional processes, and to the unversed, it may appear as though psychiatrists attempt to squelch this sort of expression. It is important not to confuse the two, however. The basis of most branches of general therapy assume that the therapist, in this case, the psychiatrist, not make moral judgements about their patients, but take in the information given to better understand the patient.

2. The DSM doesn't employ the term "insane" for any disorder, least of all religious people. Insanity is a legal term, not a medical one. As for diagnosing a fundamentalist Christian as delusion, see the above description. Religion is an important part of psychiatry, and religious views are to be respected, unless they fall into the realm of bizarre or in other exceptional circumstances. This is a gray area, but in no way precludes a diagnosis of delusional disorder. The very front page of the American Psychiatric Association this moment advertises a book about spirituality and psychiatry.


3. This is an extremely flawed argument. By this method of logic, all of medicine should be viewed as having "no claim to truth," since Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine is in its 15th edition.

Things change. In surgery, in hematology (remember blood letting?), nephrology, roentgenography, etc. etc. Issues such as homosexuality are admittedly difficult to classify, if it should be classified at all, since it is a politically charged issue. Likewise, the addition of a disorder at some future time would not assume the condition never existed, right?

The website you give is one unknown to me, and does not appear to be a credible source of psychiatric information, and more like a glorified blog.

yea that website was a glorified blog basically... but it helped to raise my question. thanks for the info.

your answers lead to me to ask more of you, however. im not attacking you in any way so dont take it as such, i just want to know, because of my personal background, i know i will encounter such a question myself.

ok:

1) "Religion is an important part of psychiatry, and religious views are to be respected, unless they fall into the realm of bizarre or in other exceptional circumstances. "

you term this as a gray area. so with that in mind, IS there a way to define "bizarre" or "exceptional" beyond what main stream is? for instances, imagine yourself, perhaps 30-40 yrs after Christ's death. Christians are begining to grow in number, but yet, are a very "bizarre" concept at that time. correct? however, in light of today, it would not appear to be as "bizarre" since it is now one of the mainstream religions. i guess the point to attack is, why would it even have to be "bizarre" to be considered delusional? why is "bizarre" not really defined EXCEPT as essentially whatever is not mainstream? i think that the dsm is giving way to popular opinion. is that accurate? and if so, doesnt that seem like a bad thing? at least in this case, it should be considered a bad thing, since any religion that is "bizarre" would have its followers deemed delusional.

2) "the psychiatrist, not make moral judgements about their patients, but take in the information given to better understand the patient."

wouldnt deeming a "bizarre" religion follower as delusional be considered casting moral/ideological/religious judgement?

 

[Anasazi23]

you term this as a gray area. so with that in mind, IS there a way to define "bizarre" or "exceptional" beyond what main stream is? for instances, imagine yourself, perhaps 30-40 yrs after Christ's death. Christians are begining to grow in number, but yet, are a very "bizarre" concept at that time. correct? however, in light of today, it would not appear to be as "bizarre" since it is now one of the mainstream religions. i guess the point to attack is, why would it even have to be "bizarre" to be considered delusional? why is "bizarre" not really defined EXCEPT as essentially whatever is not mainstream? i think that the dsm is giving way to popular opinion. is that accurate? and if so, doesnt that seem like a bad thing? at least in this case, it should be considered a bad thing, since any religion that is "bizarre" would have its followers deemed delusional.

2) "the psychiatrist, not make moral judgements about their patients, but take in the information given to better understand the patient."

wouldnt deeming a "bizarre" religion follower as delusional be considered casting moral/ideological/religious judgement?

Your questions are good and not uncommon. Religion can be a difficult area to deal with in psychiatry. What may be perfectly normal in one person's non-disordered beliefs may seem bizarre to us. To conservative Jews, for example, evangelical Baptist church sessions must seem awfully strange. This is just one example. I've had patients on the unit "witnessing" to the convex mirror since no one else would listen to their ramblings. One decent rule of thumb is to understand what is normal behavior for THAT patient, and act accordingly. If a normally very religious person escalates their behavior to the point that it interferes with their social functioning or that they cannot work or take care of themselves, it becomes a concern to the psychiatrist.

In the USA, you have every right to be bizarre, and even act bizarre, as long as it is not illegal or otherwise causing disturbance. Whether or not this is necessarily in the person's best mental health, however, is another matter. The DSM states that most disorders must cause clinically significant distress in the patient, or otherwise represent an change in function. The definition of bizarre, in turn, can be found with clinical experience. We all know bizarre folks, or people that are normal but may have a bizarre belief or habit. That doesn't necessarily make them delusional.

The DSM doesn't give in to popular opinion so much as it does scientific opinion. Although it may not always seem like it, the DSM is a diagnostic STATISTICAL manual. Except in cases such as homosexuality, there are supposed to be empirically validated constructs which are delineated for the disorders. Try reading "Research agenda for DSM V." It's interesting.

An example would be the proposed elimination of Borderline personality disorder from the DSM. I know how a borderline presents, and so does any other psychiatrist. When we say the term, we convey a lot of information without having to say a lot. There is a good chance this disorder will be eliminated from DSM V because women's groups feel it is degrading to what (is almost exclusively) a female pattern of neurotic and often intolerable behavior. The elimination of this particular disorder would likely come from political pressure and as you put it, popular (or not so popular) opinion.

The important thing to keep in mind is that with experience, you can get a feel for what the normal range of behaviors is for a patient, and when certain other symptoms arise either in that same patient or in another, your psychiatric bell goes off, alerting you to investigate further. Often this investigation in the form of the clinical interview and mental status, reveals deeper psychopathology that may have not been initially detected.