THIS IS NOT SPAM-Scientology

[ldman]

---

Members do not see this ad.

THIS IS NOT SPAM

I saw the post about scientology was removed, probably because it was spam. However I was writing a response while the post was being deleted. Just my thoughts about Scientology and its use as a therapy.

I think Hubbard makes some valid points against psychiatry, and about our society being unnecessarily drugged. I also agree with some of the views on non-medicated treatment of anxiety & depression.

However you can find all this info and statements elsewhere. Whatever helpful information Scientology gives is lost in all the superstitious nonsense.

I agree with many things of what Tom Cruise says psychiatry. However it's for different reasons. My view is from the thousands of years of different therapies from around the world that are ignored and the rise of a Pharmaceutical-Industrial Complex. Tom Cruise's is from the view of Xenu, Body Thetan, Barley formula and the like.

I read Dianetics (remember those commerecials in the '80's?) and found it interesting. However I think only a nutjob would take it seriously as a religion.

So to answer the question, yes Scientology can be helpful. Just as the Bible, Koran, Torah, Taoism & Buddhists texts can be. However, you pick out what you want not just use Diatnetics as your treatment manual. Buddhism offers meditation, the Bible offers stories of encouragement and overcoming difficulties, the Koran offers Jihad (not the war-like version) as a way of improving yourself.

Just my $.002.



I am sure an atheist would agree with that.

 

[Livethedream]

Didn't Hubbard also believe that people were preserved in volcanoes and that their savior was an alien from a distant planet?

 

[Logic Prevails]

What evidence is there that we're overmedicating people?

Don't know if there are any studies, but there is certainly lots of speculation that many children diagnosed with ADHD are "overmedicated"

What does that mean exactly?

This means that children, whose brains are still developing, are often given drugs (of which we still don't understand their mechanisms of action), without trying other interventions first.

What's wrong with using medication to manupulate a physiological system?

I'm sure you already know the answer to this (or at least what others might say), but I'll mention briefly... I think the problem is that we are changing levels of one or more target neurochemicals that likely have widespread functions in the brain, in an effort to alter behavior/thought that might be mediated by more discrete systems. In other words, we may be using a canon (drugs) to swat a fly (behavior/thought we aim to change). In addition, we don't know how these drugs affect the developing brain or long term side effects. One example I can think of is the tendency to throw Risperidone (a pretty hardcore drug) at any kid with a behavior problem that doesn't respond to Ritalin/Concerta.

 

[PsychWDC]

This is an interesting topic. In my work as a neuropsychology extern I have heard reference to some findings (published research??) that medication in children (at least in certain populations with specific medication needs) has been shown to beneficial for brain development. Obviously, a child who can sit still and focus in class will receive more positive responses from teachers/classmates, therefore learning more and avoiding some of the poor self image that inhibition/inattention problems can cause. Anxiety/depression over time can result in the release of large amounts of cortisol, a process that has been shown to reduce the size of the hippocampus. Consistent stress/cortisol might influence the ability to lay down memories, and continuous arousal has been suggested in the causal systems of affective illness. In this way an antidepressant or anti-anxiety med given over time for a child may be neuro-protective.

Does anyone know of longitudinal data in kids looking at the impact of specific meds on brain development in different populations. Of course there is the recent finding of increased suicidality with some SSRIs in teens, but I was wondering about any positive findings.

I have heard another interesting argument against medication for some psychotherapy patients. Long-term psychodynamic therapists at times feel that for some patients, meds do not help the process of accessing significant affective material in therapy. The therapists note that drugs can put a veneer of wellbeing that masks conflicts/defenses that without the drugs are problematic for patients. Since the primary benefit of drugs in adults has been shown to occur during the period of taking the drugs, the ultimate result of combining therapy and meds for some patients has been suggested to be less effective than long-term insight/affective therapy alone. Of course, this argument applies to only a very small subset of the patient population, if any. And certainly it has been shown in general that therapy situations benefit from concurrent medication.

 

[Logic Prevails]

This is an interesting topic. In my work as a neuropsychology extern I have heard reference to some findings (published research??) that medication in children (at least in certain populations with specific medication needs) has been shown to beneficial for brain development. Obviously, a child who can sit still and focus in class will receive more positive responses from teachers/classmates, therefore learning more and avoiding some of the poor self image that inhibition/inattention problems can cause. Anxiety/depression over time can result in the release of large amounts of cortisol, a process that has been shown to reduce the size of the hippocampus. Consistent stress/cortisol might influence the ability to lay down memories, and continuous arousal has been suggested in the causal systems of affective illness. In this way an antidepressant or anti-anxiety med given over time for a child may be neuro-protective.

Does anyone know of longitudinal data in kids looking at the impact of specific meds on brain development in different populations. Of course there is the recent finding of increased suicidality with some SSRIs in teens, but I was wondering about any positive findings.

I have heard another interesting argument against medication for some psychotherapy patients. Long-term psychodynamic therapists at times feel that for some patients, meds do not help the process of accessing significant affective material in therapy. The therapists note that drugs can put a veneer of wellbeing that masks conflicts/defenses that without the drugs are problematic for patients. Since the primary benefit of drugs in adults has been shown to occur during the period of taking the drugs, the ultimate result of combining therapy and meds for some patients has been suggested to be less effective than long-term insight/affective therapy alone. Of course, this argument applies to only a very small subset of the patient population, if any. And certainly it has been shown in general that therapy situations benefit from concurrent medication.

Firslty, I would like to say that this is a quality post and I'm glad that you've found these forums.

I just want to add to my initial comments that medicating is an option that can have many positive effects for children, and yes, likely improve brain function. My only concern is that we are viewing it less and less as a "last option" and more as a first option without understanding how the brain really works as a whole and what exactly we are changing (both long-term and short).

I think the biggest problem in our field, perhaps more so with those individuals eager to get prescriptive privaleges, is this idea that everything can (or will someday) be cured with a drug. I think we forget that our "talk therapies" are also altering neural function, likely in a more specified and powerful way. I cannot believe it when a GP decides to prescribe a kid Risperidone - I don't even understand how that is ethical. Yes, in some cases psychotropics are the way to go, but it shouldn't be a knee-jerk reaction - we know too little, and those who think otherwise have only a basic understanding.

 

[clinpsychgirl]

Please reference the MTA (multimodal treatment of ADHD) study regarding medication on children with ADHD. Sorry, I don't have exact references, but part of the treatment rationale for that study is that epidemiological research suggests that children with ADHD are in fact under-identified and underserved.

 

[Logic Prevails]

Please reference the MTA (multimodal treatment of ADHD) study regarding medication on children with ADHD. Sorry, I don't have exact references, but part of the treatment rationale for that study is that epidemiological research suggests that children with ADHD are in fact under-identified and underserved.

What does being under-identified and underserved have to do with whether or not we throw drugs at a kid before properly assessing them or deciding whether other interventions might be of benefit.

 

[Dr.JT]

. Anxiety/depression over time can result in the release of large amounts of cortisol, a process that has been shown to reduce the size of the hippocampus. Consistent stress/cortisol might influence the ability to lay down memories, and continuous arousal has been suggested in the causal systems of affective illness. In this way an antidepressant or anti-anxiety med given over time for a child may be neuro-protective.

There is a relationship between cortisol release and new memory formation and some mixed evidence that cortisol results in hippocampal atrophy; however, the verdict is still out (see the PTSD twin studies). I think it is a big jump to ascribe neuroprotective properties to psychotropics.

 

[clinpsychgirl]

What does being under-identified and underserved have to do with whether or not we throw drugs at a kid before properly assessing them or deciding whether other interventions might be of benefit.

I don't know the answer to that given my post didn't address that question. Last time I checked, "under-identification" pertains to assessment/screening issues and not treatment, anyway. My post was actually in response to your speculation that children are being overmedicated.

 

[PsychWDC]

Logic, thanks for the response. I very much agree with you and am discouraged by the many forces in our profession and in managed care which support the belief that medication and possibly 4-10 sessions of behavioral or CBT therapy are going to be deeply helpful to all patients in need. I think what worries me the most is that so few of my colleagues are even aware that long-term psychotherapy modalities exist today. I mentioned something about a psychodynamic clinician to a group of my neuropsych student colleagues and one of them asked, "are they still allowed to do that?" (as in, practice psychodynamic therapy). I know your point wasn't about long-term therapy modalities, but I see the move toward simplified and inexpensive mental health solutions as creating a push for meds as a first option, and very short term talk therapy treatments as the primary second option.

Dr. JT, thanks for the caution about the cortisol/memory research. I meant to tread carefully as I know this is really just theory now. Van der Kolk has addressed these issues, but I am not well versed in the literature yet.

 

[50960]

It is not just THEORY, read some biochemistry journals, some new neurochemistry research etc... I must say it is this kind of ignorance that really needs to be mended in our field. Hippocampal regeneration has been shown, by science not theory.

 

[Logic Prevails]

It is not just THEORY, read some biochemistry journals, some new neurochemistry research etc... I must say it is this kind of ignorance that really needs to be mended in our field. Hippocampal regeneration has been shown, by science not theory.

PsiPci, I don't know whose ignorance you feel you need to cure, but you need to step down from that high horse for a moment. I generally enjoy your posts, but sometimes you can go a bit far. If anyone is being ignorant, it is you. Science is nothing but a bunch of theories - that's ALL we have.

For example:

"The theory of relativity"
"The law of gravity"
"Black hole theory"
"Chaos theory"

All of these theories have graded levels of certainty, but none can be considered fact. Neuroscientific theories are new (relative to others on the above list), and have been altered or proven wrong so many times in the last 100 years, that we should be least certain of them. We need to be somewhat tentative.

If you are going to make gloating accusations - you need to be specific and say where you are coming from, because I don't have a clue. Who is being ignorant?

 

[50960]

It is not theory. I appear arrogant to you because I have hard time when people expound about things they know nothing about. Get ready to google...can you tell me what role GPCR's have in the role of intercellular regulation of neurochemistry as affected by SSRI's? This is not theory......

 

[PsiKo]

How about citing references? Perhaps an article or two (at a time) that we can all track down and then discuss/debate intelligently.

 

[Logic Prevails]

Talk to me when you have a clue about science.

Why do you have to be such a narcissistic jerk? You don't know anything about the people that frequent these forums and you shout "ignorance!" from your damn soapbox for no apparent reason and with no provocation.

I appear arrogant to you because I have hard time when people expound about things they know nothing about.

I have no idea what you are talking about - and no, I am not going to play any of your intellectual mastrabatory games. I am not claiming to know any more than you and I'd be willing to bet that you could win that game (is that what you want to hear?)

PsiPci, You are coming off as a real arrogant jerk in these past few posts. I've really enjoyed being a part of these forums, but this is turning into some kind of dictatorship. If this continues, you will see the end of my posts.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

What is a theory?

Wikipedia to the rescue!!!

Theory

I remember an interesting discussion I had awhile back with someone talking about the differences between a "Theory", "Law", "Hypothesis", etc (not on here....I am prone to tangents, that was one of them). The tough thing about Theories is that they can function much like a law, though aren't called laws because they may lack that absolute proof, though that doesn't make them less likely to occur....so it can boil down to semantics.

I have a bit of knowledge about the discussion above, but I know enough to know that I need to do more reading before commenting further.

-t

 

[PsychWDC]

I'm relatively new here, but have very much enjoyed the mix of psychology discussions on the various threads. The insults are a little much, but I guess we psychologists are often drawn to the study of the mind/brain because we have some issues with our own.

Seriously though, can we talk about the question of neuroprotection and meds, and meds impact on child development in different populations? I would love to hear about recent research.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Seriously though, can we talk about the question of neuroprotection and meds, and meds impact on child development in different populations?

Ask and ye shall receive!

HERE

-t

 

[MeghanHF]

Talk to me when you have a clue about science.

In the Structure of Scientific Revolutions (I highly recommend it - psisci), Thomas Kuhn argues that the evolution of scientific theory does not emerge from the straightforward accumulation of facts, but rather from a set of changing intellectual circumstances and possibilities. I would say we're at just such a place of revolution in psychopharm, neurobiology, and psychology...where the old paradigm is stretched to the max and cannot account for observable phenomena that are anomolous (like Hippocampal regeneration). If you can't think it, you can't observe it...therefore, science is about facts and theories, data and creativity, objectivity and personality, LPs and psiscis.

...so yes, on to content oriented threads. The question of the role of GPCR's in intercellular regulation of neurochemistry as affected by SSRI's...

 

[Dr.JT]

It is not just THEORY, read some biochemistry journals, some new neurochemistry research etc... I must say it is this kind of ignorance that really needs to be mended in our field. Hippocampal regeneration has been shown, by science not theory.

Unless I missed it, no one argued against hippocampal regeneration. If you were referring to my post, it was directed at the idea that anxiety/depression in children results in hippocampal atrophy, which can then be prevented with SSRI's. I stick to my opinion that this is highly speculative, not supoorted by research, and as a result, I would not ascribe those qualities to the meds in that situation.

 

[50960]

No, I was not responding to your post. Dr. JT.

Meghan, the book sounds good! However a book on the theory of science does not make science a theory. We know radioactive compounds degrade at a prescribed rate etc... It is proven, not hypothesized. However, I do agree that what has been proven was once hypothesized for the most part, and it is this hypothetical reasoning that drives where science looks.

PS.
"And them that don't know him won't like him
And them that do sometimes won't know how to take him
He ain't wrong he's just different
but his pride won't let him do things to make you think he's right"

😀

 

[50960]

To Logic Prevails and others whom I have annoyed, I apologize. I guess I am watching too much "House"....

 

[MeghanHF]

However a book on the theory of science does not make science a theory.

PS.
"And them that don't know him won't like him
And them that do sometimes won't know how to take him
He ain't wrong he's just different
but his pride won't let him do things to make you think he's right"

😀

LOL...cowboy!! No, a book does not make science a theory but it does show how the dicovery of new facts can make certainty uncertain and catapult us into an entirely new framework.

I swear SDN is like computer crack...now I have to go find my Stahl book so I can keep up with the neuroprotection thread.

 

[ldman]

I did not know when I started this thread that it would be have some people that have devoted their lives to helping people better theirs insulting each other.

I am not a mental health professional. I am just somebody who has gone through a rough time of anxiety and depression and overcame it. I tried meds for a week, which was not the answer for me. To me it was just a band-aid. I did CBT and that helped, but most of it was my own thoughts that needed to be corrected. I am not one that thinks taking meds and doing ‘talk' therapy is the best. I know it works for some people. However there will be a time when those people need to get off those drugs to be truly recovered. Perhaps there is a very small group that needs more long-term care. But when it comes down to it I look at it like this.

Anxiety & depression are our body's way of making you stop and look at what you need to do to put our lives back in balance. It affects our body and mind because the body is a unit. Taking a drug might help you from the mental & physical pain, but is that always best thing? I am not saying people need to suffer needlessly. But how many people do you know pop a Xanax everyday and feel great, but inside they have to confront their demons if they hope to be truly happy. I know there are people with mental diseases (ex. Schizophrenia). However most people are not suffering from thinks like that. If they had we would not of survived as a race for so long.

So why do so many people appear ‘sick' today than compared to yesterday. I think is because we have lost what is usually the best cure for anxiety and depression, distraction.
I know we all have busy lives. We have soccer games, work, TV etc. However most people don't have true distraction. Devoted hobbies that they are passionate about. Finding ways to contribute and help others. These are just very few examples.

Any true distraction will do several things. Break your anxious train of thought, relax you, and give you a feeling of accomplishment. Back in the day we had distractions like people pillaging their village, finding food and how not to die from a broken arm. Society did not have time to worry about frivolous things like we do today. They did not fill up their life with news Jlo, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston. Of course they did not enjoy life for the most part. But over the centuries knowledge was built on how to overcome the unhappiness and anxieties in life. Yes there were drugs, liquor and all those vices. There were even the equivalents of Xanax and Ativan back then. But we would of died long ago if we depended on a foreign substance to tolerate life.

We learned how to come to balance with our minds. We learned how to overcome our demons. We learned that we controlled our thoughts and not the other way around. We learned that stress related hormones and the like were released by our thoughts and that they don't control us. Really the most important is that you feel like you matter, that you mean something in the universe, and many have lost that.


After centuries of learning ways to live a happy, balanced life, what do many do? Take the shortcut, pop the Xanax and move on. How many people just go to their GP and get the pills and would never even think about seeing a therapist. If the amount of people that did would do that, colleges would turn out more psychologists than Lawyers & Liberal Arts grads. Of course therapy should not last a lifetime, and most therapists would (or should) agree.

We also live in a society that drugs it children, things like ADD that did not exist before. (I can hear it now, it's been around for a long time and no one knew about it. Again how did we survive for so long? If it is a physical issue, like the theories about food coloring and pesticides, that needs to be fixed) Two working parents, child abuse, lack of attention form parents, food additives, watching TV hours a day, drugging of children and possible environmental issues has more to do with ADD (ADHD if you prefer) than anything.

My parents divorced when I was eight. My mom left and I never saw her again. I caused trouble in school. That same year I was put in the slow classes. Today they would probably said I had ADD. However, a year after my mom had left I was back in my regular classes, back to my old self.

I think people with TRUE mental diseases that cannot be helped by any other form of therapy but meds need to see physiatrists. That leaves the rest for psychologists and therapists. I would imagine that would be most of the people out there that need help. I think if a GP does give someone meds, it must be followed up that the person needs to get some form of therapy. I think it's a crime that a GP with the most minimal of mental health training (and then from mostly a biological view) have the authority to give out meds like candy. Would a doctor tell someone not to move their broken arm till it heals and not give them a cast? Why would he tell someone to take a drug so they ‘feel' better forever?

How did I overcome my anxiety? At first I realized nothing was wrong with me. The anxiety was just my body's way of warning me of danger. When that happened I stopped being scared of the physical symptoms (I had all the standard ones and some the Dr. had never heard of). Then the psychical symptoms stopped. Then I got busy with life-distraction. All the obsessive thoughts started to wind down. Then I looked at my life and realized there were many things I needed to change. When that happened the obsessive thought stopped. And life moved on. I don't get anxious like before. I never got scared again. I am sure if Godzilla came down the street I would be terrified, however I am not worried about going place, meeting people, and getting sick. I was the worlds biggest hypochondriac. I obsessed about every little feeling in my body, which there was many. I was a regular at the ER. I had MRI's of my head, x-rays, blood tests from anemia to thyroid, stress tests, asthma tests, etc. I looked at my bills and the total my insurance company paid was around $250,000. And in the end it was the best thing that ever happened, I wouldn't trade it for a million bucks.

Was it hard? YEEEESSSSSSSSS. Being in physical pain, obsessions about the feelings in my body, reading medical websites (worst thing you can do), being scared I was going insane, being scared of hurting others, being terrified of the future, being scared I would get every disease etc etc etc is horrible. Would meds of helped? Well I only tried them for a week. They made me deathly ill. I know they might have worked if I gave them time. However, I know myself. Even when I was staring at the wall muttering to myself crying, and thinking I was going to die I knew that if I would took the drugs they would not fix my problems. The drugs might have made me feel somewhat better and then I might have moved on. But in my haze, fright and terror I knew it wasn't right for me. My GP, psychologist, and all the other 23 doctors I saw begged my to take the drugs. In the end I said no and it worked for the better.

My life is 1000x more stressful than before. I have had more more devastating things happen in the time since I overcame anxiety. I deal with life differently now. I am wired different. I hear people say things like once you go through something like what I did it will always be back in your mind and might come back again. Someone once said I was like a car that had been in an accident. The car was worth less and damaged where you couldn't see even after you fixed the fender. BULL! I would say it like this. I was in a car that had been in accident. I got rid of that car and now drive a TANK!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I just skimmed the last post, but I did catch some of the "well that didn't exist way back when" references. Something like Schizophrenia definitely did exist way back when, it was just labeled something very different. People were locked in jails and sent away to suffer in solitude for the rest of their lives. Today there are at least some options to increase their quality of life. I'd consider that a positive thing.

As for ADHD....it was typically deemed a "behavioral" problem.

-t

 

[ldman]

I just skimmed the last post, but I did catch some of the "well that didn't exist way back when" references. Something like Schizophrenia definitely did exist way back when, it was just labeled something very different. People were locked in jails and sent away to suffer in solitude for the rest of their lives. Today there are at least some options to increase their quality of life. I'd consider that a positive thing.

As for ADHD....it was typically deemed a "behavioral" problem.

-t

In my post I did not mention Schizophrenia was something that was new, I was referring to ADHD. There is some research out there trying to prove that other factors contribute to ADHD such as food additives and other environmental concerns. Since our bodies are flooded with all kinds of garbage that did not exist even 50 years ago that does not sound unreasonable.

Hipporcrates described something similar to ADHD more than 2,000 years ago. When I read it sounds like depression. And his treatment was "barley rather than wheat bread, fish rather than meat, water drinks, and many natural and diverse physical activities"

Barley was used in ancient Greece to make many things. One the uses was to make some sort of liquor. The other which I believe he meant was to be eaten and it was very fibrous. Remember the term, " Death Begins in the Colon". (great book is Nervous Stomach Trouble by Dr. Joseph Franklin Montague MD written in 1944)

Fish Rather than meat, did he know something about Omega-3 and the effect on brain function?

Drinking water, which dehydration can make someone feel anxious and it can also settle an upset stomach.

Many natural and diverse physical activities. It speaks for itself. How many studies have said that exercise can be better than anti-depressants?

To get back to the history of ADHD. There are other times through history that some people have claimed that ADHD was discovered. Many of the things before the 1940s are not verifiable diagnoses of ADHD. At the very least the scientific research does not prove it.

I think the closest we get is with Stella Chase in 1960 when she came out with Hyperactive Child Syndrome. She thought it was biological. Other like Dr. Feingold though it was things like food additives. After many trails and errors his diet for children for ADHD made major improvements. There has been many studies about food additives.

Mattes J, Gittelman-Klein R (1978). "A crossover study of artificial food colorings in a hyperkinetic child". Am J Psychiatry

Williams, J.I. and Cram, D.M. and Tausig, F.T. and Webster, E. (June 1978). "Relative effects of drugs and diet on hyperactive behaviors: an experimental study". Pediatrics

Pollock, I. and Warner, J.O. (January 1990). "Effect of artificial food colours on childhood behaviour". Arch Dis Child

Boris M., Mandel F.S. (1994). "Foods and additives are common causes of the attention deficit hyperactive disorder in children". Annals of Allergy

Rowe KS, Rowe KJ (1994). "Synthetic food coloring and behavior: A dose response effect in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, repeated-measures study". Journal of Pediatrics

Schoenthaler SJ, Doraz WE, Wakefield JA. (1986). "The Impact of a Low Food Additive and Sucrose Diet on Academic Performance in 803 New York City Public Schools.". International Journal of Biosocial Research

Just to name a few. Here is a link to one-<http://diet-studies.com/research_school.html.>

Most of these studies are debunked by organizations like the Nutrition Foundation ( I don't know if they are still around). This organization was funded by companies that made and used food additives. Their bias is as evident as when drug companies fund studies that prove the effectiveness of anti-depressants. I am not knocking drug companies. Millions of people would be dead if it was not for drugs. However I think a little more objectivity is needed. If there was a study about CBT I think we would need some non-biased people conducting it than just psychologists who use CBT. Same for physiatrists for a drug therapy study, like this study- http://psychrights.org/articles/WSJTiesCloudStudy.html