What anti-psychotic drugs do to you!

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by The Only True B, Jan 24, 2004.

  1. Antipsychotic drugs may also result in many other debilitating, albeit nonfatal, side effects.
    Courts have previously recognized that antipsychotic drugs can cause tardive dyskinesia, "a
    neurological disorder", teversible in some cases, that is characterized by involuntaIy,
    uncontrollable movements of various muscles, especially around the face." Harper, 494 U.S. at 229-
    30, citing Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291,293, n.l (1982). That explains the typical twitch that some
    psychs and mental patients have in their faces!

    InHarper, the court recognized that between 10 and 25% of those treated with antipsychotic drugs
    will develop tardive dyskinesia. 494 U.S. at 229-30. Other side effects of antipsychotic drugs which
    courts have recognized include acute dystonia, "a severe involuntaty spasm of the upper body,
    tongue, throat, or eyes," and akathisia, "motor restlesness, often characterized by an inability to
    sit still." Harper, 494 U.S.at229-30. See also Mills, 457 U.S. at 293, n.l. Some evidence also
    suggests that "akathisia, in the extreme case, can drive people to suicide or to homicide." Cichon,
    53 lA. L. REv. at 302, quoting Theodore VanPutten & Stephen R Marder, Behavioral Toxicity of
    Antipsychotic Drugs, 48 J. CLINICAL

    PSYCHIATRY 13, 14 (1987). Some studies have indicated that over 60% of those who receive
    antipsychotic drugs will suffer from some symptoms of akathisia, with over 20% suffering from severe
    akathisia. Cichon, 53 LA. L. REv. at 302.

    So, who in the world is so stupid to put those drugs in someone's body? Those that demand others to
    be medicated with them are truly suppressive, and those taking them are out of their minds or
    completely uninformed. Why would Dave Touretzky, Peter Alexander and so many other ARS posters and
    extremist attack Scientologists for signing waivers against psychiatric treatment? Are those
    terrible side effects what those guys want for Scientologists and others?

    Barbara Schwarz (the only real one)

    P.S. Postings with e-mail address [email protected] and identities "Barbara_Schwarz",
    "the real Barbara Schwarz de Rothschild" and "Truth Speaker 2" are not done by me. Those are
    forgeries of criminal, Aids infected, gay lunatic Garry Lynn Scarff who is a fanatical Dave
    Touretzky defender. Scarff persecutes me from thread to thread often using my name as identity
    for those crimes (!) and

    tries to intimidate me, libels, insults and lies about me. He also lied that he spoke to a roomate
    of mine in the Utah mental health hospital. I never was in that hospital, but he probably escaped
    from one. Scarff is active member of the gay WeHo "church", that according to Scarff applaudes
    Scarffs lawless behavior against me. An ex-WeHo member wrote me that this "church" sanctions and
    promotes dishonorable behavior and that he and his friends were raped and drugged by one of their
    active members, and that one of their active members murdered others under the guise of "drug
    overdose". The ex-WeHo wrote that the

    doesn't see what's wrong with that.

    Frederic Rice, another fierce David Touretzky defender, posted also with the stolen identity de
    Rothschild. He is as little a de Rothschild as a dirty slimy and greasy punch bag is an impressive
    man. He threatened governmental officials over the Internet, wants to celebrate when both President
    Bush's are dead and has tips on his website on how to kill bikers.

    His brother David Rice, posts with "Dr." or "Reverend" Desertphile and also with the stolen identity
    de Rothschild. He suggested to kill members of the FBI. (Go to www.religiousfreedom.watch.org, the
    extremist pages on David Touretzky, page 9, his connections and click on the PDF file.) Dave Rice
    also posted a long time with the identity "Prozac filled gay terrorist psycho", which tells a lot
    about him.

    Barbara Graham Warr, self-proclaimed "caplain" of the A.R.S. newsgroup and snakepit, another David
    Touretzky promoter, is a DUI offender and pleaded guilty to possession and manufacturing of
    prohibited weapon under California penal code. She congratulated the WeHo "congregation" accepting
    Scarff's criminal behaviors against me. However, she posted before that there is no God. She also
    posts with stolen identity de Rothschild. - For more, click on the below links.

    ----------------------------------------------
    Linda Anderson http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/andersenl1.html Gerald Armstrong
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/armstrong1.html Jim Beebe
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/beebej1.html Graham Berry
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/berry.html David Bird
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/birdd1.html Tory Christman
    http://religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/christmant4.html Ursula Caberta
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/caberta.html Ida Camburn
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/camburn1.html Joe Cisar
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/cisarj1.html Robert Clark
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/clark1.html Elizabeth Ann Cox
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/coxea1.html Mark Dallara
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/dallara1.html Alexander Dvorkin
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/dvorkin1.html Valerie Emanuel
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/emanuelv1.html Steven Fishman
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/fishman1.html Vickki Ford Cook
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/fordv1.html Phil Georgi
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/jacobsen6.html Scott Goehring
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/goehrings1.html Roger Gonnet
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/gonnet1.html Barbara Graham
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/graham1.html Gregg Hagglund
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/hagglund1.html Steve Hassan
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/hassan1.html Tilman Hausherr
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/hauser1.html Andreas Heldal-Lund
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/lund1.html Keith Henson
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/henson1.html Deana Holmes
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/holmes1.html Jeff Jacobsen
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/jacobsen1.html Patrick Jost
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/jost1.html Charlotte Kates
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/katesc1.html Rod Keller
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/keller1.html Steven Kent
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/kent1.html Arnie Lerma
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/lerma1.html Joe Lynn
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/lynn1.html Ted Mayett
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/mayett1.html Frank Oliver
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/oliver.html Kady O'Malley
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/omalley1.html Zenon Panoussis
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/panoussis1.html Ted Patrick
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/patrick1.html Michael Pattinson
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/pattinsonm1.html Robert Peterson
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/peterson1.html Bruce/Kathleen Pettycrew
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/pettycrew.html Jesse Prince
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/prince1.html Roland Rashleigh-Berry
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/rashleighb1.html David Rice
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/riced.html Fred Rice
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/ricef.html Rick Ross
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/rossr1.html Karin Spaink
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/spaink1.html David Touretzky
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/touretzky1.html Alan Walter
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/walter1.html Grady Ward
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/ward.html Johan Wevers
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/weversj1.html Hana/Jerry Whitfield
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/whitfield1.html Larry Wollersheim
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/wollersheim1.html Sten-Arne Zerpe
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/zerpesa1.html
    --
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org
    --
     
    Tags:


  2. Midwinter

    Midwinter Guest

    [email protected] (The only true Barbara Schwarz - other postings
    with my name are forgeries) wrote:

    > Antipsychotic drugs may also result in many other debilitating, albeit nonfatal, side effects.

    It is conceivable that fatal side effects may result, although I am of course no expert on
    pharmacology. I know of at least one drug - often prescribed for relatively low-grade psychological
    problems - which lists 'stroke' as one of its potential side-effects. Although I realise this is not
    invariably fatal it is certainly something to consider.

    I will, however, not name the drug in question since I do not wish to alarm those who have been
    taking it with no problems.

    And let us bear in mind that what is listed as a 'side-effect' is usually some affliction suffered
    by a person whilst taking the medication, and cannot always be accounted for by the medicine itself.
    Others, such as facial twitches or other erratic muscle response, can certainly be linked quite
    routinely to the substance.

    > That explains the typical twitch that some psychs and mental patients have in their faces!

    It certainly COULD explain it. But it is not a given.

    > Some evidence also suggests that "akathisia, in the extreme case, can drive people to suicide or
    > to homicide."

    As can mental illness. And this brings us neatly to:

    > So, who in the world is so stupid to put those drugs in someone's body? Those that demand others
    > to be medicated with them are truly suppressive, and those taking them are out of their minds or
    > completely uninformed.

    Not necessarily. Many patients who have reached the stage where they recognise their illness are
    willing to take the risk of inducing side- effects if there is a possibility that the drug will ease
    their illness. Since you have evidently not reached the point of recognising your own mental health
    condition this is likely to be a difficult idea for you to grasp.

    Whilst it may seem odd to one such as yourself that people willingly submit themselves to the
    ministrations of the psychiatric profession, at whatever level, it is certainly the rational option.
    These drugs have been tried, tested, and shown to be effective in an experimentally significant
    number of cases. Something which can certainly not be claimed for the processes which Scientology
    would advocate for treating the mentally ill. Scientology, or Dianetics, appears to me to be the
    psychological equivalent of faith healing, Christian Science or 'tachyon' products - more religion
    than medicine, as indeed the 'Church' of Scientology itself admits it is.

    > Are those terrible side effects what those guys want for Scientologists and others?

    Everyone who takes any drug risks side effects. One of the most alarming lists of possible side
    effects I have seen comes bundled in a standard pack of aspirin - but how many ever bother to read
    it? Just gulp a couple to cure your headache and get on with things. As you yourself have said, most
    of the side-effects for psychoactive drugs are relatively benign, or certainly slow-moving. There is
    usually ample time to identify a side- effect and change treatments, and where this is not an
    option, the decision is usually made on the principle of the lesser of two evils.

    --
    Midwinter
     
  3. Kym Bidstrup

    Kym Bidstrup Guest

    brilliant, basic common sense, Midwinter! thanks. as a sufferer, I am fully aware & choose to take a
    category of <prescribed> drug, despite side effects. the alternative - debilitating depression - is
    far worse for me & the people I love.

    "Midwinter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] (The only true Barbara Schwarz - other postings with my name are
    > forgeries) wrote:
    >
    > > Antipsychotic drugs may also result in many other debilitating, albeit nonfatal, side effects.
    >
    > It is conceivable that fatal side effects may result, although I am of course no expert on
    > pharmacology. I know of at least one drug - often prescribed for relatively low-grade
    > psychological problems - which lists 'stroke' as one of its potential side-effects. Although I
    > realise this
    is
    > not invariably fatal it is certainly something to consider.
    >
    > I will, however, not name the drug in question since I do not wish to alarm those who have been
    > taking it with no problems.
    >
    > And let us bear in mind that what is listed as a 'side-effect' is
    usually
    > some affliction suffered by a person whilst taking the medication, and cannot always be
    > accounted for by the medicine itself. Others, such as facial twitches or other erratic muscle
    > response, can certainly be
    linked
    > quite routinely to the substance.
    >
    >
    >
    > > That explains the typical twitch that some psychs and mental patients have in their faces!
    >
    > It certainly COULD explain it. But it is not a given.
    >
    >
    >
    > > Some evidence also suggests that "akathisia, in the extreme case, can drive people to suicide
    > > or to homicide."
    >
    > As can mental illness. And this brings us neatly to:
    >
    >
    >
    > > So, who in the world is so stupid to put those drugs in someone's body? Those that demand
    > > others to be medicated with them are truly suppressive, and those taking them are out of their
    > > minds or completely uninformed.
    >
    > Not necessarily. Many patients who have reached the stage where they recognise their illness are
    > willing to take the risk of inducing side- effects if there is a possibility that the drug will
    > ease their illness. Since you have evidently not reached the point of recognising your own
    > mental health condition this is likely to be a difficult idea for you to grasp.
    >
    > Whilst it may seem odd to one such as yourself that people willingly submit themselves to the
    > ministrations of the psychiatric profession, at whatever level, it is certainly the rational
    > option. These drugs have been tried, tested, and shown to be effective in an experimentally
    > significant number of cases. Something which can certainly not be
    claimed
    > for the processes which Scientology would advocate for treating the mentally ill. Scientology,
    > or Dianetics, appears to me to be the psychological equivalent of faith healing, Christian
    > Science or
    'tachyon'
    > products - more religion than medicine, as indeed the 'Church' of Scientology itself
    > admits it is.
    >
    >
    >
    > > Are those terrible side effects what those guys want for
    Scientologists
    > > and others?
    >
    > Everyone who takes any drug risks side effects. One of the most
    alarming
    > lists of possible side effects I have seen comes bundled in a standard pack of aspirin - but how
    > many ever bother to read it? Just gulp a
    couple
    > to cure your headache and get on with things. As you yourself have
    said,
    > most of the side-effects for psychoactive drugs are relatively benign,
    or
    > certainly slow-moving. There is usually ample time to identify a side- effect and change
    > treatments, and where this is not an option, the decision is usually made on the principle of
    > the lesser of two evils.
    >
    > --
    > Midwinter
     
  4. Sharky

    Sharky Guest

    "Midwinter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] (The only true Barbara Schwarz - other postings with my name are
    > forgeries) wrote:
    >
    > > Antipsychotic drugs may also result in many other debilitating, albeit nonfatal, side effects.
    >
    > It is conceivable that fatal side effects may result, although I am of course no expert on
    > pharmacology. I know of at least one drug - often prescribed for relatively low-grade
    > psychological problems - which lists 'stroke' as one of its potential side-effects. Although I
    > realise this is not invariably fatal it is certainly something to consider.
    >
    > I will, however, not name the drug in question since I do not wish to alarm those who have been
    > taking it with no problems.
    >
    > And let us bear in mind that what is listed as a 'side-effect' is usually some affliction suffered
    > by a person whilst taking the medication, and cannot always be accounted for by the medicine
    > itself. Others, such as facial twitches or other erratic muscle response, can certainly be linked
    > quite routinely to the substance.
    >
    >
    >
    > > That explains the typical twitch that some psychs and mental patients have in their faces!
    >
    > It certainly COULD explain it. But it is not a given.
    >
    >
    >
    > > Some evidence also suggests that "akathisia, in the extreme case, can drive people to suicide or
    > > to homicide."
    >
    > As can mental illness. And this brings us neatly to:
    >
    >
    >
    > > So, who in the world is so stupid to put those drugs in someone's body? Those that demand others
    > > to be medicated with them are truly suppressive, and those taking them are out of their minds or
    > > completely uninformed.
    >
    > Not necessarily. Many patients who have reached the stage where they recognise their illness are
    > willing to take the risk of inducing side- effects if there is a possibility that the drug will
    > ease their illness.

    If somebody has a pain in his leg, he may even consider amputation. The point is, if "treatment" is
    not improving a condition but just exchanging one effect with another "side"-effect, is this a
    rational treatment?

    The problem with psychiatrists is, that they have no clue what causes mental illnesses. As the
    mainstream of them operates on the materialistic basis, that all mental conditions have more or less
    a physiological cause, they resort to drugs, brain surgery and ECT as "treatment".

    Nobody would consider a medical doctor who "treats" Athletes Foot with ambutation a reasonable man.
    Why should we consider people who drug and mutilate people in the name of mental "treatment" as
    rational men?

    > Since you have evidently not reached the point of recognising your own mental health condition
    > this is likely to be a difficult idea for you to grasp.

    I suggest your investigate your own condition, before you rush to judgement on other people.
     
  5. Peter Widmer

    Peter Widmer Guest

    Sharky wrote:

    > "Midwinter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>[email protected] (The only true Barbara Schwarz - other postings with my name are
    >>forgeries) wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Antipsychotic drugs may also result in many other debilitating, albeit nonfatal, side effects.
    >>
    >>It is conceivable that fatal side effects may result, although I am of course no expert on
    >>pharmacology. I know of at least one drug - often prescribed for relatively low-grade
    >>psychological problems - which lists 'stroke' as one of its potential side-effects. Although I
    >>realise this is not invariably fatal it is certainly something to consider.
    >>
    >>I will, however, not name the drug in question since I do not wish to alarm those who have been
    >>taking it with no problems.
    >>
    >>And let us bear in mind that what is listed as a 'side-effect' is usually some affliction suffered
    >>by a person whilst taking the medication, and cannot always be accounted for by the medicine
    >>itself. Others, such as facial twitches or other erratic muscle response, can certainly be linked
    >>quite routinely to the substance.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>That explains the typical twitch that some psychs and mental patients have in their faces!
    >>
    >>It certainly COULD explain it. But it is not a given.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>Some evidence also suggests that "akathisia, in the extreme case, can drive people to suicide or
    >>>to homicide."
    >>
    >>As can mental illness. And this brings us neatly to:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>So, who in the world is so stupid to put those drugs in someone's body? Those that demand others
    >>>to be medicated with them are truly suppressive, and those taking them are out of their minds or
    >>>completely uninformed.
    >>
    >>Not necessarily. Many patients who have reached the stage where they recognise their illness are
    >>willing to take the risk of inducing side- effects if there is a possibility that the drug will
    >>ease their illness.
    >
    >
    > If somebody has a pain in his leg, he may even consider amputation. The point is, if "treatment"
    > is not improving a condition but just exchanging one effect with another "side"-effect, is this a
    > rational treatment?
    >
    > The problem with psychiatrists is, that they have no clue what causes mental illnesses. As the
    > mainstream of them operates on the materialistic basis, that all mental conditions have more or
    > less a physiological cause, they resort to drugs, brain surgery and ECT as "treatment".
    >
    > Nobody would consider a medical doctor who "treats" Athletes Foot with ambutation a reasonable
    > man. Why should we consider people who drug and mutilate people in the name of mental "treatment"
    > as rational men?
    >
    >
    >
    >>Since you have evidently not reached the point of recognising your own mental health condition
    >>this is likely to be a difficult idea for you to grasp.
    >
    >
    > I suggest your investigate your own condition, before you rush to judgement on other people.
    >

    Was Rondroide wie die 'Sharkys' mit solchen ebenso unqualifizierten wie grundfalschen Statements
    stets übersehen ist, dass ihre eigene betrügerische Pseudopsychotherapie 'Scientology' (samt
    'Dianetik' und allen scientologischen Tarnorganisationen wie beispielsweise 'Narconon') nicht die
    geringste positive Wirkung zeigt, sondern nur schädliche Nebenwirkungen mit vernichtenden
    Ergebnissen erbringt. Und die Beweise dafür liefern sie gleich selbst :)

    Peter

    --
    Peter Widmer <[email protected]> 3802 Waldegg <http://www.pewid.ch
     
  6. Dicktop_stud

    Dicktop_stud Guest

    [email protected] (The only true Barbara Schwarz - other postings with my name are forgeries) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > Antipsychotic drugs may also result in many other debilitating, albeit nonfatal, side effects.
    > Courts have previously recognized that antipsychotic drugs can cause tardive dyskinesia, "a
    > neurological disorder", teversible in some cases, that is characterized by involuntaIy,
    > uncontrollable movements of various muscles, especially around the face."

    Why don't you tell us why your doctor has had you on chlorpromazine & Haldol for the last 3 years,
    Barbara? Interesting things in an e-mail I got about you yesterday...

    Out with it...why are you taking chlorpromazine & Haldol?
     
  7. "Sharky" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]_s52>...
    > "Midwinter" <solsti[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > [email protected] (The only true Barbara Schwarz - other postings with my name are
    > > forgeries) wrote:
    > >
    > > > Antipsychotic drugs may also result in many other debilitating, albeit nonfatal, side effects.
    > >
    > > It is conceivable that fatal side effects may result, although I am of course no expert on
    > > pharmacology. I know of at least one drug - often prescribed for relatively low-grade
    > > psychological problems - which lists 'stroke' as one of its potential side-effects. Although I
    > > realise this is not invariably fatal it is certainly something to consider.
    > >
    > > I will, however, not name the drug in question since I do not wish to alarm those who have been
    > > taking it with no problems.
    > >
    > > And let us bear in mind that what is listed as a 'side-effect' is usually some affliction
    > > suffered by a person whilst taking the medication, and cannot always be accounted for by the
    > > medicine itself. Others, such as facial twitches or other erratic muscle response, can certainly
    > > be linked quite routinely to the substance.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > > That explains the typical twitch that some psychs and mental patients have in their faces!
    > >
    > > It certainly COULD explain it. But it is not a given.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > > Some evidence also suggests that "akathisia, in the extreme case, can drive people to suicide
    > > > or to homicide."
    > >
    > > As can mental illness. And this brings us neatly to:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > > So, who in the world is so stupid to put those drugs in someone's body? Those that demand
    > > > others to be medicated with them are truly suppressive, and those taking them are out of their
    > > > minds or completely uninformed.
    > >
    > > Not necessarily. Many patients who have reached the stage where they recognise their illness are
    > > willing to take the risk of inducing side- effects if there is a possibility that the drug will
    > > ease their illness.
    >
    > If somebody has a pain in his leg, he may even consider amputation.

    Isn't amputation necessary in severe cases such as gangreene or cancer?

    > The point is, if "treatment" is not improving a condition but just exchanging one effect with
    > another "side"-effect, is this a rational treatment?
    >

    How is this explanation different from auditing?

    > The problem with psychiatrists is, that they have no clue what causes mental illnesses. As the
    > mainstream of them operates on the materialistic basis, that all mental conditions have more or
    > less a physiological cause, they resort to drugs, brain surgery and ECT as "treatment".

    Have you ever considered that psychiatrists sometimes simply talk with their patients, or even refer
    them to therapists without even prescribing drugs?

    How about psychiatrists that prescribe herbal remedies such as ST.John's Wort, which actually
    outsells Prozac amongst patients in Germany?

    >
    > Nobody would consider a medical doctor who "treats" Athletes Foot with ambutation a reasonable
    > man. Why should we consider people who drug and mutilate people in the name of mental "treatment"
    > as rational men?
    >

    Polemic silliness if I ever saw it.

    >
    > > Since you have evidently not reached the point of recognising your own mental health condition
    > > this is likely to be a difficult idea for you to grasp.
    >
    > I suggest your investigate your own condition, before you rush to judgement on other people.

    Oh, and a "rush to judgement on other people" would not include the catagorical condemnation of an
    entire branch of medicine, pschiatry, which includes thousands of doctors?

    Try speaking for yourself.

    -pg
     
  8. [email protected] (The only true Barbara Schwarz - other postings with my name are forgeries) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Antipsychotic drugs may also result in many other debilitating, albeit nonfatal, side effects.

    Dear Barbara! I am afraid you got things a little bit mixed up ( possibly a reflection of your
    state of mind)

    In your case I would recommend a small dose of antipsychotics - preferably haloperidol 1-2 mg every
    evening before bedtime. In 2 - 4 weeks you probably would be rid of your delusions. At least 2 - 3
    years treatment is recommended , and if sucessful ( no delusions, no paranoic symtoms) you could try
    a slow withdrawel from medication - ,5 mg reduction every third week. If delusional and paranoic
    symtoms reappear - back on medication. Of course you will need someone to help you with your
    symtomchecking , because you can not trust your self to be objective in this matter.

    Orkeltatte (The real thing)
     
  9. Midwinter

    Midwinter Guest

    "Sharky" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > If somebody has a pain in his leg, he may even consider amputation. The point is, if "treatment"
    > is not improving a condition but just exchanging one effect with another "side"-effect, is this a
    > rational treatment?

    In some cases yes, in other cases no. It would depend what the expected 'replacement' condition
    might be. You of course go to extremes in your example - replacing a pain in the leg with no
    leg at all.

    But if a person's illness is causing them considerable difficulty or distress, they might well weigh
    up the possible alternatives and accept that treatment is the best option. If not, then that is
    their choice. Where a person is subjected to involuntary treatment or detention - what we Brits
    refer to as being 'sectioned' - then it is usually because those 'least ignorant' of the subject
    have assessed them as being a threat either to themselves or others. In such cases, the patient is
    usually not in a condition to make a rational decision for themselves. But it may surprise you how
    ill someone has to be before they are considered suitable for sectioning in Britain. I know of some
    remarkable cases of patients suffering acute diagnosed mental conditions and living alone in the
    community. Their circumstances make life extremely difficult for them and their neighbours or
    family, and yet they are not assessed as being ill enough to be sectioned. A section is not a
    decision taken lightly, but only as a last resort.

    > The problem with psychiatrists is, that they have no clue what causes mental illnesses.

    But of course not. How can they? The brain is an extremely complicated device, and we can expect
    that there are many years of research ahead before it is properly understood. Therefore treatments
    have to be made largely on the balance of probabilities. What appears to work is used until it is
    improved upon or until problems are identified which require its use to be discontinued.

    > As the mainstream of them operates on the materialistic basis, that all mental conditions have
    > more or less a physiological cause, they resort to drugs, brain surgery and ECT as "treatment".

    Many treatments are not in fact designed to 'cure' a condition - simply to relieve it. For example,
    many drugs used in the treatment of depression do not cure the condition itself. They simply
    suppress its symptoms, allowing a more rational existence, until such time as the patient is able
    (consciously or otherwise) to resolve whatever is causing the problem. And it may be even then that
    this 'cure' is not permanent. A depressive is in that sense like an alcoholic - always 'on the
    wagon', 'one day at a time'.

    Whilst psychiatry accepts the idea of 'induced' conditions - such as post- traumatic stress
    disorder, and so on - it does not rule out those disorders which might be attributed to the
    'hardware'. Where Dianetics falls down is that it assumes that all problems are software problems
    and uses one very narrow method of treatment for everything, the only guarantee being that the
    'Church' will make money out of the patient.

    > Nobody would consider a medical doctor who "treats" Athletes Foot with ambutation a
    > reasonable man.

    Indeed not. And how many do? Likewise, you will find few psychiatrists who would act in a comparable
    manner. What is done is usually done because it is necessary.

    As an aside, if a doctor diagnosed pains in the legs as some sort of life- threatening condition and
    ordered the leg amputated, and then later discovered it was in fact some minor complaint which could
    have been cured in some easier way, is that doctor an unreasonable man? He is wrong, certainly, and
    there would be a strong case for striking him off - but is he unreasonable, given that he acted in
    good faith based on his flawed diagnosis?

    This situation can occur in psychiatry as well. It might be said that it is more prone to occur
    since the field of work is not so "nuts-and-bolts".

    Medical treatment cannot always be expected to be pleasant, and it is ALWAYS in the hands of humans.
    Humans are flawed, and prone to error. It is as simple as that. If you want treatment, you will
    probably find it assists you - but it might not. If you reject it, then you make the choice to live
    with your symptoms. If you are found lying on the ground turning blue then the chances are you will
    receive treatment whilst you are not in a condition to request it or consent to it. Involuntary
    psychological treatment can be viewed in the same way.

    > Why should we consider people who drug and mutilate people in the name of mental "treatment" as
    > rational men?

    Because they have been extensively trained in tried-and-tested techniques, and they apply them to
    the best of their ability with the intention of making life better for sufferers. I would call that
    fairly reasonable. If you expect perfection then I am afraid you have come to the wrong species.

    >> Since you have evidently not reached the point of recognising your own mental health condition
    >> this is likely to be a difficult idea for you to grasp.
    >
    > I suggest your investigate your own condition, before you rush to judgement on other people.

    Very well. You may assist me by diagnosing my condition. I will then seek the appropriate treatment.

    --
    Midwinter
     
  10. Sharky

    Sharky Guest

    "Peter Golembe" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > > Not necessarily. Many patients who have
    reached the stage where they
    > > > recognise their illness are willing to take the risk of inducing side- effects if there is a
    > > > possibility that the drug will ease their
    illness.
    > >
    > > If somebody has a pain in his leg, he may even consider amputation.
    >
    > Isn't amputation necessary in severe cases such as gangreene or cancer?

    That could be possible, but that was not the point.

    >
    > > The point is, if "treatment" is not improving a condition but just
    exchanging
    > > one effect with another "side"-effect, is this a rational treatment?
    > >
    >
    > How is this explanation different from auditing?

    Very, Very different.

    You can read up here: www.scientology.org search for auditing.

    >
    >
    > > The problem with psychiatrists is, that they have no clue what causes
    mental
    > > illnesses. As the mainstream of them operates on the materialistic
    basis,
    > > that all mental conditions have more or less a physiological cause, they resort to drugs, brain
    > > surgery and ECT as "treatment".
    >
    > Have you ever considered that psychiatrists sometimes simply talk with their patients, or even
    > refer them to therapists without even prescribing drugs?

    The fact that the official "science" of psychiatrie is a hoax, does not exclude a few smart
    practitioners that distance themself from destructive mainstream psychiatrie and search for
    other options.

    That does not change the mainstream psychiatrie though.

    >
    > How about psychiatrists that prescribe herbal remedies such as ST.John's Wort, which actually
    > outsells Prozac amongst patients in Germany?

    Mainstream psychiatrie pushes Prozac, Ritalin and other mind altering drugs that destroy human
    beings to the degree it should be criminalized.

    >
    > >
    > > Nobody would consider a medical doctor who "treats" Athletes Foot with ambutation a reasonable
    > > man. Why should we consider people who drug and mutilate people in the name of mental
    > > "treatment" as rational men?
    > >
    >
    > Polemic silliness if I ever saw it.

    This is happening with people who run a business or some sort of life and have some kind of mental
    problem. They get into psychiatrie and get ECT. They die or are completely incapable to perform in
    their former capacity. Such a persons mental problem is gone, but his life and abilities as well. If
    they survive they need care for the rest of the life.

    You should research the fate of many ECT patients and you will find more "polemic silliness" than
    you would ever believe would have existed.

    >
    > >
    > > > Since you have evidently not reached the point of recognising your own mental health condition
    > > > this is likely to be a difficult idea for you
    to
    > > > grasp.
    > >
    > > I suggest your investigate your own condition, before you rush to
    judgement
    > > on other people.
    >
    > Oh, and a "rush to judgement on other people" would not include the catagorical condemnation of an
    > entire branch of medicine, pschiatry, which includes thousands of doctors?

    This judgement is based on facts.
     
  11. Midwinter

    Midwinter Guest

    Peter Widmer <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Was Rondroide wie die 'Sharkys' mit solchen ebenso unqualifizierten wie grundfalschen Statements
    > stets bersehen ist, dass ihre eigene betrgerische Pseudopsychotherapie 'Scientology' (samt
    > 'Dianetik' und allen scientologischen Tarnorganisationen wie beispielsweise 'Narconon') nicht die
    > geringste positive Wirkung zeigt, sondern nur sch„dliche Nebenwirkungen mit vernichtenden
    > Ergebnissen erbringt. Und die Beweise dafr liefern sie gleich selbst :)

    Ich stimme mit Ihren Bemerkungen überein. Dieser Text ist eine automatisierte Übersetzung, da ich
    Deutsch nicht spreche. Ich habe Sie nicht gewollt zu denken, daß ich Sie ignorierte!

    Hat es gearbeitet? Ihre Nachricht hat ziemlich gut übersetzt. :eek:)

    --
    Midwinter
     
  12. Peter Widmer

    Peter Widmer Guest

    Midwinter wrote:
    > Peter Widmer <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Was Rondroide wie die 'Sharkys' mit solchen ebenso unqualifizierten wie grundfalschen Statements
    >>stets bersehen ist, dass ihre eigene betrgerische Pseudopsychotherapie 'Scientology' (samt
    >>'Dianetik' und allen scientologischen Tarnorganisationen wie beispielsweise 'Narconon') nicht die
    >>geringste positive Wirkung zeigt, sondern nur sch„dliche Nebenwirkungen mit vernichtenden
    >>Ergebnissen erbringt. Und die Beweise dafr liefern sie gleich selbst :)
    >
    >
    >
    > Ich stimme mit Ihren Bemerkungen überein. Dieser Text ist eine automatisierte Übersetzung, da ich
    > Deutsch nicht spreche. Ich habe Sie nicht gewollt zu denken, daß ich Sie ignorierte!
    >
    > Hat es gearbeitet? Ihre Nachricht hat ziemlich gut übersetzt. :eek:)

    Yes, OK :) The problem is that 'Psychobarbie' and 'Sharky' dispose their crap always also in the
    German-language NG 'dsws'.

    Peter

    --
    Peter Widmer <[email protected]> 3802 Waldegg <http://www.pewid.ch
     
  13. B.L. Zebub

    B.L. Zebub Guest

    Midwinter <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > In some cases yes, in other cases no. It would depend what the expected 'replacement' condition
    > might be. You of course go to extremes in your example - replacing a pain in the leg with no
    > leg at all.
    >
    >

    In this case, the 'treatment' is replacing unwanted or 'deviant' behaviors with brain damage and
    other physical problems.
     
  14. Kim P <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Sharky wrote:
    > > "Midwinter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > >>[email protected] (The only true Barbara Schwarz - other postings with my name are
    > >>forgeries) wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>Antipsychotic drugs may also result in many other debilitating, albeit nonfatal, side effects.
    > >>
    > >>It is conceivable that fatal side effects may result, although I am of course no expert on
    > >>pharmacology. I know of at least one drug - often prescribed for relatively low-grade
    > >>psychological problems - which lists 'stroke' as one of its potential side-effects. Although I
    > >>realise this is not invariably fatal it is certainly something to consider.
    > >>
    > >>I will, however, not name the drug in question since I do not wish to alarm those who have been
    > >>taking it with no problems.
    > >>
    > >>And let us bear in mind that what is listed as a 'side-effect' is usually some affliction
    > >>suffered by a person whilst taking the medication, and cannot always be accounted for by the
    > >>medicine itself. Others, such as facial twitches or other erratic muscle response, can certainly
    > >>be linked quite routinely to the substance.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>That explains the typical twitch that some psychs and mental patients have in their faces!
    > >>
    > >>It certainly COULD explain it. But it is not a given.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>Some evidence also suggests that "akathisia, in the extreme case, can drive people to suicide
    > >>>or to homicide."
    > >>
    > >>As can mental illness. And this brings us neatly to:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>So, who in the world is so stupid to put those drugs in someone's body? Those that demand
    > >>>others to be medicated with them are truly suppressive, and those taking them are out of their
    > >>>minds or completely uninformed.
    > >>
    > >>Not necessarily. Many patients who have reached the stage where they recognise their illness are
    > >>willing to take the risk of inducing side- effects if there is a possibility that the drug will
    > >>ease their illness.
    > >
    > >
    > > If somebody has a pain in his leg, he may even consider amputation. The point is, if "treatment"
    > > is not improving a condition but just exchanging one effect with another "side"-effect, is this
    > > a rational treatment?
    > >
    > > The problem with psychiatrists is, that they have no clue what causes mental illnesses. As the
    > > mainstream of them operates on the materialistic basis, that all mental conditions have more or
    > > less a physiological cause, they resort to drugs, brain surgery and ECT as "treatment".
    >
    > Brain surgery? ECT? Neither one of these treatments are prevelant in any way. ECT is carefully
    > controlled and only used in extreme cases when all other treatments have failed.

    Never heard anything so dumb. People loose their memories after they were shocked. What an inhumane
    way to treat depressions. The depressions also come back when the memories return. It is like
    hitting with the fist on a computer to repair that thing.

    The cchr likes to pretend that
    > psychiatrists are nothing more than mad scientists who use torture to effect a "cure".
    The are right. I have seen with my own eyes how crazy they are.

    Since the days of bedlam are in the past and since
    > many many more people have been helped by the Mental Health professions than scientology ever will
    > I think it is just plain jealousy.

    I haven't seen that the days of belam are in the past. Have you been in a mental institution? Is
    that were you are posting from?

    >
    > Using fear and depending on the ignorance of others to further their agenda to erradicate the
    > Mental Health Profession the cchr looks more and more like a bunch of thugs.

    You are very uneducated as far as psychiatry is concerned, Kim. You should start to read legal
    findings about psychiatry as I do.

    > Mental Health professionals use many tools to help people live healthier and happier lives - drugs
    > is but one of them - and since only a MEDICAL doctor can prescribe drugs there are far more people
    > being helped using talk therapy techniques which work.

    I have seen it what they do. Psychiatric instutitions are pig stables and I have seen nobody cured
    in there. People just became worse.

    >
    > If you want to really know how it all works read something besides the words of a drug addled
    > con man.

    Kim, you don't know to whom you are talking. I have first hand experience with psychiatric
    butchers. I also spoke to many people whose relatives were either messed up beyond believe by
    psychs or killed.

    I don't know whom you referring to as drug addled con man. Must be a psych. Are you working for
    psychs or do you just swallow their drugs and make them rich?

    >
    > Kim P

    Read below Kim, and try to become smarter.

    Anti-psychotic drugs make you to zombies. Read the legal text hereto. That explains a lot about
    those newsgroup posters that promote psychiatry and those drugs. That's why they appear like zombies
    to me! Mystery solved!

    Medical studies have revealed a long list of other side effects which may result from antipsychotic
    medications. These include dry

    mouth, constipation, intestinal paralysis (paralytic ileus), blurred vision or blindness, impotence,
    reversed ejaculation into the bladder, priapism (sustained and painful erections that may require
    surgery), infertility, spontaneous lactation, skin disorders ranging from rashes to irreversible
    discolorations, jaundice, liver dysfunction, and cardiovascular irregularities. Cichon, 53 lA. L.
    Rev. at 297-99. Antipsychotic drugs may also cause varying degrees of parkinsonism, a disorder with
    effects similar to Parkinson's disease. The symptoms of parkinsonism include "'a mask-like face,'
    drooling, muscle stiffness and rigidity, shufiling gait [and] tremors in less severe cases, the
    patient may seem apathetic and bored with a 'zombie-like' appearance." Brian Shagan, Washington v.
    Harper: Forced Medication and Substantive Due Process, 25 CONN. L. REv. 265,268 (1992). See also
    Mills, 457 U.S. at 293, n.1.

    Barbara Schwarz (the only real one)

    P.S. Postings with e-mail address [email protected].com and identities "Barbara_Schwarz",
    "the real Barbara Schwarz de Rothschild" and "Truth Speaker 2" are not done by me. Those are
    forgeries of criminal, Aids infected, gay lunatic Garry Lynn Scarff who is a fanatical Dave
    Touretzky defender. Scarff persecutes me from thread to thread often using my name as identity
    for those crimes (!) and

    tries to intimidate me, libels, insults and lies about me. He also lied that he spoke to a roomate
    of mine in the Utah mental health hospital. I never was in that hospital, but he probably escaped
    from one. Scarff is active member of the gay WeHo "church", that according to Scarff applaudes
    Scarffs lawless behavior against me. An ex-WeHo member wrote me that this "church" sanctions and
    promotes dishonorable behavior and that he and his friends were raped and drugged by one of their
    active members, and that one of their active members murdered others under the guise of "drug
    overdose". The ex-WeHo wrote that the

    doesn't see what's wrong with that.

    Frederic Rice, another fierce David Touretzky defender, posted also with the stolen identity de
    Rothschild. He is as little a de Rothschild as a dirty slimy and greasy punch bag is an impressive
    man. He threatened governmental officials over the Internet, wants to celebrate when both President
    Bush's are dead and has tips on his website on how to kill bikers.

    His brother David Rice, posts with "Dr." or "Reverend" Desertphile and also with the stolen identity
    de Rothschild. He suggested to kill members of the FBI. (Go to www.religiousfreedom.watch.org, the
    extremist pages on David Touretzky, page 9, his connections and click on the PDF file.) Dave Rice
    also posted a long time with the identity "Prozac filled gay terrorist psycho", which tells a lot
    about him.

    Barbara Graham Warr, self-proclaimed "caplain" of the A.R.S. newsgroup and snakepit, another David
    Touretzky promoter, is a DUI offender and pleaded guilty to possession and manufacturing of
    prohibited weapon under California penal code. She congratulated the WeHo "congregation" accepting
    Scarff's criminal behaviors against me. However, she posted before that there is no God. She also
    posts with stolen identity de Rothschild. - For more, click on the below links.

    ----------------------------------------------
    Linda Anderson http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/andersenl1.html Gerald Armstrong
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/armstrong1.html Jim Beebe
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/beebej1.html Graham Berry
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/berry.html David Bird
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/birdd1.html Tory Christman
    http://religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/christmant4.html Ursula Caberta
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/caberta.html Ida Camburn
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/camburn1.html Joe Cisar
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/cisarj1.html Robert Clark
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/clark1.html Elizabeth Ann Cox
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/coxea1.html Mark Dallara
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/dallara1.html Alexander Dvorkin
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/dvorkin1.html Valerie Emanuel
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/emanuelv1.html Steven Fishman
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/fishman1.html Vickki Ford Cook
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/fordv1.html Phil Georgi
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/jacobsen6.html Scott Goehring
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/goehrings1.html Roger Gonnet
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/gonnet1.html Barbara Graham
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/graham1.html Gregg Hagglund
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/hagglund1.html Steve Hassan
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/hassan1.html Tilman Hausherr
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/hauser1.html Andreas Heldal-Lund
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/lund1.html Keith Henson
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/henson1.html Deana Holmes
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/holmes1.html Jeff Jacobsen
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/jacobsen1.html Patrick Jost
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/jost1.html Charlotte Kates
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/katesc1.html Rod Keller
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/keller1.html Steven Kent
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/kent1.html Arnie Lerma
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/lerma1.html Joe Lynn
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/lynn1.html Ted Mayett
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/mayett1.html Frank Oliver
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/oliver.html Kady O'Malley
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/omalley1.html Zenon Panoussis
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/panoussis1.html Ted Patrick
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/patrick1.html Michael Pattinson
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/pattinsonm1.html Robert Peterson
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/peterson1.html Bruce/Kathleen Pettycrew
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/pettycrew.html Jesse Prince
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/prince1.html Roland Rashleigh-Berry
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/rashleighb1.html David Rice
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/riced.html Fred Rice
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/ricef.html Rick Ross
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/rossr1.html Karin Spaink
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/spaink1.html David Touretzky
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/touretzky1.html Alan Walter
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/walter1.html Grady Ward
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/ward.html Johan Wevers
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/weversj1.html Hana/Jerry Whitfield
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/false_exp/whitfield1.html Larry Wollersheim
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/wollersheim1.html Sten-Arne Zerpe
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/zerpesa1.html
    --
    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org
    --
     
  15. Sharky

    Sharky Guest

    "Midwinter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Sharky" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > If somebody has a pain in his leg, he may even consider amputation. The point is, if "treatment"
    > > is not improving a condition but just exchanging one effect with another "side"-effect, is this
    > > a rational treatment?
    >
    > In some cases yes, in other cases no. It would depend what the expected 'replacement' condition
    > might be. You of course go to extremes in your example - replacing a pain in the leg with no
    > leg at all.

    And that is the point.

    >
    > But if a person's illness is causing them considerable difficulty or distress, they might well
    > weigh up the possible alternatives and accept that treatment is the best option. If not, then that
    > is their choice.

    I believe in selfdetermined decision, so if somebody wants to harm himself you argue he should be
    allowed to do so.

    But that is besides the point. The point destructive "treatment" is destructive "treatment" even as
    a last resort.

    I do not believe medicine or schools of it should be used to destroy or mutilate people.

    > Where a person is subjected to involuntary treatment or detention - what we Brits refer to as
    > being 'sectioned' - then it is usually because those 'least ignorant' of the subject have assessed
    > them as being a threat either to themselves or others. In such cases, the patient is usually not
    > in a condition to make a rational decision for themselves. But it may surprise you how ill someone
    > has to be before they are considered suitable for sectioning in Britain. I know of some remarkable
    > cases of patients suffering acute diagnosed mental conditions and living alone in the community.
    > Their circumstances make life extremely difficult for them and their neighbours or family, and yet
    > they are not assessed as being ill enough to be sectioned. A section is not a decision taken
    > lightly, but only as a last resort.

    The Point though is, that a "science" with no clue about the human mind tries to solve the problems
    of the human mind. Since they are utterly incompetent on the subject their last resort is drugging
    and mutilating people to the thousands. This could be considered their insanity and they should be
    sectioned to protect the general population.

    >
    >
    > > The problem with psychiatrists is, that they have no clue what causes mental illnesses.
    >
    > But of course not. How can they? The brain is an extremely complicated device, and we can expect
    > that there are many years of research ahead before it is properly understood. Therefore treatments
    > have to be made largely on the balance of probabilities. What appears to work is used until it is
    > improved upon or until problems are identified which require its use to be discontinued.

    ECT shuld have been discontinued a long time ago. So what is wrong with this picture?

    >
    > > As the mainstream of them operates on the materialistic basis, that all mental conditions have
    > > more or less a physiological cause, they resort to drugs, brain surgery and ECT as "treatment".
    >
    > Many treatments are not in fact designed to 'cure' a condition - simply to relieve it. For
    > example, many drugs used in the treatment of depression do not cure the condition itself. They
    > simply suppress its symptoms, allowing a more rational existence, until such time as the patient
    > is able (consciously or otherwise) to resolve whatever is causing the problem. And it may be even
    > then that this 'cure' is not permanent. A depressive is in that sense like an alcoholic - always
    > 'on the wagon', 'one day at a time'.

    You are right to my point. These guys do not have the slightest idea about the human mind and in
    their helplesless and desperation put people on dangerous drugs and destructive "treatmenst".
    These folks should go and learn a trade or do somthing else they can actually do, rather
    destroying people.

    The public knows this and that the "help" of psychiatrists is usually no help at all. That is the
    reason why psychiatrists ussually can not charge the public and depend on public subsidiaries to
    come up with a living.

    >
    > Whilst psychiatry accepts the idea of 'induced' conditions - such as post- traumatic stress
    > disorder, and so on - it does not rule out those disorders which might be attributed to the
    > 'hardware'. Where Dianetics falls down is that it assumes that all problems are software problems
    > and uses one very narrow method of treatment for everything, the only guarantee being that the
    > 'Church' will make money out of the patient.

    That is incorrect. If you have a persistent physical condition you go to a medical doctor to get
    that condition treated. A broken leg needs a cast, but what psychiatrists kind are of doing is break
    a leg to treat a "software problem."

    Nobody would have an incomptetent mechanic with no clue about how the car works do any repairs on
    his car. Watching him randomly hitting the engine with an ax and putting sugar in the tank. But this
    is what you are justifying above and what is happening in the field of "mental health".
    >
    >
    >
    > > Nobody would consider a medical doctor who "treats" Athletes Foot with ambutation a
    > > reasonable man.
    >
    > Indeed not. And how many do? Likewise, you will find few psychiatrists who would act in a
    > comparable manner. What is done is usually done because it is necessary.

    I disagree, it is never neccessary to harm or destroy a person.

    >
    > As an aside, if a doctor diagnosed pains in the legs as some sort of life- threatening condition
    > and ordered the leg amputated, and then later discovered it was in fact some minor complaint which
    > could have been cured in some easier way, is that doctor an unreasonable man? He is wrong,
    > certainly, and there would be a strong case for striking him off - but is he unreasonable, given
    > that he acted in good faith based on his flawed diagnosis?

    This doctor would be called incompetent and should loose his license if he commits such grave
    mistakes. In Psychiatrie such grave "mistakes" are standard procedure and should not be tolerated
    by society.

    >
    > This situation can occur in psychiatry as well. It might be said that it is more prone to occur
    > since the field of work is not so "nuts-and-bolts".
    >
    > Medical treatment cannot always be expected to be pleasant, and it is ALWAYS in the hands of
    > humans. Humans are flawed, and prone to error. It is as simple as that. If you want treatment, you
    > will probably find it assists you - but it might not. If you reject it, then you make the choice
    > to live with your symptoms. If you are found lying on the ground turning blue then the chances are
    > you will receive treatment whilst you are not in a condition to request it or consent to it.
    > Involuntary psychological treatment can be viewed in the same way.
    >

    I disagree, if somdebody assumes a role in any field or profession on expects the person to be
    competent and capable.

    You justify the blunt incompetence of Psychiatrie all the way. That is not reasonable. An engineer
    whose bridges collapse should not be allowed to call himself an engineer. The same as a medical
    profession that destroys and harms human beings should not be allowed to practice in the name of
    "medicine".

    > > Why should we consider people who drug and mutilate people in the name of mental "treatment" as
    > > rational men?
    >
    > Because they have been extensively trained in tried-and-tested techniques,

    Well, Saddams henchmen were also extensively trained in tried-and-tested techniques.

    > and they apply them to the best of their ability with the intention of making life better for
    > sufferers. I would call that fairly reasonable. If you expect perfection then I am afraid you have
    > come to the wrong species.

    I do expect competence, not perfection, don't you from your car repair man?

    >
    >
    > >> Since you have evidently not reached the point of recognising your own mental health condition
    > >> this is likely to be a difficult idea for you to grasp.
    > >
    > > I suggest your investigate your own condition, before you rush to judgement on other people.
    >
    > Very well. You may assist me by diagnosing my condition. I will then seek the appropriate
    > treatment.
    >

    I am not really interested in any conditions you might have, but I did found your comments about
    Barbara inappropriate.
     
  16. Sharky

    Sharky Guest

    "Midwinter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Peter Widmer <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Was Rondroide wie die 'Sharkys' mit solchen ebenso unqualifizierten wie grundfalschen Statements
    > > stets bersehen ist, dass ihre eigene betrgerische Pseudopsychotherapie 'Scientology' (samt
    > > 'Dianetik' und allen scientologischen Tarnorganisationen wie beispielsweise 'Narconon') nicht
    > > die geringste positive Wirkung zeigt, sondern nur sch"dliche Nebenwirkungen mit vernichtenden
    > > Ergebnissen erbringt. Und die Beweise dafr liefern sie gleich selbst :)
    >
    >
    > Ich stimme mit Ihren Bemerkungen überein. Dieser Text ist eine automatisierte Übersetzung, da ich
    > Deutsch nicht spreche. Ich habe Sie nicht gewollt zu denken, daß ich Sie ignorierte!
    >
    > Hat es gearbeitet? Ihre Nachricht hat ziemlich gut übersetzt. :eek:)
    >

    If you were in search for somebody who needs "treatment", looks like you got lucky and found the
    Swiss in direst need of it.:)
     
  17. Dicktop_stud

    Dicktop_stud Guest

    [email protected] ([email protected]) wrote in message news:<[email protected]e.com>...
    > [email protected] (The only true Barbara Schwarz - other postings with my name are
    > forgeries) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > > Antipsychotic drugs may also result in many other debilitating, albeit nonfatal, side effects.
    >
    > Dear Barbara! I am afraid you got things a little bit mixed up ( possibly a reflection of your
    > state of mind)
    >
    > In your case I would recommend a small dose of antipsychotics - preferably haloperidol 1-2 mg
    > every evening before bedtime. In 2 - 4 weeks you probably would be rid of your delusions. At least
    > 2 - 3 years treatment is recommended , and if sucessful ( no delusions, no paranoic symtoms) you
    > could try a slow withdrawel from medication - ,5 mg reduction every third week. If delusional and
    > paranoic symtoms reappear - back on medication. Of course you will need someone to help you with
    > your symtomchecking , because you can not trust your self to be objective in this matter.

    Schwarz is already taking Halidol and another anti-psychotic med for schizophrenia. She's been on
    Halidol for 3 years I'be been told by someone in Utah that knows her well.
     
  18. On 25 Jan 2004 15:50:15 -0800, [email protected] (Dicktop_Stud)
    wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >[email protected] ([email protected]) wrote in message
    >news:<[email protected]>...
    >> [email protected] (The only true Barbara Schwarz - other postings with my name are
    >> forgeries) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >> > Antipsychotic drugs may also result in many other debilitating, albeit nonfatal, side effects.
    >>
    >> Dear Barbara! I am afraid you got things a little bit mixed up ( possibly a reflection of your
    >> state of mind)
    >>
    >> In your case I would recommend a small dose of antipsychotics - preferably haloperidol 1-2 mg
    >> every evening before bedtime. In 2 - 4 weeks you probably would be rid of your delusions. At
    >> least 2 - 3 years treatment is recommended , and if sucessful ( no delusions, no paranoic
    >> symtoms) you could try a slow withdrawel from medication - ,5 mg reduction every third week. If
    >> delusional and paranoic symtoms reappear - back on medication. Of course you will need someone to
    >> help you with your symtomchecking , because you can not trust your self to be objective in this
    >> matter.
    >
    >Schwarz is already taking Halidol and another anti-psychotic med for schizophrenia. She's been on
    >Halidol for 3 years I'be been told by someone in Utah that knows her well.

    You are lying as usual, Garry. And you can't even *type* your lies correctly. It is just another of
    your "I contacted that person" lies.

    Tilman

    --
    Tilman Hausherr [SP5.55] Entheta * Enturbulation * Entertainment [email protected]
    http://home.snafu.de/tilman/scientology_ger.html

    Fotos aus Leipzig: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/leipzig2003/
     
  19. Midwinter

    Midwinter Guest

    [email protected] (The only true Barbara Schwarz - other postings
    with my name are forgeries) wrote:

    >> Brain surgery? ECT? Neither one of these treatments are prevelant in any way. ECT is carefully
    >> controlled and only used in extreme cases when all other treatments have failed.
    >
    > Never heard anything so dumb.

    And still you have not, because you have apparently not bothered to read what was written.

    > I haven't seen that the days of belam are in the past. Have you been in a mental institution? Is
    > that were you are posting from?

    Apply a little logic, Barbara. If s/he were posting from an institution, then s/he would be in the
    perfect position to tell us what they are like. Of course it suits you to question a person's mental
    condition as a way of attacking them, but here you clearly defeat yourself.

    On the flip side, you state you have seen these procedures with your own eyes. Are we then to take
    it that you have yourself been committed to institutional care? If so, would you then have us use
    your own standards to assess you?

    > You are very uneducated as far as psychiatry is concerned, Kim. You should start to read legal
    > findings about psychiatry as I do.

    Would these legal findings be filed anywhere near the numerous legal findings against you which I
    understand exist as a result of your pestering government agencies and FOI departments for
    information about ear implants, secret Nazis and Chattanooga, Utah?

    > I have seen it what they do. Psychiatric instutitions are pig stables and I have seen nobody cured
    > in there. People just became worse.

    Whereas I have seen people admitted, treated, and released in a far better state than when they
    arrived. Anecdotal evidence is, as always, no evidence at all.

    [snip Barbara's ludicrously massive tag]

    --
    Midwinter
     
  20. Midwinter

    Midwinter Guest

    "B.L. Zebub" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In this case, the 'treatment' is replacing unwanted or 'deviant' behaviors with brain damage and
    > other physical problems.

    In which case? I was not aware that a specific case had been cited.

    --
    Midwinter
     
Loading...