Talk:Psychiatry: An Industry of Death

message: Wtf? *dumbfounded* Hempeater 23:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Business as usual for Scientology. Dave420 11:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am no Scientologist, so I don't want to take part in that discussion. However, regarding Hitler, the Holocaust, there is proof that Psychiatry has planned on the holocoast way before Hitler wrote his book Mein Kampf.
Reference Peter R. Breggin
The first book that advocated the systematic, scientific extermination of a class of people for racial, "hygienic" purposes was published before Hitler put pen to paper and wrote Mein Kampf. It was The Destruction of Life Devoid of Value, co-authored by psychiatrist Alfred Hoche and lawyer Karl Binding in 1920. Hoche was one of Germany's most prestigious professors of psychiatry, and his book supported the view that many psychiatric patients were "mentally dead" and only "partial" Germans in their existence. He called for medical murder to relieve their suffering, to purify the race, and to save the state money. Not only did Hitler read Hoche, but also, after he took power, he lent his name to advertisements for Hoche's books.
 Meespierson 19:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an organization called "Psychiatry" that plans things? AndroidCat 20:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is indeed, that the institutional psychiatry is not lead by one man or a group of defineable people. Multiple seperate individuals steer the way the "science" is going. There is an ongoing discussion about almost anything within psychiatry. It's even being argued within psychiatry if it really is a science or if it should be called difrently like "social control system" (ref: Thomas S. Szasz). It is even a "point of constructive discussion" if mental illnesses really exist or not. (ref: Steven S. Sharfstein, M.D.) How can you call that a true science? Anyway, in the case of the holocaust. If there are several well respected professors of a "science" calling out for murder of the weak because it will improve your living. And people like Hitler and likly minded people like there are still many today (KKK etc.) will support their scientific vision of improving the living of all "good" people and then take power by those causes. You might be required to believe them, as we believe today that they are "helping" people when they force electrocutation or drugs on them. Meespierson 22:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth are you talking about? True enough I will concede the point that like ANY branch of scientific or naturalistic inquiry let alone field of medicine, psychiatry (and its non-medical cousin psychology) has a slightly checkered past, largely due to certain individuals towing a line that is distinctly ideological... however, similar history exists in physics (people persecuted for rejecting or questioning antiquated views of the universe such as heliocentrism), biology (particularly in regards to evolution, which, FYI, was a bigger source of distorted propaganda than psychiatry ever was, by Soviets, Nazis, etc.), and other fields. This isn't actually something inherently wrong with the field itself, rather, it is a problem of the personal biases and ideologies of individuals who frequently refuse to admit they might be wrong, which often becomes destructive. This does not mean science is evil, however; it just means that like anything else done by humans, it is subject to human error and misuse - because humans, let's face it, are generally selfish, irrational creatures, and this most certainly does not exclude people who have curiosity or a fervently stated desire for "rationalism" or "logic". :) Indeed, just as often as we see abuses of psychiatry and whatnot nowadays, we see things like global warming denial leading to equally unexpected negative results (what comes to my mind in particular? IIRC, reported asthma attacks in USA went up by the thousands per year after air pollution restrictions were loosened a few years back). Science + society = complex interplay, which does NOT always work out to our overall favor. ;) Re: the "forcing electrocutation or drugs" point, though, which I find particularly baffling: 1.) if you mean electrocution, I believe I will quote Inigo Montoya on this one and say " I do not think that word means what you think it means", since it is, ahem, quite distinct from Electroconvulsive therapy, which btw, is only rarely used nowadays in modern societies, and 2.) relatively few people have drugs actually "forced" on them in modern times either - I'm perfectly free to stop using my ADD meds anytime I want; it is only those who pose "danger to self or others" who tend to have meds "forced" on them, and even then, in the US there is actually an active problem with people who are manic depressive or severely schizophrenic going off their meds because they CAN go off them... and then getting suicidal or homocidal not long after.  This is not to say I don't think some medications are probably over-prescribed, but very few adults in the US at least, are ever "forced" to take any kind of medication, even if it is physically life-saving, precisely because that is one of the inferred rights of the Constitution (freedom of personal religion, for one). I would like to know exactly where you're getting this idea of (what it sounds like you think are) loads and loads of people being "electrocuted" and forcibly drugged up in the name of modern psychiatry, actually. I think you're either not looking at the same countries as I am, or you may have gotten... let's just say a slightly skewed impression. (Sidebar: Oh please, sure, blame "Psychiatry" for the holocaust. Ha! Not like every science known to man, ranging from physics to biology, has been used to prove either human or ethnic "superiority" at some point or anything :P My friends, that is something that goes back pretty much back into prehistory, give or take, and is NOT exclusive to psychiatry or psychology by any means) 70.118.80.144 (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler?

message: This article should be renamed to Psychiatry: An Industry of Death (best choice) or Psychiatry: An Industry of Death (museum) (if there's something else, like a book, with the same name).  Wikipedia:Naming conventions suggests quotation marks should not go in article titles.  --Rob 01:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t agree with title Psychiatry: An Industry of Death (museum). The DVD has the same name, as well as other church publications.  Furthermore, the church has smaller Expos throughout the world with the same name; not exactly museums since they are exhibited temporarily. —Cesar Tort 00:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It sounds like you are suggesting we expand the article into basically regurgitating the content of the DVD in great detail, and that doesn't really sound necessary to me. wikipediatrix 15:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the organization, Citizens Commission on Human Rights, already has its own article. AndroidCat 16:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name should be changed 

message: Someone who know how to should change the layout of the page so the picture of the museum doens't obscure the bulleted claims.  Sixtus LXVI 08:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out (it only seems to affect Internet Explorer, which I don't generally use). I've added some more text to push the bullets down below the image. -- ChrisO 08:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: brings up several more allegations of the exhibition. It is also great for sourcing. I don't have the time today, but maybe I'll do it another day. --Tilman 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rocky Mountain News 

message: As an encyclopedia, wikipedia has a duty to the facts. Therefore, I argue that to prevent a simple and dangerous he-said-she-said effect, (this page making one set of claims never specifically stated to be false or dubious while other pages make contrary claims never specifically stated to be false or dubious) that weakens the perception of objective truth, that someone do serious research on these claims and, in the criticism section, specifically explain the evidence put forth for each.--68.173.19.198 03:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. But perhaps it could be OR for the moment. The experience I have had with secular antipsychiatrists is that they don’t bother to respond to CCHR. And the same can be said of psychiatrists. However, sooner or later someone will surely write a paper, or even better a book, on the subject. —Cesar Tort 16:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: I don't have the time add it myself now, but somebody might read this article  and then add stuff:
[quoted below]
--Tilman 18:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know, I should learn the correct citation format... --Tilman 19:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the liberty to remove the unformatted (and previously duplicated) text for readibility purposes. Hope you don't mind :) —Cesar Tort 20:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  movie called "smarmy and dishonest" by participating scientists 

message: Some comments, including an entry in the article itself included the reference to Scientology. There are other religions which incorporate the practice of opposition to the use of drugs, including Church of Religios Science, Church Of Christian Scientists, Church Of Christ Scientists,   Christian Science, Science of Mind
Asynaps 15:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other religions opposed to drugs 

message: Here's a national newspaper story from Canada on its first Canadian tour -- if you're interested. .... 209.139.228.161 16:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian tour

message: I've removed the list of speficic claims that the museum displays maike - not because the claims are invalid or unverified (that's a whole other topic), but because the references are for the claims themselves, which is entirely beside the point. This article doesn't need the museums claims to be validated in any way - it just needs some independant verification that the museum has displays on these subjects at -all-. This article is about the museum itself, and the only thing that needs verification regarding the displays is if they really are there or not. - Pacula 18:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of displays needs verification - not of the claims ''themselves'', but that the museum is ''making'' them 

message: As I did in the Talk:Citizens Commission on Human Rights page, I'm introducing myself here.  My name is Kevin Hawkins, and I work at CCHR Int here in Hollywood, CA.  I'm the geek, and I've been assigned to this project.
Due to WP:COI, I will not be making any changes to the page--except this Talk page, of course.
Anyone have any questions for me? --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I only want to thank you for being so candid. Kevin. As you can see in WP:RFAR, in the past there have been quite a few arbitration cases in Wikipedia because of pov pushers from the CoS. I am glad to see that you are so different. Since I have read a lot of Tom Szasz et al, I have been a regular contributor to antipsychiatry related articles, including Scientology articles. Anyway - Welcome to Wikipedia! —Cesar Tort 08:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Welcome to Wikipedia, Kevin. Thanks for being conscientious about the conflict of interest provisions. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to second that.  193.1.52.12 (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As somebody who has taken psychoactive drugs, prescribed by a qualified doctor, and experienced tangible positive benefits from them, I must also agree. Kalmbach (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The article calls Thomas Szasz, head of the CCHR, an anti-psychiatry organisation, a 'psychiatrist'. Surely this should be changed to something more appropriate?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.121.161 (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Szasz in the introduction 

message: As a psychologist who does not condemn all therapists or everyone in the traditional mental health system but who does raise serious questions based on my research and my direct experiences in it, I have written and spoken a lot about problems within it. Many years ago, when I was doing a lot of public education about this subject, I was asked to do yet another filmed interview and agreed. This was before I knew how to do internet searches. I specifically asked the person who asked for the interview if they were connected in any way to Scientology or its CCHR, and he explicitly said they were not. I unfortunately did not tape that conversation. When they came to my home and gave me the waiver to sign, I wrote in that they we23:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I was deceived by the makers of this film, which is how I ended up in it, and I have asked to be removed from it 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Psychiatry: An Industry of Death. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070509140215/http://cchr.org/index.cfm/13216 to http://www.cchr.org/index.cfm/13216
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified