Print

[ethercat]

We know that scientology's front group, CCHR (Citizen's Commission on Human Rights) has a strong anti-psychiatry agenda which originated from the founder of scientology, L. Ron Hubbard.  Whether he formed this agenda in response to the mental health community's laughter when he presented Dianetics as a science of mental health, or because he knew that the mental health community would recognize and be able to undo his attempts to make his followers into his slaves, or some other reason, he created a scientological meme that still permeates the organization and its followers, long after his death.

A large part of this agenda is expressed in efforts to get people off psychiatric medications, and to formulate legislation against available medications.  While I don't agree with the sort of black and white thinking that CCHR and scientologists engage in, I also have concerns about the overuse of such medications.  I believe some people are helped by them, and I believe others seize upon them as a "magic bullet" - that is, an answer to problems that could possibly be better solved in other ways without chemicals.  I would strongly object to being lumped into the same category as CCHR and scientology for my reasoned thoughts about these medications.

There is a large contingent of people who would like to see more caution with regard to the practice of psychiatric medication.  Many of these people have been users of the medications which CCHR and scientologists oppose so fervently, and have experienced side effects which they feel have caused them harm, or affected them in some other negative way.  Their opinions are valid, more so than that of scientologists and the followers and allies of CCHR, and yet they are sometimes dismissed as being sycophants of CCHR because CCHR has noisily and aggressively taken over the field of opposition to psychiatric medications.

Scouting out the web surrounding the legitimate opposition to psychiatric medication, I found disclaimers everywhere I turned, proclaiming that the sites I found were not affiliated with scientology.  Here are some examples (some of which are in the comments sections of related articles):

http://www.furiousseasons.com/movabletype/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=2765

Kevin,
I will not watch anything done by CCHR because I don't like Scientology and I don't think this is the place to make any propaganda of Scientology because it it put in disbelief the work of all of those who are trying hard to raise awareness.
I believe that "No Science, No Cure" you talked about at the other post is also made by CCHR.
Not here, please, not here.
I don't want to hear:
"You are a scientologist." as an accusation that put my words in discredit.

Posted by Ana at January 28, 2010 01:42 PM

http://www.antipsychiatry.org/

No Scientologists, please: Volunteers will be asked for assurance they are not affiliated with the "Church" of Scientology or its Citizen's Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), which have publicized the harm done by psychiatry but which we want no affiliation with.

http://www.furiousseasons.com/archives/2009/07/scientology_mounts_new_pr_campaign.html

L. Ron Hubbard documents unsealed in UK.
The Times Online exposes L. Ron's fake degree, the organization's coercion of doctor and worse.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6740831.ece
Posted by: Not Xenu at August 5, 2009 08:42 PM

I think you meant to drop that link over at Operation:Clambake Not Xenu. The folks here already know all about how insane scientology is. We just don't make as big a deal out of it as you young guys with your Guy Fawkes masks who are just now learning all this stuff.
Posted by: Jane at August 6, 2009 05:00 AM

http://www.furiousseasons.com/archives/2009/04/blogger_refuses_to_participate_in_seroquel_documentary.html

I've been approached a few different times by doc makers to appear on camera discussing this and that about mental health and each time I politely refuse. I suspect that many of the docs poking into the dark side of Pharma and psychiatry are funded by the Church of Scientology somehow (and some recent ones sure have been) and that the more positive, "let's educate the public about mental illness" ones are somehow connected to pharma money (like the one Spikol smartly shot down). Like Spikol, I just don't trust how whatever interview I might do would be used. Documentary makers are a slippery breed, in my experience. Not to be trusted.

http://www.narpa.org/

NARPA is not affiliated in any way with the Church of Scientology or the Citizens' Commission on Human Rights.

http://www.ssristories.com/

DISCLAIMER:  This site is in no way associated with either the Church of Scientology or the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR).

http://www.mindfreedom.org/mfi-faq/MFI-atkin.pdf/view

Attorney letter about MFI independence
by David W. Oaks — last modified 2007-05-13 07:41

MindFreedom attorney David Atkin has provided a letter to clarify and emphasize that MindFreedom has no connection to CCHR or Church of Scientology. This clarification is not to criticize any organization, but to just state the facts.
Click here to get the file

http://psychrights.org/pr/CCHRStatement.htm

PsychRights® Law Project for Psychiatric Rights

Statement Regarding Non-Affiliation with
Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR)
December 26, 2006

In the last few weeks the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) has made overtures to PsychRights and even sent out at least one public relations e-mail suggesting PsychRights is working with CCHR.  This is not true.  While CCHR's efforts in some ways parallels that of PsychRights, there is absolutely no affiliation.  Frankly, PsychRights does not need to carry the Scientology baggage that goes along with CCHR and it therefore has determined not to work with or affiliate with it in any way.  We do try to be polite, but this is PsychRights' firm policy.

Well, now.

Many of these individuals and groups are not against the existence and/or use of psychiatric medication; they are against forced medication of individuals, and believe that people have the right to determine for themselves whether or not to take medication.  How sad it is that these people must validate their opinions by issuing disclaimers against CCHR and scientology.  How sad it is that their voices may not be heard above the din of CCHR.  I think it is important to maintain objectivity with our thinking, and not reject opinions and ideas purely because they align with something the "Church" of Scientology or the "Citizen's" Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) espouses.  In other words, don't thow the baby out with the bathwater.

Considering how scientology tries to involve themselves in any issue de jour for publicity or credibility (or money), this is a question many charitable, activist, or special interest groups may need to answer now or in the future.  How would you handle the "Church" of Scientology stepping into your turf?

[Ultrapoet]

The folks here already know all about how insane scientology is. We just don't make as big a deal out of it as you young guys with your Guy Fawkes masks who are just now learning all this stuff.

You kids with your crazy Guy Fawkes masks and your memes!  Get offa mah lawn!   

[ethercat]

One has to wonder about the validity of letting someone with severe mental problems decide whether or not he/she should be forced to take medication.  When one might hurt themselves or someone else, what options are open for them?  Medication?  Or institutionalization?  I think we could all agree that a person who isn't thinking rationally shouldn't be allowed to hurt others, but should someone be free to decide if they want to hurt themselves?  What is one to do when someone is acting irrationally and others fear for that person's safety and well-being?

Scientology doesn't offer any satisfactory answers to this question.  They do offer their own form of institutionalization, rather more a form of imprisonment with a scientological twist - "The Introspection Rundown," also known as the "Baby Watch." This is how Lisa McPherson's mental problems were handled, and she ended up dead.

The Introspection Rundown consists mainly of putting the person in isolation, where no one is to speak to them, unless it is to "audit" them, and attempt to have them find the problem that is "restimulating" them; and giving the person vitamin and mineral mixtures.   

It is interesting, some would say hypocritical, that while CCHR and scientologists regard it as wrong for the state and for psychiatrists to lock someone up or force medication on them when they undergo a psychosis, they do not consider it wrong for them to do it themselves in the form of isolation of the individual and forcing vitamins into them. 

L. Ron Hubbard had this to say about the Introspection Rundown:

"THIS MEANS THE LAST REASON TO HAVE PSYCHIATRY AROUND IS GONE", because "I have made a technical breakthrough which possibly ranks with the major discoveries of the Twentieth Century." "Its results are nothing short of miraculous."

There is more about the Introspection Rundown here:
Understanding the Introspection Rundown Theory and Practice

[ethercat]

In much the same way that CCHR tries to "partner" with other organizations who they think can further their goals or lend them credibility, scientologists have a habit of entering internet communities under the guise of similar interests, when ofttimes the goal is to promote scientology and its front groups, i.e., CCHR, Narconon, etc.  After all, isn't one of the primary goals for a scientologist to "Keep Scientology Working"?

Usually, someone in a community will spot some sign of a scientologist promoting their agenda - use of language, promotion of media, tought patterns, or something else - and call them on it.  I was looking around at other forums that run on the same software we do here at TP, and came across this thread on one:

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=8129.0

That is true, but what is also true for some people is that the brain has a neuronal memory called an engram that imprints every fear and strong emotion we feel. Severe benzo anxiety can teach the brain to recall this and it can take some people additional work to recover from this portion of benzo damage.

People replied:

Sit...I don't understand why you post so much info and not offer some helpful advice as far as preventing what you seem to be referring to as PTSD from benzo withdrawal?  If you are going to bring up issues like this, since you seem so knowledgable, why can't you offer some helpful suggestions that might help our members go through this process a little less unscathed so to speak.  It would be really great if you could or would do something like this.

That is true, but what is also true for some people is that the brain has a neuronal memory called an engram that imprints every fear and strong emotion we feel.

This is a Scientology term and belief.  Not scientifically proven. 

Interesting Elaine. I did not know that. We have to be so careful not to just believe what someone says and to verify. Guess I missed the boat on this one because it sounds so reasonable.

Busted?

[Lorelei]

Busted!

Though I must point out that Scientology stole the concept of engrams. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engram_(neuropsychology)

[ethercat]

Thank you, Lorelei!

Here's another site's take on CCHR and scientology.

http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/233

Sadly, Scientology has latched onto a very real problem (Big Pharma's stranglehold on psychiatry) and now uses it to recruit followers to their beliefs:

When a seeker looks closely at the data, at the real, empirical evidence that the Scientologists are able to present (most of which you can find here), yo may be impressed and start to wonder if Scientology may be valid. Unfortunately, when misinformation and deceptions pervade our culture, the truth becomes harder to discern and the unscrupulous can use confusion to their advantage.

[Lorelei]

I think the problem (besides the fact that the cult is using the issue to stir up interest in Scientology and to imply that they are a legitimate group) is that:

1. Psychiatry and psychology compete directly with Scientology. Thus it is similar to Wendy's telling you that Burger King is bad, or v. versa. They have a not-so-hidden bias.

2. To Scientologists, ALL "psychs" are bad. Logic dictates that this is not the case, but they do not temper their message in any way to allow for any exceptions to their accusations.

3. Their lack of research is distressing, and their claims can not be proven. I.e., "psychs causes 9/11" or "psychs are responsible for the Holocaust" or even "all psychs still use old, discredited methods to help patients."

4. Scientology has proven that it has no grasp of medical or scientific facts, as demonstrated by the quackery of the Purif and the voltometer-as-lie-detector, and some of their suggested alternatives for "psych meds" such as CalMag, Pather Piss, overdoses of niacin.

5. Scientologists have often been urged to do with needed medical and psychological medications and have gotten seriously ill or have died or have had psychotic breaks and hurt others, so their track record dealing with mentally ill people (as well as physically ill people) is horrendous.

I could think of a dozen more, but you get the idea. You have to ask yourself, what, IF Scientology was able to have their way, would they propose in exchange for the psychiatric field. Why, they would suggest becoming a Scientologist, of course. And we know, thanks to hundreds of ex-Scientologists, that what they have to offer is indoctrination into a cult, cognitive dissonance, bad medicine, disconnection from all non-cultists in your life, impoverishment as you give over every penny you won to the cult, and a disturbing percentage of Scienos committing suicide or homicide and / or having psychotic breaks.

[ethercat]

I think the problem (besides the fact that the cult is using the issue to stir up interest in Scientology and to imply that they are a legitimate group) is that:

1. Psychiatry and psychology compete directly with Scientology. Thus it is similar to Wendy's telling you that Burger King is bad, or v. versa. They have a not-so-hidden bias.

I think I would put that in reverse order: Scientology would like to compete with psychology and psychiatry, but psychologists and psychiatrists don't regard scientology as a worthy enough opponent to play, or hardly even take note of.     But yes, the bias is obvious.

2. To Scientologists, ALL "psychs" are bad. Logic dictates that this is not the case, but they do not temper their message in any way to allow for any exceptions to their accusations.

When a group instructs their followers in how to think, as scientology does (or tries to do), it is impossible to consider individual instances and allow for a non-blanket way of thinking.  It would make the instructions too complicated.  It doesn't allow for new or different information.  This is similar to the "for us or against us" thinking that was prevalent in the post 9/11 days; or strict party lines in politics, where there is no provision for agreement with some and disagreement with others.  I guess it's just human nature to want to see things as cut and dried, but in the real world, with shades of gray, it just doesn't work.  The adage "knows just enough to be dangerous" comes to mind.

3. Their lack of research is distressing, and their claims can not be proven. I.e., "psychs causes 9/11" or "psychs are responsible for the Holocaust" or even "all psychs still use old, discredited methods to help patients."

I found the "psychs caused 9/11" idea to be particularly amusing, considering that the "psych" responsible was an eye surgeon.    

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/17/scientologists-blame-psyc_n_167611.html

("Interestingly, the video is no longer available on YouTube, removed "due to a copyright claim by Axiom 10 Productions, Inc.," or on Vimeo, "Sorry, "Scientologists Try to Explain how Psychiatrists caused 9/11 and the Holocaust" was deleted at 10:50:07 Tue Jun 2, 2009. We have no more information about it on our mainframe or elsewhere.")

This video, with David Miscavige, the leader of scientology, speaking against "the psychs" in violent terms at a scientology New Years Celebration in 2006/2007, is still there, however, and indicates the scientology mindset regarding the field of mental health: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI1QHnQdi1c

[Lorelei]

Re: "compete" -- I should have been more clear (no pun intended). Scientology sees psychiatry / psychology as competition, not the other way around. A dollar that goes to legitimate therapy or necessary medication is a dollar that does not go to the cult...and they sure do like those dollars.

Re: black and white thinking -- VERY prevalent in Scientology. They don't say they have the answerS, they say they have the answer, singular (which they don't). No "one size fits all" solution can ever possibly work for everyone (and we're pretty convinced it doesn't work for anyone).

Re: "psychs caused 9/11" -- As we all know, the fact that one of the terrorists was an eye surgeon is enough to try to ram the square peg of proven facts into the round hole of Scientology's party line to the True Believers. He was a doctor, so clearly, to a cultist with an agenda, he must be one of those "bad" doctors. *eyeroll*

[SocialTransparency]

Can anyone direct me to a link on what CCHR actually offers in the way of services? Or what CCHR advises as an alternative to mainstream mental health care?

I have only attended one of they're traveling exhibits. Very heavy on the shock value. Then, on the how do I get help side, Not so much or nothing at all direction wise.

What I came away from the exhibit with was rather limited, informationally.

[Lorelei]

I don't think they "offer" anything, but that they pretend to be an activism group uncovering the evils of psychiatry ("Industry of Death") and the evils of Big Pharma.

As far as an alternative, I doubt they come right out and say "we are Scientology" on any printed material in a readable font (if at all), but if you were to ask for more info, dollars to doughnuts you'd get a TWTH booklet or instructions to check in at your local Org.

[mefree]

Cross posting from WWP:

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/291-scientology-discussion/scientology-v-psychiatry-dr-stephen-wiseman-video-65434/2/#post1225505

sKepptiksowat — April 16, 2010 — Dr. Stephen Wiseman is a Clinical Associate Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of British Columbia, and Consultant Psychiatrist at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver, BC. For a number of years he has been researching Scientology, its inventor L. Ron Hubbard, and the organization's anti-psychiatry arm, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights This is his first public talk about Scientology's war on Psychiatry, given at Vancouver's annual "Skepticamp" at UBC on March 20, 2010, and is of monumental significance in this long conflict......