On 2005-06-18 09:52:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-06-14 23:27:00, Paul wrote:
"Please post if Deborah's posts have either
helped or hurt anyone?"
I find her posts to be very informative and helpful. Why do you feel the need for this public judgement, or rather, what purpose is this thread to serve, if any? ::crybaby:: "
You may not have had the opportunity to follow this thread from the beginning. It started when Deborah kept slamming psychiatry, and not offering an alternative.
The correct method of suggesting medical protocols is to "offer" other modalities, not just criticize existing treatment protocols.
Her statements are outrageous. I have had ECT and psychotropic medication, if an uneducated reader seeking mental health treatment read Deborah's posts and Ginger's endorsement they would believe that all ECT treatments and medications cause permanent brain damage.
Well, the 500,000 treatments of ECT per year in this country and the 25 million on psychotropic medications do not have the prevalent brain damage that they so boldly rant about.
So, what is the problem with just letting them go on and on with their believe system. In the case of influencing someone medical treatment whether it be cancer, or mental health the reader should be able to receive un-biased information and make
their own decisions - voluntarily.
When I post the leading organizations for alternative treatments, as a courtesy, to anyone who is seeking that information, Deborah criticized that. There was no winning with her.
For instance Safe Harbor is the largest non-pharma organization. I tried to help them with California's MHSA funding. Deborah criticized that. What is up with her 360-degree angst should really be the question.
Then Deborah contacted Safe Harbor to utilize some information against me, I guess. What really happened is that I was able to provide Wendy, and Dan at Safe Harbor other MHSA sites that have been helpful.
I have enjoyed communicating with them. I am sure Deborah will be critical, and make her slanderous statements toward me, but hey, what I do is what I do. Voluntarily, of course, just as Safe Harbor is voluntarily communicating with me.
There is now a protocol that Safe Harbor can bring to the MHSA process as a result. This is a fantastic development. What I fear is that Wendy and Dan's Scientology not being listed prominently on the Safe Harbor website will backfire as all their front groups do. People get upset when they find out this information, whether it is deception or not. People will just toss out the Scientology based ideas, whether they come from Safe Harbor or other front groups.
Scientology will never change, they will just go on criticizing psychiatry just like Deborah and Ginger regardless of how happy someone is with their treatments, of whatever type they are getting. Thus they just mis-inform the readers or lose their credibility.
Now, again, why did I start this thread?
The last straw was when I realized how many different threads that Timoclea made his opinions known to Deborah and she just slammed his choices.
So enough was enough, and I created this thread.
Please understand, if someone does not want to go to a psychiatrist, fine. If someone does not want to take psychiatric medications, fine.
That is all no controversy, no slamming any organizations or people's current choices.
Choice, that is what it is all about.
Information is the key, the less bias the better. If one is biased, that is ok, if disclosed. If not disclosed then their creditability is in question.
Finally, if you think her posts are helpful, then wonderful.
Say, "yes, I find Deborah very helpful"
That is it, thank you very much.
Now, why is it that you felt the need to question my motivation?
