On Sunday 17 June 2001 00:28, you wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 12:14:30AM -0400, Smitty wrote:
> > No, we do not need any treatment. Why do we have to be perfect?
>
> The obvious answer to that question is, "It doesn't hurt to improve
> your body constantly through gentle, positive means." The same is true for
> your mind.
You just framed the question! You originally stated that we had to be
"perfect" and psychiatry has never, ever produced a "perfect" individual,
unless you define perfect as being in a stupor, sedated, or dead.
Now you add that it does not hurt to improve your body or mind through
gentle, positive means, when that was not even a point of disagreement.
There are many ways to do that: Study, clean living in a free and responsible
community.
>
> > > Now, I'm not suggesting you get pumped full of thorazine and
> > > strapped to a table for the rest of your life, I'm suggesting you
> > > seek out homoepathic solutions, pro-actively, for future problems
> > > so you can avoid them.
> >
> > Interesting you mention homoeopathy. (And you spelled it correctly) I
> > have had constitutional homoeopathy and thought it did a great deal of
> > good. I would recommend it. But, it is completely different from
> > "mainstream" medicine. I have read Hahnemann's Organon, 6th ed. and
> > consider it one of the classic books of healing. I would like to see
> > more docs use it, and modern developments on that field, but medical
> > schools don't bother with it.
>
> I meant to type "homeopathic" but my fingers disagreed with me. I've
> seen "homoeopathic" as well, I believe both are accepted.
>
> Medical schools don't bother with it for two reasons, that I'm aware
> of. First, there's no entity driving research with large amounts of money.
> The second reason is a byproduct of the first, that being, there's no hard
> research that says, "Homoeopathic treatment works this way because of
> $foo."
Actually in the last decade there has been a number of double blind studies
done on homeopathic remedies that proved beyond a doubt there was no
"placebo effect", which is in truth, a euphemism for a confidence trick
employed by an unscrupulous doctor.
>
> Now, in my opinion, the best way to circumvent that disadvantage is to
> use word-of-mouth advertisement to make it extremely popular, for long
> periods of time. Things exhibiting that type of following have a habit of
> making it into the training, if for no other reason that, "Students, you
> need to know how to deal with this type of treatment, it behaves
> differently than us carpenters."
>
> You mentioned homoeopathy differing from "mainstream" medicine. You're
> right, it does, but in my defense, I don't recall recommending mainstream
> medicine for the treatments everyone needs. :)
>
> > Smitty
If the field of psychiatry truly wanted to clean itself up, then why have they
not used their lobbyists and pr people to push:
1. Outlawing electric shock treatment in all states and outlawing the
manufacture, sale, and possession of devices made for that purpose?
2. actively promoting and using environmental medicine, nutritional
medicine, chronic disease screening, and homeopathy?
3. Outlawing brain operations done for the sole purpose of "altering
behavior"?
4. Repealing "civil commitment" laws as they are nothing but legalized
police state seizure and incarceration?
I will give you my answer: It is because the vast majority really support
such practices, even though they SAY they oppose them for public relations
reasons. It is one thing to insipidly voice opposition, and entirely another
thing to effectively DO something about a situation. They have no excuse
for not cleaning up their field.
Smitty
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:13:35 EDT