Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    34,270
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    More criticism of Tom Cruise

    Author blasts Cruise's beliefs
    14 December 2005
    By Alexa Baracaia, Evening Standard

    Best-selling crime writer Patricia Cornwell has attacked Hollywood star Tom Cruise, claiming his Scientology beliefs are "dangerous" and could endanger the lives of impressionable young fans.

    The author said she was horrified by Cruise's dismissal of psychiatry and his claim that mental disorders are imaginary and the medication to treat them is an attempt to suppress people.

    Writing on her website, Cornwell, who has studied psychiatry while researching her books, said: "There are misconceptions about psychology, especially when people out there like Tom Cruise say there's no evidence of chemical imbalance and psychiatric disorders. There's going to be some girl or boy who worships this megastar, who decides, 'I'm not going to take my anti-depressants because Tom Cruise said I don't need drugs'."

    One of the key principles of the wealthy cult is the condemnation of psychiatry.

    The Scientology website explains it is the duty of all members to "expose and help abolish any and all physically damaging practices in the field of mental health".

    Cruise has repeatedly added to the criticism. He has also railed against the use of drugs to control chemical imbalances in children.

    This year he criticised Brooke Shields for her use of anti-depressants to treat post-natal depression.

    Shields replied that Cruise "should stick to saving the world from aliens and let women [with] the condition decide what treatment options are best for them".

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,207
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    More criticism of Tom Cruise

    I read this and I feel I want to add something that would effectively show my disapointement in Cruise and others that either dismiss psychology and psychiatry, or those that make both appear to be some kind of a hoax. But all I can come up with is a loud GRRRRRRR.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    34,270
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    More criticism of Tom Cruise

    That and now when I see him in a movie I want to smack the little moron...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    More criticism of Tom Cruise

    Cruise may be wrong about anti-depressants, but I can't say he is wrong with his criticism of psychiatry in general. For decades psychiatry was a scam as it was dominated by the Freudian psychoanalytic schools. Psychoanalysis has been shown to be one of the largest scientific scams of all time. It is only in the recent decades psychiatry has underwent a paradigm shift towards a more biological approach. Psychiatry and psychology by their very essence are not hard sciences. There is a lot to learn yet. They are mere infants compared to the hard sciences like physics and chemistry.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    34,270
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    More criticism of Tom Cruise

    Cruise may be wrong about anti-depressants, but I can't say he is wrong with his criticism of psychiatry in general.
    Well I can. Cruise doesn't KNOW anything about psychiatry apart from what he's read in the Scientology pamphlets - he makes that clear every time he opens his mouth.

    You do realize that Scientology is (1) psuedo-science, (2) pseudo-religion, and (3) the result of a joke and a dare accepted by L. Ron Hubbard who bragged that he could create his own religion and find enough stupid people to believe in it to make it viable?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    327
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    More criticism of Tom Cruise

    I agree w/ Dr. Baxter...everytime I see Tom Cruise I realize that you don't need to have brains to be famous....given there are many intelligent performers but Cruise isn't one of them... Him talking about psychiatry in the manner that he does would be like myself talking about rocket science... I would have no idea what I was really talking about and I would just end up looking like an idiot...Cruise needs to get off his, "I'm an expert on everything" pedastal and begin listening to the hard evidence, and their is hard evidence in the fields of psychiatry and psychology...if you don't believe that just talk to some of the people who are active on this site...I know that many of us here have been saved b/c we had someone to talk to or took a medicine that helped us to have a more functional life...Plus Cruise thinks that meditation and healing from depression can come from w/in...man, I wish it was that easy... God forbid that Katie Homes suffer from any kind of postpardom depression...
    How can you have a beautiful ending without making beautiful mistakes.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    More criticism of Tom Cruise

    I am in no way defending Scientology. In fact, I have a relative (by marriage) who is a member of the church and has met Tom Cruise and John Travolta and others. I can provide you with a hundred anecdotes about how scary and dangerous Scientology is-- the way they stalk members who try to get out and the way they demand you to work for them and then force you to pay them once you are done with your work. Most of them are misguided individuals seeking to fill a spiritual void in their lives, but the organizational structure and its goals are quite unsettling.

    My point wasn't to defend Scientology, but to simply point out that Cruise has a point only in the sense that psychology and psychiatry are still fledgling sciences (I am not saying he said this, but this is my opinion on the state of the two sciences). It is no fault of the scientists, of course, since they are studying by far the most complex organism on Earth. However, any psychologist who says his analysis of any individual is as certain as Newton's laws of motion is kidding himself and his patients. We just do not know that much about the brain yet. I would bet that the average patient who takes SSRI's does not know that psychiatrists and phramacologists DO NOT KNOW how those drugs work (their own words). They only know that it "has something to do" with serotonin, dopamine, and other neurotransmitters. They have only a vague idea of the processes involved with how SSRI's effect the physiology of the brain. All they know is that in most studies of depressed patients, they seem to get better after having taken SSRI's. I am still skeptical whether they have properly taken into account the placebo effect, since I have seen studies where most depressed patients, after taking a sugar pill, get better on their own eventually, but often relapse. I don't know about you, but I am not apt to take a pill where the doctors prescribing it are not even sure of exactly how it works or why.

    No doubt this science will improve and we will make great advances. However, as of now, psychology and psychiatry are two of the softer sciences. Psychoanalysis should be outlawed from all public universities. I am shocked that there are still advanced degrees given in such a widely discredited field.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    327
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    More criticism of Tom Cruise

    Biology is an extremely crediable science yet is is based on theories not laws...the cell theory, DNA, Osmosis, ect are all theories in biology... Also psychiatrists are medical doctors who attended the same medical schools as other doctors...when it comes to antidepressants, doctors and chemist understand why they work w/ people...in medical school students take many many courses on not only biology and medical procedures, but on chemistry, specifically organic chemistry and they learn how the chemistry of medications effects the chemistry of the brain...when i start college in a few months my major is going to be biochemistry b/c I wan't to go to med school and become a psychiatrists, and I can confidently say that I would never perscribe something that I didn't understand...or if the only research out there is that scientists saw that some people "Feel better" when taking them...scienctists do understand how the brain chemistry is effected...I truely believe that psychiatry is a hard science it is just a newer science...biology, chemistry, physics, have all been around for hundreds of years...psychology/psychiatry has really only been around for a little over a hundred years if even that...Here are some links that explain some of this stuff...

    http://www.medinfo.co.uk/drugs/ssris.html

    http://www.biopsychiatry.com/ssris.htm
    How can you have a beautiful ending without making beautiful mistakes.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,207
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    More criticism of Tom Cruise

    Well let's see...

    We don't know everything about auditory system, but there are no qualms about going to an ear specialist

    We don't know everything about cancers, but there are no qualms about going to see oncologists either (and accept experimental treatments)

    We don't know everything about Alzeimers (though I'd wager that psychiatry and psychology would give you most insight) but we go to some medical professional for treatment

    We don't know everything about AIDS but I haven't heard of any qualms about seeking and following treatment programs that exist (many of which are experimental)

    I can go on. But the point of this is that no science is finite. There is always something to learn and build on. But, if people choose to take the route of "well, it's not real/definitive/soft science" chances are they are the ones that will become statistics. This principle works no matter what medicine is applied.

    It upsets me to hear this stuff, as much as it upsets me to watch people hurt, ridicule, and/or humiliate those that suffer from psychological illnesses. It upsets me that in this day and age there are still people that would rather be ill with a terminal illness then a mental one. And the main reason is that people fear how they'll be treated by characters such as Cruise and whomever supports his views on psychiatry and psychology.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    34,270
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    More criticism of Tom Cruise

    Quote Originally Posted by Pilonea
    My point wasn't to defend Scientology, but to simply point out that Cruise has a point only in the sense that psychology and psychiatry are still fledgling sciences (I am not saying he said this, but this is my opinion on the state of the two sciences). It is no fault of the scientists, of course, since they are studying by far the most complex organism on Earth. However, any psychologist who says his analysis of any individual is as certain as Newton's laws of motion is kidding himself and his patients. We just do not know that much about the brain yet.
    I think we know quite a bit more than you realize. I agree that the history of psychiatry and psychology is not as long as that of physics or biology or chemistry but then again a good part of the history of those sciences focused on issues like the geocentric universe and alchemy, did it not?

    I would bet that the average patient who takes SSRI's does not know that psychiatrists and phramacologists DO NOT KNOW how those drugs work (their own words). They only know that it "has something to do" with serotonin, dopamine, and other neurotransmitters.
    Nonsense. We know a little bit more than that. That's just silly.

    They have only a vague idea of the processes involved with how SSRI's effect the physiology of the brain. All they know is that in most studies of depressed patients, they seem to get better after having taken SSRI's.
    I get the very strong impression that if you have done any real reading into these issues it hasn't been recent enough.

    I am still skeptical whether they have properly taken into account the placebo effect, since I have seen studies where most depressed patients, after taking a sugar pill, get better on their own eventually, but often relapse.
    "Most" patients? This is going from silly to sillier. Actually, we know quite a bit about the placebo effect. That's one of the reasons all drug testing for new medications, including those SSRIs you think we know nothing about, include direct side-by-side comparisons with placebo groups.

    I don't know about you, but I am not apt to take a pill where the doctors prescribing it are not even sure of exactly how it works or why.
    Well, suit yourself. If you are ever unlucky enough to be diagnosed with cancer, do be aware that the exact mechanism by which cancer treatments work is not any better understood than the mechanisms by which psychotropic medications work. I assume your choice would be to do nothing and simply let the cancer kill you.

    However, as of now, psychology and psychiatry are two of the softer sciences. Psychoanalysis should be outlawed from all public universities. I am shocked that there are still advanced degrees given in such a widely discredited field.
    And this is one of the problems with your entire argument in this thread, going back to your first post, where you stated:

    For decades psychiatry was a scam as it was dominated by the Freudian psychoanalytic schools. Psychoanalysis has been shown to be one of the largest scientific scams of all time. It is only in the recent decades psychiatry has underwent a paradigm shift towards a more biological approach.
    I think you will find that even psychoanalysts would be offended by the suggestion that they are all Freudians or even dominated by Freudian views. And, further, to suggest that psychology or psychiatry has been dominated by psychoanalysis "for decades' really makes me wonder where you are getting your information (Woody Allen movies and similar Hollywood viewpoints, perhaps?). That is simply not true. As for psychiatry "only recently" moving to a more biological approach, that also is simply not true. If anything, I think the complaint most patients have about psychiatry is that it is too biological in its approach.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Disclaimer: PsychLinks is not responsible for the content of posts or comments by forum members.

Additional Forum Web Design by PsychLinks
© All rights reserved.