Talk:Psychiatry: An Industry of Death

Psychiatry-related deaths
These people are clearly deluded. Everybody knows that Courtney Love killed Kurt Cobain. Madame Sosostris 00:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * These people are clearly deluded in MANY ways. Who could possibly believe that all of psychiatry is a conspiracy? For gosh sake. Minervamoon 19:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the article pretty much misrepresents what Scientology's CCHR actually says, so you end up with the "conspiracy" thing. On the other hand, hardly anything Scientology does say is linked.  There's no link to CCHR, no link to Scientolgoy's public statements, and then an exterior links *erk* points to a newsgroup posting, stored on a server, apparently.  Well, newsgroups are about like Yahoo chat,  unattributable, unreliable, unattested, and generaly just anything a persone feel likes stating at the moment. Terryeo 05:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Which link are you talking about? I don't see a newsgroup being used as a source, but maybe I missed something. --Rob 05:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This was posted above:
 * "These people are clearly deluded in MANY ways. Who could possibly believe that all of psychiatry is a conspiracy? For gosh sake."

My response: Have you seen the exhibit? Have you seen the evidence? I have and I found it to be very compelling. I personally have witnessed the results of "conservative" psychiatric treatment in someone I love. By doing research in order to help her out of the deep hole that her "treatment" drove her into, I discovered that the effects she experienced to be similar--almost uniform--with other, completely disrelated people with completely different diagnoses: A person has problems in life. They seek the help of a medical professional, someone to talk to. In keeping with the currently acceptable practice methods, the psychiatrist MUST label the patient with a disease or disorder (insurance regulations requires that a diagnosis code be placed on the insurance claim AND in the patient record). The patient is given a prescription for a dangerous, addictive medication (these drugs cannot be stopped abruptly without extreme side effects or even death). The patient accepts and believes the diagnosis, after all the doctor is the expert. They then begin to degenerate either as a result of or in an attempt to embrace the diagnosis. Their lives decay as a result and they end up crippled and addicted as there are no cures in psychiatric medicine

And as the exhibit points out, no scientific tests to determine if the infamous "chemical imbalance" is real. All diagnosis and treatment are based upon opinion of the doctor.

Imagine a patient undergoing chemotherapy without scientific evidence just because a doctor is of the opinion that the patient has cancer? And imagine an insurance company paying for it, it's ludicrous. But that is psychiatry.

What is now vogue in the medical community--dispensing medication--is what I call "conservative" treatment. If you think it only occurs on a limited scale or in special circumstances, start being alert to your environment. One clue is what used to be called "psycho-babble" (derogatory term). Today that language has pervaded every sector and you will hear it everywhere: lunch rooms, talk shows, magazine covers and it's certainly constantly being aired in TV commercials. Count the number of times you see that happy little pill bouncing around on the screen the next time you watch your favorite show.

If you think the more violent treatments are dead and gone, think again. Electroconvulsive therapy is alive and well (see ect.org). I haven't researched insulin therapy, but I'm sure it's out there, too. If you don't know what these treatments are, you would do well to research them, especially before you start to judge or make public statements as to whether someone else is deluded or not.

So if you think the claims made in the Psychiatry: An Industry of Death museum are overblown, survey your friends and relatives. How many of them have prescriptions for Prozac, Zoloft or Paxil? I think you will be surprised at how high the percentage is. And when your kid, your grandkid or your neighbor's kid is slated for a prescription of Adderall or Ritalin, remember that no, it's not a consipiracy. It's just a very dangerous fad. And also remember: someone tried to warn you.

In a very complacent America, CCHR is trying to help and raise awareness. And who knows? At the rate this problem is growing, you might be next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.15.87 (talk • contribs) 21:12, October 29, 2006


 * Of course there are mistakes and problems with psychiatry. Helping to fix those problems is the only rational course of action.  Coming out and saying ALL psychiatrists are engaged in a conspiracy is plain ridiculous.  There might be a grain of truth behind what CCHR is saying, but then the claims made by CCHR also apply to Scientology (profit motivation, not caring about people, etc.).  Scientology is NOT a medical organisation, and has no right to instruct others on the benefits or dangers of various forms of medication.  There are scientific methods for achieving that, and Scientology stays away from them, as engaging the scientific world about psychiatry would only highlight the intrinsic bullshit and danger of Scietnology as a whole.  Pot.  Kettle.  Black. Dave420 11:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow that guy sounds exactly like the 9-11 conspiracy nuts (eg 'we know the truth, we tried to warn you! soon it will be too late!') -- you bring up many points about psychiatry - and as Dave420 mentioned, those are just (anecdotal) evidence pointing out that psychiatry is still an inexact, problem-ridden field of medicine.  (obviously, since it deals with problems in the brain,  the most complex of all human organs! do people expect it to be the same as fixing a twisted ankle?)


 * But what I take issue with most is where do these figures and scientific 'evidence' come from? Is there any independent (non-Church of Scientology affliated) source for these wild statements? (10,000 people a year killed by electroshock therapy? 9-11 suicide bombers, etc?)  Without evidence you got nothing but a fantasy(like the one about the volcanos and the alien souls....) 202.92.166.42 02:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the people interviewed in the DVD and Museum’s videos are not Scientologists: Robert Whitaker, Thomas Szasz, Colin Ross, Fred Baughman (neurologist), Ron Leifer (M.D.), Beverly Eakman (educator), Paula Caplan (psychologist), Margaret Hagen (psychologist), Julian Whitaler (M.D.), Neil Willner (insurance Co. manager), Lawrence Hooper (M.D.)*, George W. Albee (M.D.), Darrell Reiger (M.D.), Walter Afield (M.D.), Henry Powell (M.D.), Herb Kutchins (author), Grace Jackson (M.D.), Jim Nicholls (civil libertarian) and many others.


 * Lawrence Hooper was a Scientologist at the time of making the DVD and may still be.

As to where the scientific evidence comes from, take a look at the article Biopsychiatry controversy. —Cesar Tort 07:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

a lame cover up of all the people murdered by Scientology "blame it on Psychiatry" Markthemac 00:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To the CCHR propaganda spreader/Fear Mongerer: You and Scientology are full of rubbish. I know someone who has paranoid schizophrenia, and I can tell you, I take extreme offence to your comments. Without the medication prescribed to her by psychiatrist, I won't go in to details, but she clearly starts to lose it. If your Scientology is so truthful then what about Lisa McPherson, Linda Waliki and Eli Perkins?. All people killed by Scientology in some way. Scientology kills, not pschiatry. Everyone with half a brain can tell what a crock of lies that their so-called "evidence" is. JackorKnave

Hitler?
Wtf? *dumbfounded* Hempeater 23:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Business as usual for Scientology. Dave420 11:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * There's an organization called "Psychiatry" that plans things? AndroidCat 20:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Name should be changed
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). Naming conventions suggests quotation marks should not go in article titles. --Rob 01:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

I agree. the name is confusing. It appears that the article is about three things, all of which are part of an organization by the name "Citizen's Commission on Human Rights". Those include the the organization itself (which may need it's own wikipedia article), the museum "Psychiatry: The Industry of Death" (which may also need it's own article), and the DVD titled "Psychiatry: An Industry of Death".

Also, I noticed that there is a critism on the DVD which may be more well suited to be within the "DVD" category of this article, if a DVD article is not created as I suggested above.

ALso, It seems the DVD article needs more depth to it. I have seen the DVD and it seems that there is much history on the subject of "Psychiatry" on the DVD. I am not seeing the historical events, names of people interviewed, and archive video/film footage from the documentary(DVD) mentioned in this article. It may be in the spirit of sharing knowledge to include this information when discussing the documentary(DVD) referenced.

Perhaps some folks can dissect the documentary video "Psychiatry: an Industry of Death" and create a report on the subjects that is presents. Another possiblity would be to include an article on the documentary, including who was in it, the periods of history and events it covers, including the events of psychiatric experimentation in Germany during and prior to WWII, the psychiatric camps in South Africa, the psychiatric experimantation, or proposed expermimation at UCLA, and other things covered in the documentary. And with that then others with more knowledge on those areas of history and science can expand on thos topics.

It may be good to reference related topics like Nellie_BlyNellie Bly's undercover investigative report on the abuses inside asylums Asynaps 09:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * And the organization, Citizens Commission on Human Rights, already has its own article. AndroidCat 16:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Layout
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)


 * 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)

Rocky Mountain News
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)

Los Angeles Citybeat
The article quotes one Andrew Gumbel under "criticism": From his statement alone it is obvious that he just upset with the fact that he was said to be the "most bizarre encounter" the CCHR media person ever had. Now, this is a clear-cut honest personal opinion of someone, with no encyclopedic value whatsoever and should have been taken out for a looong time... 85.214.28.144 17:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As I responded to 68.173.19.198 just below, we are in need of scholarly sources on the subject. My hunch is that they will be written and published in the near future. —Cesar Tort 16:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt that this will ever be done. Scientists usually don't publish on pseudo-science, especially not something that is so obviously silly. The readers of scientific journals are interested in advancements of their own science, not debunking propaganda from people without any knowledge on the topic. One of the few exceptions was the Journal of Clinical Investigation, which printed this to counter the Tom Cruise "glib" propaganda.


 * Of course there's still The Skeptic and The Skeptical Inquirer. Maybe they will some day, or already have. --Tilman 17:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A researcher I know is writing about the case. —Cesar Tort 18:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
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)


 * 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)

I agree. I think many people come to wikipedia seeking information that gives them an accurate understanding on subjects within wikipedia. This article promps my curiosity if there is an article on the history of "psychiatry", including it's abuse. I recall reading about a reporter who wanted to do a story on sanatariums, so she got herself committed. And she reported on what happened to her. The report was exposing to the mal treatment of people within sanitariums, very much like the expose done by Upton Sinclair on the Meat Packing industry. It may be beneficial to have an article that is on the topic of Psychiatric abuse or some similar title which can be a repository of all accounts on abuse or mal treatment, including ones like the report by Nellie Bly that did an under cover investigative report on "asylums". And it may include items covered in the documentary "Psychiatry: and Industry of Death". Asynaps 10:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

movie called "smarmy and dishonest" by participating scientists
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)

The Scientology flick also features interviews with Michael Berenbaum, one of the world's leading Holocaust scholars, and Art Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania, regarded as one of the foremost experts in the field of medical ethics and bioethics. They rejected the attack on psychiatry and psychology. "I have known psychiatrists to be of enormous assistance to people deeply important to me in my life," Berenbaum said. "I have studied Freud and use a psychoanalytic approach to the study of religion." Caplan was even more livid, noting he was not told he was being interviewed for a Scientology film attacking psychiatry. "They completely bamboozled me. They basically taped me without really disclosing who they were or what they intended to do," Caplan said, calling the producers "smarmy and dishonest."
 * Smarmy And Dishonest


 * This is the correct citation formatting for the above material. Smee 18:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Yeah, I know, I should learn the correct citation format... --Tilman 19:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Other religions opposed to drugs
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)

I resent the use of the the words "other religions." Especially as some countries, for example the UK & Germany dont even recognise it as such. Sheep21 14:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, you DO realize this particular article is about materials (museum, etc.) produced BY a Scientology group, yes? And at current it's mostly about the museum. I see little reason to add much reference beyond "See alsos" for "other religions that don't believe in psychiatry", and no reason at ALL to remove "the reference to Scientology", considering the article is ABOUT a Scientology-produced museum and related materials. 70.118.80.144 (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Canadian tour
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)

Unreliable Source
'Los Angeles Citybeat' is quoted as a source in the criticism section. It is not a newspaper or magazine, not even a tabloid. It's an 'alternative website'. Not WP:RS or WP:V, so that section is coming out unless you can find RS for it. S. M. Sullivan 03:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact, it is a newspaper and part of a chain of them. You could have checked that in 10 seconds if you were really interested in verifying that. AndroidCat 05:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * S. M. Sullivan, please cease removing sources from articles with your own false and invented justifications. See 229 places to pick up L.A. CityBeat and ValleyBeat: Not included are 600 street boxes and 1200 additional retail locations. Sheesh! AndroidCat 00:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, turns out it is a newspaper. But WP:RS says mainstream newspapers are RS, not alternative weeklies. And the coverage is very POV and inaccurate. This is tiresome.S. M. Sullivan 04:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I happen to have such a box at my metro stop. It's mainly an ad paper with some trashy editorials by what seems to be volunteers. Shutterbug 04:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The key requirement is, to quote WP:RS, that it should have "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight". As an established print publication with an editorial staff (see ) it plainly meets this requirement - it may be an ad-supported newspaper but it's clearly a professional operation. -- ChrisO 07:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

CityBeat is a well respected arts-and-leisure type paper in several cities, and also known for good investigative journalism. Not sure what Sullivan means by "alternative" but it's not a zine or a fringe publication by any means. wikipediatrix 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems to be a matter of taste and opinion here. Factually L.A. CityBeat is printed on paper, has some staff listed and includes articles in between ads. I don't know what "an established structure for fact-checking" would be but certainly they are liable for what they write. Shutterbug 17:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No taste or opinion- journalistic integrity is at City Beat which is a legitimate newspaper. BillyJoelFan 05:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, and this is so because you claim it? Shutterbug 03:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, can I point something out here? Bit of a break in the pissing contest if you will?


 * The section in question relates to the opening of the museum/"criticism". The material in question is an article in which the author relates his experience meeting with a Scientology representative from the museum's opening, including something of an attempt at withering critique of the museum's very prupose. As such, while it can't be quoted as Undiluted Truth on some matters, in regards to the museum opening it is probably allowable (since it appears to be a review of the museum opening), and since it includes a bit of a critique about the museum's intent/Scientologists' perceived lack of qualifications on which to base a museum such as that, then yes, it could be included in the criticism section, probably just with the caveat of adding "such and such claimed that when he spoke with the representative so and so at the museum's opening..." or some such. Because criticism is by definition opinion; the trick is not removing it entirely, but rather remembering that part of Wikipedia's purpose is to report on such things as controversy or opinions without officially taking any sides. And I don't really see very many other references to attendance of the museum opening, so it's possible this is one of the few things we will have on that (I could be wrong, though, as I'm not bothering to do much googling on account of I would like to get some sleep at some point tonight :P) 70.118.80.144 (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

List of displays needs verification - not of the claims themselves, but that the museum is making them
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)

Introduction
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)


 * 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)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, Kevin. Thanks for being conscientious about the conflict of interest provisions. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Cesar Tort and ChrisO, thank you for the welcome! Yes, it's true that there have been a few people who have edited pages, but who did not know WikiPolicy. I've put a stop to that here at CCHR. Thanks again for the warm welcome. --Kevin E Hawkins (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to pitch in that Psychiatry has probably done more good for humanity than the organization that runs this museum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.54.243 (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to second that. 193.1.52.12 (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

Thomas Szasz in the introduction
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)

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
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)98.150.111.22 (talk)re not to use my work out of context in any important way. I later learned that they were making the film for the CCHR, and they did take what I said out of context in an important way. I also learned that they had used my agreement to be interviewed in order to get a colleague of mine to be in it, as he later told me when it was too late. And I read a newspaper article that the ethicist Arthur Caplan (no relation to me) had been deceived into being interviewed for the same film. I had my lawyer and my university's general counsel write to say that because I had fraudulently been persuaded to be interviewed and because they had breached the contract by taking what I said out of context, they therefore should remove me immediately from the film and try to recall and destroy the copies of the DVD. They said they would try to do that IF I signed an agreement never to criticize them publicly or privately. I of course was not going to sign away my First Amendment rights. And my lawyer advised me that because they are so wealthy and litigious, I should not interact with them further. They are always co-opting my work, and they come to some of my public lectures. When one of their top people approached me after a lecture I gave a few years ago, in front of witnesses I recounted what they had done, and he said that they had in fact removed me from their film. I asked him then and there to send me a letter confirming that and a copy of the revised DVD. He never did, and my attempts to reach him through Scientology or his law firm (I cannot find a phone number for his firm!) have gone nowhere. Now I find that I am listed on IMDb as being in that film, and IMDb is refusing to remove me unless I can prove that that is no longer accurate. I hope you will post this on Wikipedia, because the truth needs to be known. 98.150.111.22 (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
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)