I have eventually watched the movie “Making a killing”, and the evidence presented in the movie is frightening. In the final chapter of the movie it is talking about suicide as a result of these drugs. These captions presented at the end demonstrate the message of the film:-
The problem with this movie arises from who made it – it was made by the Church of Scientology. As most of the movie presented its data as professional opinions in interview, that seems quite sound. One of the contributors, Howard Brody, presents a sound case that he was duped by the movie-makers, and if I were he I would be angry as I can see that he might well have been professionally compromised by the lies of the movie-makers. But in this Pharmaguy’s blog (this guy makes his living from the Pharmaceutical industry) it is clearly argued that the issue is not the film-makers but the content of the movie that needs to be answered. Ignore the scientology, look at the issues.
With that in mind I have a different but clear objection to the movie, it attacks the psychiatrists because they prescribe the drugs. It presents psychiatrists as pseudo-scientists trying to legitimise themselves by inventing diseases and presenting chemical cures. I don ‘t know whether that is true. Is that what Jung, Freud, and so on did? In the above captions (#5) it claims that mental disorders stem from physical illness. Whilst criticisms of pill-prescribers might be legitimate, this statement is definitely not legitimate. I have no training to say this but equally I have no doubts. The power of the mind to play tricks is such that creating disorders is not beyond its capability.
However the real culprits are not the psychiatrists but the 1%, the industry itself. Caption 6 says “there are many non-drug solutions to mental problems”, do psychiatrists always opt for drugs? If the FDA supports the drugs, have the psychiatrists the time to check? Should psychiatrists be considered any different to doctors? Doctors prescribe pharamaceuticals rather than prescribing healthy-eating of “grains, fruit, veg and legumes” – with a bit of fish. Do the doctors know? They have been to medical college and are subjected to the pharmaceutical reps – the same as psychiatrists. Are they vilified the same way that psychiatrists are – by Scientologists?
The issue that is not raised thoughout the movie sufficiently is that there is inadequate control of the industry that provides our drugs. Why? Because there is so much profit for the drug companies. With regards to psychotropic drugs, this movie makes that point clearly – but too often blames the psychiatrists rather than the companies. I would like doctors and psychiatrists to get out of the pockets of Big Pharma, but I don’t blame them – the system is 1% and they have been trained by the 1%. I don’t blame the teachers for education even though many do, it is the same 1% system.
I have previously discussed the movie “marketing madness”, only at that time did not realise it was from Scientology, hence the update that refers to this blogentry.
Integrity – If you don’t have integrity then you besmirch the value of the message. Howard Brody asked for his contribution to be withdrawn, that should have been done. That brings into question the integrity of the movie. Pharmaguy in his blog quite rightly says the issues need answering, but you don’t answer them with duplicity.
Personally I try not to touch any drugs that are not natural. Is it possible that such psychotropic drugs help people through crises? I think yes. Are they addictive? Yes. Can they be suicidal? I suspect so. Would I recommend anyone taking them? No. Meditation can help. Find a group that meditates so that you can get support. Are mental disorders always based on physical disorders? Definitely not, but eating healthily and doing Chi Gung (or other energy work) will help. If scientology is this duplicitous don’t go there – I never have.
The problem with this post is scientology and the lack of integrity they showed. Should the issue be ignored because it is scientology? The answer is no, but then do we trust their integrity? And we can’t be sure. Then brasschecks came up with this video. It says the same thing but this time in an interview with Keith Ablow – I checked and couldn’t find a scientology connection but that doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. But then there was this Reuter’s article, and I am certain that is independent of scientology. OK I’m sold – despite scientology.