Freud Marx and Darwin

Bertvan@aol.com
Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:08:09 EST

Hi Kevin,
I'm a little surprised at all this defense of psychiatry by Darwinists, but I
suppose it is actually "defense of orthodoxy. Anything in the "peer
reviewed" literature is not to be questioned, and anything else is not to be
considered, right? I brought up psychiatry because I believe it is part of
the same materialistic philosophy as Darwinism. "Life is a complex machine,
composed of matter, and powered by a computer-like mechanism called a brain."
Darwinists don't seem to be doing any particular damage at the moment, but
the philosophy is dangerous.

Did you know about Freud's scientific discovery of a direct connection
between a woman's nose and her womb. He made this discovery by successfully
treating menstrual cramps by applying cocaine to a woman's nose. He operated
upon women's noses to cure hysteria, thought to take place in the womb.
Do you suppose that little bit of information appeared in the "peer reviewed"
literature? It didn't even come to light until nearly a century after
Freud's death.
Yet women suffered from this treatment, and no one protested.

Some of these brain "super-mechanics" have done the following while trying to
fix this machine, or to make run more efficiently:

Used morphine to "cure" opium addiction; used heroin to "cure" morphine
addiction; used methadone to "cure" heroin addiction, used LSD to try to
cure methadone addiction. (So far no cures have been suggested for Ritalin,
Prozac and anti-psychotic drug addiction.)

Subjected thousands to a brain destroying procedure called shock treatment.

Performed thousands of lobotomy's and psychosurgical procedures.

Seems someone should have noticed they were turning people into zombies after
just a couple, if anyone were paying attention. Instead we trust the expert!

Bertvan

Bertvan responded: "I've read a lot...."
Kevin:
>Which is simply a way of avoiding his questions. It appears quite obvious
>that you have read little or nothing of the scientific psychiatric
>literature, just as you have read little or nothing of the scientific
>evolutionary literature. Instead, you rely on second- and third-hand books
>that criticize psychiatry or evolution without even bothering to ask
>yourself whether what those books are saying is accurate. As long as they
>say what you want to believe, you consider them to be irrefutable fact, but
>if someone presents evidence that demonstrates that what you want to
>believe is wrong, you dismiss it as unproven assumption.

>No doubt you will claim that what I am about to say is also an unproven
>assumption (or something equally ludicrous), but your above claim can be
>directly refuted by the fact that, since 1964, there have been 18,683
>articles published in 297 peer reviewed scientific journals that deal
>directly with psychiatry, psychology, psychobiology, psychotherapy,
>psychoneurology, etc.; in other words, all dealing with the function and
>diseases of the human mind. So far from no one being willing to submit
>their psychiatric results to scientific testing, there are in fact
>thousands of psychiatric doctors and scientists who are more than willing
>to do so.
Kevin L. O'Brien